| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
> varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
> back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
> ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
>
> Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
> them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
> That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
Todd stated in another note that he wasn't sure how vigorously he was going to
pursue this. And he noted that he considers this nothing but a personal site.
Todd, if you opt to pursue reaquisition of _your_ site, I would be happy to
donate toward the $400 difference between the $550 and $950. In exchange for
this donation, I would expect nothing except that you would pursue the recovery
in a fairly expedient way, and that you wouldn't just buy it back from them.
Let me/us know if you're interested in passing the hat.
I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > The cheapest fee offered, for the simplest dispute is.... 950 USD. (it
> > varies by organization) I did not see any provision for charging the fee
> > back to the cybersquatter, so you eat all of it. Therefore they basically
> > ARE offering you a discount... 550 extortion is less than 950 legal.
> >
> > Nice. They no doubt are counting on most people doing the math and paying
> > them the lesser sum instead of paying more to deny them any funds at all.
> > That's why they said they will cheerfully ignore any offers for less than 550.
>
> Todd stated in another note that he wasn't sure how vigorously he was going to
> pursue this. And he noted that he considers this nothing but a personal site.
Yes, he indicated this in very clear language.
> Todd, if you opt to pursue reaquisition of _your_ site, I would be happy to
> donate toward the $400 difference between the $550 and $950. In exchange for
> this donation, I would expect nothing except that you would pursue the recovery
> in a fairly expedient way, and that you wouldn't just buy it back from them.
> Let me/us know if you're interested in passing the hat.
Why then, if you know the story as far as Todd tells it, would you want to
make such an offer?
> I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
> do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
> resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
Again, your own words don't really jive with your offer of money. Why help
Todd rescue a 'personal' domain when he makes it plain that it really has
little to do with LUGNET anymore.
I don't mean to criticize your kind offer Christopher, but if you've got
that kind of cash burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to a
charity that provides toys to kids in need? Seems it would be money better
spent.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> Why then, if you know the story as far as Todd tells it, would you want to
> make such an offer?
A) Because I do believe that it impacts the community, whether you (or Todd)
likes it or not. B) Because, as I stated, I don't like the business practice
-- and I am aware in this instance of something that might possibly be done
about it.
What's it to you?
> > I have no links to fibblesnork. I have no problem with adult content. But I
> > do have a problem with the kind of piratical business practice that has
> > resulted in this (even if it is really your own fault).
>
> Again, your own words don't really jive with your offer of money.
Yes they do.
> Why help
> Todd rescue a 'personal' domain when he makes it plain that it really has
> little to do with LUGNET anymore.
See above. And remember that not everything is LUGNET. There is a whole
online LEGO fan community and fibblesnork is a known piece of it.
> I don't mean to criticize your kind offer Christopher, but if you've got
It seems that you do.
> that kind of cash burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to a
> charity that provides toys to kids in need? Seems it would be money better
> spent.
I'll tell you what...you spend your money the way you want to, and I'll spend
my money how I want. Deal?
Chris
|
|
|
