WebFire;1085558 wrote:GoDaddy is fine for registering domains. If you want to do more (like mail forwarding or web hosting), there are other services out there. But for just domain hosting, it's fine.

SOPA and stuff aside, of course.

justincredible;1085535 wrote:Sorry I'm not willing to gamble with my finances over something as stupid as a website name for a website that makes peanuts. If that means I'm a pussy I gladly accept that.

I Wear Pants;1085571 wrote:Why have we never got to share the peanuts. STOP HOGGING ALL THE NUTS!

I Wear Pants;1085570 wrote:But why not give the business to the many other domain registrars that don't suck ass?

WebFire;1085587 wrote:How do they suck?

I Wear Pants;1085634 wrote:You have clearly never dealt with them before.


They have terrible customer service, try to constantly get you to pay for extra things, make it hard to transfer domains, support SOPA, etc.

queencitybuckeye;1085444 wrote:In such cases, the issue is usually that a lawsuit with little merit is still going to cost thousands of dollars to defend.

password;1086096 wrote:That may be the case, but from everything said on this site during the conflict there was no merit for a lawsuit, so there was nothing to defend.

justincredible;1086126 wrote:Again. Wasn't worth the risk. It's easy to say stuff like this when your money isn't on the line.

password;1086150 wrote:You are right, my money was not on the line and I am not trying to say you were wrong about the situation, but you can't let people push you around when it comes to your business.

password;1086096 wrote:That may be the case, but from everything said on this site during the conflict there was no merit for a lawsuit, so there was nothing to defend.

password;1086150 wrote:You are right, my money was not on the line and I am not trying to say you were wrong about the situation, but you can't let people push you around when it comes to your business.

like mail forwarding or web hosting

SportsAndLady;1086158 wrote:Push him around? Lol he just changed the name of the website. You'd risk thousands of dollars of your own money just to keep freehuddle.com over ohiochater.com?

SportsAndLady;1086158 wrote:Push him around? Lol he just changed the name of the website. You'd risk thousands of dollars of your own money just to keep freehuddle.com over ohiochater.com?

password;1086197 wrote:Unless he worked for the other website and then decided to take his skills and inside knowledge of their website, there is no merit. I personally would have taken my chance and had the other website pay for any fees my lawyers wanted to charge, which would have doubled when the case was won. I really don't think it matters what you or I think when it comes to this site, so it is not a big deal. I am glad he choose ohiochatter.com over ohiochater.com, if that helps.

password;1086197 wrote:Unless he worked for the other website and then decided to take his skills and inside knowledge of their website, there is no merit. I personally would have taken my chance and had the other website pay for any fees my lawyers wanted to charge, which would have doubled when the case was won. I really don't think it matters what you or I think when it comes to this site, so it is not a big deal. I am glad he choose ohiochatter.com over ohiochater.com, if that helps.

SportsAndLady;1086200 wrote:Well you're a fuckin idiot then, so ya got that

password;1086230 wrote:Well that hurts, coming from a punk ass kid like you.

queencitybuckeye;1086224 wrote:"Without merit" does not mean that the loser pays the winner's legal bills AFAIK. One, without merit is too strong a term for a case like this, it is not without merit. It almost certainly would not fall into the frivolous category, which in my layman's understanding would be the only way that Justin would recoup his legal fees.

SportsAndLady;1086262 wrote:

queencitybuckeye;1086224 wrote:"Without merit" does not mean that the loser pays the winner's legal bills AFAIK. One, without merit is too strong a term for a case like this, it is not without merit. It almost certainly would not fall into the frivolous category, which in my layman's understanding would be the only way that Justin would recoup his legal fees.

password;1086270 wrote:I figured it would fall in to this category,

Equitable Remedy

Judges can use an equitable remedy to require the losing side to pay attorneys' fees if they believe it would be unfair not to do so. (In law, equity generally means "fairness," and an equitable remedy is a fair solution that a judge develops because doing otherwise would lead to unfairness.) This type of equitable remedy -- granting attorneys' fees to the winning side -- is often used when the losing side brought a lawsuit that was frivolous, in bad faith, or to oppress the defendant, and the defendant wins