I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 14, 2012 10:04am
But why not give the business to the many other domain registrars that don't suck ass?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.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 14, 2012 10:04am
Why have we never got to share the peanuts. STOP HOGGING ALL THE NUTS!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.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Feb 14, 2012 10:15am
Well, they are salty and I have no beer to share.I Wear Pants;1085571 wrote:Why have we never got to share the peanuts. STOP HOGGING ALL THE NUTS!
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Feb 14, 2012 10:16am
How do they suck?I Wear Pants;1085570 wrote:But why not give the business to the many other domain registrars that don't suck ass?
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 14, 2012 11:34am
You have clearly never dealt with them before.WebFire;1085587 wrote:How do they suck?
They have terrible customer service, try to constantly get you to pay for extra things, make it hard to transfer domains, support SOPA, etc.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Feb 14, 2012 1:48pm
I have and currently use them. Have a few domains, bought SSL certs, and we even have a dedicated with them. Never had any issues. Never had issues with tech support either. I don't use them for hosting or email though.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.
password
Posts: 2,360
Feb 14, 2012 8:29pm
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.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.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Feb 14, 2012 9:00pm
Again. Wasn't worth the risk. It's easy to say stuff like this when your money isn't on the line.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
Posts: 2,360
Feb 14, 2012 9:20pm
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.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.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Feb 14, 2012 9:22pm
Was it really a profitable business at that point or a hobby? I could understand fighting it if freehuddle was his lifeblood...not like anyone left because of the name change.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.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 14, 2012 9:23pm
A lawsuit with little or no merit must still be legally defended.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.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Feb 14, 2012 9:25pm
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;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.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Feb 14, 2012 9:26pm
For us website morans, what do these mean and why are they awesome?like mail forwarding or web hosting
.jpg)
september63
Posts: 5,789
Feb 14, 2012 9:27pm
I miss JJHuddle.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?
I think it was OhioChatter.com
password
Posts: 2,360
Feb 14, 2012 9:46pm
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;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
Posts: 35,632
Feb 14, 2012 9:47pm
Well you're a fuckin idiot then, so ya got thatpassword;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.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 14, 2012 9:59pm
"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;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
Posts: 2,360
Feb 14, 2012 10:04pm
Well that hurts, coming from a punk ass kid like you.SportsAndLady;1086200 wrote:Well you're a fuckin idiot then, so ya got that
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Feb 14, 2012 10:16pm
password;1086230 wrote:Well that hurts, coming from a punk ass kid like you.
password
Posts: 2,360
Feb 14, 2012 10:19pm
I figured it would fall in to this category,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.
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
password
Posts: 2,360
Feb 14, 2012 10:23pm
You are on the right?SportsAndLady;1086262 wrote:
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Feb 14, 2012 10:23pm
Yes. I took the advice of 2 different lawyers, one from the large Cincinnati firm I called and the other being my best friend. Both said they thought the case was bogus but asked if it was worth the money to defend if they did decide to take it to court to find out if the judge felt the same way. I said the website didn't make much money and was just a hobby. They both recommended I change the name, do not risk my assets, and call it a day.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.
I trust the advice of two lawyers over some dudes on a website that have probably never stepped foot in a court room.
chicago510
Posts: 5,728
Feb 14, 2012 10:24pm
Do I think it was brought up simply to scare/bully justin? Yes.
That said, could a judge have been persuaded that they actually felt they were being damaged? Probably yes.
Just don't it being see the risk...plus the lost time/wages from his real job.
That said, could a judge have been persuaded that they actually felt they were being damaged? Probably yes.
Just don't it being see the risk...plus the lost time/wages from his real job.
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Feb 14, 2012 10:25pm
But what if the judge agreed with them? Then I'm completely fucked and my finances would have been ruined.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
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Feb 14, 2012 10:25pm
Again, over a website that makes peanuts.