Invited in to help fight piracy!

exactly

 

So I suppose that "vindictive little company" would be okay?

Gotcha.

 

This is what is exactly right Staley, You can leave vindictive out of your statements

 

Why should we have to censor ourselves about a company? An individual sure... His company is known the world over and is subject to open ridicule and questioning. This goes with the territory. If I feel a certian disc is totally not worth the plastic its recorded on...then I ought to be able to say it's crap. All these statements are only in the opinion of the person making the post. If I feel Toyota does/did a crappy job on a recall , should I not be able to say I think they dropped the ball and don't care about the customer's safety? None of this is personal against the CEO of Toyota, why does he get to claim its personal, and on another note...he made himself the spokes person for SC when he added himself to this board and since he is posting as SC, he should be open to anything thats posted. After all he is just another company. SC is not above approach or scrutiny.
If that gets us banned them it really speaks volumes about the way this board is ran or will be ran.

 

We are honoring YOUR requests with zero tolerance there will be no exception made just because you would like to bash Sound Choice. If you don't like that then so be it. It's fair and what is necessary. Noone said you couldn't say you " think a disc is crap " or debate with Sound Choice. What you can't do is Attack Kurt or ANYONE else. I do not see this as being complicated or hard to understand, if you want a special pass to treat Kurt or Sound choice any differently then anyone else , then i'm sorry but you will not receive it

 

I see. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that this is fair. There ARE "vindictive companies" out there and you can't disagree with that statement.

 

I think we just need to separate Kurt from SC. They are NOT one and the same. So when referring to the company, just say so. SCC = Sound Choice Company or even the whole thing: Sound Choice Company.
That way, there can never be any confusion as to what's being said about whom or what.

 

"zero tolerance policy against personal attacks, trolling, and baiting"

No one took away your slingshot.

They limited your selection of ammunition in order to limit collateral damage.

Be as critical as you like but demonstrate maturity, civility and your charming eloquence while doing so.

It is my opinion that the members of OKJT who have something worthwhile to say are capable of doing so without personal attacks, trolling or baiting.

Our new member Jennifer is actually showing you how this is done. Pay attention and maybe we'll all find it a little easier to climb back up onto the fence as we watch events unfold in the not too distant future.

 

I never asked for a zero tolerance first off. I never said I wanted to sit here and bash SC all day either..I said if someone wants to they ought to have the right. What you are failing to see that us stating what we feel about SC is considered an insult to Kurt, as he is the person logged in under the name of SC. I am amazed you would jokingly offer a pass to bash...I never said anything like that..stop putting words in my mouth!

I made a valid point, but IMHO you are biased on my post because of your feelings about the situation. I think the fact you are attending the SC Vacation is a pure conflict of interest. These are my honest opinions.

I have never thrown Kurt under a bus, I have only ever stated that I didn't like the methods, but have been verbally chastised by him several times. He is the one who takes everything we say personally.

If he is gonna make himself the spokesperson on these threads then he needs to be able to take criticism of his company without taking it personally. If he never created an account & logged onto these boards, the mods would never have an issue with someone saying SC is a

Would they? I highly doubt it.

 

It was a JOKE, hence the LOL... I can laugh a little at myself now and again, honest! Sheesh!

 

Thunder Hag, i leave you with this. I know you haven't been here as long as others. I have been attending this " cheerleaders " meeting since before i was even a moderator. You think that's a conflict of interest? If anything i look forward to everything i will learn from this meeting and i look forward to putting faces with names of some of the members here. I'm highly looking forward to the trip Yes, I tend to be Pro Soundchoice, Do you see that in my signature as others here? There is a reason for that, i never called myself a cheerleader and i do not blindly support anyone. I consider every action that Sound Choice and any other company i deal with and my opinion COULD change at any time. So far , i agree with most of what they've done and they've treated me personally VERY fairly in our dealings. I'm sorry if that upsets you because you are of a different opinion. My opinions on the matter have NEVER affected the decisions made here and will not, we are being fair To everyone here, i'm sorry that Sound Choice and Kurt are one in the same and that apparently will make it hard for you to post. As was stated try to specify the differences and leave the attacks out PERIOD. if you leave attacks out of all your posts then i fail to see why this is even an issue. You can disagree with anything you like, noone has stopped you.

 

And what interesting events they may turn out to be!

Anyone care to place bets on the outcome?

IN MY OPINION: And based on past history, I'll bet she gets silenced and nothing else. I wouldn't put it past this company to do exactly that. After all, their legal counsel was hit with a motion in Famous Music vs. Slep Tone Entertainment to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for "intimidating a witness."

 

And THAT is how you separate the company from the owner!

 

Although you've stated that they treated you fairly as far as you're concerned, I'd like to know your opinion as to the treatment of Jennifer and her husband AND if that makes any difference to you?

It's is certainly a HUGE difference between the way you were treated and the way she relates that she's been treated.

Why do you suppose there is such a disparity?

 

So what's your wager?

Consider carefully because you have stated your conditions as "silenced and nothing else".

Even if she gets silenced and a lollipop, I win!

(I'm kidding with you on this one.)

 

Someone said that they SAW her husband working the show. Therefore that someone LIED, and anything else from that same source would have had no credibility in court.

 

The Lawsuit said, that David Price was operating a computerized system.... David Price was home in bed with back issues until the day before the letter was sent out...

I told their attorney that I was fully aware that they would have to drop the lawsuit for that reason. I also said I wanted the discs. HE NEVER SAID GO THROUGH AN AUDIT AND STILL BE ABLE TO FINANCE THE DISCS AT A CHEAPER RATE. Why would he inform me that was my option? I truly got screwed by SC's attorney, but the does not mean that SC screwed me. I obviously trusted the wrong person.

If the matter of the Australian discs we were told were not legal is settled ( and I'm hearing SC Australia was a legally licensed company), I will be perfectly happy! Like I said, I cannot say Kurt is responsible for any of this since I have never dealt with him personally. I know he has a bad reputation around here, but he was stolen from by just about everyone here in the Raleigh Area. I'd be a little peevish too if I had to defend myself from trying to make it right. I'm waiting for Kurt's response before I make any conclusions. If he does make this right, by returning those discs if they are legal, or by reimbursting us for them if they are not, a lot of people may change their opinion of him in here.

 

Nope ( or at least not in SC's eyes..), he has stated that settlements count as "successes", and has inferred that they are admissions of guilt.

 

On more than one occasion as well

 

I don't expect to be called a Pirate since he did agree to take any admission of guilt out of the settlement. I also don't expect to be silenced because I asked for the Non-Disclosure Clause and was advised against it by his attorney. I really believe at this point he will step up and come to some terms with us. Of course this comes from the woman that trusted his attorney...