What's new
By:
Filters

The 411 on origin of SC letters of intent

If I really had you on my ignore list - how would you know?

Let's give a shout-out to all the people who turned out to ignore me with their post. :)
 
I look at it this way...

I choose not to watch religious or any kind of hunting programming on TV mainly due to the fact that I find such programming obscene. However, I do not go to the lengths of having those programs banned or censored, I just do not tune in.

Hunters & religious folks have a right to promote their agendas just like anyone else here, & as them, I promote my agenda of boycotting such views.

So I welcome anyone to ignore me because I really don't care what other people think of me & have sense enough to know that people will make up their own minds & will draw whatever consequences, good or bad, from their decisions.

Now, can I post my favorite Steve Vai song again?
 
Wall Of Sound said:
I look at it this way...

I choose not to watch religious or any kind of hunting programming on TV mainly due to the fact that I find such programming obscene. However, I do not go to the lengths of having those programs banned or censored, I just do not tune in.

Hunters & religious folks have a right to promote their agendas just like anyone else here, & as them, I promote my agenda of boycotting such views.

So I welcome anyone to ignore me because I really don't care what other people think of me & have sense enough to know that people will make up their own minds & will draw whatever consequences, good or bad, from their decisions.

Now, can I post my favorite Steve Vai song again?
Click to expand...

But isn't putting someone on ignore exactly the same thing?

I am not advocating censoring the stupid (they do have the right to their opinion) but by using the ignore feature I don't have to see it! That is the same thing as you choosing not to turn on a channel that carries the programing you find offensive.:winkpill:
 
Thunder said:
But isn't putting someone on ignore exactly the same thing?

I am not advocating censoring the stupid (they do have the right to their opinion) but by using the ignore feature I don't have to see it! That is the same thing as you choosing not to turn on a channel that carries the programing you find offensive.:winkpill:
Click to expand...

Yes Steve, that was my point. The ignore feature blocks the stuff I don't want to watch.

Another analogy would be the "Parental Control Lock" on the cable box or the settings for the "S-Chip".....
 
Does anyone actually have a letter of intent that they would post in this forum? Black out the personal information on a copy and let us see exactly what it looks like and exactly what it states.

THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE "411" ON THE SC LETTER(S) OF INTENT.

I want the 411 you arrogant, opinionated, SOBs! <---- I mean that in the best possible way.
 
let me see if I can find the paperwork...we are in the middle of a move so may take some time....but if I rember correctly it was the same as posted on justia(sp?) Thunder could most likley post a link
 
KJSandman said:
Does anyone actually have a letter of intent that they would post in this forum? Black out the personal information on a copy and let us see exactly what it looks like and exactly what it states.

THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE "411" ON THE SC LETTER(S) OF INTENT.

I want the 411 you arrogant, opinionated, SOBs! <---- I mean that in the best possible way.
Click to expand...

You can find similar ones online in all kinds of forums. This scheme is not unique to SC.

Every letter of intent essentially reads the same way. It alleges an infirngement and then demands something as compensation, (money) and in this case an "audit."

The letter is crafted to sound very intense and imply that you are already being sued (you are not) - it will even give a deadline to reply.

It will not however, specify ANY date upon which an actual complaint is to be filed, nor will it include a copy of any pleading. (Real letters of intent usually do and may even inclucde a copy of the actual post-dated court pleading.) Schemers are simply not prepared to do so, because they do not as yet have any eveidence - only supposition. The scheme is to get you to crumble in fear and either incriminate yourself or pay up without any court over-sight at all.

Many people who do not understand legal due process will be easly disturbed and react as though they are being sued (they are not.) That fear alone often gets at least 20% of the candidates to pay up immediately just as a result of the letter's accussation. Even 20% of people who have done nothing wrong tend to cave in response to these letters!

Remember - there is no way for SC to actually know in advance who has legitimate source material and who does not. It's pure supposition ("I saw the logo and a computer - therefore...") The whole point of the letters is to put you in a corner and see whether or not you can find your way out.
 
possumdog said:
I'm not saying they couldn't have observed this new "threatening letter" phenomena and said, "Now there's a plan." I wasn't in the boardroom. But neither was Proformance so he should probably be prefacing his posts with "I wonder if this is what SC is doing," rather than stating that he has the info on their scheme.
Click to expand...

Like I have said before, if you don't have the FACTS and it's mere conjecture or supposition, the posters SHOULD preface their comments with "I wonder" or "IMHO", etc. I have also said before that we investigate each and every case that we send a letter to or that we file a suit against. We have about 15 people (with more coming on board) doing on-site investigations and preliminary research and investigations. Some of our researchers are even your "regulars" who know your show and your habits and systems for as long as they have been attending. (Heck in today's economy, it's not difficult to hire informed help.) They can tell us if you ever had/never had discs if your shows are identical from system to system. And even if and when you stopped playing Sound Choice (hmm, why would you do that if you had the discs to back up your media shift).

Sorry, "Pro" we aren't taking blind stabs with $15 an hour college students.
 
Sound Choice said:
Like I have said before, if you don't have the FACTS and it's mere conjecture or supposition, the posters SHOULD preface their comments with "I wonder" or "IMHO", etc. I have also said before that we investigate each and every case that we send a letter to or that we file a suit against. We have about 15 people (with more coming on board) doing on-site investigations and preliminary research and investigations. Some of our researchers are even your "regulars" who know your show and your habits and systems for as long as they have been attending. (Heck in today's economy, it's not difficult to hire informed help.) They can tell us if you ever had/never had discs if your shows are identical from system to system. And even if and when you stopped playing Sound Choice (hmm, why would you do that if you had the discs to back up your media shift).

Sorry, "Pro" we aren't taking blind stabs with $15 an hour college students.
Click to expand...

Who did you have "investigate" Skid Rowe? Joe Senter? That was a real winner wasn't it?
 
Thunder said:
But isn't putting someone on ignore exactly the same thing?

I am not advocating censoring the stupid (they do have the right to their opinion) but by using the ignore feature I don't have to see it! That is the same thing as you choosing not to turn on a channel that carries the programing you find offensive.:winkpill:
Click to expand...

Gotta define "the stupid". Some people may post what may be opinions without basis in fact on one or two subjects, yet add verifiable info on other threads. If one has them on "ignore", one may lose out on valuable new info...
 
stu·pid? ?/?stup?d, ?styu?/ [stoo-pid, styoo?]
adjective, -er, -est, noun

–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.

2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless.

3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless.

4. annoying or irritating; troublesome.

5. in a state of stupor; stupefied.

6. ignorant; easily confused.

–noun
7. Informal . a stupid person.
 
Thunder said:
stu·pid? ?/?stup?d, ?styu?/ [stoo-pid, styoo?]
adjective, -er, -est, noun

–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.

2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless.

3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless.

4. annoying or irritating; troublesome.

5. in a state of stupor; stupefied.

6. ignorant; easily confused.

–noun
7. Informal . a stupid person.
Click to expand...

Gee, thanks for the definitions, but you missed my point. Let me be more direct. Someone may post what one might consider "stupid" statements on a particular thread, yet add valuable information on another- and one who has this person on ignore will lose out on the knowledge... Best to listen and filter yourself...
 
JoeChartreuse said:
Gotta define "the stupid". Some people may post what may be opinions without basis in fact on one or two subjects, yet add verifiable info on other threads. If one has them on "ignore", one may lose out on valuable new info...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought the point was to "DEFINE STUPID"!:laughpill:

If 90% a given person's post are inane BS, and without satient point then what is the point in wading through it to find some little gem that anyone with an IQ of 50 would already be aware of!
 
Thunder said:
Sorry, I thought the point was to "DEFINE STUPID"!:laughpill:

If 90% a given person's post are inane BS, and without satient point then what is the point in wading through it to find some little gem that anyone with an IQ of 50 would already be aware of!
Click to expand...

I meant the point of keeping away from the ignore button, yet your definitions were a valid answer to my post and request, if read literally.

Of course, this makes me a moron in your eyes ( especially lately), so you might have me on ignore, and may have missed my intent...
 
JoeChartreuse said:
I meant the point of keeping away from the ignore button, yet your defitions were a valid answer to my post and request, if read literally.

Of course, this makes me a moron in your eyes ( especially lately), so you might have me on ignore, and may have missed my intent...
Click to expand...

No, I would use different terms refering to you!

Obsinate would be the first thing that comes to mind, but moron isn't one of them!

Moron: from the Ancient Greek word (moros), which means "dull" (as opposed to "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. Applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).

As I said though even an imbecile would already know the little gems that an idiot would come up with!:laughpill:
 
LOL.
Seems like this "ignoring" thing is a lot of hard work! :)

Joe, best to let it go.
Bragging about the ignore button is just another childish form of name calling.
Fits right in with the constant use of words like "stupid" etc.
 
proformance said:
doing a little research i've discovered the scheme employed by sc is a recent and now fairly widespread practice. There are numerous companies and law firms who specialize in this legal (although ethically challenged) practice of intimidating people with little understanding of legal due process.
Click to expand...
skid rowe said:
can't the mods do something about this guy. He's only here to stir things up.
Click to expand...

I am far from a "fan" of Proformance, but if one interprets, as I did, his use of the word "scheme" to mean a general approach rather than a step-by-step specific plan that copies what he claims has become the framework of some legal strategies, I find nothing in Proformance's post that I can disagree with.

Maybe "Skid" should worry more about what the "mods" think of his posts???
 
Wow Eric agrees with Bob, one more and we can have a group home!:biggrinpill:
 
ericlater said:
I am far from a "fan" of Proformance, but if one interprets, as I did, his use of the word "scheme" to mean a general approach rather than a step-by-step specific plan that copies what he claims has become the framework of some legal strategies, I find nothing in Proformance's post that I can disagree with.

Maybe "Skid" should worry more about what the "mods" think of his posts???
Click to expand...

Well shazam, I guess you put me in my place didn't you!

Actually I'm not worried about what the mods think of my posts. I rarely post anything insulting or inflamitory like some folks do here. I guess that's why I have some people on ignore so I don't have to read their insulting and inflamitory remarks. (Not mentioning any names).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top