OrigZaphod said:
reading your post, makes me think that since he has been here longer, and has given away stuff, he is then by default, right? So thats how it works? Kick backs, and you are ok, be a new person and you are wrong?
i dont think that is what you meant, but it can be read that way.
It was stated as a means of pointing out that he has a good reputation on these forums and in the pool world. He's got a lot of character witnesses in the pool world.
ShootingRazbone said:
This post is about as biased as they come... and a complete hoot.
He isn't being a "nice young man" at this point... is he? He is being a hard core shrewd business man and quite frankly IS stalking. He is getting her stuff removed from other websites without contacting a lawyer or this woman for that matter before he does it,what do you constitue as this being then?
I made no mention of how he is currently acting and will not make a decision based on one side of the story. What I did say, and apparently didn't use enough verbiage for some to understand is that (outside of this current situation, which I will not comment on) Jake is a very nice, personable, honest, person. In his everyday life, he is well liked, well versed and plays well with others.
The closest I'll come to even speculating on his actions about this situation is this - When it comes to your survival, (livelihood) are you going to go fight to survive or roll over and play dead? It is human nature to fight tooth & nail for survival (survival of the fittest). Some people are just mean & ruthless and would do cruel, hurtful things on purpose because they get a kick out of that. That is not Jake's nature. Many people have fought tooth & nail for no reason (they were given incorrect info, or misunderstood something). It's very possible that Jake honest to goodness thinks (thought) he was within legal rights to do what he has done.
Both seem to be claiming they have legal rights to back their actions. One is wrong but can you blame them for fighting tooth & nail to fight for what they believe is right?
My "biased post" was to simply let Angela know that while she isn't having a pleasant experience with Jake, he isn't the mean, horrible guy she thinks he is. Instead of wasting tax dollars going after someone who is actually a nice guy (when he's not fighting for survival), this is something that could be settled peacefully because with someone like Jake, that is a possibility.
If jake were one of those jerks that would do cruel things to people just for fun because they get a kick out it, I would've said so.
PoolRoomTeesCOM said:
I called my friend Eric Yow, Many of you know him as a Pool Trick Shot artist but he is also an Attorney. He called Jake yesterday but of course Jake refused to discuss the situation with him.
Keyword highlighted & should be sufficient for explaining why Jake didn't talk to him about this matter.
Last but not least, after having read every post in this thread, I've got to say that Angela you are a major part of the problem. The fact that you knew of Jakes website and absolutely refuse to change the name shows that you are very much a part of the problem. Had you acted more maturely and put yourself in Jake's shoes to try to see his point of view, you would've simply used a different domain name (if you were a nice person). Instead of you're acting indignant as if you've just drawn a line in the sand and stood there with your arms crossed saying "I dare you", simply because you can.
