[PyrNet-L] Rumors and speculation

["Carrie Coffman" <carriecoffman@erols.com>]

This is way out of control... Is this a gossip list?  This is beginning to
make as much sense as Melrose.

That is a very interesting story but obviously you only have one side of
the issue, and I don't believe you have ever spoken to the other party,
have you????  Now, Tim, if you had been breeding with your "client" for 20
years and you had registered the domain name on your own, then your
"client" made it clear that you as her partner were responsible for part of
the expenses, then are you not also considered an owner?  

If a club is to admit applicants solely on ethics, which according to the
GPCA Constitution they are not, then membership should be based on the
care, breeding and sale of Great Pyrenees, not domain names, etc.  I'm
sure, if you read the GPCA Constitution, it is not the GPCA's duty to act
as divorce court.

Tim, you should be careful about repeating things that your new friend or
client has told you, less you unwittingly include yourself in a slander
suit.  In fact, you know so little about the parties involved, that on the
"new" website (which is copied code and pictures, a copyright
infringement), you left the Coffman's dogs on the website, including
pictures of Victoria, my brother, my mother and me, which you have no
permission to use!!!!


----------
> From: Timothy M. Parks <timparks@pacbell.net>
> To: pyrnet-l@pyrnet.org
> Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] GPCA membership protest
> Date: Thursday, March 18, 1999 2:15 PM
> 
>   
> >Marcia mentioned my ethics in her post.  This is not a case of ethics.
> >It is not a case for Marcia or anyone else to decide.  My ethics with 
> >regard to this issue are not for the GPCA to decide.  
> >Victoria Coffman
> 
> Interesting...   there are alot of people who say the same thing when
> about to face a trial...  and still holds on afterwords...
> 
> The reason a club would wish to vote on new members is to decide
> on what type of people are allowed in, which very much is a case
> of ethics.  The owner of the kennel has only protested in wishing
> to get her website.  At which point, she would gladly rescind the
> protest.  Victoria acted as an agent for this kennel, but unethically
> registered everything in her personal name rather than the 
> rightful owner and tends to keep it, even though she has no claim
> to the kennel at all.  And now she wants to join GPCA?  Isn't this
> another slap in the face of the original owner?
> I was hired by the kennel in question to replace Victoria's work.
> In my view this was handled in a very unethical way.  The owner
> had expected to be fully in control of the website that represents
> her.  She has now found out that she has no control whatsoever
> over the website along with any email that is generated from those
> visiting that site.  She was not one who knows the in's and out's 
> of the internet domains and websites and trusted Victoria the 
> same way that she would trust a mechanic working on her car to
> fully inform her before asking her to make a decision.  The owner
> feels she has fully compensated for the website.  In a more ethical
> manner of doing business, I have provided her with a new website
> and domain name in which she is sole owner and does not have to
> fear this happening again.  There >is< something to say about
> ethics and I am very glad that the GPCA plans to stand up and
> withhold it.
> 
> If any one wishes for more information on both the old website
> and the new website, please email me privately.
> 
> Tim Parks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
> 	unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.