Refused to sign declaration

[Cartoonz]

Do you need a bigger shovel to dig yourself an even deeper hole, DG?

Whatever alternate universe you live in is unknown... to the rest of the world, PUBLIC INFORMATION is just that - it is ALREADY PUBLIC, you twit!

You assumptions on legal issues that you admittedly don't even bother to read is... well... amusing, at best.

And trying to impugn JB's integrity is just plain asinine.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

JB should have held his counsel and not explicitly point out
the information.

1. You are not, and have never been a client of mine.

2. You never identified this matter to me and neither expressly or implicitly requested confidentiality. The only way I found out about this dispute was by conducting a search that anyone can conduct.

I will post about any public document I darn well please.

But let's get back to the point of this thread.

You refused to sign the declaration required in a UDRP response.

Okay, fine, what did you gain by that? I guess you really showed them a thing or two.

And what has not signing it accomplished for you?

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

But let's get back to the point of this thread.

You refused to sign the declaration required in a UDRP response.

Okay, fine, what did you gain by that? I guess you really showed them a thing or two.

And what has not signing it accomplished for you?

But let's get back to the point of this thread.

You refused to sign the declaration required in a UDRP response.

Okay, fine, what did you gain by that? I guess you really showed them a thing or two.

And what has not signing it accomplished for you?

In brief - what's your point?

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

But let's get back to the point of this thread.

You refused to sign the declaration required in a UDRP response.

Okay, fine, what did you gain by that? I guess you really showed them a thing or two.

And what has not signing it accomplished for you?

In brief - what's your point?

 

[David G]

Without doing a lot of reading or research the issues seem like public information anyone can republish and discuss so I really don't understand what the OP is so upset about?

Also don't understand how not signing accomplished anything unless I am missing something?

 

[David G]

Also don't understand how not signing accomplished anything unless I am missing something?

 

[fab]

This case seems to be hillarious. Can DG post a link to the decision, or should I start Googling.

Found it!

 

[marcorandazza]

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0041.html

Also don't understand how not signing accomplished anything unless I am missing something?

Trader, have you ever heard the term "form over substance"? That's what DG seems to be obsessing over. He thinks that he's brilliant and cute in the same swing because he refused to sign his response, thus giving him some bizarre claim against WIPO.

In reality, all he did was make his response invalid and gave WIPO the right to simply refuse to read it. However, they took pity on him and read it anyhow, and still decided against him.

Of course, he couldn't tell you that, because he expects us to believe that he hasn't read the decision -- and it is his intent to never read it. He just knows, magically, that the decision was wrong.

It really is pretty cool being psychic. I wish I was too.

 

[dvdrip]

Hhhhmmmm, although I read all my udrp decisions, and many more that is, I don't need to read the decisions on some domains to know if a decision is wrong or not.

Of course, he couldn't tell you t...ool being psychic. I wish I was too.[/QUOTE]

 

[marcorandazza]

I respectfully disagree. Call me nutty, madcap, and off my rocker, but I think that before I say that an opinion is wrong, I should actually read that opinion. I don't know where I come up with these batty ideas.

 

[dvdrip]

I don't need anyone to tell me the sky is blue when I can see it for myself.