| 10:20 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Anyone read the update on eweek? Seems we are mentioned in it. :)
| 10:36 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Great, next she'll be suing members here for defamation.
| 10:38 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It is all over the web, even on Jensense lol:)
| 10:40 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
People, people enough talk about preview tools and the like, the whole point of this thread is to make fun of the person filing the lawsuit. Let's get back on track, shall we?
| 10:59 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Okay, not only is she costing me tax dollars but she's also cutting into my google profits as they justifiably and vigorously defend themselves. I think I should have more of a right to sue [her] than she does to sue Google.
[edited by: spaceylacie at 11:00 pm (utc) on Aug. 31, 2006]
| 11:00 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
100 hours to update!?! There's probably someone real busy padding their hours. What a bimbo!
| 12:50 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|People, people enough talk about preview tools and the like, the whole point of this thread is to make fun of the person filing the lawsuit. Let's get back on track, shall we? |
;) got it, sorry...
Yeah, that bimbo is sure dumb. She is so dumb that she put 20 cents in a parking meter and said "Where the F*&$@#* my gumball?" -- As many people typed, I am to upset that b#@#@#ch is wasting my hard earned taxes!
| 2:08 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
She's probably hoping for an out of court settlement just to keep her quiet.
I hope Google doesn't do that....hope they fight her with everything they have and boy, that's a lot! :)
| 3:29 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ann, I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if the case was dismissed.
| 4:13 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I hand-code all of my site's pages. Pasting the AdSense code into a Web page (into the index file in its own directory, so the URL is shorter) takes me no more than 20 seconds per page. This includes opening the directory, opening the file, adding the code, saving it, and exiting the directory.
20 seconds per page.
I hope the judge reads this thread.
| 5:04 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The judge will probably read the suit and kill himself as the level of sheer stupidity in this one will just push him over the edge.
| 5:26 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|asking the court to waive court fees |
I feel it would be fitting for the court to charge substantial fees for wasting everyone's time.
| 5:39 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If I remember correctly, where I come from if one party breaches the agreed terms of a contract the other party can then walk away.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 5:39 am (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
| 8:13 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It looks like she had a two year old design it. |
wellzy, will you please stop your insults!
2 year olds have far more class that that!:(
| 8:17 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Icedowl, please stop insulting bimbos!
Some of them can be quite .. um .. appealing.
| 8:30 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
lol what a fruitcake. Her site looks like excrement and has no content. Where did her employees spend 100 hours placing the code?
| 8:37 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wonder why most of you do not list an url in their user profile ;-)
| 8:50 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I wonder why most of you do not list an url in their user profile ;-) |
Some of us are scarier than others, be careful what you wish for...
| 8:50 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hehe... I do :)
That sure is a shocking site... Sorta thing that school kids would put together for a project. And as a professionl web designer, it would take about 2 hours to adsense that whole site, and check the ads with a preview tool. And I really hope Google brings her down hard - it's black and white obvious to anyone with any common sense - she breached contract, and admitted to fraud! Good of her to stand up and identify herself me thinks...
|smells so good|
| 9:17 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
as a professionl web designer I would not even consider Adsense for that site. To begin with there are clearly more important issues that need to be addressed. There is little content, of mostly poor quality. The site navigation is horrible. I STILL have not found those bras, but I'm almost certain that if I did I would be as dissolusioned as I have been with every other page. In other words, are they even worth looking for? Those images need to go! No one is convinced by that staff picture. For $2500.00 an hour I would be happy to go on..
I'm clearly on Google's side on this one. Ethically, professionally, and quite possibly morally, this woman has violated every basic principle. If my tax money is to be used by the Federal court system to seek damages from Google, then may they be used to make an example of how not to be a role model and a professional. Furthermore, if she is found to be frivolous her priveledge to perform government contracts should be rescinded. People like this are wasting my money!
| 9:31 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
BTW, what is an "illustrated" client anyway? Make believe maybe?
| 10:56 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It's not a site meant to make money. It's a sort of virtual portfolio for someone whose primary income is government contracts. |
1998 called. It wants its "virtual portfolio" back.
Is she suing Yahoo for clicking their ads? Did she have $250,000 into that project too?
| 11:27 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You guys can be so cruel :)
| 1:44 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If there were "Darwin Awards" on the web, she'd get my vote.
... but doesn't that mean she has to be dead - or just her site?
Gimmie another Waborita, I don't care what time it is.
| 2:13 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This smells like an elaborate ruse to attract traffic ... a perplexingly cunning stunt with a hidden purpose. What does it cost for a lawyer to file her own suit?
Or perhaps this woman really IS that wacked out.
| 2:27 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|a perplexingly cunning stunt |
She is the second half of that spoonerism
| 4:04 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Where did her employees spend 100 hours placing the code? |
Actually, if I were as ethically challenged as some seem to think, I'd contact her and tell her I could do the same job for her in only 75 hours.
| 4:28 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think that "'illustrative'" clients" is intended to mean that the clients listed there are illustrations or examples--implying that the company has many more clients not listed.
| 4:43 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|She's probably hoping for an out of court settlement just to keep her quiet. |
Or if she realizes what a bimbo she's sounds like (with apology to all the bimbos out there- I don't mean to insult you), she'll hope for an out of court settlement just to get out of the spotlight.
|implying that the company has many more clients not listed. |
If I was a client of hers, I certainly wouldn't want to be listed on her site!
| 6:06 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|a perplexingly cunning stunt |
then murdoch quipped:
|She is the second half of that spoonerism |
I had to look that one up, but...OUCH!
This is getting a little heavy.
| 9:07 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If my dog was as stupid as that woman I would shoot it to put it out of it's misery. I cannot believe she actually has a doctorate in anything.
I looked at the source code for her sites, and I have NEVER seen anything so horrible. For some fun, try the w3c validator on them :)
I really hope the judge and/or jury finds for Google *and* charges her and her lawyer (who cannot be all that bright either to bring such a lawsuit..) some kind of huge court costs.
I also checked Google image search for the source of some of the pictures on the site, and quite a few appear to be copyrighted, that she apparently just took to use on her site.
I might also suggest that she try to make the 2006 list on the Darwin Awards website, there is still time....
[edited by: Wlauzon at 9:29 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2006]
| This 119 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 119 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |