schewter Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 First, the story: http://ca.yahoo.com/_ylt=Ap5Ed5Z6oCLUEsgy9H7lf4Qt17V_;_ylu=X3oDMTJwNmN0Y2p0BGNwb3MDNgRlZAMxBGcDMmY1YmMzYmU0MzY3ZGNiOGVjZmY4MjE0OGRkMWRlNzMEaW50bANjYQRzZWMDaW5fbmV3cwRzbGsDbndzLXRpdGxlBHRlc3QDNzE1/SIG=12afl72e0/**http%3A//ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100616/national/rogers_affair_suit And the Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=101855416533441
2long Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 I hope she loses big time. That's not "privacy", that's secrecy. Her privacy wasn't invaded. Her telling lies was. 2 bloody bad. -ol' 2long
Spark1111 Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 Hey, you know what? You can try to sue anybody ofr anything these days. I believe we will see a rise in civil suits against OW/OM too!
Lecturer Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 The fact that it exposed an affair shouldn't really be considered in [the first part of] the case. Only the raw facts really need to be focused on. Did Rogers do wrong by bundling her cell phone bill with her husbands internet bill? If that was a violation of privacy (disregarding the affair), then Rogers was in the wrong and needs to pay (only then do you consider details such as affair, whatever). If it was standard, expected, fair practice - then the repercussions (exposing affair, ending marriage) are irrelevant... Roger's pays nothing. Let's pose it a different way. I really need my cell phone bill for "something" (financial, let's assume). I don't get the bill, and my opportunity passes - I lose out on a lot of money. I then find out at a later time that my bill was improperly bundled with my wife's internet bill. Roger's may be guilty, and responsible for my lost financial opportunity. What if information on my bill can be a threat to my safety, and they bundled it with my roommate's (whom I don't know). My roommate turns out to be a dangerous criminal. It could then be argued this bundling and violation of privacy led to my physical endangerment. Point is, separate out the emotionally touchy subject matter and consider the guts of the suit. The case may not be as preposterous as it seems.
Trojan John Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 Take a look at the comments on the FB page. She has very little support.
NoIDidn't Posted June 18, 2010 Posted June 18, 2010 Right, Trojan John. That "woman" is being eaten alive on her own "support" page. I've only seen about three supportive posts, but even they are only telling the others to lighten up. Poor thing. Well, not really.
fooled once Posted June 18, 2010 Posted June 18, 2010 Actually, if you read the article, the cheater and her H asked for the bill to be consolidated. They didn't just up and do it because they had nothing better to do. Even if they hadn't asked for it to be consolidated, why waste MONEY ON TREES/PRINTING if there is no need to? It all boils down to, if she hadn't been having an affair in the first place.....
Darth Vader Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 Actually, if you read the article, the cheater and her H asked for the bill to be consolidated. They didn't just up and do it because they had nothing better to do. Even if they hadn't asked for it to be consolidated, why waste MONEY ON TREES/PRINTING if there is no need to? It all boils down to, if she hadn't been having an affair in the first place..... This crap the woman's doing ought to tell her husband something, how much of a fraud and money grubber she is after she cheated on him! I hope he Divorced her, he doesn't need this shame!
LucreziaBorgia Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 It all comes down to this, which I have no doubt the courts will see: While we sympathize with Ms. Nagy's situation, we cannot be responsible for the personal decisions made by our customers," she said.
linwood Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 It seems she has an excellent case and should win. If her husband was able to alter her personal account over the phone without her consent then she is in the right. The affair is irrelevant to the privacy issue. I can also tell you that this happens as I`ve done it with my wifes accounts as she has with mine. Never thought much of it until now but it is a practice that exposes peoples private business.
Darth Vader Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 It seems she has an excellent case and should win. If her husband was able to alter her personal account over the phone without her consent then she is in the right. The affair is irrelevant to the privacy issue. I can also tell you that this happens as I`ve done it with my wifes accounts as she has with mine. Never thought much of it until now but it is a practice that exposes peoples private business. And private affairs that can get the BS infected with AIDS! Thing is, if she wasn't riding another man, this wouldn't have been a problem at all! There wouldn't have been a court case! This is all so a cheater can cheat on their spouse and keep it hidden by employing the assistance of utility companies! WOW! Just another excuse for everyone's phone rates to go up! Can you imagine the phone company soliciting "Affair Insurance"? The other spouse is sure to see it, don't you think it will ring alot of bells if they hear their spouse saying "yes, I want the affair insurance?:lmao: :lmao:Kinda a Dead Ringer huh?:lmao: :lmao:Pun intended!:lmao:
Darth Vader Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 It all comes down to this, which I have no doubt the courts will see: That is no doubt exactly what they would say!
Dexter Morgan Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 In the first story, if that idiot did somehow get all that money for being nothing more than a cheating jackass, if I were her husband, I'd wait for her to get it, then divorce her and get half of it.
LucreziaBorgia Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 I posted on FB what I posted here. The only person who disagreed was the woman's PR person who set up the FB page.
strawberrysprinkles Posted June 24, 2010 Posted June 24, 2010 That lady isn't going to get jack, and probably would never have sued if it hadn't been taken on contingency basis. This case has been discussed on numerous talk shows. Everyone agrees that the company had reasonable expectation that they were married because of other joint accounts with their company, and bundling them was no invasion of privacy. Further, had she not been up to funny business, Rogers did them a favor, because the result of the bundling was a decrease in their bill.
Untouchable_Fire Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 Take a look at the comments on the FB page. She has very little support. No... she receives tons of support... Spousal Support. Yeah for Canada!
Woggle Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 Yes, we discussed this case at length about a month ago. At the time, there was no FB page. I can't believe she actually has support. I guess Woggle was right. I told you I was right but as usual people called me names and tried to argue with me. She will become somewhat of a feminist hero.
Author schewter Posted June 26, 2010 Author Posted June 26, 2010 <<I told you I was right but as usual people called me names and tried to argue with me. She will become somewhat of a feminist hero.>> I don't think so...the only two people defending her on "her" page appear to be friends or something. She's deleted some posts that weren't in any way abusive just too sensible. This woman's plight isn't going anywhere.
LucreziaBorgia Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 I don't see much evidence of her being any sort of hero on that FB group page. She is getting skewered by male and female alike.
Recommended Posts