Why the fascination with Kimmer? #8

[GypsyVisions]

Sandy,

Just wanted to say

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by sandyn

Hi all
I have been lurking since thread #1. I always forget my password to this site(duh), so never logged in to contribute.
Anyhow, I got something from "Consumer Affairs" in my email. They investigate consumer complaints, etc. One of their reporters is doing a series on Nutrisystem now because of consumer complaints.
This may be a good site to send in complaints, links etc. It may be a little late in the game now that the lawsuit is filed, but it could help get the word out.

ConsumerAffairs.Com: Knowledge is Power! Consumer news, reviews, complaints, resources, safety recalls

There is an area at the top for "complaints"

HTH

ps- wow- its hard to post here. I keep getting kicked off the site

Hi Sandyn- Welcome and thanks for the link. I bookmarked it and will look at it later.

[JustKim]

Originally Posted by HoneyBee2

Good deal! But by them do you mean Cheryl et al (I thought you would like that Cheryl) or the host server Liquidweb?

Liquid Web

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by JustKim

Liquid Web

Great! Let us know what they say IF you can.

[xf89]

Sandy!

[mirmir3]

I've been trying to catch up on the plethora of pages that I have missed --

Is "Dr. Marky" still offering up his 'sage' advice?

[Arbah]

Since I'm new to online bulletin boards etc., I read the TOS when I signed on here. If I'm reading it right, everything posted online is the property of the bulletin board with the right to keep and/or repost in any medium they desire at any time they desire. I imagine a private, paid site would have regulations at least as strict as a public board does. In that case, KK has no requirement to remove anyone's posts and they can reuse them whereever and whenever they wish, so if that's right they are probably filing the cease and desist letters under "G". I'd hate to think the folks at KK are just laughing at those sending the letters. Does someone else want to go read the TOS here and see if they are understanding it the same as I am?

[2big4mysize]

Originally Posted by Locarb4me

If you go back and catch up on threads 5-7 of the Fascination thread, it will bring you up to speed pretty well. A lot of stuff happened in the month of Sept and Oct, and fast!

The blogs have been quiet for a couple weeks now, but here are some links, and you'll see links to many more in each of them:

Dangers

HoneyBee's blog

Ducky's

And the duck joke is because a while back on The Truth (another blog) appeared a PM between Kimmer and someone (Singinglass?) saying she was suspicious of anyone with a duck avatar (get it? Just Ducky being one of the first and most aggressive exposers of the Kimkins fiasco).

We thought it only reasonable, given the circumstances, to feed Hidey's paranoia...being the nice people we are

not only that a member there and now here got banned there for having picked one of kimkins .com avators that was a duck.

[CarolynF]

Maybe Dottie will chime in. That is the reason we still have Kimmer's posts here, I believe.
I'm sure she would want them taken off here, but they don't belong to her.

This probably is the same thing for KKins. What was posted is the property of Kimkins. Unfortunately.

[ixtapacheryl]

Originally Posted by Arbah

Since I'm new to online bulletin boards etc., I read the TOS when I signed on here. If I'm reading it right, everything posted online is the property of the bulletin board with the right to keep and/or repost in any medium they desire at any time they desire. I imagine a private, paid site would have regulations at least as strict as a public board does. In that case, KK has no requirement to remove anyone's posts and they can reuse them whereever and whenever they wish, so if that's right they are probably filing the cease and desist letters under "G". I'd hate to think the folks at KK are just laughing at those sending the letters. Does someone else want to go read the TOS here and see if they are understanding it the same as I am?

Depends on which TOS was in effect when we signed up. The TOS has changed weekly ...... I don't remember it saying that when I signed up last year.

[2big4mysize]

Originally Posted by Arbah

Since I'm new to online bulletin boards etc., I read the TOS when I signed on here. If I'm reading it right, everything posted online is the property of the bulletin board with the right to keep and/or repost in any medium they desire at any time they desire. I imagine a private, paid site would have regulations at least as strict as a public board does. In that case, KK has no requirement to remove anyone's posts and they can reuse them whereever and whenever they wish, so if that's right they are probably filing the cease and desist letters under "G". I'd hate to think the folks at KK are just laughing at those sending the letters. Does someone else want to go read the TOS here and see if they are understanding it the same as I am?

LCFs TOS does not apply to Kimkins .com and when those members sending the cease and desist (sp wrong) joined Kimkins .com it did not have any such clause in its TOS and they never signed a new TOS agreement so kimkins .com does not now nor ever own their material.

[ixtapacheryl]

Originally Posted by HoneyBee2

Just checking in with you this morning Cheryl to let you know my thoughts are with you and your husbands and I hope he gets good news from the doctor today!

You may also want to ask the DH his opinion on sending a copy of the cease and desist letter to the Kimkins hosting company. It appears, based on liquidweb's policies, that illegal activity would be a reason for them to no longer host her website. This was something discussed last night and thought he would like to weigh in on that from a legal standpoint.

Thank you so much for your concern/wishes...
Yes he got there for the ultrasound. He's a pretty gabby person and he said the tech was in a foul mood - never talked except to ask if his family had a history of AAA. he doesn't know because his mom and dad died pretty young and his only brother committed suicide when he was 40 years old. He will get the results in 24/48 hours and I'll let you know the results.

I asked him about the C&D letter to the hosting company and he said it can't hurt... I will also send them a letter. She is not abiding by our wishes.

[ixtapacheryl]

Just thought of something ..... with all the wildfires in southern Calif. will Heidi's deposition be rescheduled? How far is Corona from the fire?

[Arbah]

Originally Posted by ixtapacheryl

Depends on which TOS was in effect when we signed up. The TOS has changed weekly ...... I don't remember it saying that when I signed up last year.

It also says in the TOS that they can be changed at any time for any reason the owner of the site wants to. I just don't want to see KK be able to say to lawyers or the web host company etc. that there is nothing but unfounded harrasement coming from unhappy former members.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by CarolynF

Maybe Dottie will chime in. That is the reason we still have Kimmer's posts here, I believe.
I'm sure she would want them taken off here, but they don't belong to her.

This probably is the same thing for KKins. What was posted is the property of Kimkins. Unfortunately.

You can use the contact form and ask
I personally do not know the legal aspects of it, so I'd just be guessing if I responded
My general understanding of public BBs is that by posting you're agreeing to let the site use that post/information as they wish (the "everything is public on the internet" thing).
For a private/members only type site that you pay to join, I have no idea.
I DO think, since Kim was defrauded/coerced, that it would supersede any TOS "ownership" of things she'd written since her posts were gained under false pretense?

[JustKim]

plus there are items/articles (articals) I specifically authored beyond bulletin board posts and I do "own" those, hense the digital copyright C & D

plus, since this was done on the advice of an attorney, I suspect it does have some merit

[Arbah]

Originally Posted by 2big4mysize

LCFs TOS does not apply to Kimkins .com and when those members sending the cease and desist (sp wrong) joined Kimkins .com it did not have any such clause in its TOS and they never signed a new TOS agreement so kimkins .com does not now nor ever own their material.

I went to Kimkins & read their TOS, but since I've been banned I can't get to some of the site. On the main TOS, it says some parts of the site have more information . When I joined, there was no TOS agreement for me to sign as part of the signup.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by Arbah

I went to Kimkins & read their TOS, but since I've been banned I can't get to some of the site. On the main TOS, it says some parts of the site have more information . When I joined, there was no TOS agreement for me to sign as part of the signup.

There likely was. I don't know of any site that doesn't say "by clicking/registering you agree to the TOS".

[ketosis]

Originally Posted by HoneyBee2

That is so funny!!!


It was brought up again in trying to determine who the Kimkins hosting site is currently. This was in an effort to try help those that had given Kimkins a cease and desist letter, but were still having copyright infringement of written articles or posts being used. The idea was if Kimkins was going to violate copyrights then it could be stopped by the sending the hosting site that information, because that violates Kimkins agreement with them and they would not want to be a part of breaking the law. This would shut down the website.
As far as numbers being posted...I am thinking you mean phone numbers?...This may have been allowed because Kimmer put that information out there when she filled out the BBB information with the business number and hinted at wanting reviews...But I don't know for sure what was allowed was before so that is just me guessing.

Thanks Honeybee for clarifying this. I wasn't aware that posting the contact numbers was a problem and if it is Mods please forgive me.

Once I have some time today I will try to find out again which server she uses but as a start, all of you who have issued cease and desists to KK might start with sending Go-daddy a copy of them and a link to the court case and ask that her site be taken down as she has refused to co-operate with copyright ownership (which is a huge no no in the world of the internet)

Diana I didn't mean to step on your toes, I know how upsetting it is when you post something and then a few pages or threads later someone else posts the same thing and everyone notices. (It happens to me a lot )

So to try to clarify she or rather Brandon registered the domain name " www.kimkins.com" with Go-daddy and have now made ownership private using a proxy which is not unusual. Her web site itself is hosted with another company and that is what I am trying to figure out. Clear as mud lol? Darn work is interfering with my thought process.

[ixtapacheryl]

Originally Posted by Arbah

It also says in the TOS that they can be changed at any time for any reason the owner of the site wants to. I just don't want to see KK be able to say to lawyers or the web host company etc. that there is nothing but unfounded harrasement coming from unhappy former members.

Depends on when she added that statement. That statement was not in the TOS when I signed up.... We can actually check the archived web pages since conception of the site..... So no getting around that. Come to think of it - I didn't agree or have to click on any TOS agreement when I signed up...

[CarolynF]

Originally Posted by JustKim

plus there are items/articles (articals) I specifically authored beyond bulletin board posts and I do "own" those, hense the digital copyright C & D

plus, since this was done on the advice of an attorney, I suspect it does have some merit

Right, Kim..and Kimmer never paid you for these "artikals" did she?

[Arbah]

Originally Posted by Dottie

There likely was. I don't know of any site that doesn't say "by clicking/registering you agree to the TOS".

Then there probably was, but it was not something we were steered toward specifically. Since I never expected there to be any problem with a diet site I joined from a large magazine, I never looked for it. Live and learn eh.

[HoneyBee2]

Originally Posted by Arbah

It also says in the TOS that they can be changed at any time for any reason the owner of the site wants to. I just don't want to see KK be able to say to lawyers or the web host company etc. that there is nothing but unfounded harrasement coming from unhappy former members.

There are three things to consider, because I don't think there is any fear of KK wanting to talk with the lawyers at the web host company!
1) Regarding the TOS changes-Does it say that upon changing the TOS they have to notify the members of this change? I thought that when the TOS changes that the members either have to be notified by email or have to "check" a box that they agree to the "new" TOS before signing in.
2)The copyright infringement that was done to Randy Glasbergen and Kim's articles is definitely in violation with liquid web's agreement with Kimkins.
I sent him the liquid web information in an email this morning so he could contact them if he wishes.
3)The other issue is banning of members without reason (ie. not violating TOS)which was done in many cases and kimkins being a fraudulent business. I would think when that occurs the TOS contract is void based on the business practices.
I don't think Liquid web would want it KNOWN that their lawyers were made aware of a fraudulent business that they were hosting. JMHO


ETA- I see everyone brought up these points...I was mixing my "Fawn Shake" and got side-tracked.

[Katinsac]

just checked and the cartoon is no longer there...just the pie chart