Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!   "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Lazy Girl Designs Hall Of Shame Member Added July 3, 2008

Last updated September 21, 2009

Lazy Girl Designs, apparently owned and operated by one Joan Hawley, gets its own craft site page because of her badd-attitude. Joan works at at 437 Maplebrooke Drive East, Westerville, OH, 43082. Someone emailed us about the postings on her chat board. Seems instead of having the chat session and opinions posted on her business web site, she has a Yahoo Group for her "friends" and admirers. It appears the postings are for her "admirers" only. We figure anyone who disagrees with her false statements about her copyrights is deleted. Seems some "admirer" of Joan Hawley, one Cindy Lucento, read a posting about the Tabberone web site and Cindy Lucento decided to go to our web site and read some of it. Apparently enough to make up her mind about the content. She posted her opinion on the Yahoo Group moderated by Joan Hawley. We present her opinion in full. What we can't present is the posting Sunday September 7, by someone who disagreed with the "admirer" of Joan Hawley, Cindy Lucento, because it was deleted a short time after it was posted. Joan? Say it isn't so? You can't stand criticism or your "admirers" being criticized? Why would you delete a posting like that? Does the truth hurt that badly? Well, here's our criticism of the opinion posted by Cindy Lucento. Let us start by saying we are automatically suspicious of persons who use salutations or closings like "Blessings". We have found that they are usually hypocrites and overbearing, wanting to share their religious joy with those who don't care to share that particular joy with them.

"The ranting and raving of the person who runs the website is not the quoting of any official publications or laws."

Cindy Lucento didn't read very much because there are hundreds of court cases, laws, and decisions posted on the web site as references to back up what we say. Not one lawyer has come forward to point out any legal deficiencies in our arguments. We have emails from a number of lawyers making positive comments about the web site. The Trademarks sections of the web site gets some 40,000 page views a month. Someone is finding it worthwhile. But not those who support Joan Hawley.

"Just a bunch of companies that the they have a beef with."

And, Cindy Lucento, did you read enough to get an impression as to what this so-called "beef" is all about? It's about companies, individuals, and corporate lawyers who lie about trademarks and copyrights, potentially harming lawful users and sellers. Our "beef" is with people like Joan Hawley who make copyright claims that are not lawful or permitted under the US Copyright laws. And with yo-yos like you who don't read and comprehend what they don't like and simply ramble about matters they cannot take the time to absorb.

"( And some of their clip-art is not so very nice, either. In fact, I would say that it is almost offensive)"

We find trademark and copyright abusers very offensive. They harm people who don't deserve to be harmed. We find your "Blessings" at the end of your postings very offensive. So what? What is really offensive is for people like Joan Hawley to trample on the legitimate rights of other people.

"If the person who wrote those various articles about certain companies is a lawyer..."

Cindy Lucento, we're guessing reading comprehension wasn't one of your strong suits. On the main Trademark page is, "We are not lawyers.". Further down the page is, "We are not lawyers but we have represented ourselves in federal court against multi-billion dollar companies and won.". Almost every web page has a link at the right top to a "Disclaimer" which begins with the statement, "We are not lawyers.". Cindy, you need to pay closer attention. Or, is that a tad too difficult for you?

"those articles, which are basically comparable to a "smear campaign" of sorts."

Smear campaign? Thank you, very much. Thank you. That part you did mange to get correct but we think you get it for the wrong reasons. We are trying to alert the world about trademark and copyright abuses. "my own interpretation of making them to sell" Fortunately, the rest of us are not subject to your "interpretation" of the law, or Joan's "interpretation" of the law. Both of you are wrong but for different reasons. The first sale doctrine says you have the right to buy her pattern and sell whatever you make from that pattern. Pure and simple. Again, what's the matter, Joan? Don't like criticism? You pulled a posting of someone who didn't agree with your buddy, Cindy Lucento. We checked the numbers and only ONE posting was pulled in the last three days. My, my, my.