Sorry, but yes.
Ms. Cleo
mscleo2
Hardly. I’m the only one arguing substance with citations.
It has not yet been determined whether or not he abused her.
Accused of ad hominem.
We’ve already established that you can not.
And the rest are people who know all the facts, apparently.
Who cares if it’s his label if she doesn’t have to physically deal with him anymore? If she’s hung up on the fact that his name will there through some ownership documents in the label she’s in for a rough time..
I won’t be holding my breath; you wouldn’t recognize any if they fell in your lap, or appeared on your computer screen, as it were.
Based on your visceral ad hominems I’m going with irrational emotional investment. Seek help - we’re in an oligarchy; none of this really matters.
You mistake unassailable logic, legal and factual correctness for ego? You’re going to have a tough time in the real world kid.
Clearly there is a way to delegate control to someone else. Maybe he would see some profit from her, but she could not have to ever physically deal with him, business or otherwise. I don’t think she’s interested in that, though, so she’s going to have an uphill battle. Swift’s money won’t get her the whole way through…
Is this an act, are you trolling me, or are you really that emotionally invested in all this? A wise person once told me to take a shit and have some sex and call them in the morning.
Yes, hearings are crossroads and usually produce compromises.
Good day to you too sir, you stole fizzy lifting drinks.
Opinion doesn’t trump the constitution, which imposes no affirmative duties. Sorry.
I guess when I hear that Sony offered to work with another producer I took that to mean “not with Dr. Luke.”
A shrewd businessman and/or asshole does not a rapist make, sorry.
Sorry, but no.
Nah.