[RUEZ]

Sure Rogers violated her privacy, let's give her a dollar for her troubles. Her infidelity is the sole cause of her marriages breakdown and any problems that followed. She has a history of not taking responsibility for her problems.

[Heavy_Metal]

now i wonder if he said to put all bills for that address on one bill, in that case is Rogers really in the wrong? I mean she definately made another mistake when she put the bill in her home address.

[Lemmy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Her infidelity is the sole cause of her marriages breakdown and any problems that followed. She has a history of not taking responsibility for her problems.

How can you possibly know that? Maybe her husband is an alcoholic or a wife-beater or a philanderer of his own. Maybe he's cold. Maybe he's inattentive to his wife's needs. There are HUNDREDS of possible reasons for the marriage break-down that may not be her fault. And what do you know of her history? You aren't the husband, are you?

[Brenda]

Heavy_Metal Heavy_Metal:

now i wonder if he said to put all bills for that address on one bill, in that case is Rogers really in the wrong? I mean she definately made another mistake when she put the bill in her home address.

Yes, Rogers is in the wrong. Say you have a roommate, and that roommate wants all the bills in one name, YOURS. Are you going to pay for that? I think not.

Like I said before, I am solely responsible for all the bills in my name. No matter how many people live on this address, with how many different or the same names.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

If she doesn't get the money via the courts (which she in NO WAY deserves **you whore**), then she might sleep with enough Rogers employees and get many small payments, for her servics as village bicycle.

But either way, she's still a lying, two-timing whore.

-J.

[Dayseed]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The woman is wrong here. She's legally married to her husband and Canada has community property laws so the husband was within his rights to ask for a combined bill and Rogers was right to provide it. She was wrong for sneaking around and it's a good thing she got caught before she contracted an STD and passed it along to her husband.

Anecdotally, I know a guy who wanted to upgrade his wife's cellphone for her birthday to a Blackberry, but because she was the account holder, not him, Rogers told him to piss off.

Given most companies insistence you sign separate Privacy Act agreements/acknowledgements/waivers, I can't imagine Rogers bombing out private information willy-nilly.

[RUEZ]

Lemmy Lemmy:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Her infidelity is the sole cause of her marriages breakdown and any problems that followed. She has a history of not taking responsibility for her problems.

How can you possibly know that? Maybe her husband is an alcoholic or a wife-beater or a philanderer of his own. Maybe he's cold. Maybe he's inattentive to his wife's needs. There are HUNDREDS of possible reasons for the marriage break-down that may not be her fault. And what do you know of her history? You aren't the husband, are you?

Did you read the article? In the context of this story her marriage was intact until her infidelity was uncovered. Now considering she became depressed and unable to function when the husband left I'm guessing she kind of misses him. Rogers is not responsible for her marriage breakdown. She is, and her husband possibly is, however we only have evidence of her wrongdoing.

[Public_Domain]

[snuggles61]

I thought for the longest time that in Canada you can't sue for punitive damages,only in the USA. 600,000$? Is this lost wages?(I can't see it).Pain and suffering?(If it is,I still don't see Rogers being held accountable).Face it bitch,you got caught screwing around,suck it up and move on.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

The device has yet to be invented that can measure how little sympathy I have for her.

[Lemmy]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Did you read the article

Yes, I read the article. I also watched the interview with the woman on CTV News and the interview with Clayton Ruby on her story. Did you?

RUEZ RUEZ:

In the context of this story her marriage was intact until her infidelity was uncovered. Now considering she became depressed and unable to function when the husband left I'm guessing she kind of misses him. Rogers is not responsible for her marriage breakdown. She is, and her husband possibly is, however we only have evidence of her wrongdoing.

So, you don't know the whole story then, correct?

[Heavy_Metal]

heard her getting interviewed on the radio a few days ago....she doesn't sound like the sharpest pencil in bunch, sounds like some lawyer threw a bunch of words and numbers in her direction and hook line and sinker goes into her gullet.

also....this happened like 3 years ago, and she is just taking legal action now? something smells fishey

[Bacardi4206]

This is nothing but a attempt to get money, I am sure she is depressed by the incident. I mean, having a job that pays 100 grand which she will need being she will no longer has two paychecks and infact has 2 kids to feed as well. She let that slip down the drain over emotions of the incident. No doubt shes broken over it. However her being depressed and broken over the incident is about the fact she probally cared form him regardless of her sneaking around behind his back but also feeling guilty about it. None of which is rogers fault, I'm sure it's nice to pin the blame on other people but the fact of the matter is. If she wasn't a cheating whore in the first place, none of this would have even happened.

[RUEZ]

Lemmy Lemmy:

So, you don't know the whole story then, correct?

I know the story as it has been described by this article. She didn't want her marriage to end, she cheated and got caught. She's responsible for her marriage ending.

[Lemmy]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

If she wasn't a cheating whore in the first place, none of this would have even happened.

"This"? What "this" is is Rogers giving out personal information. The belief that she's a "whore" (which she isn't) has nothing to do with it. So when you say "none of this would have even happened" you're wrong. Do you think that this woman is the only person whose information has been carelessly mishandled by Rogers? It would have happened and certainly did to more customers than her. Are you a Rogers' customer? If so, you're likely a victim too.

The circumstances by which Rogers' lack of privacy with customer information was discovered don't matter. If it hadn't been her, it might have been you.

Now, do I think she should get $600,000? No. But I think Rogers should have to pay SOMEONE (gov't?) $600,000. Punitive damages. Teach them a lesson that encourages them to be more careful with customer privacy.