ngah

*****/\FIREWORKS/\**** *****/\FIREWORKS/\****

I agree, those are all things that are common sense (well, not to all, it seems), but I was talking about, perhaps, something concrete. A way to show support, in a natural way, without any reference to this whole thing... anyway, hope we can do something, in addition to obviously supporting them.

Hi. I'd like to ask if anyone has any ideas as to how we can help the girls get through all that has been happening. Obviously, our ability to actually sort things out FOR THEM is nonexistent, so, I guess the question is, how can we show our support. Perhaps a project of some sort? A nice gift? What do you think?

Amen, exactly my thought. How dare they, the supposed representatives of only 3 of the girls (up to this point they presented themselves as the representatives of their parents)(how well they are really representing their supposed clients is up for discussion) talk in the name of KARA? The demands they are making are not something 3 young girls would make, they can only be things their parents and lawyers could make. And if I'm correct in that, which I certainly believe I am, then why oh why are they making the girls the face of all this? How on EARTH can they be so irresponsible. The girls got enough hate when they weren't really being mentioned in the statements (certainly not to this extent), but now... I'm kind of divided between thinking whether they are just not interested in compromising, and thus making unreasonable demands, or they are just stupid enough to think that these demands are actually reasonable. "New managers"? Fine, if they are not doing their job properly (and only IF that is so), then they should be replaced (I don't condone DSP replacing them just for the sake of meeting these demands; there need to be concrete reasons for making someone jobless). "Paperwork, transparent accounting/finances": Well, naturally, if you receive a percentage of the earning, rather than a set income, then you need to know what the earning are. Perfectly reasonable. "Replacing some directors and the CEO": Are you kidding me? WHAT ON EARTH entitles YOU to make the decision on who sits on the board of directors, or who the CEO is? "Shortened contracts": I'm sorry, but at what point did signed contracts become negotiable? If two parties agree to alter the contract signed between them, they can, as long as the alteration is within legal bounds. But you are here blackmailing them into agreeing to alterations. Until blackmail is legalised, you can be thankful if your clients are not penalised for not fulfilling their duty. This is just too much; these are not the SME's former 13 year contracts, these contracts are clearly much shorter, so these demands are groundless. Lawyers/parents being able to help the girls when they are signing something: By all means, if anyone was stoppin the girls from seeking advice, then they were acting illegally. It's possible there was someof this, because companies are rarely happy to have too many outsiders involved, but happy or not, they have no say in it. One word from a lawyer ('preventing our client from seeking advice is illegal') would have been enough to scare any company into complying. All in all, largly disapointing and disgusting..

"Don't be rude" constitutes an insult? I'll stop there because I finally realize what I've been talking to. Someone who is adamant to disagree, even if there is no reason to.

Guys, don't be fooled by the way lawyers/parents are using the 3 girls as face of their campaign, and the way they are trying to portray these demands as the demands of the girls THEMSELVES. Do you REALLY think these 3 girls, one of whom is a minor, even think about these things? Do you really think the girls would have the heart to demand that the negotiations be done with a former CEO who is sick in hospital? If the parents are irresponsible enough to make of these girls a target for all criticism that would otherwise be directed at them, let's make sure we don't condemn the girls because of the parents' ignorance and the lawyers' incompetence. Let's support them because these are not the things that would come out of the mouth of three girls, these are the things that come out of the mouths of adults that seem to thing 'they know best', despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I wish the parents/lawyers would stop pretending like THEY are Kara, and acting in Kara's name. Even if this is coming directly from the three members (which I would have to be naive to believe), they have no right to represent themselves as KARA, because KARA has 5 members, NOT 3! It's the height of unacceptable! These are not the demands 3 girls, one of them a minor, would make, or even think about. Do you have absolutely no respect for the two members not involved, and absolutely no concern for the ramifications on the 3 members you do represent, if you make them the face of this campaign? Their demands, again, are unreasonable and in many cases show a total unwillingness to compromise (even though they often have no right to ask for what they are asking). "There

Why? I think it's mainly because of the money. They want more. The reason I think this is unreasonable is because DSP is already paying them more than most other companies do. If DSP is to pay them more for their Japanese activities, then the Japanese company needs to pay DSP more as well. To ask DSP to give up on their profits just because the amount they receive isn't so big (as a result of the amount DSP receiving from the Japanese company not being large), is, to me, unreasonable. I think the way they went about this is unacceptable. It's clear to me now, by looking at their latest statement (which is in line with what I already believed), that money and shortening the contract were their main objectives, and that everything else that was mentioned was just there to give the public the desired impression, and to slander DSP. Their actions show dishonesty, and are unacceptable. I make it sound as though they are lying? Well, in my own opinion, as well as that of many others (the public is almost entirely against them), but more importantly, from the evidence present, it is clear that they DID lie in their statements, and lied about their reasons for all this. The fact that they have moved from a 'no compromise with DSP' position, to a 'we'll come back if you meat these revised demands' position, also speaks volumes. I don't say that DSP is entirely faultless. The latest demands for them to make their accounting and finances more transparent is reasonable. HOWEVER, asking for a change on the board of directors, a shorter contract and and a new CEO, is ridiculous. How dare you ask for that, and on what grounds? Since when do either the artists or. worse, their parents and their lawyers, have the right to dictate how a company operates? And shorter contracts? They only have 3-4 years left! their contracts are perfectly in line with the length advised by the court/industry regulators. These are not the 13 year contracts that some SM artists complain about, because they last until they usually last until they are 30, and thus, near the end of their Idol career, these are much shorter contracts. So, to demand a shortening of a contract, without having a reason, is unacceptable, and groundless. Why would anyone make contracts if they can be violated and altered any way you like (they can be altered when the involved parties consent to it, but one party forcing another to consent does not constitute mutual agreement). I'd love to have my mortgage contract shortened, and the money payed off by others. If THEY can demand this of DSP, perhaps I can ask my bank do do this for ME?

EXACTLY! It seems to me that the parents/LANDMARK never actually intended to go to court, because there is just NO evidence to support their claims. I have a feeling they were just hoping the public would percive this as a KARA vs DSP situation, and that it would guarantee them public support. This would give them the leverage to extract just about anything from DSP. The public saw through it, thought, and it all backfired. Instead of revealing 'darks secrets' of DSP, it revealed their own wrongdoings. If DSP had the same approach to this that they have, they could sue them for defamation, unlawful contract termination etc. But, DSP has shown that they had a much more mature approach to this situation. They answered the other side's inflammatory statements with much more level-headed statements of their own. Signing without consent. Please, Jiyoung is a minor. Nothing she signs is legally binding. Why would DSP bother forcing someone to sign a contract that was, from the onset, non-binding? Either there was no contract, or her parents signed it. Regardless, neither possibility fits the parents' accusations....

Don't be rude. All I did was truthfully answer to the fullest of my ability. It's a mark of respect for the person being addressed, and the fact that you reply to it in this manner says much about you. "And if you do think that this discussion is too much for you, I'd advise you to either pm or seek some other helpful and supportive way of addressing your emotions because this is a forum with people with different ways of thinking and feeling, and attempting to "impose" your views, ultimately does not work and is actually counterproductive." I'll disregard the thinly veiled insults, and get to the point; Just because it is a forum does not entitle you to label remote or disproven possibilities as real possibilities, given that it has the potential of hurting others. I don't really believe that you weren't convinced, provided you read and understood what I wrote, I think you're just too stubborn to admit that your 'opinion' is a combination of the remotely and only theoretically possible, that could only be labeled as truly possible by someone with NO understanding of the cultural context or the sides involved. You may think that all opinions are equal, but the fact that you repeatedly blabber on about the same things, despite my showing of them to be clearly wrong, or highly impossible. It's just shows your childishness and inability to accept you are wrong. "Unless of course, personal and/or other relationship that you have with DSP prevents you from doing so, for you to be so "passionate" about this? And that is me, making an attribution" Aren't you living in a fairly land. YES, actually I'm DSP's chairman. I thought I should focus all my attention on this international fan site that is just SO influential on things going on in Korea. In fact, if I get enough of you to follow my line of thought, I can have both landmark and the parents in the palm of my hand, in no time! Do you honestly believe that? Why do I bother arguing with someone who obviously has NO ability to make a reasonable judgement... It's would be like me accusing you of being Nicole's mum, or something along those lines. Stupidity

You seem to think that labeling everyone responsible makes you neutral? It's a very strange way of thinking, and one that isn't at all neutral; It disregards the facts present, and seems to suggest that if you were in any way involved in this partnership, you are at fault for anything that goes wrong. "So, Kara's parents were in charge of their finances and did not report ever concerns to their daughters about the finances?" YES, they were in charge. As for reporting their concerns to their daughters, what on earth kind of language is this? Is that the kind of relationship you have with your parents? I assure you that in the rest of the world parents are very much the SENIOR partner in the parent-child relationship. Parents don't report to their children. They TALK to their children. And I think you are completely unaware of the cultural context. The parents here were not employees of their daughters, who were there to deal with THEIR DAUGHTER's finances, in the same way, and from the same subordinate position that an employee has with their employer. The parents in some other places might feel they are dealing with someone else's money (hence the need to report); THAT ISN'T THE CASE IN KOREA. You are a part of your family, and the parents feel a lot more entitled to do things on your behalf, than in some other places (including the one you come from). That point is extremely important. You are superimposing your reality onto people living in a different one, and making judgements and assumptions that are not justified. I assure you, it's a lot more logical to assume in this case that the parents didn't tell them about the financial disagreements, than that they did. HOWEVER, that by NO MEANS suggest that the girls are at fault even if they were told about the difficulties, because what I said was that all the information suggests that a number of the girls CERTAINLY, and the rest of the PROBABLY didn't know about their parents decision to start the lawsuit. "...the parents should then not be involved as their primarily role is of financial assistance". Um, wrong. Would your parents not be concerned about you being allegedly unfairly treated at work? Add to that the cultural context in which these girls live, and you are guaranteed parent involvement, and the child's passive acceptance of it. "Frankly, that relationship of parents taking care of finances or being involved one way or another in a child's business...well, history has shown that it is risky and dangerous situation (e.g. Junjin's Shinhwa). As an adult, there must have agreed to allow their parents to take care of their finances, right? If not, the parents' acts are illegal and unlawful..." Well, what history might or might not show is one thing, and how a society is structures is another. The latter is a concrete reality of things, while the former is a subject of history books. Which of them has more influence on the daily life? I'm sure you can see for yourself. NO, actually, unlike in societies where a family might fall apart because of financial disagreements, and where a child endeavours to keep their parents on the other side of the planet, thing in Korea are much different. The relationship of parents with children, in Korea, isn't a business relationship. Family is the basis of society, not the other way around. It's based on trust, care, love, not business contracts and legal permissions. For these girls, that come from a country where filial piety is the cornerstone of society and the at the very centre of what is moral, it was only natural for their parents to take care of their finances. It sort of goes without saying, especially in the entertainment industry. These girls live with their parents (or, THEY WOULD if they weren't in the dorm), they would have presented their first paycheck to their parents, or in this case, the parents would have immediately taken care of their finances (especially given their age at the start of their career. I can't even explain it fully, but your assumptions of needing permission (or that this permission ranters you responsible for the actions of the one you give it to), are based on an entirely different concept of permission, one that doesn't apply on a family level in Korea (especially not in cases like this)... "If not, the parents' acts are illegal and unlawful..." Again, a whole another world, functioning on whole another set of principles. You might perhaps think that the right thing for the parents to do was give a written permission to act as accountants, and to give monthly reports, but let me assure you, where we come from, that would qualify the family as requiring psychiatric help. "And my college football association is a clear example of your attribution of an individual's origins. It isn't only culture, individual's personalities play a role in our attribution and interactions with others, including with our parents. There needs to be a time when a child grows up and acts like an adult, regardless of cultural background. And of course the definition and expectation of an adult does vary across culture but in this situation, regardless of the cultural implication, I am with Shinhwa Minwoo on this." Look, this isn't a debate on psychological and social functionings of individuals and society. Your approach to what I said is unfair, because unlike you, I didn't approach this like an academic study in which every little detail and accepted social traits are out to be examined, and no more than mere 'theories'. If I did, we would be engaged in an endless debate, and that isn't what either of us wants. I was talking about cultural traits, as explanation for how people behave. You approach what I said as a scientific theory, one that treats the possibility that KARA members perfectly fit the theory, and don't fit it at all [which would include them being entirely 'unkorean', or for that matter psychopaths, or insane etc... (I THINK YOU MIGHT MISITERPRET THIS as accusing you of calling the girls 'psychopaths' or 'insane'. PLEASE DON'T, take this in the spirit it was given)]. These are NOT equal possibilities. These characteristics of Korean (and many other) family relationships are reflective of the norm in that(and many other) societies. Your comments that it might not be so (well of course, they might be international spies for all we know, but healthy logic and the probability of that being the case, makes us conclude that the probability of that is very low, so low that it's negligible. The possibility of KARA being composed of girls that reflect all other traits of respectfulness, working hard, etc. but somehow aren't at all filial in the way most Koreans are expected to be, is very low. So, it's only logical that when faced with whats 99% sure, and something that 1% possible, you pick that which is 99% sure. It's just normal, because otherwise we would create a living hell for ourselves. Imagine if, wanting to save your life, you are faced with two options of leaving a burning building. 1) a fire escape, and 2) jumping out the 5th floor window. If we employ normal thinking, 1) is the way to go. If we get into the scholastic nitpicking route, it lead to your inaction, because you are incapable do decide. So, no I'm not telling you to attack a particular party, all I'm saying is that you are picking the FAR less likely of the possibilities, and, under the cover of 'it's only my opinion', putting it out as an equal possibility. IT ISN'T an equal possibility. It not only isn't supported, but it's actually DISPROVED by everything from the facts of the situation (such as the parents being DIRECTLY involved with DSP, and not through KARA), and the context (cultural, and otherwise), which essentially makes it an almost non-possibility! Now, you're perfectly free to use that logic elsewhere, and, for example, say that clouds are made of cotton (I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just using it as an example). What supports that theory? They're white. What's against it? Scientific evidence, and just general knowledge. In other words, that theory is only a nominal possibility, but you're welcome to support it. HOWEVER, when your publicly talk of purely nominal possibility that might be harmful to someone, I'm sorry but, "It's my opinion" doesn't cut it, and nor does it give you the right to say it. It's irresponsible, and unacceptable. And SORRY, but I can't agree to disagree, because that would be acknowledging what you said is just as valid as what I said, but it isn't (I can decide to disregard it, but not label it as equally valid, just for the sake of peace). If someone put a marble under a cup, and asked us to pick whether it was red or blue, and let's say we said red, and blue, respectively. Now, given that there is nothing to suggest which it is, we would have to agree to disagree (for me to say that you are wrong, and vice versa, would be unreasonable). But, this isn't such a situation. Here I see that what you say is discredited by the facts present (in such a way that makes it either impossible or unlikely). I don't have the right, or the means, to make you think otherwise, but I certainly have the right and a responsibility, to point out that what you say is unsupported and most likely wrong, and thus, that it is wrong of you to say it. So, I can't acknowledge you opinion (IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE) as valid, but I shouldn't call it stupid (as I think I did before), either. So sorry for any possible insult, and please take it as directed at the opinion, and not yourself. And also, I think you sort of suggest that DSP probably did something wrong, but then go on to say that KARA is (partially) at fault for the parents starting the lawsuit. I don't quite get it. So, in essence, you see the 'escalation' as partially being their fault, right? I guss that's plausible, but once you take away KARA as being a supposed intermediary, and factor in all the facts that suggest that while DSP has made mistakes, the parents' main concern is money (which is what I see, due to the way the statements were structured, and the fact that this is only mentioned now), and more to the point, their financial demands are not entirely reasonable given both the nature of the industry (if anyone is to blame, then it isn't just DSP. Their problem seems to be with the reality of the industry as a whole, and yet, they are only attacking DSP, which is giving the girls comparatively more money), you get to where I stand. That the parents, influenced by various forces that make their actions not entirely their own, and that the lawsuit, despite DSP's certain shortcoming in some areas (which were, without a doubt, and in line with what every lawyer would do, presented carefully in order to fit their clients (and their own) needs in the LANDMARK statement, and thus cannot be taken as entirely truthful (which is supported by the inconsistencies within the statement), isn't justified, BUT that KARA isn't to blame, at all, that parents shouldn't be vilified, and that both parents and DSP should take grater care in the future, and, most importantly, need to sit down together, without the mediation of those who are biased, and in a spirit of compromise and reconciliation, find a proper solution. That's all. It's just one of a million different rumours, don't read too much into it. Apparently (according to allkpop), KARA and DSP will meet on the 25th (today)... Hopefully that's a sign of some progress, but they need to meet with the (involved) parents too, otherwise it won't be much use.

Again, you don't even look at the facts that have been repeated ten times, by both sides, before saying this. The parents didn't "go to DSP", they are IN DIRECT and CONSTANT CONTACT WITH DSP. THE PARENTS are the ones that deal with ALL financial matters. They are the ones that voiced their dissatisfaction with the amount the girls are getting, and they are the ones that lead all the discussions. My point was that all seems to point to possibility that the girls didn't know that the contracts would be terminated, as highly likely; not only in Gyuri and Hara's case, but in the case of other girls as well (the idea that one or two of them knew fully about the contract termination, or that they agreed with it, seems implausible, assuming you are not ready to label Gyuri as a liar, and the girls as a whole as a group where the members don't even care about each other enough to discuss something this serious). I NEVER said, or suggested, that the girls didn't know that the parents weren't entirely happy with the amount being received, but given that all idol parents will complain about this at some point, and that the girls have no access to the actual discussions between the parents and DSP, I find the idea that the girls should have reacted with a 'Oh my God, don't cancel my contract' and 'if you do, I'll leave the family' to one of their parents everyday remarks, ridiculous. AGAIN, THEY DIDN"T BRING THEIT PARENTS INTO THE MIX, the parents WERE THE ONES DEALING WITH THE CONTRACTS AND FINANCES. It's like talking to a brick wall (not trying to insult you, but people like you that are making these accusations really frustrate me!)! And what are you saying ANYWAY? Your whole talk about maturity and "knowing how to deal with their parents" (some attitude to parents; it give the impression you are talking about an unstable political entity that you must appease with diplomacy, and preempt their every move in order to prevent them doing something stupid. If you don't, then you're to blame.) comes down to what? Skipping over the fact I pointed out (that this wasn't a situation in which the news of what's happening between DSP and KARA travels to the parents through KARA. IT DOESN'T! The parents are in DIRECT contact with DSP management. More so than KARA, and independent of KARA. The PARENTS deal with all financial issues, and can voice all their concerns to DSP directly) in my previous reply to you (as well as this one), even if this was a situation in which KARA was the go-between, what do you accuse them of? If there were wrongdoings by DSP, and KARA told their parents about them, and their parents decided to try to cancel the contracts, what makes them culprits? Surely DSP is the culprit. Or are you suggesting that KARA is, for having their parents cancel their contracts? THAT ISN'T THE CASE ANYWAY! The parents weren't complained to by KARA, and then acted. They were in contact with DSP, they negotiated with DSP, and THAT is where the disagreements arose. Anyone can see that the non-financial concerns voiced in the LANDMARK statement are nothing more than 'embellishment', added in order to create the right impression. The shortcoming of the statement when it comes to evidence, and indeed it's inflammatory nature, point to this fact. I don't think that you have much understanding of the parent-child dynamic in Korea, and many other places. We don't immediately run to our parents, in fact, we avoid telling them our problems in order to shield them (just as they do for us). I'm sure that part of the reason that the girls didn't know, as seems highly likely, is that the parents wanted to protect them (and part of the reason, as in Hara's case, is that here parents obviously didn't feel at ease to tell her (they're not very close, at all)). 'Shielding' is what most people do for those they love, so I think that your theory (which is disproven by the parents' direct involvment with DSP, and control over finances) that the girls snitched on DSP, and the parents were enraged and went into action, is further disproven. I have never met a Korean that felt easy about disclosing their troubles to their parents, when it's obvious they would worry. In fact, I don't think there is a human being, that you can classify as normal and caring, that would immediately talk about their problems. It's because it'd hard to talk about those things, partially out of embarrassment, pride, love for the listener, wanting to maintain the relationship in it's present comforting form (when you have problems, forgetting about them and finding shelter among those that won't mention them, is very common. Telling those people takes away that shelter, because, unless they are very wise, they will naturally start focusing on the problem and trying to help you, which is good, and often helps, but when the problem is hard to solve, it just makes another person worried, without any point. They can't help..).. "Or a child having a problem with one professor in college who is giving too much work and is quite disorganized with the lecture and the parent going after the professor? Or even a child being selected for a major league football at college and the parents feel their child is overworked and does not trust the football team, although that team has had a remarkable season, would the parents go and sue the football team on behalf of their college-aged child? Does that even make sense?" NO, it doesn't make sense, but not for the reasons you think. Why do think student's parents wouldn't complain about the professor? I assure you, parents in Korea, and across the World, take GREAT interest in their child's educations, and will do anything, from talking to the professor, to starting petitions, and using connections, in order to fix the problem. The college football reference gives me a hint of where you're from, and let me assure you, the culture in Korea is much different. You become MORE of a member of the family upon reaching adulthood, not less. What you do IS the concern of all your family members, just as what they do is your concern. It's a very different environment from what you're used to. Such 'arrangement' can have it's negative sides, but there is much more positive about it too. Parents do act without consulting their children, they can transfer you to another school, sign a contract for you with another company, etc. Even though they do this out of love and concern, obviously, it has it's negative side effects. You keep emphasizing the "college-aged child", but I hope this shows you that the cultural context here is much different and that your idea of what a college-aged child's relationship with their parents is/should be, isn't the same in Korea. And about the football example you mention: it seems to suggest that this was only about being overworked. Not even the statement of the parents, though their lawyers, supports that! So, no, I doubt the parents would sue the team. They would perhaps talk to the coach, or get the child to quit, or, if neither worked, talk to the dean. This example obviously doesn't apply to the KARA situation, because different forces are at play there.

Ad on what grounds do you make that judgement. Why are they not "innocent little girls" that bear no guilt for this? Do you recognize the fact that it is the parents that are the ones that deal with DSP when it comes to money. That the Gyuri (and Hara, too) clearly stated she had no idea why this happened; That one of them is a minor, and that unlike what you might do, these girls have don't find saying 'back off' to their parents and easy thing to do. Why are you even a fan (assuming you are, otherwise why are you here), if without any evidence condemning the girls, you turn on them. I, by no means, suggest that the blind 'loyalty' of some fans that blame others for their idols faults, is the right thing to do, But blaming the idol, when there is no reason to believe they are to blame, and, especially if you are their fan, is just ridiculous. You seem to selected bits of opinions coming from all sides, and put them together into something that non only has no backing, but is also self contradicting. PLENTY of parents make decisions such as these without consulting their children. That's even more so when the children are so busy that you hardly see them, and when you don't fully appreciate the the consequences. All seems to suggest that the parents, quite possibly very convinced by their lawyers' assurances, expected to quickly win the media war, and have their pick at what they want the outcome to be. That wasn't the case, as we see. Um, yes, I'm sure all the girls "knew their parents", but what are you trying to say? You say the girls were tired (not that this was, at all, the cause for this situation)? Well, obviously, all idols are, but what is your point? Are you trying to say that the girls were tired, so their parents saw it, and the lawsuit happened, and therefore, the girls are to blame for making their tiredness known (in other words, they are guilty because they might at some point mentioned to their parents that they were tired (or, looked tired)?)? IS THIS A JOKE? And do you notice the contradiction? You seem to say that tiredness is a justified cause for this, but that the girls should have made sure that their parents didn't notice it (or start a lawsuit because of it)... In other words, you are essentially saying that the lawsuit IS justified, but you are against it (not due to any moral reasons, but, presumably because you like the group and want them to remain), and blame the girls for it? Contradicting, unfair, unreasonable, illogical... I don't even know what to call this. This is all ignoring the fact that THE LAWSUIT DIDN'T START BECAUSE OF TIREDNESS! And who says that the girls either had some thing to "convey to DSP", or, for that matter, if they had, they didn't convey? No one, and nothing says or suggests that. It's without a doubt that there were points of disagreement between all parties, but it is almost certain at this point that the timing of the Landmark's first statement, it's contents, and it's inflammatory nature, point very strongly to money being the main issue, and it being an issue between those that deal with it (i.e. DSP and the parents). If t-shirts were the issue, this would have happened long ago. Not suggesting that DSP was correct in that case, OR that they were without fault, but it's pretty clear that the parents (seemingly, under Nicole's mother's leadership, Landmark's expertise, and, maybe even, a rival company incentive), felt certain they would win (whatever that meant for them; perhaps just scaring DSP into accepting their demands, or cutting ties with them), and went a little premature into all this.. "I am gonna say something that may not please some but it strangely reminds me of what happened in 2007 with Sunghee...A parent got involved months after their debut in Korea...now, months after their debut in Japan, parents again are involved...It must mean that a lesson was not learned from the last time..." Okay, apart from a member/members potentially leaving the company, I see no similarity. I think she wanted to 'study more'. KARA, in 2007, was a group virtually a step away from disbandment (most other companies WOULD have disbanded them); KARA in 2010 is one of the most powerful groups in the industry. And as for the timing, I don't quite see what you mean. I hardly see the relevance. And as for 'learning a lesson': what lesson would that be?

Take responsibility for what? What have you been reading? At this point DSP hardly seems the worse of the two sides. WHO CARES? Well, anyone concerned with this situation. It, in addition to many other things, indicates that Nicole's mother, who appears to be the initiator of all this, in addition to having the lawyers fill her mind with ideas, might have been influenced by other outside forces as well (such as a rival company).. Having a contact with a rival company isn't a problem in itself, but if that contact, in addition to the flimsiness of the allegations, is put together, it easily gives the impression that this might not have started out of concern for the girls, but rather, was manufactured in order to transfer to another company (come to our company, and we'll give you more money). Putting aside loyalty, and moral concerns (just for the sake of this sentence, because those things can never be disregarded), there is still a contract tying KARA and DSP. If the parents(Nicole's mother in particular, because if this is the case, I feel she would be the one responsible for it) made all this accusations (or at least, exaggerated them) only to get out of the contract, than that is illegal, and certainly not something you can say "who cares" about...