Your client continues to post off topic and in violation of this charter only to defame, harass and denigrate me and my companies. Please take action. Thanks
> Clearly something is off-base regarding claiming Usenet posts.
> Usenet is a discussion forum, and you can expect things to go wherever > from there, and one essentially waives claim to copyright original > material he or she writes on Usenet simply by the act of posting.
> Other copyrighted material from sources not of the poster's writing, > such as excerpts from news stories, books, etc., can be noted as > copyrighted and where possible an attribution to the original source > should be made, but all else is public domain. I've never heard of a > suit over a routine Usenet post, and most judges would throw it out > before it even got in front of a jury.
> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
> >> Usenet is a discussion forum, and you can expect things to go wherever > >> from there, and one essentially waives claim to copyright original > >> material he or she writes on Usenet simply by the act of posting.
> >> Other copyrighted material from sources not of the poster's writing, > >> such as excerpts from news stories, books, etc., can be noted as > >> copyrighted and where possible an attribution to the original source > >> should be made, but all else is public domain. I've never heard of a > >> suit over a routine Usenet post, and most judges would throw it out > >> before it even got in front of a jury.
> >> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
> Gee, and he's so certain that he is right and everyone else is > wrong about his DMCA complaint you'd think he'd want to make real sure > everyone had the right address.
>> > The links do not work properly unless you manually put them in, >> > deja.com still works but it will redirect you to the same post in >> > Google Groups anyway.
>> > I also believe the 'accreditations' at the end of his posts are also >> > fake. Anyone know aboutt those, including the 'SAN' number?
> You don't even know what it is for.
>> Mr. Sillyman is sending DMCA notices to all and sundry because he is >> claiming copyright on his Usenet postings. Including other peoples >> replies >> to his postings.
> No, please show me where I was claiming copyright on OTHER peoples > posted material. Why do you frauds have to lie every four words or so?
-- Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov became depressed after his prophesy about the world ending in May 2008, that he tried to commit suicide by hitting himself on the head with a log.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > Werewolfy wrote: >> On 24 Oct, 06:44, James W Anderson <jand...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Clearly something is off-base regarding claiming Usenet posts.
>>> Usenet is a discussion forum, and you can expect things to go wherever >>> from there, and one essentially waives claim to copyright original >>> material he or she writes on Usenet simply by the act of posting.
>>> Other copyrighted material from sources not of the poster's writing, >>> such as excerpts from news stories, books, etc., can be noted as >>> copyrighted and where possible an attribution to the original source >>> should be made, but all else is public domain. I've never heard of a >>> suit over a routine Usenet post, and most judges would throw it out >>> before it even got in front of a jury.
>>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing. >> Good old Ed He sent this to me today; Whay a lovely Astrologer he is. >> Oh my, such pretty oredictions. how very frightening. >> Fucking lunatic..should be in an asylum.
> You are a liar, I hardly answer emails sent to me by people I accept > emails from (clients, inquiries, friends etc.)
Well, no wonder your career is in the shitter, dummy.
Extend that to not answering real mail that you are legally bound to accept, and then refusing to accept, puts you in violation of Federal law re: your recent fraudulent DMCA notice issuances.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > Chris wrote: >> "James W Anderson" <jand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:d6b8b2d2-c3ef-42d1-9916-a93fc80cdee6@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >>> This discussion was found in alt.astrology, and comes up presently >>> when one searches generically for NANAE in Google Groups.
>>> The links do not work properly unless you manually put them in, >>> deja.com still works but it will redirect you to the same post in >>> Google Groups anyway.
>>> I also believe the 'accreditations' at the end of his posts are also >>> fake. Anyone know aboutt those, including the 'SAN' number?
> You don't even know what it is for.
Apparently, neither do you, or you wouldn't be slapping it on your inane Usenet postings.
>> Mr. Sillyman is sending DMCA notices to all and sundry because he is >> claiming copyright on his Usenet postings. Including other peoples replies >> to his postings.
> No, please show me where I was claiming copyright on OTHER peoples > posted material.
I'd point you back to your fraudulent DMCA claim to http://smbtech.com/ed, in which you claimed that page was copyrighted material owned by you. In fact, that page ONLY contains material written by other people, you incredibly stupid pinhead.
>Why do you frauds have to lie every four words or so?
Do you have any idea how jarring your complete ignorance of your projection is?
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: >> Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote: >>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.use...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> news:hc1dpb$5ig$1@posting2.glorb.com:
>>>> Chris wrote: >>>>>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
>>>>> It appears that Mr. Willyman has difficulties remembering where he >>>>> lives, let alone which planet he is on. >>>>> http://www.smbtech.com/ed/Failed_PO_Box.html >>>> Gee, and he's so certain that he is right and everyone else is >>>> wrong about his DMCA complaint you'd think he'd want to make real sure >>>> everyone had the right address. >>> Watch Pantyhead blame it on the spinics at the US Post Office.
>> I wonder if Ed realizes that "spinic" is not a word?
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >>>> I saw no copy right symbols on that page at all, how about you drop >>>> the petty insults and be specific? >>> For being so ignorant, you sure are condescending. >> You certainly are obnoxious for someone who is wrong most of the time.
> Name one time I was wrong.
You just sent a fucked-up DMCA notice that failed to specify what was violating your questionable "copyrights", and failed to provide a valid return address, you moron.
> On Oct 20, 6:22 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>>> Now *this* is a URL you can respect: >> Articles and educaSLAP!
> Remember the definition of insanity as > doing the same thing over and over again > and expecting a different result?
> Well, guess what, Edmo. By those standards, > you should be off drooling in a padded > cell since reposting a series of links > most people won't even bother to click > on, much less *read*, is exactly that.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > James W Anderson wrote: >> Clearly something is off-base regarding claiming Usenet posts.
>> Usenet is a discussion forum, and you can expect things to go wherever >> from there, and one essentially waives claim to copyright original >> material he or she writes on Usenet simply by the act of posting.
>> Other copyrighted material from sources not of the poster's writing, >> such as excerpts from news stories, books, etc., can be noted as >> copyrighted and where possible an attribution to the original source >> should be made, but all else is public domain. I've never heard of a >> suit over a routine Usenet post, and most judges would throw it out >> before it even got in front of a jury.
>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
> You guys should
laugh at your retarded attempts to make hay of this situation.
and Pantyhead is powerless to stop it. Sucks to be you!!!1!!!
-- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895. "The dump is a good place too." -Edmond Wollmann, keeping his options open for a future place for storing his unsold books.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >>>> I saw no copy right symbols on that page at all, how about you drop >>>> the petty insults and be specific? >>> For being so ignorant, you sure are condescending. >> You certainly are obnoxious for someone who is wrong most of the time.
> Name one time I was wrong.
When you referred to me as "Geoff," when you claimed copy right infringement on the smb page. That's only two from memory, I feel certain someone could find more by delving into what you've posted.
-- .
Well, it was important enough for several folks to comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: >> Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote: >>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.use...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> news:hc1dpb$5ig$1@posting2.glorb.com:
>>>> Chris wrote: >>>>>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
>>>>> It appears that Mr. Willyman has difficulties remembering where he >>>>> lives, let alone which planet he is on. >>>>> http://www.smbtech.com/ed/Failed_PO_Box.html >>>> Gee, and he's so certain that he is right and everyone else is >>>> wrong about his DMCA complaint you'd think he'd want to make real sure >>>> everyone had the right address. >>> Watch Pantyhead blame it on the spinics at the US Post Office.
>> I wonder if Ed realizes that "spinic" is not a word?
The fact that *you* made the word up is mostly what drives my opinion that it is not a real word. That and the fact that only you use it and it is in no dictionary that I consulted.
-- .
Well, it was important enough for several folks to comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
>>>> Usenet is a discussion forum, and you can expect things to go wherever >>>> from there, and one essentially waives claim to copyright original >>>> material he or she writes on Usenet simply by the act of posting.
>>>> Other copyrighted material from sources not of the poster's writing, >>>> such as excerpts from news stories, books, etc., can be noted as >>>> copyrighted and where possible an attribution to the original source >>>> should be made, but all else is public domain. I've never heard of a >>>> suit over a routine Usenet post, and most judges would throw it out >>>> before it even got in front of a jury.
>>>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
>> Gee, and he's so certain that he is right and everyone else is >> wrong about his DMCA complaint you'd think he'd want to make real sure >> everyone had the right address.
> Why don't you spam my email again sonny?
I've never sent any spam. I have nothing to send that is either bulk or commercial.
-- .
Well, it was important enough for several folks to comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > James W Anderson wrote: >> Clearly something is off-base regarding claiming Usenet posts.
>> Usenet is a discussion forum, and you can expect things to go wherever >> from there, and one essentially waives claim to copyright original >> material he or she writes on Usenet simply by the act of posting.
>> Other copyrighted material from sources not of the poster's writing, >> such as excerpts from news stories, books, etc., can be noted as >> copyrighted and where possible an attribution to the original source >> should be made, but all else is public domain. I've never heard of a >> suit over a routine Usenet post, and most judges would throw it out >> before it even got in front of a jury.
>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
That's a Google search. Why don't you post a specific link that you feel backs up your opinion.
-- .
Well, it was important enough for several folks to comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
> >>>> Chris wrote: > >>>>>> And maybe even sanction the plaintiff for even filing the thing.
> >>>>> It appears that Mr. Willyman has difficulties remembering where he > >>>>> lives, let alone which planet he is on. > >>>>>http://www.smbtech.com/ed/Failed_PO_Box.html > >>>> Gee, and he's so certain that he is right and everyone else is > >>>> wrong about his DMCA complaint you'd think he'd want to make real sure > >>>> everyone had the right address. > >>> Watch Pantyhead blame it on the spinics at the US Post Office.
> >> I wonder if Ed realizes that "spinic" is not a word?
> The fact that *you* made the word up is mostly what drives my > opinion that it is not a real word. That and the fact that only you use > it and it is in no dictionary that I consulted.
> Plonkite wrote: >> On Oct 25, 2:45 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >> wrote:
>>> You guys should learn to open your mouth only when I can't make a >>> fool out of you, which would be always.
>> You always can't make a fool out of them?
> That is correct:, Ed can NEVER make a fool of anyone else, as he > himself admits there. He's usually being incoherent and making himself > the fool!
That's only if "usually" is defined as 99.9999999999% of the time. You never have to worry about Old Pantyhead outsmarting anyone.
-- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895. "I wrote a REFERENCED researched book, that names everyone who's ideas are integrated within it. Soon my warchest will be large ebough to to sue the fuck out of you for your lible and defamation, and when that days comes you can be sure I will publish IT everywhere as well." - Edmo
>>>> You guys should learn to open your mouth only when I can't make a >>>> fool out of you, which would be always.
>>> You always can't make a fool out of them?
>> That is correct:, Ed can NEVER make a fool of anyone else, as he >> himself admits there. He's usually being incoherent and making himself >> the fool!
>That's only if "usually" is defined as 99.9999999999% of the time. You >never have to worry about Old Pantyhead outsmarting anyone.
Maybe 3% of the time he can outsmart himself. Dunno if you want to consider him "anyone".
>> On Oct 25, 2:45 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >> wrote:
>> > You guys should learn to open your mouth only when I can't make a >> > fool out of you, which would be always.
>> You always can't make a fool out of them?
> They should learn to always only open their mouths when I can't make a > fool of them.
You've made a fool of nobody except yourself, Pantyhead. Oh wait, you made PEAT Staplehead, Jeffcoat and Kettler look pretty stupid too.
> But they never do. So I always do. Just like now. > I know, it's ok children, I can remember when I had my first beer.
Incoherence noted.
-- Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895. "Don't preach to a master psychologist about projection, simpleton." - Ed "I have no degrees" Wollmann on another flight of fancy.
>> On Oct 25, 2:45 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >> wrote:
>> > You guys should learn to open your mouth only when I can't make a fool >> > out of you, which would be always.
>> You always can't make a fool out of them?
>They should learn to always only open their mouths when I can't make a >fool of them. But they never do. So I always do. Just like now. >I know, it's ok children, I can remember when I had my first beer.
> >> On Oct 25, 2:45 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > >> wrote:
> >> > You guys should learn to open your mouth only when I can't make a fool > >> > out of you, which would be always.
> >> You always can't make a fool out of them?
> >They should learn to always only open their mouths when I can't make a > >fool of them. But they never do. So I always do. Just like now. > >I know, it's ok children, I can remember when I had my first beer.
Wollmann-Astrologer <alchame...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 12, 8:22 am, Gary L. Burnore <gburn...@databasix.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:42:27 -0800, "Edmond H. Wollmann"
>> >> On Oct 25, 2:45 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >> >> wrote:
>> >> > You guys should learn to open your mouth only when I can't make a fool >> >> > out of you, which would be always.
>> >> You always can't make a fool out of them?
>> >They should learn to always only open their mouths when I can't make a >> >fool of them. But they never do. So I always do. Just like now. >> >I know, it's ok children, I can remember when I had my first beer.
|
