> > >> On Sep 23, 3:17 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:32:06 +0100, in alt.astrology, "A B" <a@a> > > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> " It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to advertise by sig= > n, > > >>>> circular, handbill or in any newspaper, periodical or magazine, or o= > ther > > >>>> publication or publications, or by any other means, to tell fortunes= > , to > > >>>> find or restore lost or stolen property, to locate oil wells, gold o= > r si
> > >> lver
> > >>>> or other ore or metal or natural product, to restore lost love or fr= > iend
> > >> ship
> > >>>> or affection, to unite or procure lovers, husbands, wives, lost rela= > tive
> > >> s or
> > >>>> friends, for or without pay, by means of occult or psychic powers, > > >>>> facilities or forces, clairvoyance, psychology, psychometry, spirits= > , > > >>>> mediumship, seership, prophecy, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, or= > oth
> > >> er
> > >>>> craft, science, talismans, charms, potions, magnetism or magnetized = > arti
> > >> cles
> > >>>> or substances, Oriental mysteries or magic of any kind or nature, or > > >>>> numerology, or to engage in or carry on any business the advertiseme= > nt o
> > >> f
> > >>>> which is prohibited in this Section and Subsections."
> > >>>> Blimey, what a load of legal blether.
> > >>> That's the current California law which is enforce only as a last > > >>> resort.
> > >>>> I noticed a funny thing: > > >>>> "It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to advertise... to l= > ocat
> > >> e
> > >>>> oil wells, gold or silver or other ore or metal or natural product..= > . by > > >>>> means of... [any] other craft or science... or to engage in or carry= > on
> > >> any
> > >>>> business the advertisement of which is prohibited in this Section an= > d > > >>>> Subsections." > > >>>> This seems to prohibit locating any kind of mineral by any means at = > all,
> > >> =A0at
> > >>>> least in the San Diego area. =A0Does anyone know how they'd get out = > of t
> > >> hat
> > >>>> one?
> > >>> It actually stopped any sort of "locating" which refers to dousing, > > >>> or magical means of location except for going out and looking.
> > >>> There is a court case in the Highest California State court which > > >>> found that Astrology, when and only when, practiced as a organized > > >>> religious rite to be allowed under the US 1st Amendment to the > > >>> Constitution. It did not set aside or declare the law or ordinance > > >>> unconstitutional, as Edmond and other Astrologers would have you > > >>> think.
> > >>> -- > > >>> Ak'toh'di
> > >> Bullshit, I have a business license from San Diego to do astrology and > > >> have had one for years. When I first moved here in 1984 I tried to > > >> advertise in the Tribune and they said they "didn't do those kinds of > > >> ads" fortunately I knew someone (a client of mine in astrology) who > > >> was a bigwig at the paper and he made them change it and I was the > > >> first astrologer to advertise in the San Diego Union Tribune. No one > > >> has EVER said a thing about any such idiotic laws and certainly no one > > >> has ever enforced them, they would be laughed at.
> > > That's a constitution fighting, pro-illegal and pro-homosexual > > > rag if there ever was one. =A0Who did you blow to get that done?
> > Astrology. Ha. That is funny. Is that not the ridiculous practice of > > telling the future by when one was born ?
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
Registrant: dynamicnetworkservices.net, Secret Registration Customer ID 167 dynamicnetworkservices....@secretregistration.com Secret Registration c/o dynamicnetworkservices.net 816 Elm Street Box 606 Manchester, NH 03101 US
Domain name: DYNAMICNETWORKSERVICES.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: dynamicnetworkservices.net, Secret Registration Customer ID 167 dynamicnetworkservices....@secretregistration.com Secret Registration c/o dynamicnetworkservices.net 816 Elm Street Box 606 Manchester, NH 03101 US +1.6037124016
Registration Service Provider: (DynDNS) Dynamic Network Services, Inc. supp...@dyndns.com Login to your account at http://www.dyndns.com/+domains/ to manage nameservers and contacts for your domain name.
Record last updated on 14-Apr-2009 20:00:02 UTC. Record expires on 05-Mar-2010. Record created on 05-Mar-2007.
Domain servers in listed order: NS2.DYNAMICNETWORKSERVICES.NET NS1.DYNAMICNETWORKSERVICES.NET NS3.DYNAMICNETWORKSERVICES.NET NS4.DYNAMICNETWORKSERVICES.NET
Current Registrar: DYNAMIC NETWORK SERVICES, INC IP Address: 1.1.1.1 (ARIN & RIPE IP search) IP Location: -(-) Record Type: Domain Name Server Type: Indeterminate Lock Status: clientTransferProhibited DMOZ no listings Y! Directory: see listings Secure: No Ecommerce: No Traffic Ranking: Not available Data as of: 22-Apr-2008
> In article <cd6190d3-ee92-468f-ac31-6ede0acf0...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> > The True Edmond Wollmann <EHWollm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 12:49=A0pm, "A B" <a@a> wrote: > > > "The True Edmond Wollmann" <EHWollm...@aol.com> wrote on 2nd October: > > > On Oct 1, 11:10 am, "A B" <a@a> wrote:
> > > >> Silveen's link should be:http://www.lovestarz.com/coleman.html > > > >> Bob Officer (and anyone else interested) would do well to have a look = > > at > > > >> it. > > > >> It has a good summary of the laws about astrology and how they develop= > > ed. > > > >> A. B. > > > > Don't confuse the spinics with the facts.
> > > Do you mean the website isn't fact, or Bob Officer has no facts?
> > > A. B.
> > I thought you killfiled the idiots, looks like you missed Bob and > > Cujo.
> 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
What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you are violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
and Edmo is having a hissy fit. Please laugh at The Pantyhead.
-- 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. "And again, anyone who believes they have THE answers, is suffering from delusions of granduer, a liar, a fool, and lacking in mature perspectives." - Edmo in self-diagnosis mode.
> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... > > 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 > What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you are > violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > Not Given wrote: >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... >>> 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
>> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you are >> violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
> Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his writing without his permission.
That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/ed are copies of public discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
> Edmond Wollmann wrote: > > Not Given wrote: > >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >> news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... > >>> 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
> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you are > >> violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his writing > without his permission.
> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous > threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/e are copies of public > discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet > braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >> > Not Given wrote: >> >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> >> news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... >> >>> 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
>> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you >> >> are violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
>> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
>> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his >> writing without his permission.
>> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these >> ludicrous threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/e are copies of >> public discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent >> Usenet braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you >> think they are.
> You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. > Comprende you hiding coward?
-- 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. "Ad hominem, when it comes to psychology I am a genius. This can be seen by the wriggling all spinics such as you do--and snipping of logical definitions that trap you instead of you logically answering them." - Edmond 'taking his ego for a ride' Wollmann
> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: > >> > Not Given wrote: > >> >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >> >>news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... > >> >>> 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
> >> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you > >> >> are violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
> >> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
> >> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his > >> writing without his permission.
> >> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these > >> ludicrous threats. What's onhttp://www.smbtech.com/eare copies of > >> public discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent > >> Usenet braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you > >> think they are.
> > You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > > material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > > they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. > > Comprende you hiding coward?
> Dream on, kook.
Are you answering officially for Hurricane electric?
> On Oct 7, 10:08 am, Cujo DeSockpuppet <c...@petitmorte.net> wrote: >> Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote >> innews:4ACCC5EB.22FB@e > arthlink.net:
>> > DMCA Handler wrote:
>> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >> >> > Not Given wrote: >> >> >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... >> >> >>> 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
>> >> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you >> >> >> are violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
>> >> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
>> >> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his >> >> writing without his permission.
>> >> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these >> >> ludicrous threats. What's onhttp://www.smbtech.com/eare copies of >> >> public discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent >> >> Usenet braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you >> >> think they are.
>> > You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my >> > copyrighted material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena >> > the admins and they can tell a judge why they think they are above >> > Copyright laws. Comprende you hiding coward?
>> Dream on, kook.
> Are you answering officially for Hurricane electric?
What if I am, dipshit? You'll never do anything about it.
-- 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. "And I have already debunked the idea that I wear underware on any part of my body." - Ed making lingerie stock plummet.
>> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous >> threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/ed are copies of public >> discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet >> braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
> You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. > Comprende you hiding coward?
So, exactly where is your copy righted material on that page? The only thing I saw there was Usenet posts and quotes like "Mr. Wollmann’s account at AzNET was cancelled due to multiple, seemingly endless complaints about his abusive behavior in Usenet."- Jack Bailey, Aznet that could not possibly be copy righted by you.
-- .
All people have the right to stupidity but some abuse the privilege. - Steve Linford
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:46:35 -0700, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote: > DMCA Handler wrote:
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >> > Not Given wrote: >> >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> >> news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... >> >>> 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
>> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you are >> >> violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
>> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
>> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his writing >> without his permission.
>> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous >> threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/e are copies of public >> discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet >> braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
> You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. > Comprende you hiding coward?
Can you comprehend not having updated any more of your delusional site in the last 53 months? (Your last update was 2005 May 6th.)
-- Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, Texas www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: Houston 4, Manitoba 2 (October 3) NEXT GAME: Friday, October 9 vs. Texas, 7:35
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:46:35 -0700, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann > <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>DMCA Handler wrote:
>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >>> > Not Given wrote: >>> >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> >> news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... >>> >>> 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
>>> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you >>> >> are violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
>>> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
>>> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his >>> writing without his permission.
>>> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these >>> ludicrous threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/e are copies of >>> public discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent >>> Usenet braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you >>> think they are.
>>You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted >>material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and >>they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws.
> You made a public point of making sure your "work" is archived.
OOPS! I predict PAntyhead won't answer.
> You can not pick and choose which sites archive your work.
Nor can Edmo do anything about "Fair Use", it rilly, rilly, rilly sucks to be Edmo.
>>Comprende you hiding coward?
> Got Logic?
It appears Edmo, the World's Greatest Astrologer and the self-proclaimed "richest, most successful man on the planet" lives in a shithole in La Mesa and works picking up litter around the place when he's not dodging process servers and lying about working there! That's great KookLogik (tm).
ALL HAIL CHERYL!!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. "I've been called an asshole in about every language now!!!" - Roberta "Mop Jockey" Wolfe in a rare moment of honesty.
> >> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous > >> threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/ed are copies of public > >> discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet > >> braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
> > You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > > material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > > they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. > > Comprende you hiding coward?
> So, exactly where is your copy righted material on that page?
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:46:35 -0700, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann > <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >DMCA Handler wrote:
> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: > >> > Not Given wrote: > >> >> "Edmond Wollmann" <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:4ACB7BA1.55D9@earthlink.net... > >> >>> 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
> >> >> What law are you referring to? If you want to be technical, you are > >> >> violating fraud laws Mr. Fortune Teller.
> >> > Oh yeah? WHAT laws Mr Smartass??
> >> Copyright law, according to your logic. You just replicated his writing > >> without his permission.
> >> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous > >> threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/e are copies of public > >> discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet > >> braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
> >You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > >material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > >they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws.
> You made a public point of making sure your "work" is archived.
> You can not pick and choose which sites archive your work.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >>> DMCA Handler wrote: >>>> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous >>>> threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/ed are copies of public >>>> discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet >>>> braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
>>>> http://www.smbtech.com/ed >>> You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted >>> material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and >>> they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. >>> Comprende you hiding coward? >> So, exactly where is your copy righted material on that page?
> Ah gee, let's see Mr Genius, the parts with a copyright symbol on them? > And anything else I wrote.
I saw no copy right symbols on that page at all, how about you drop the petty insults and be specific? And no, "anything you wrote" meaning Usenet posts are not a copy right violation. If in fact that is what you truly mean, then I can assure you that is why you have up until now been ignored. You can not copy right a Usenet post, if you did it would be your news server from where it was sent that would be in violation first. Like I have said before you myself and others stupid and profess all this massive knowledge and intelligence, but you still have yet to consult a lawyer apparently.
--
"You may have noticed that I continue to use the term 'open-carry' rather than "OC" This is avoid confusion with Oleoresin Capsicum, a Latin term meaning 'Give me some water, bitch. This sh*t is melting my eyeballs.'" - dawg23
> Edmond Wollmann wrote: > > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: > >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: > >>> DMCA Handler wrote: > >>>> That's about the level of legal argument you have with these ludicrous > >>>> threats. What's on http://www.smbtech.com/ed are copies of public > >>>> discourse that you willingly engaged in. Your incoherent Usenet > >>>> braindroppings are not going to receive the protection you think they are.
> >>>> http://www.smbtech.com/ed > >>> You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud. They cannot house my copyrighted > >>> material, and if they do not remove it I will subpoena the admins and > >>> they can tell a judge why they think they are above Copyright laws. > >>> Comprende you hiding coward? > >> So, exactly where is your copy righted material on that page?
> > Ah gee, let's see Mr Genius, the parts with a copyright symbol on them? > > And anything else I 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. I am not going to explain the whole of it, because I don't have to. If you go to the links at the left of his so-called site, and go to the pages, you will see posts of mine with copyright symbols on them. Now let me explain the simplest of copyright rules for you and the other youngsters here. No copyrights are lost by posting to usenet. Because there has always been this myth I started years ago placing a copyright symbol on my posts, which STRENGTHENS my copyrights. Because I am a published author and use much of the material I developed over the years from usenet interactions, the work is valuable to my work. Because I OWN a publishing company and I place my SAN on my posts, THAT strengthens my copyrights.
>And no, "anything you wrote" meaning > Usenet posts are not a copy right violation.
WRONG! ANYthing I write is copyrighted automatically and strengthened with my copyright notice.
>If in fact that is what you > truly mean, then I can assure you that is why you have up until now been > ignored. You can not copy right a Usenet post, if you did it would be > your news server from where it was sent that would be in violation > first.
WRONG!
>Like I have said before you myself and others stupid and profess > all this massive knowledge and intelligence, but you still have yet to > consult a lawyer apparently.
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.
> I am not going to > explain the whole of it, because I don't have to.
Because you can not. If you could you would.
> If you go to the links > at the left of his so-called site, and go to the pages, you will see > posts of mine with copyright symbols on them.
Ah, I didn't think you were that ignorant. Putting a copy right symbol in your sig on a Usenet post does not copy right it. You've been told that. Spend your money if you like but you'll never win that one, it's already been tried.
> Now let me explain the simplest of copyright rules for you and the other > youngsters here.
I am older than you, and I was on Usenet before you knew what a computer was.
> No copyrights are lost by posting to usenet.
No, they are not even started. You can not copy right a Usenet post.
> Because there has always been this myth I started years ago placing a > copyright symbol on my posts, which STRENGTHENS my copyrights. > Because I am a published author and use much of the material I developed > over the years from usenet interactions, the work is valuable to my > work.
Good luck with that, I still say you are going to be wasting your money.
> Because I OWN a publishing company and I place my SAN on my posts, THAT > strengthens my copyrights.
IMHO the only reason you own a "publishing company" is that is the only way you could get anything of yours published. And no, putting that on your Usenet posts is meaningless. Better people than you have tried it.
>> And no, "anything you wrote" meaning >> Usenet posts are not a copy right violation.
> WRONG! ANYthing I write is copyrighted automatically and strengthened > with my copyright notice.
Uh-huh. You had a lawyer tell you that? I mean one who is actually familiar with both copy rights AND Usenet?
>> If in fact that is what you >> truly mean, then I can assure you that is why you have up until now been >> ignored. You can not copy right a Usenet post, if you did it would be >> your news server from where it was sent that would be in violation >> first.
> WRONG!
>> Like I have said before you myself and others stupid and profess >> all this massive knowledge and intelligence, but you still have yet to >> consult a lawyer apparently.
> The lawyer Steve Burnette puts forth must not know diddly-squat about > copyright, and negotiating in bad faith and further malgning me > asserting that I am putting forth a DMCA in bad faith (when we have not > even addressed the defamation inherent IN the copyright violation) to > try to make me look like I don't know what I am talking about HELPS me > in court. > I will respond to them, and it will be detailed and they will continue > their smart-assness and defamatory approach at their own peril. > PS I was consulting lawyers when you were shitting your diapers.
Yeah, by all means keep us posted. If you win I will start copy righting all of my posts too.
-- .
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: > >> 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.
> > I am not going to > > explain the whole of it, because I don't have to.
> Because you can not. If you could you would.
> > If you go to the links > > at the left of his so-called site, and go to the pages, you will see > > posts of mine with copyright symbols on them.
> Ah, I didn't think you were that ignorant. Putting a copy right > symbol in your sig on a Usenet post does not copy right it. You've been > told that. Spend your money if you like but you'll never win that one, > it's already been tried.
> > Now let me explain the simplest of copyright rules for you and the other > > youngsters here.
> I am older than you, and I was on Usenet before you knew what a > computer was.
> > No copyrights are lost by posting to usenet.
> No, they are not even started. You can not copy right a Usenet post.
> > Because there has always been this myth I started years ago placing a > > copyright symbol on my posts, which STRENGTHENS my copyrights. > > Because I am a published author and use much of the material I developed > > over the years from usenet interactions, the work is valuable to my > > work.
> Good luck with that, I still say you are going to be wasting your money.
> > Because I OWN a publishing company and I place my SAN on my posts, THAT > > strengthens my copyrights.
> IMHO the only reason you own a "publishing company" is that is the > only way you could get anything of yours published. And no, putting that > on your Usenet posts is meaningless. Better people than you have tried it.
> >> And no, "anything you wrote" meaning > >> Usenet posts are not a copy right violation.
> > WRONG! ANYthing I write is copyrighted automatically and strengthened > > with my copyright notice.
> Uh-huh. You had a lawyer tell you that? I mean one who is actually > familiar with both copy rights AND Usenet?
> >> If in fact that is what you > >> truly mean, then I can assure you that is why you have up until now been > >> ignored. You can not copy right a Usenet post, if you did it would be > >> your news server from where it was sent that would be in violation > >> first.
> > WRONG!
> >> Like I have said before you myself and others stupid and profess > >> all this massive knowledge and intelligence, but you still have yet to > >> consult a lawyer apparently.
> > The lawyer Steve Burnette puts forth must not know diddly-squat about > > copyright, and negotiating in bad faith and further malgning me > > asserting that I am putting forth a DMCA in bad faith (when we have not > > even addressed the defamation inherent IN the copyright violation) to > > try to make me look like I don't know what I am talking about HELPS me > > in court. > > I will respond to them, and it will be detailed and they will continue > > their smart-assness and defamatory approach at their own peril. > > PS I was consulting lawyers when you were shitting your diapers.
> Yeah, by all means keep us posted. If you win I will start copy > righting all of my posts too.
For the last time, idiot--WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG. Repeating the same SHIT over and over does NOT make you right. You are obviously a SPINIC.
> For the last time, idiot--WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG. Repeating the same > SHIT over and over does NOT make you right. You are obviously a > SPINIC.
It's difficult to explain something to an idiot of Windbag's dimensions, isn't, Ed?
The obnoxious (but also extremely funny) thing about our Windbag here is: he can't get enough of hearing himself talking. He *obviously* is impressed by himself! ROTFLOL
EHWollmann wrote: > For the last time, idiot--WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG. Repeating the same > SHIT over and over does NOT make you right. You are obviously a > SPINIC.
I agree, your continued parroting of it does not make you correct.
--
"You may have noticed that I continue to use the term 'open-carry' rather than "OC" This is avoid confusion with Oleoresin Capsicum, a Latin term meaning 'Give me some water, bitch. This sh*t is melting my eyeballs.'" - dawg23
>> For the last time, idiot--WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG. Repeating the same >> SHIT over and over does NOT make you right. You are obviously a >> SPINIC.
> It's difficult to explain something to an idiot of Windbag's dimensions, > isn't, Ed?
> The obnoxious (but also extremely funny) thing about our Windbag here is: he > can't get enough of hearing himself talking. He *obviously* is impressed by > himself! ROTFLOL
That's it? Lame.
--
"You may have noticed that I continue to use the term 'open-carry' rather than "OC" This is avoid confusion with Oleoresin Capsicum, a Latin term meaning 'Give me some water, bitch. This sh*t is melting my eyeballs.'" - dawg23
>>> For the last time, idiot--WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG. Repeating the same >>> SHIT over and over does NOT make you right. You are obviously a >>> SPINIC.
>> I agree, your continued parroting of it does not make you correct.
> maybe you should try parroting the exact opposite?
I really don't care *nearly* enough. I am quite interested in the out come though.
--
"You may have noticed that I continue to use the term 'open-carry' rather than "OC" This is avoid confusion with Oleoresin Capsicum, a Latin term meaning 'Give me some water, bitch. This sh*t is melting my eyeballs.'" - dawg23
> For the last time, idiot--WRONG, YOU ARE WRONG. Repeating the same > SHIT over and over does NOT make you right.
You think it works for you, Pantyhead.
> You are obviously a SPINIC.
You're obviously an asshole, asshole.
-- 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 have violated NO ISPs AUP."- Ed the Liar.
|
