> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:48:00 -0700, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > >> > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
> >> > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
> >> Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers > >> without a scorecard.
> >> > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to > >> > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and > >> > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional > >> > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
> >> > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > >> > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > >> > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > >> > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > >> > panties.
> > Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
> >> > Very strange
> >> What's really strange here is that he only happened to think of this > >> strategy nearly 11 years after the DMCA was passed by the Senate. As > >> laughable as his tactic is, it's incredibly late.
> > Its never too late to claim copyright infringement, especially when the > > damages mount and can be used for further legal action for that. Nobody > > ever paid attention to the idiot's page, but some people took it as > > authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website > > recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
> >> My theory is that he's been talking to a lawyer. Just a very, very > >> incomptent one.
> > That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually try > > to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
> Unlike you, he's got a brain, Pantyhead. That's why you're destined to lose > every time. Too bad for you I've got two P.F. Chang's within a short drive > of this part of the town...and are you *ever* going to actually write a book > that gets an Amazon rating of _fewer_ than seven digits?
> > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
> > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
> > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers > > without a scorecard.
> > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to > > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and > > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional > > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
> > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > > > panties.
> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Every time you take one down, it pops up somewhere else.
> On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
>> Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard. >Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers >without a scorecard.
Very true.
>What's really strange here is that he >only happened to think of this strategy >nearly 11 years after the DMCA was passed >by the Senate. As laughable as his tactic >is, it's incredibly late.
It only took Mr. Baillie 2 years or so to realise that you can't copyright a usenet post, maybe it has taken Mr. Willmeen 11 years to realise that this was a chance to try and make some money at last. I wonder how many years it will take Mr Woolman to discover that you can't.
>1999 is a loooooong time ago, even for >Usenet. And he wasn't even using the >DMCA as a fig leaf back then even though >he could have.
That is an image I could do without!
>My theory is that he's been talking to >a lawyer. Just a very, very incomptent one.
Possibly one of about the same quality as Mark Felstein of Emarketers of America fame. He suddenly realised that discovery worked both ways, and backed out at a great rate of knots.
> > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
> > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
> > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers > > without a scorecard.
> > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to > > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and > > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional > > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
> > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > > > panties.
> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Big deal. You don't think they're talking to lawyers about whether you actually have a case or not?
What if those pages you *claim* are coming down go back up? What happens to your B1G W1N then?
> > > Very strange
> > What's really strange here is that he > > only happened to think of this strategy > > nearly 11 years after the DMCA was passed > > by the Senate. As laughable as his tactic > > is, it's incredibly late.
> Its never too late to claim copyright infringement,
My, but that's a telling way of phrasing it; why, it almost seems as if you intend to threaten to *claim* copyright infringement instead of actually bothering to try to *prove* it in court!
Out of the mouth of overgrown fetuses...
> especially when the > damages mount and can be used for further legal action for that.
What "damages"? Has anybody actually attempted to pirate any of your garbage in the hopes of actually making a profit off of some rube who happens to read it?
I dare you to name one work of yours that was actually pirated, jackass. And BTW, posts or web site material that you *chose* to make public doesn't meet that standard.
> Nobody > ever paid attention to the idiot's page,
Wrong again. The first time I looked at it was to see whether or not you really were as much of a raving control freak as your then-current posts made you out to be.
You were, and are.
You've been like this for a very long time, Edmo. Some people might get tired of being seen as a total sack of shit by practically everyone he interacts with, but not you.
> but some people took it as > authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website > recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
Steve Burnett quotes you quite directly, you dolt. You don't get much more authoritative than that.
> > My theory is that he's been talking to > > a lawyer. Just a very, very incomptent one.
> That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually > try to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
I can't wait for the whining to start when you wet the bed on this, Wollkook. It'll be just as much fun as reading your pathetic attempts to intimidate Scott Doty back in the day.
> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>> > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: >> > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
>> > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka >> > > Spamtard.
>> > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers >> > without a scorecard.
>> > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to >> > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and >> > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional >> > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
>> > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if >> > > he i > s >> > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about >> > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I >> > > can find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a >> > > pair of panties.
>> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
> Big deal. You don't think they're talking to lawyers > about whether you actually have a case or not?
> What if those pages you *claim* are coming down > go back up? What happens to your B1G W1N then?
You misspelled "whine".
-- 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 COUNSEL PHDS I CAN READ PEOPLE SHE KNOWS NOTHING AND IS ONLY THERE TO STIR SHIT UP!!!!" - Edmo the calm.
> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>> > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: >> > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to >> > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and >> > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional >> > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
>> > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he >> > > is >> > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about >> > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can >> > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of >> > > panties.
>> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told > them to *temporarily* take them down because they were > researching case law concerning the DMCA.
A very wise precaution on their part.
> I really don't think most ISPs are capable of being intimidated > into censoring websites merely because some pompous dumbass > with a proven track record of engaging in similar nonsense > *tells* them to. If they did, they're as gutless as you are > stupid.
After looking at sites such as Google archives and http://www.smbtech.com/ed/ , they then reinstate. After they have stopped laughing, that is.
<snip>
> Equally interesting is the fact that you've used > Usenet in particular and the internet in general > as a method of disseminating your screed, and as > soon as someone refuses to lick your ass for it > you start crying about *claiming* copyright > and not trying to *prove* it in a court of law.
Perhaps Mr. Woolyman should get an office with a consulting room. I was mildly suprised to see that they actually have existed. See this picture taken in Washington DC in 1921. http://www.shorpy.com/node/6994?size=_original. A large image, but look at the last door on the right. If you have a spare hour or day, the pictures are of stunning quality given their ages.
> You do realize how that paragraph makes you look, > don't you? How about your other actions during > this escapade of yours? By the time you're done, > there won't be a single damn ISP that *won't* > be mirroring the smbtech material in order to > bait you.
Me wonders how many already have company notice boards with a comic cartooney corner.
>> Nobody >> ever paid attention to the idiot's page, but some people took it as >> authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website >> recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
> You're a fool beyond compare, Wollmann. Tons of > people have read the smbtech page and post the URL > because of little things, like, oh, your *current > attempts to censor it*.
>> > My theory is that he's been talking to >> > a lawyer. Just a very, very incomptent one.
>> That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually >> try to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
> Translation: "waaaaaaaaah! Chris doesn't play fair! He actually > punches > you *back* when you bully other kids in the sandbox! MOOOOOMMY!"
At last someone recognises my true worth. :-)
> FOAD, Wollkook.
Now, now Chris, a much better reply would be "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell vs. Pressdram" Third para at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation Case law can be amusing occasionally.
> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> > > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > > > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
> > > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
> > > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers > > > without a scorecard.
> > > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to > > > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and > > > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional > > > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
> > > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > > > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > > > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > > > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > > > > panties.
> > Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits. > Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told > them to *temporarily* take them down because they were > researching case law concerning the DMCA.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > Chris Krolczyk wrote: >> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >>> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: >>>>> On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb. >>>>> Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard. >>>> Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers >>>> without a scorecard. >>>>>> Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to >>>>>> ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and >>>>>> a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional >>>>>> issues, much less the legal validity of the case. >>>>> The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is >>>>> on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about >>>>> images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can >>>>> find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of >>>>> panties. >>> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
>> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told >> them to *temporarily* take them down because they were >> researching case law concerning the DMCA.
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! > If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, > they are in real trouble.
Except everyone reading saw your DMCA, no one sees it as valid.
-- .
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: > > Chris Krolczyk wrote: > >> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > >> wrote: > >>> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > >>>>> On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb. > >>>>> Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard. > >>>> Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers > >>>> without a scorecard. > >>>>>> Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to > >>>>>> ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and > >>>>>> a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional > >>>>>> issues, much less the legal validity of the case. > >>>>> The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > >>>>> on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > >>>>> images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > >>>>> find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > >>>>> panties. > >>> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
> >> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told > >> them to *temporarily* take them down because they were > >> researching case law concerning the DMCA.
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! > > If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, > > they are in real trouble.
> Except everyone reading saw your DMCA, no one sees it as valid.
> > On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: > > > Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> > > > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > > > > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > > > > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > > > > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > > > > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > > > > > panties.
> > > Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits. > > Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told > > them to *temporarily* take them down because they were > > researching case law concerning the DMCA.
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! > If their DMCA lawyers have to reSLAP!
Mind your manners, fucktard. I don't believe I gave you permission to speak on subjects you know nothing about, such as what they're doing with your "DMCAs".
And just for the sake of being accurate, Edmo, you're making a *complaint* to those ISPS about the DMCA, *not* producing a "DMCA" itself. That's the name of the law, not the actual legal document required to file a complaint under it. Your screed would be much more entertaining if it actually could be read by who's actually graduated from grammar school.
Anyway, back to the original quote:
>If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >they are in real trouble.
Steve Burnett's lawyer did exactly that, Edmo. The fact that other lawyers for ISPs may be researching local and international legal precedents concerning copyright law and may have had their clients take down their links to your crap as a *precaution* doesn't take away from the fact that *any other ISP* can do the same thing and just might not give a shit about your flaccid little threats.
Oh, and have fun with xs4all with particular. Other than the fact that they're not in the US, I believe they've tanged with the Cult of Sc**nt*l*g* and won. That being the case, have a nice life.
Edmond Wollmann wrote: > WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: >> Edmond Wollmann wrote: >>> Chris Krolczyk wrote: >>>> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb. >>>>>>> Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard. >>>>>> Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers >>>>>> without a scorecard. >>>>>>>> Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to >>>>>>>> ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and >>>>>>>> a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional >>>>>>>> issues, much less the legal validity of the case. >>>>>>> The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is >>>>>>> on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about >>>>>>> images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can >>>>>>> find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of >>>>>>> panties. >>>>> Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
>>>> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told >>>> them to *temporarily* take them down because they were >>>> researching case law concerning the DMCA. >>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! >>> If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >>> they are in real trouble. >> Except everyone reading saw your DMCA, no one sees it as valid.
> Right, I guess you all are smarter than the DMCA lawyers doing the > researching, better go tell them whether it is or not Windbag!
Actually, I don't care, I don't have a dog in this hunt. But your desire to plaster it all over Usenet has the world watching and waiting. And I'll remind you that I am probably the only person in this group that has yet to call you any names, so watch your step pantyhead.
--
"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
>>>> If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >>>> they are in real trouble. >>> Except everyone reading saw your DMCA, no one sees it as valid.
>> Right, I guess you all are smarter than the DMCA lawyers doing the >> researching, better go tell them whether it is or not Windbag!
> Actually, I don't care,
Windbag really said it! Doesn't care, but won't ever shut up, nevertheless! lol
> I don't have a dog in this hunt. But your > desire to plaster it all over Usenet has the world watching and waiting.
Windbag thinks it's the world now!
> And I'll remind you that I am probably the only person in this group > that has yet to call you any names, so watch your step pantyhead.
Hahahahaaaa! All that hot air from the Windbag again!
Go play a game on your games server, Windbag. It's the only place where you are ever going to score (in any sense of the word).
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:50:52 -0700, Chris Krolczyk wrote: > Oh, and have fun with xs4all with particular. Other than the fact that > they're not in the US, I believe they've tanged with the Cult of > Sc**nt*l*g* and won. That being the case, have a nice life.
Absolutely. Xs4all will only take doen a page/site when it is either in clear violation of *dutch* law, or when ordered by a judge.
The Peeler wrote: >>>>> If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >>>>> they are in real trouble. >>>> Except everyone reading saw your DMCA, no one sees it as valid. >>> Right, I guess you all are smarter than the DMCA lawyers doing the >>> researching, better go tell them whether it is or not Windbag! >> Actually, I don't care,
> Windbag really said it! Doesn't care, but won't ever shut up, nevertheless! > lol
>> I don't have a dog in this hunt. But your >> desire to plaster it all over Usenet has the world watching and waiting.
> Windbag thinks it's the world now!
>> And I'll remind you that I am probably the only person in this group >> that has yet to call you any names, so watch your step pantyhead.
> Hahahahaaaa! All that hot air from the Windbag again!
> Go play a game on your games server, Windbag. It's the only place where you > are ever going to score (in any sense of the word).
Go kiss a mule, mamma's boy. You're a flaming lunatic with third grade retorts and everyone reading here knows it. I was here years before you were, and I'll be here years after you're gone. Now how about you go play in the traffic, douchebag.
-- .
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
> The Peeler wrote: >>>>>> If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >>>>>> they are in real trouble. >>>>> Except everyone reading saw your DMCA, no one sees it as valid. >>>> Right, I guess you all are smarter than the DMCA lawyers doing the >>>> researching, better go tell them whether it is or not Windbag! >>> Actually, I don't care,
>> Windbag really said it! Doesn't care, but won't ever shut up, nevertheless! >> lol
>>> I don't have a dog in this hunt. But your >>> desire to plaster it all over Usenet has the world watching and waiting.
>> Windbag thinks it's the world now!
>>> And I'll remind you that I am probably the only person in this group >>> that has yet to call you any names, so watch your step pantyhead.
>> Hahahahaaaa! All that hot air from the Windbag again!
>> Go play a game on your games server, Windbag. It's the only place where you >> are ever going to score (in any sense of the word).
> Go kiss a mule, mamma's boy. You're a flaming lunatic with third > grade retorts and everyone reading here knows it. I was here years > before you were, and I'll be here years after you're gone. Now how about > you go play in the traffic, douchebag.
I don't have a mule, gamer boy. But you do have a games server and certainly the mind of a gaming pubescent kook. So, go and play on your games server again!
On Oct 21, 6:45 am, Martijn Lievaart <m...@rtij.nl.invlalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:50:52 -0700, Chris Krolczyk wrote: > > Oh, and have fun with xs4all with particular. Other than the fact that > > they're not in the US, I believe they've tanged with the Cult of > > Sc**nt*l*g* and won. That being the case, have a nice life.
> Absolutely. Xs4all will only take doen a page/site when it is either in > clear violation of *dutch* law, or when ordered by a judge.
The problem is that you're dealing with a narcissistic asshat who doesn't comprehend the meaning of the words "jurisdiction" or "court".
Teh Pantyhead doesn't believe in annoying little things like national borders, court rulings or even the ability to file a valid complaint in court; if he did, he wouldn't be sending those limp "DMCAs" (_sic_) to ISPs without getting a lawyer's advice first.
So, yeah, he's screwed. By himself. Odd how that seems to fit his online persona to a tee, isn't it?
> >> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> > >> wrote: > >> > Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> >> > > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: > >> > > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
> >> > > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
> >> > > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers > >> > > without a scorecard.
> >> > > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to > >> > > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and > >> > > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional > >> > > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
> >> > > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is > >> > > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about > >> > > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can > >> > > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of > >> > > > panties.
> >> > Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
> >> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told > >> them to *temporarily* take them down because they were > >> researching case law concerning the DMCA.
> >Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! > >If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, > >they are in real trouble. > No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is > valid. > They will find in the end, It isn't.
In the end, they took it down. Spinic. How many more years must I prove you frauds wrong, specious, disingenuos and just plain liars?
>> >> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>> >> > > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: >> >> > > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
>> >> > > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka >> >> > > > Spamtar > d.
>> >> > > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers >> >> > > without a scorecard.
>> >> > > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue >> >> > > > > to ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in >> >> > > > > court an > d >> >> > > > > a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to >> >> > > > > jurisdictiona > l >> >> > > > > issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
>> >> > > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I >> >> > > > wonder if > he is >> >> > > > on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be >> >> > > > abou > t >> >> > > > images, yet his links are always text only. The only >> >> > > > reference I > can >> >> > > > find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a >> >> > > > pair > of >> >> > > > panties.
>> >> > Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
>> >> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told >> >> them to *temporarily* take them down because they were >> >> researching case law concerning the DMCA.
>> >Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! >> >If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >> >they are in real trouble.
>> No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is >> valid.
>> They will find in the end, It isn't.
> In the end, they took it down. Spinic. How many more years must I > prove you frauds wrong, specious, disingenuos and just plain liars?
When do you intend to start, 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. "I haven't done anything, and if I ever did, there was no intention to do so!" - Wollkook confirms what everyone knew.
>>> >> On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian...@earthlink.net> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Chris Krolczyk wrote:
>>> >> > > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask...@myguide.net> wrote: >>> >> > > > On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2...@gmail.com> >>> >> > > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > > As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
>>> >> > > > Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka >>> >> > > > Spamtard.
>>> >> > > Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers >>> >> > > without a scorecard.
>>> >> > > > > Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to >>> >> > > > > ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court >>> >> > > > > and a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to >>> >> > > > > jurisdictional issues, much less the legal validity of the >>> >> > > > > case.
>>> >> > > > The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder >>> >> > > > if he is on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear >>> >> > > > to be about images, yet his links are always text only. The >>> >> > > > only reference I can find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a >>> >> > > > head covered by a pair of panties.
>>> >> > Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
>>> >> Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told >>> >> them to *temporarily* take them down because they were >>> >> researching case law concerning the DMCA.
>>> >Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!! >>> >If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA, >>> >they are in real trouble.
>>> No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is >>> valid.
>>> They will find in the end, It isn't.
>> In the end, they took it down. Spinic. How many more years must I >> prove you frauds wrong, specious, disingenuos and just plain liars?
> When do you intend to start, Pantyhead?
2012 December 22nd, probably.
-- 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 2, San Antonio 0 (October 25) NEXT GAME: Tuesday, October 27 vs. Hamilton, 3:05
|
