Wedding of the year -Exclusive picture

"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?

Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =
from Douglas wrote:
MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT

My announcement today is that my pet troll - the one who defames me and
post lies about me, claiming to have "mates" in ASIC who'll decend on me in
SNIP
may not be reproduced without express written permission from the author

--
Trolls are not the little blue characters of folklore
They are the evil of the Internet, don't feed them and
they'll look elsewhere for their gratification...

"Jerry L" wrote in message
ups.com...
"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?

Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =
from Douglas wrote:
MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT

My announcement today is that my pet troll - the one who defames me and
post lies about me, claiming to have "mates" in ASIC who'll decend on me
in
SNIP
may not be reproduced without express written permission from the author

--
Trolls are not the little blue characters of folklore
They are the evil of the Internet, don't feed them and
they'll look elsewhere for their gratification...

Even in folklore trolls are evil characters. They are definitely not fairys
or leprachans. Like gnomes, they do evil things to good people......

"William Graham" wrote in message
...


--
Trolls are not the little blue characters of folklore
They are the evil of the Internet, don't feed them and
they'll look elsewhere for their gratification...

Even in folklore trolls are evil characters. They are definitely not
fairys or leprachans. Like gnomes, they do evil things to good
people......


I searched high and low for a troll wedding. Then realized the little blue
men were smurfs.
Every picture and caricature of a troll I found was a hideous monster...
Sort of fits in well with the one dogging me.

"Jerry L" wrote in message
ups.com...
"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?

Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =

Odd comment Jerry.
Every Photographer I come across in these groups demands and expects
copyright protection for their pictures yet when I decide to exercise my
right to copyright my written works... You post a snide reference to what I
might do next? FWIW in Australia (where I hail from) I have an absolute
right to copyright protection of my emails and written work I post to the
Internet. What is wrong with exercising that right?

Can't please 'em all the time. Just keep in mind Jerry, next time you post a
picture on the Internet (presuming you do), your own opinion of someone
using copyright to protect their work. Same thing, no difference. YOU don't
think it should be an even playing field. Sorry to tell you this chum; We
are all equal. I get the same right to protection of my work as everyone
else.

And in case you are interested in the whole story...
Google are recording every character and every image ever published on the
Internet. Microsoft also have a database of every Usenet post made in the
last 10 years too. What you post today, could be dug up by a researcher in
the future and used in evidence against you in a court of law. No web site,
no newsgroup post, no image posted on a web site is safe from them. Only by
forbidding Google (or anyone else) from archiving your messages and copying
your images, can you hope to have protection from this activity.

Never before in history has it been possible to harvest so much information
and compile it into searchable form than now. Think about it. It's like
someone with a tape recorder listening in to every conversation in every bar
in the world. If anyone attempts to use my posts in evidence against
anyone - not just me, They can't. Google can't archive them and they can't
index my images or download thumbnails either. If they do, I can (probably
wouldn't stand the cost ATM) sue them for theft of copyright material.

The way the American legal system is spreading like a cancer all over the
western world, it will only be a matter of time before someone sets up a
class action against the biggest of the big. The fact each need each other
will be lost in the millions of bucks lawyers will make from it. Every
artist has automatic copyright on their pictures, articles and stories.
Fictitious or otherwise.

Douglas wrote:
"Jerry L" wrote in message
ups.com...
"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?

Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =

Odd comment Jerry.
Every Photographer I come across in these groups demands and expects
copyright protection for their pictures yet when I decide to exercise
my right to copyright my written works...

You consider usenet posts your "written works..." even though usenet posts
are automatically replicated on thousands of computers and servers the world
over???

Doesn't that seem a little silly?

--
----m0o0m
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:s32zf.12602$V.2468@fed1read04...
Douglas wrote:
"Jerry L" wrote in message
ups.com...
"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?

Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =

Odd comment Jerry.
Every Photographer I come across in these groups demands and expects
copyright protection for their pictures yet when I decide to exercise
my right to copyright my written works...

You consider usenet posts your "written works..." even though usenet posts
are automatically replicated on thousands of computers and servers the
world over???

Doesn't that seem a little silly?

I suppose in a distant time on a far away galaxy, It may well seem silly.

Is it any more silly than "selling" someone some software for an exorbitant
price (given it's on a 13¢ piece of plastic and then not providing any
updates to it so you have to "buy" it all over again a year later and the
EULA says it not really your program anyway, just the author's permission to
use it until they deem you've used it enough?

Is it any sillier than New York Times publishing their version of the daily
news, replicated on thousands of computers around the globe, stored in proxy
servers strangely located (and independently owned) in every country on the
globe so the owners don't need to pay for anymore bandwidth than the first
reader uses ...and the Times not knowing who actually has an unauthorised
copy of their precious article, then claim it is copyright material?

Have you any idea Mark, how silly the whole concept of copyright in relation
to the Internet, actually is?

In article ,
p says...

And in case you are interested in the whole story...
Google are recording every character and every image ever published on the
Internet. Microsoft also have a database of every Usenet post made in the
last 10 years too. What you post today, could be dug up by a researcher in
the future and used in evidence against you in a court of law. No web site,
no newsgroup post, no image posted on a web site is safe from them. Only by
forbidding Google (or anyone else) from archiving your messages and copying
your images, can you hope to have protection from this activity.

Pardon the interjection (it's lunch time on a hot and slow day here)...

How would the said researcher be able to prove that a usenet post was
physically made by any one person in particular? They would have to
provide some kind of physical evidence to prove that YOU were at the IP
address logged at the time of the posting. How could they do that? You
don't know that it's me writing this right now? It could be somebody who
has access to my computer or IP, pretending to be me.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

Douglas wrote:
Douglas wrote:
"Jerry L" wrote in message
ups.com...
"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?

Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =

Odd comment Jerry.
Every Photographer I come across in these groups demands and expects
copyright protection for their pictures yet when I decide to
exercise my right to copyright my written works...

You consider usenet posts your "written works..." even though usenet
posts are automatically replicated on thousands of computers and
servers the world over???

Doesn't that seem a little silly?

I suppose in a distant time on a far away galaxy, It may well seem
silly.
Is it any more silly than "selling" someone some software for an
exorbitant price (given it's on a 13¢ piece of plastic and then not
providing any updates to it so you have to "buy" it all over again a
year later and the EULA says it not really your program anyway, just
the author's permission to use it until they deem you've used it
enough?
Is it any sillier than New York Times publishing their version of the
daily news, replicated on thousands of computers around the globe,
stored in proxy servers strangely located (and independently owned)
in every country on the globe so the owners don't need to pay for
anymore bandwidth than the first reader uses ...and the Times not
knowing who actually has an unauthorised copy of their precious
article, then claim it is copyright material?
Have you any idea Mark, how silly the whole concept of copyright in
relation to the Internet, actually is?

I look forward to the day when you attempt to enforce this "copyright" on
your usenet posts...

DD wrote:

In article ,
p says...


And in case you are interested in the whole story...
Google are recording every character and every image ever published on the
Internet. Microsoft also have a database of every Usenet post made in the
last 10 years too. What you post today, could be dug up by a researcher in
the future and used in evidence against you in a court of law. No web site,
no newsgroup post, no image posted on a web site is safe from them. Only by
forbidding Google (or anyone else) from archiving your messages and copying
your images, can you hope to have protection from this activity.


Pardon the interjection (it's lunch time on a hot and slow day here)...

How would the said researcher be able to prove that a usenet post was
physically made by any one person in particular? They would have to
provide some kind of physical evidence to prove that YOU were at the IP
address logged at the time of the posting. How could they do that? You
don't know that it's me writing this right now? It could be somebody who
has access to my computer or IP, pretending to be me.


1. Message-ID: links it to
your computer.

2. Linguistic analysis -- how they identified the Unabomber from his
manifesto -- would link it to you. We all use the same styles, voices,
words and phrases repeatedly. With a large enough sample, and since
you're a regular poster, there **IS** a large enough sample, it's
possible to show that the writings are yours because they use your
individual style & voice.

--
----m0o0m
"DD" wrote in message
...
In article ,
p says...


Pardon the interjection (it's lunch time on a hot and slow day here)...

How would the said researcher be able to prove that a usenet post was
physically made by any one person in particular? They would have to
provide some kind of physical evidence to prove that YOU were at the IP
address logged at the time of the posting. How could they do that? You
don't know that it's me writing this right now? It could be somebody who
has access to my computer or IP, pretending to be me.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

I always presume your posts came from a pretender, Dallas :-)

Happy new year and I hope your liquidation sale yields you the results you
seek.