Benefactor ? ! Do you know what it means ?
On Jan 18, 12:21 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > and I just want to say, again, how cute it is that you come screaming > to the rescue of your benefactor... aaawww...sssoooocute... > > On Jan 17, 11:10 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Gabby, I'll make an exception and respond to this delicious piece of > > malice and nastiness from you ! > > > On Jan 18, 3:39 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > May I kindly ask you to stop sulking and stomping!? > > > Why ? What is it to you, if Molly sulks or stomps, though I saw no > > sign of her doing so. She sure seemed defensive, but that seems > > natural considering the nature of alleged charge one or two people > > have brought against her. I suppose, everyone defends one's honour. > > Or, don't you, Gabs ? > > > > One Vam is enough. > > > Wow ! How are you certain that just because you are satisfied with > > one Vam, others would too ? I myself could do with a million more. I > > also admit, there might be many who'd not tolerate even one - tenth > > Vam ! > > > > And if you don't see any reason to argue I would like to refer you to > > > Ian's posting guidelines which demand the opposite. > > > Please quote exactly what you are talking about : What does Ian's > > posting guidelines say ? > > > > Molly, I wish you all the money in the world if that makes you sleep > > > better at night. > > > I'm sure Molly can do without your ( malicious ) wishes, Gabs ! Save > > the dishonest manners for yourself and yours. > > > > But for the future, please refrain from any "when I succeeded to let go, > > > money came to me on miraculous ways" or something like this. > > > I want more of the same things from Molly, Gabs. It sure shores me > > up ! You are free not to read them. > > > > On 17 Jan., 15:40, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > To be perfectly clear, and as I have said many times before, my > > > > services are not sold from the blog, I have never had a referal or > > > > book sale directly related to the blog, and from the beginning of my > > > > participation in ME (2007), although all folks here may not recall, > > > > some seem to,others don't, I openly asked and individually asked for > > > > permission to use the comments here. The blog itself is a means to > > > > explore ideas and engage dialogue on meaningful concepts. I cross > > > > posts the threads in various groups across the web, a perfectly > > > > acceptable practice on the internet. Anyone ever expressing > > > > resistance, including gabbydot, is no longer included on the blog, > > > > their wishes respected. > > > > > As there is much contentiousness in this tread about anything posted > > > > it seems, I will check out now. Thanks to all for your support, I > > > > don't see any reason to argue. > > > > > On Jan 17, 8:21 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > No, Allan, I am still disagreeing with you. The opera is not about > > > > > being right or left but about me myself and I. Yet the great honour > > > > > that you feel attracted to is directly linked to the ME ME ME. > > > > > > You're right, Molly never directly wronged any ME member. Just like > > > > > it's not wrong to sell your sweets with a big fat sticker saying "0% > > > > > fat!". I didn't know what she was doing until her practice became a > > > > > public issue here. Only then I realized that she published articles > > > > > here to gather selected content that she would publish under her own > > > > > blog name. The image that the blog creates, is of course of monetary > > > > > value when it comes to selling her own services. > > > > > > I have learned to become more care careful about the context in which > > > > > I set my data. You will find a blank space behind my educational > > > > > background on facebook, for example. MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :-) > > > > > > On 17 Jan., 12:36, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > SD > > > > > > Molly has never wronged any member of ME to my knowledge. ME is > > > > > > about > > > > > > sharing ideas and concepts (I know some members don't think so) ,, > > > > > > and if > > > > > > you put it up in the group well all I can say is good luck in > > > > > > court. I have > > > > > > read you violating the copyright of others.. > > > > > > > Personally if some one expands on some of my thoughts it is a great > > > > > > honour > > > > > > to have contributed to society. I think there is far to much of the > > > > > > great > > > > > > right wing republican opera being sung... (Spraying throat > > > > > > preparing to > > > > > > sing..) me, me, me, ME, ME, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I wouldn't know but found articlestree.com on the wiki site and > > > > > > > went > > > > > > > there to discover the YouTube issue. > > > > > > > > I think internet piracy and infringement is going to take place > > > > > > > because we are in International waters where anything goes and > > > > > > > establishing liability, initiating prosecution procedures that > > > > > > > culminate to a satisfactory end are highly unlikely. Its not much > > > > > > > different from the phishing scams originating out of foreign > > > > > > > countries. What are we to do about someone in Nigeria pirating > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > work, zilch! > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:59 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The above citation was (as referenced parenthetically) from the > > > > > > > > last > > > > > > > > thread on the subject, and the words were gruff's, not mine, > > > > > > > > and I am > > > > > > > > not sure where he got the legal sitings. > > > > > > > > > I do not use any comments when a participant has requested that > > > > > > > > I do > > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The unauthorized use of text content can be a form of > > > > > > > > > copyright > > > > > > > > > infringement. It is common on the world wide web for text to > > > > > > > > > be copied > > > > > > > > > from one site to another without consent of the author. > > > > > > > > > Roberta Beach > > > > > > > > > Jacobson criticizes the misappropriation of writers' work by > > > > > > > > > websites > > > > > > > > > in her article Copyrights and Wrongs. This article was added > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > articlestree.com[8] on November 27, 2001; ironically, it has > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > been copied to hundreds of websites,[9] many of them claiming > > > > > > > > > copyright over the work or charging money to access it. > > > > > > > > > > 8 ^ Jacobson, Roberta Beach (2001-11-27). "Copyrights and > > > > > > > > > Wrongs". > > > > > > >www.articlestree.com.http://www.articlestree.com/copywriting/copyrigh..... > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > > > > > > > > 9 ^ "Results 1 - 10 of about 371 for "Roberta Beach Jacobson" > > > > > > > > > "Copyrights and Wrongs"".www.google.com. > > > > > > >http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Roberta+Beach+Jacobs....... > > > > > > > > > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Text > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't an intention to establish lawsuit but merely a > > > > > > > > > cease and > > > > > > > > > desist declaration. "Potentially" a compilation of copied > > > > > > > > > texts can > > > > > > > > > form a published work with all copyright reservations thereby > > > > > > > > > rendering it as having monetary value. You could easily > > > > > > > > > compile (not > > > > > > > > > implying intent) the copied ME posts and put together any > > > > > > > > > form of > > > > > > > > > marketable material. Establishing reserved rights to my > > > > > > > > > personal work > > > > > > > > > gives me the opportunity to compile my own work for > > > > > > > > > integration within > > > > > > > > > another body of material, therefore the work does have > > > > > > > > > monetary value > > > > > > > > > when considering authorship aside from the what you have > > > > > > > > > labeled as a > > > > > > > > > diminutive value of personal ego. The laws are complex and > > > > > > > > > subject to > > > > > > > > > a myriad of interpretations adding to the difficulty of > > > > > > > > > establishing > > > > > > > > > laws concerning electronic information and the copying and > > > > > > > > > exchange of > > > > > > > > > such information. Who would buy books if they were just so > > > > > > > > > easy to > > > > > > > > > copy from some Internet site? This is the crux of the matter. > > > > > > > > > > Consider YouTube's use of and distribution of material and the > > > > > > > > > implications. (scroll down for the article) > > > > > > > > > >http://www.articlestree.com/Legal/youtube-could-be-liable-for-copyrig. > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > Again it is simply a cease and desist declaration not a > > > > > > > > > prelude to > > > > > > > > > legal remedies for infringement nor is it a complaint as > > > > > > > > > perceived by > > > > > > > > > Twirlip in the post above. I think you understand that. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 6:54 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > To be completely accurate, I began at Minds Eye asking > > > > > > > > > > individuals > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > permission, was told by the Mods that was not necessary > > > > > > > > > > because the > > > > > > > > > > posts here were public domain, so stopped. Sometime later, > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > domain issue was challenged, and copyright/fair use laws > > > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > > cross posting and copying the Minds Eye posts were > > > > > > > > > > discussed again. > > > > > > > > > > Truth is, there are many sites that pull these discussions > > > > > > > > > > with an > > > > > > > rss > > > > > > > > > > feed and are used only for advertising. My blog is > > > > > > > > > > different than > > > > > > > > > > that, I make no money from it, and use it to create > > > > > > > > > > discussion and > > > > > > > > > > develop ideas. I change fictitious names to real names > > > > > > > > > > when I know > > > > > > > > > > them with permission and in respect because I think we are > > > > > > > > > > all adults > > > > > > > > > > with adult names in the discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Twirlip, for your permission. > > > > > > > > > > > Applicable fair use and copyright law (taken from our last > > > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > as referenced by the members here - thanks again) > > > > > > > > > > > 17 USC Sec. 102 holds your answer. TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS, > > > > > > > > > > CHAPTER 1 > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT, Sec. 102. Subject > > > > > > > > > > matter of > > > > > > > > > > copyright: In general > > > > > > > > > > (a) > > ... > > read more »
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
