Click here to return to the list of messages.

ETS Throws Down Gauntlet on Bart (3314 hits)

Category: None
Labels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary

Rating: -0.34 on 209 reviews (Rate this item) (V)

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-09-05 12:33:57 EDT

Bart, I have always thought you were an intelligent guy. I have always appreciated what you've put up here with this little website, and I have always had a good deal of faith in your judgement, but your reviews on my last post call that into serious question. I'm trying real hard here to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if my eyes aren't deceiving me, I'd say you're slowly becoming one of these ignorant assholes (see: Wardy, Indoninja, jgreening, DCWoody, iddqd, etc.) who thinks he can never be wrong and thinks I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about when evidence usually vindicates my argument.

For the record, I don't appreciate being brushed off and called an idiot, especially by people I respect. I don't appreciate being marginalized as a 'conspiracy theorist', nor do I appreciate the insinuation that I'm uneducated. So for future reference, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using such insinuations and stick to the fucking issue.

That being said, here are the fallacies in your argument:

1: You called my argument "ill-informed", "nonsensical", and "idiotic", yet you offered the following bullshit argument yourself... [My comments are in brackets]

"You clearly don't know this and obviously didn't research it before criticizing me [I wasn't "criticizing you" in my post. I was giving you friendly advice.], but satire, parody, and derivative works are all different things. [If that's what you gathered from the content of my post, then you obviously didn't read it thoroughly.] Of these three categories, only parody is allowed without permission from the original copyright holder." [This is just plain wrong. Satire is protected speech, and under fair use law, a non-parody work can contain elements of previously copyrighted work if it meets certain criteria. More on this below.]

2: You assume in one scenario about the Ansel Adams book that the person using the material is using it for commerical reasons, Method was not using it for such reasons. Actually you lump both scenarios (for profit and not-for-profit) together as if it doesn't affect the outcome of a case, which is completely wrong.

3: You never mention that fair use claims are good if they can show that the market value of the underlying work has not been compromised. (I don't think growingfamilies users are suddenly going to flock to ubersite in droves for their baby viewing needs.)

4: You never account for the fact that, of the total number of baby pictures and materials on that site, Method used but a tiny portion in a not-for-profit manner.

5: In your link you provided to Stanford's legal website it reads: "Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody." You then went on to explain to me how satire wasn't mentioned because it wasn't protected under fair use unless it was parody. This is flatly incorrect. The very definition of satire insists that it is criticism. In Method's case, it was satirical criticism that was VERY ARGUABLY protected by fair use law. If analysis of precedent serves, what he did was not only perfectly legal under fair use law, but is protected by the first amendment.

6: You linked to Stanford's website, but you COMPLETELY IGNORED the case law section of that SAME WEBSITE which supports my argument entirely: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Allow me to quote from that page so that you may be enlightened... (Note: the following quote is fair use in case you're wondering.)

""Artwork and Audiovisual Cases

* Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin's death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the "heart" of the film. (Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
* Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. (Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996).)
* Not a fair use. A television station's news broadcast used 30 seconds from a fourminute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
* Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the "Kojak" television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were "time-shifting" (taping in order to watch later) and not "library-building" (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the "delayed" system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)
* Not a fair use. A poster of a "church quilt" was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
* Fair Use. A search engine's practice of creating small reproductions ("thumbnails") of images and placing them on its own website (known as "inlining") did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)""

Notice how the consideration of profit and market play a strong role in determining copyright infringement vs. fair use. You see how that works? If you're using 1% (which is not set in stone) of a work for informational or satirical purposes and it does not "undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of [the] images", then it's fair use!

That's not enough? Ok, how about this. Here is the actual law regarding fair use:

1 Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such
finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Notice where it says "CRITICISM" and does not attempt to make distinctions or characterize the nature of accepted criticism? This means that satire is included in that. This also means that, pending a court review and application of the other criteria listed above, Method's post could easily be regarded as fair use, even more so if it could be regarded as not-for-profit, which, if I'm not mistaken, the use of ads on the site might preclude.

For more reading on precedents and case law: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/ipsc/papers2/Beebe.pdf#search=%22copyright%20captions%20satire%20fair%20use%22

Why am I bringing this up? Because much of the content on your website is dependent upon this fair use doctrine to exist legally. This includes about 90% of all the picture posts, including those on B@W. If you're going to remove Method's post, you might as well remove every Photoshop post I've ever created, because most of them used copyrighted material in the construction of critical or satirical works.

Starting a trend of removing material based on a SUPPOSED infringement detailed in a cease and desist order is setting a dangerous precedent in my view. In my previous post I suggested you get legal advice in the matter and not jump to conclusions. I further suggested you join the ACLU because they can sometimes offer advice or council in such free speech matters.

But what did you do? You slapped me in the face and called me an idiot.

Thanks. That's the last time I try to help you out.

As for the rest of you, I suggest you take these matters seriously if you enjoy having a place such as ubersite to express yourself.

User Reviews

Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-19 17:23:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2

No Comment

Submitted by WingedFoote (user info) at 2006-09-10 03:26:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

BORING!

Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-09 14:04:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

http://www.ubersite.com/m/91788#2103536

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-09 01:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

This isn't meant to be diskish in any way Rob, but welcome to the other side.
That's what he does to everyone who ever disagrees with him.

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-09 01:16:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.ubersite.com/m/92799#2135198

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-08 20:27:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

DC seems to be hitting your arguments pretty hard, and you've yet to face him.

That's WHY we rip you, dipshit. Any time we attack your views, you clam up on them and start the personal attacks yourself.

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-08 20:06:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-08 19:04:01 (#)
Ranking: 0

Some of you people are complete morons. You're all very good at criticising ME, but you can't even touch my argument itself.

---

You do tend to make it hard to seperate the two at times Mr. Tooth.

But I agree. There are some serioulsy dumb fuckers mouth-breathing their way through life and this site seems to attract some rather vocal ones.

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-08 20:00:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-08 19:04:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Some of you people are complete morons. You're all very good at criticising ME, but you can't even touch my argument itself.

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-08 16:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-07 03:26:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-09-06 21:02:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

Amazing!

Not only are you an expert on science, politics, and music, but you're a lawyer as well!

--------------------

A bit of literacy and common sense can go a long long way.

--------------------

It can also lead to a false sense of intellegence.

Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2006-09-08 16:28:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

"The very definition of satire insists that it is criticism. In Method's case, it was satirical criticism"

At the risk of sounding even more redundant... You clearly thought about this for a long time and carefully planned out what you said, maybe if you put as much effort in researching your own points instead of arguing about them on an internet forum you would produce results that would MAKE people believe instead of saying in essence "Please believe me! Look at how long I spent on this post!"

At least you are passionately delusional.

Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-08 07:50:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

"No, I said find me pictures of bodies."

Absolute lie right there. You asked for pictures of fuselage or airplane parts. Don't make me dig up the post, please.

======================

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-05-02 18:56:53 (#)
Ranking: 0

Then I need you to help me email them challenging them to produce ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH of a piece of a plane or a dead body from the field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

ONE PICTURE....and I'll shut up about 9/11 forever.

You guys will never have to hear about it again.

Likewise, if one of you would care to find me just ONE PICTURE from where Flight 93 allegedly crashed that shows me a piece of fuselage, a piece of luggage, an engine, a wing, or a body, I'll forever hold my peace on this issue.

In fact, I will gladly leave ubersite and never come back again...so help me god.

=================

Sorry if this was done before.

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-07 18:06:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES!!!!

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-07 16:51:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

I see you are going to have to cancel your subscription to Popular Mechanics for next month's breakdown of 9/11. (Hint: They do not support the nutty conspiracy theorists.)

I guess they are part of the corporate/goverment machine and were probably paid to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

But hey, you can keep on ignoring evidence that is contrary to what nutty stuff you believe! That's cool, man. Keep on keepin' on.

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-07 12:33:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Common sense doesn't apply where law is concerned, polesmoker.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-07 03:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-09-06 21:02:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

Amazing!

Not only are you an expert on science, politics, and music, but you're a lawyer as well!

--------------------

A bit of literacy and common sense can go a long long way.

Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-07 01:22:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"For the record," which record exactly?
"I don't appreciate being brushed off" what if misc person doesn't want to talk to you?
"and called an idiot, especially by people I respect." don't be an idiot
"I don't appreciate being marginalized as a 'conspiracy theorist'," Stop supporting theories about conspiracies.
"nor do I appreciate the insinuation that I'm uneducated." Stop being ignorant.
"So for future reference, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using such insinuations and stick to the fucking issue." You being a douchebag is part of the fucking issue.

I like to appear all reasonable and calm until I break out that one last FUCKING for some FUCKING shock value.

Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-07 01:20:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

I'll get right on 'getting lost' again, what with my being here just for you so you can judge my overall persona by rating posts I made a week ago.

Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-09-06 21:02:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Amazing!

Not only are you an expert on science, politics, and music, but you're a lawyer as well!

Perhaps I should follow suit and get my degree from google as well......

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-06 20:04:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 19:56:46 (#)
Ranking: 0

boredom is a bitch

http://www.electrictoothsyndrome.com/media/mocrack.gif

ahahahahaha

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:17:25 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:09:45 (#)
Ranking: 2

just a coincidence that means nothing.

On that bored at ETS page you have on your website, the review you have me saying that the world is a better place because of you is dated on my 26th birthday, within an hour of my time of birth.

Not that that means anything.

---------------

If that's what you have to convince yourself to feel 'safe'...
--

hahahahaha

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:17:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:09:45 (#)
Ranking: 2

just a coincidence that means nothing.

On that bored at ETS page you have on your website, the review you have me saying that the world is a better place because of you is dated on my 26th birthday, within an hour of my time of birth.

Not that that means anything.

---------------

If that's what you have to convince yourself to feel 'safe'...

Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:09:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

just a coincidence that means nothing.

On that bored at ETS page you have on your website, the review you have me saying that the world is a better place because of you is dated on my 26th birthday, within an hour of my time of birth.

Not that that means anything.

Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-09-06 17:52:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

YOU ARE A WAYYYYYYY BETTER AUTHOR THAN I

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 16:54:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:39:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.electrictoothsyndrome.com/media/hahahahahahaha.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay... this is pretty funny.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-06 16:30:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:21 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:31:08 (#)
Ranking: 0

shit. I remember now - It was about the bombings on July 7th wasn't it? how they were all orchestrated by GWB and Big Tone in order to control us.

If I remember correctly, rather than come up with an intelligent arguemnet, your answer to all of the points that I raised was to simply tell me that I was wrong and had been hoodwinked by the media.

happy days.

--------------------

That's what you WOULD remember if you didn't want to believe what I just fucking told you. You people and your cognitive dissonance never cease to amaze me.

----

the only thing more blissful than ignorance, is when it's coupled with watching the misery caused by 'enlightenment'.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 16:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Got it and responded.

Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-06 15:22:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

1) I live near the Palisades down in the Meadowlands valley. I could see 9/11 as it happened, just noting that, no political intentions therein.

2) The uberboard link's comments are a hell of a lot meaner than mine.

3) Did you get my email ETS?

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-06 14:34:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 14:07:56 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:21:41 (#)
Ranking: 2

You're the one who can't make peace with the atrocities you perceive your god allowing to happening on this planet.

----------------------

The only 'atrocities' I see are those perpetrated by a creature with free will upon himself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural disasters?

Actually interested to hear your response, or have you stopped paying attention for me for good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-06 13:39:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:08:58 (#)
Ranking: 2

How can you be a "giant fan" of ETS and then tell him to "pick his battles"? Dude, have you read any of his stuff? Just click on his User ID. There have to be about 50 different battles in there. The funny thing is that there are probably comments similar to that one on EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM. Your opinion that any given argument is not the single most important thing in the world does not invalidate either view point of the argument. It's a simple minded response that does nothing for either side of a debate and could be used universally. That is unless we all agree that whatever the issue at hand is happens to be the single most important thing in the world. Good luck finding that issue.

Sorry...it's a pet peeve of mine ever since my 3 month "Under God" debate on a separate forum.

+2 for ETS to cancel out the "pick your battles" thing in general, because I'm guessing you hate it as much as I do.

On a related side note, why does posting, writing, or mentioning something automatically make people assume that it's the only thing you've ever thought about in your entire life? The people who think like that, please explain yourselves? Is it a lack of skill in the debating area, so you feel like by belittling the topic you've removed any need to try, futily, to argue your point (or lack thereof)? Or are you all just so single minded yourselves that you can't possibly fathom anyone who can concentrate on more than one issue at a time during any given period of their lives?

---

Wow.

You DO like to argue.

Not particularly all that effectively... but I definitely appreciate the spirit.

You want to know why I dig this kid?

First of all - he's brilliant. I mean scary smart. Ever since my arrival on this site I have been absolutely fascinated with his passion for conspiracy and spectacular ability to argue tirelessly on many different fronts with many different people. All sorts of petty retards get all twisted up about his "heat whoring" ways... clearly they seem to be oblivious to the fact that he's tediously passionate about his opinions and defends each and every one of them with a rabid tenacity. The fact that his arguments often lack tact or anything approaching diplomacy is frustrating... but it makes for glorious cinema.

Ok. Moving on:

---
"Your opinion that any given argument is not the single most important thing in the world does not invalidate either view point of the argument."
---

Despite the fact that is not my opinion - who said anything about invalidation?

My actual opinion is that calling the proprietor of this site out for removing questionable material and trumping it up to be some wonderful crusade for the 'rights' of 'we the people' is a waste of his time - time which can be better spent turning that wonderful brain of his onto any number of more important, relevant arguments and conspiracies.

My particular viewpoint is that this battle was relatively pointless - not invalid.

---
"That is unless we all agree that whatever the issue at hand is happens to be the single most important thing in the world."
---

What an absurd piece of logic Mr. Galt.

In this polarized society teeming with contentious issues, irrationality, willful ignorance and apathy aplenty - I am under no illusions that 'we' will ever ALL agree that any one specific issue is the most important.

I mean no fucking shit. Who do you actually think you are arguing with on that one fella? You have the gall(t) call my response simple - yet proceed to hanker down and plop out that simplistic little turd?

You know what my pet peeve is? Stupidity.

Luckily you are not stupid, in fact you seem quite far from it - but you are rather presumptive and look itchin' for some sort of scrap. Problem is - you have manufactured my opposition and base most of your argument on what you ASSume are my opinions.

I give you full points for enthusiasm, though.

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:30:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1

Such as knowing I can't spell!!!

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:26:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:25:03 (#)
Ranking: 0

Just so everyone knows...

I'll be doing a post on all of my faults tomorrow beacuse ETS says I'm blind to mine and he says he ackwoldges his.

I've dared him to do the same.

Submitted by goferforhire (user info) at 2006-09-06 11:57:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:43:11 (#)
Ranking: -2

You're as cold as ice!
------------------------
You're willing to sacrifice our love

Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-09-06 11:50:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.ubersite.com/m/92676

You looking to get banned as well?

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:40:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

greek below

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:32:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

JAYPIG EATS 12 BOXES OF STOVE TOP STUFFING FOR A MIDNIGHT SNACK?

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:30:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:38:52 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:39 (#)
Ranking: -2

Amazing how Bradley pipes down when you hit him with the blatantly obvious.

---------------

No, Bradley pipes down when he goes home and gets away from the computer.

---------------

BRADLEY GETS AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER???

Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:08:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

How can you be a "giant fan" of ETS and then tell him to "pick his battles"? Dude, have you read any of his stuff? Just click on his User ID. There have to be about 50 different battles in there. The funny thing is that there are probably comments similar to that one on EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM. Your opinion that any given argument is not the single most important thing in the world does not invalidate either view point of the argument. It's a simple minded response that does nothing for either side of a debate and could be used universally. That is unless we all agree that whatever the issue at hand is happens to be the single most important thing in the world. Good luck finding that issue.

Sorry...it's a pet peeve of mine ever since my 3 month "Under God" debate on a separate forum.

+2 for ETS to cancel out the "pick your battles" thing in general, because I'm guessing you hate it as much as I do.

On a related side note, why does posting, writing, or mentioning something automatically make people assume that it's the only thing you've ever thought about in your entire life? The people who think like that, please explain yourselves? Is it a lack of skill in the debating area, so you feel like by belittling the topic you've removed any need to try, futily, to argue your point (or lack thereof)? Or are you all just so single minded yourselves that you can't possibly fathom anyone who can concentrate on more than one issue at a time during any given period of their lives?

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-06 06:01:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

"Freedom of expression"?

I mean it is certainly something very precious that we all enjoy here in western civilization and quite frankly people SHOULD get worked up into a healthy froth when they feel that constitutionalized/assumed right is being encroached upon.

But really, who gives a flying fuck about over protecting this particular act of juvenile stupidity?

You need to realize that no matter how you try and polish up this turd - the specific content you want to defend contains the vivid descriptions of some pretty vile, demeaning and graphically disturbing acts of moral depravity - including the gleefully raping of the little babies.

Sure some of that shit was funny, but the post itself was little more than a rally point for uber-assholes to commit what amounts to internet vandalism.

Any free thinking society I want to be a part of has the good sense to leave this exact particular 'freedom of expression' only tenuously protected. I mean I applaud the creation of the environment that enables this sort of filth to flourish... but the removal of that same content given the specifics in this particular case is perfectly legitimate and equally impressive.

And don't give me some song and dance about needing to stand up for 'our rights'.

Jesus fuck. 'Our rights'?

What about Free speech zones? Phone Tapping? Poll tampering allegations? Extended tours of duty in an unjust war?

All of those things are much more compelling and far more damaging than this relative foolishness you are grandstanding over here.

I certainly have no-doubt you can argue about this kinda shit until yer fingers fall off - but sometimes you really gotta just pick better battles and focus on some bigger pictures.

Don't you?

Either way, I am still a giant fan and thoroughly enjoyed this post and the chaos it stirred up. This world DOES need people like you... it just needs you to be a little more relevant is all.

Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2006-09-06 03:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1

The relevant parts, but if anyone really wants to read the whole thing go here:

http://www.copyright.gov/

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

.
.
.

§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —
.
.
.
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

Note: Section 113(d) is not relevant in this case, as are the parts where I put dots. The end where it says ", and", then stops, is not a copy/paste error. It leads to (B) which is not relevant either.

----------

I'm no lawyer by any means, but it looks to me like what we have in this case is an unauthorized derivative work or reproduction which is clearly modified in a way that is prejudicial to the honor and reputation of it's original copyright holder, GrowingFamily.com.

Now, let's take a look at some of the clauses from section 107, which determine if it's protected under Fair Use:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Purpose AND character, not just purpose. I'd say advocating the rape of children ruins any chance of defending this one, but I've got a backup below, just in case.

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Anyone who sees Ubersite would be less likely to ever use the GrowingFamily.com website. End of story.

You said: "As for you argument about growingfamilies business being hurt, it would not be difficult to argue that since they left their forum entirely open and unmoderated, they are at fault for any losses, and their recourse should not extend beyond moderating the offending material on their site and disallowing any futher offenders from registering and posting comments.

This is THEIR responsibility, not the general public's."

True, that is relevant, and it's why no one could possibly be charged for anything related to the actual comments that were left (unless they could be construed as real threats, but they can't). Also, the post and all the information within it is still fine, and also still on Uber...except the picture. That's because the picture is a graphical representation of the unauthorized derivative work which hurts GrowingFamily.com's business by using it's own copyrighted materials on a website they can't remove it from themselves. Thus the letter to Bart.

I love arguing.

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 02:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

The amount that I don't care about any of this is astounding...

Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2006-09-06 02:30:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

P.S. - I can't wait for my retaliatory -2 on that puppy. Get to work!

Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2006-09-06 02:28:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Hey ETS!

I have a wonderful idea! Why don't you drag an issue from your last post into a new one, thereby creating more hits for yourself. It would also help if you added Bart's name to the title.

What? You've already done that?

On a separate note, here's an early Christmas gift for you. And there's no need to thank me. :)
http://www.ubersite.com/m/92504

Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:43:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

You're as cold as ice!

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:38:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:39 (#)
Ranking: -2

Amazing how Bradley pipes down when you hit him with the blatantly obvious.

---------------

No, Bradley pipes down when he goes home and gets away from the computer.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Funny how you didn't respond, Bart, to my actual post AT ALL.

You didn't, for instance, explain to these people HOW it wasn't satire. In fact, you made no compelling argument whatsoever in this matter. The fact is, you jerked off and posed your chest for a minute to assert your 'dominance'.

What a fucking pussy.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:16:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:34:45 (#)
Ranking: -2

You certainly get the "I don't get it but I'm not going to stop arguing my incorrect view point" award of the year.

None of the clauses you copied from the stanford website say anything about "satire". Get it through your head - satire is not exempt from copyright law through the Fair Use clause.

Yes, you can criticize copyrighted things. Yes, you can comment on copyrighted things. In various contexts, you can reproduce clips, excerpts, and other portions of copyrighted things when supplying your own commentary.

You CANNOT reproduce an entire book with your commentary and claim it as satire, no matter what the tone of that commentary is. Similarly, you cannot reproduce full copyrighted photographs, add captions, and claim it as "satire" that is protected under Fair Use.

This was someone taking a handful of copyrighted photos, adding captions, and then reposting them on Ubersite. This is not political speech, satire, parody, time shifting, excerpting, referencing, criticizing, or reviewing. This is very clearly a pure derivative work that is not exempt from copyright law as Fair Use.

To say that you aren't criticizing me is total bullshit as well because you're arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I've clearly done more research on this than you have.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You're completely misinformed on the basic definitions of key legal principles and refuse to educate yourself on the matter.

Don't respond to me because I won't read anything else you say on this topic. You have no idea what you're talking about and you are almost intentionally confusing the issue by bringing in unrelated quotes for things that do not apply to this situation. """

PWNED.

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Amazing how Bradley pipes down when you hit him with the blatantly obvious.

Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1

passed any bar exams lately?

i didn't think so

Submitted by Slighty_Obnoxious (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:41:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

-2 for being a complete fucktard.

Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

You certainly get the "I don't get it but I'm not going to stop arguing my incorrect view point" award of the year.

None of the clauses you copied from the stanford website say anything about "satire". Get it through your head - satire is not exempt from copyright law through the Fair Use clause.

Yes, you can criticize copyrighted things. Yes, you can comment on copyrighted things. In various contexts, you can reproduce clips, excerpts, and other portions of copyrighted things when supplying your own commentary.

You CANNOT reproduce an entire book with your commentary and claim it as satire, no matter what the tone of that commentary is. Similarly, you cannot reproduce full copyrighted photographs, add captions, and claim it as "satire" that is protected under Fair Use.

This was someone taking a handful of copyrighted photos, adding captions, and then reposting them on Ubersite. This is not political speech, satire, parody, time shifting, excerpting, referencing, criticizing, or reviewing. This is very clearly a pure derivative work that is not exempt from copyright law as Fair Use.

To say that you aren't criticizing me is total bullshit as well because you're arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I've clearly done more research on this than you have.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You're completely misinformed on the basic definitions of key legal principles and refuse to educate yourself on the matter.

Don't respond to me because I won't read anything else you say on this topic. You have no idea what you're talking about and you are almost intentionally confusing the issue by bringing in unrelated quotes for things that do not apply to this situation.

Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:51:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1

The Man (Bart) will run HIS website as HE sees fit.

Freedom of speech is a great responsibility, and should be handled with a modicum
of intelligence. Saying/doing anything you wish, without regard for the feelings of others,
is worse than anarchy.

You can walk down the street calling women ugly, but sooner or later one of their
menfolk will whup yer ass.

Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, and others founded this country
through revolution, but they didn't call the King an asswipe or a fucktard, nor
did they post shit that said the King's babies should be sodomized.

A bit of breeding and education are necessary components when attempting to sway
the opinions of the masses, and the founding fathers I mentioned above had those
traits. You do not seem to have them.

Fight the good fight, but fight the right fight.

Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:45:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

It wasn't vandalism if it was an open internet forum.

And, no I will not shut up. You people need to wake the fuck up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merriam-Webster defines vandalism as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property"

If your excuse that it wasn't vandalism is that it was a public domain, you're shit out of luck here. By virtue of purposefully posting messages that the creators of the website (or the families for that matter), those uberers willfully defaced a public domain (property). Granted, real internet vandalism is more along the lines of DoS attacks and whatnot.

I reiterate that a few of the more inspired messages left on GF.com were pretty damn funny, but the owner of that website has every right to pursue action. If you honestly think what you did was just "free speech," you're just warping age-old arguments to suit whatever the fuck you feel like doing. (Those arguments are "you can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" and "my freedoms/liberties/rights begin where yours end").

Now, I have a more serious question. What exactly is it that we need to wake up to? Your impossibly broad definition of free speech borders very close to people doing whatever the fuck they want. WhatEVER they fucking want. Anarchy in the truest sense. I have news for you, buddy. THAT SHIT DOESN'T WORK IN A WORLD WITH 6 BILLION+ PEOPLE IN IT. YEAH, THERE'S WARS AND PEOPLE STARVING AND FUCKED UP SHIT IN GENERAL BUT I GUARANTEE YOUR METHODS WOULD PROVE WORSE. Or, at the very least, perhaps the human race is doomed to inevitably destroy itself no matter what. In that case maybe you're right. Let's just do what we want. Fuck it. I give up on you. I'm going to sleep.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:22:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

hahahah bob.

Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:18:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Wow. Who'da thunk that calling out the administrator of a website would get hits?

Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:46:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

totally...i'm such a bajiner.

Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

well, if you're going to be totlly grammar crazy, it requires a preposition and a relative pronoun.

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:33:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

uh...ok (?)

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:19:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:16:40 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:08:53 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

=============
The above sentence is missing a preposition.
===
I know, it's a typo. Are you gonna be a grammar nazi with an ESL?

======

I don't think so. You seem quite prepared to fly off the handle about it so I'll quit.

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:16:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:08:53 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

=============
The above sentence is missing a preposition.
===
I know, it's a typo. Are you gonna be a grammar nazi with an ESL?

Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:15:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

No Comment

Submitted by mockidol (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:13:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

yeah. you have way too much free time

Submitted by IntangibleHands (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:10:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

You all really need something better to do with your time.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:08:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

=============

The above sentence is missing a preposition.

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

there's nothing funny and yet he's laughing like it's the best day of his life: "BAHAHAHAH, THIS IS TOO FUNNY!"

stfu you fat reject and get back into your fucking hole.

Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-09-05 19:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

No Comment

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 18:59:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

why should anyone give a shit what you think

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:41:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

As for the rest of the post, it can be summed up as this, You think Methods post was fine under fair use.

You also said that fair-use cases work where it can be shown that no loss to the copyright owner has been caused. I think this cannot be shown, the childs parents found there way to Ubersite and did not like the post. It is exceptionally likely that prospective customers would be put off using growingfamily.com after viewing the post. We know for a fact that at least one customer saw the post. Anyone googling growingfamily would be likely to find it. Therefore I don't think a fair use case could possibly succeed. That is my opinion, I am not an expert in US copyright law but this is my logical chain of thoughts following statements in your post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Que?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:39:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Oh, I missed that part...

I can be wrong, I've actually SAID "My bad, I was wrong" on this site on numerous occasions.

But not to you.

Why?
When it comes to your arguments, you've yet to be RIGHT, so how can opposing you be WRONG?

Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:35:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

I love watching these fucking train wrecks.

That is all. Have some more heat, messiah.

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"(see: Wardy, Indoninja, jgreening, DCWoody, iddqd, etc.) who thinks he can never be wrong and thinks I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about when evidence usually vindicates my argument."

First statement incorrect; I can be wrong, just not very often.

First part of second statement correct.

Last part of second statement wrong;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Que?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:34:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

while I do think the argument is semantics, because this website is bartbart's and he can do whatever he wants without explanation, I do appreciate your zeal for the 1st amendment and the fact that you're one of the few who will actually research an argument.

Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Man, it's his website. If you don't like the fact that he'd rather not be known for graciously hosting (for FREE, you dirty bum) a website full of rampaging baby haters, that's his business, not yours.

Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:07:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

fags everywhere

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:06:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:03:59 (#)
Ranking: 0

I, Eric D. Rice of West Virginia, vow to post said material in the name of free speech.

electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com ""

well i never.

bravo.

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

fag above

fag below

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:03:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

She had to turn around.
And she couldn't hold on, no.
She folded.
A dissonance...a dissonance is here.

Wait....those aren't the words.

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:01:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Tom, double tall mochachino latte, 2% milk please

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:59:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Cognitive dissonance?

ZOUNDS!!

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.ubersite.com/m/92684

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:31:08 (#)
Ranking: 0

shit. I remember now - It was about the bombings on July 7th wasn't it? how they were all orchestrated by GWB and Big Tone in order to control us.

If I remember correctly, rather than come up with an intelligent arguemnet, your answer to all of the points that I raised was to simply tell me that I was wrong and had been hoodwinked by the media.

happy days.

--------------------

That's what you WOULD remember if you didn't want to believe what I just fucking told you. You people and your cognitive dissonance never cease to amaze me.

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS, it's like Homer on the skateboard with you, man. YOu go over the edge, fall a bit more into the shitty abyss of idiotic lunacy, and once we think you've hit the bottom, we find out it's just another ledge on the cliff wall, and you have further to fall.

I'm just waiting for you to go off and say the NRA and the ACLU are Nazi-based Christian organizations now..

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:51:33 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:20:33 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS FINALLY JUMPS OFF THE DEEP END!

------------------

You've been saying that for months.
----------------

And it's been valid EVERY. FUCKING. TIME, you psychotic wildabeest.

The lunatic...is on the web.
The lunatic...is on the web.
He rants and raves all night.
Only wants to fight.
We've got to keep the loonies off the web.
</Pink Floyd>

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:51:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:20:33 (#)
Ranking: -2

AND WITH THIS ETS FINALLY JUMPS OFF THE DEEP END!

------------------

You've been saying that for months. Get over it.

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:50:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"For the record, I don't appreciate being brushed off and called an idiot, especially by people I respect....."

So I'm going to type out 6,000 words on why I think you're an idiot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

"If Chewbacca is from Endor you must acquit."

Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:49:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

the funniest thing is that you actually care so much.

oh, and +2 for

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:27:24 (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:21:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

Piggy, shut the fuck up, no one passed you the conch
=======================================================
AAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*dies*

Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Ooooo! All you fucks!

120 reviews?!

I swear, everytime Jpeg, ETS, or Loki posts, it turns into a bitchfest.

The rest of us don't stand a chance.

:'(

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:44:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

What, I'm not allowed to revel in ETS' self-destruction?

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:41:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

"I have herpes on my head"

"You have WHAT on your head?"

"HER-PEEES"

"How the fuck do you get herpes on your head?"

"NO NO NO, I HAVE HAIR-PEEES"

"Ooooooooooooh, HAIR PIECE"

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:39:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

FUCK MAN, I NEVER THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THIS, BUT IM GOING TO HAVE TO FIREWALL UBERSITE OFF OF MY OWN FUCKING NETWORK JUST SO I DONT HAVE TO LISTEN TO JAYPEG BLUBBER INCESSANTLY

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:38:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I SAID SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU GODDAMM WALRUS, WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:33:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

OH man, Meth, I just can't do that. This is too fucking funny.

ETS can't stand when anyone says ANYTHING bad about him, even if that guy defends him 99 times out of 100.

It's CLASSIC. I'm just waiting for the time when Filthy says "You know, Brad, maybe we shouldn't go out to dinner tonight, I'm a little tired" and watch him write a 45-page dissertation about why women are evil and he can't believe she wouldn't want anything from Hardee's even though there is written proof that she like Hardee's.

Oh gawd, I actually laughed so hard reading this, I think I shat out 3-4 pounds of fat.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

shit. I remember now - It was about the bombings on July 7th wasn't it? how they were all orchestrated by GWB and Big Tone in order to control us.

If I remember correctly, rather than come up with an intelligent arguemnet, your answer to all of the points that I raised was to simply tell me that I was wrong and had been hoodwinked by the media.

happy days.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I think you're getting a little confused my friend, being a skeptic doesn't mean instantly believing every theory ever conceived just because it goes against the official explanation - That's just gullibility.

I'd also like to see where I spent an entire post arguing with you, I 'm not saying that it didn't happen, I just can't remember it.

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:27:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:21:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

Piggy, shut the fuck up, no one passed you the conch
=======================================================
AAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*dies*

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:21:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Piggy, shut the fuck up, no one passed you the conch

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:20:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

AND WITH THIS ETS FINALLY JUMPS OFF THE DEEP END!

Dude, Bart and Rob Berg have been your two main supporters.

And now you alienate Bart?

So all you have left is Rob Berg?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just waiting on the -2 No Comment retaliations on Bart's posts now...

Should be coming soon, I'd imagine.

And the FUNNIEST thing to me, is that this is the same damn way ETS thought I "turned" on him.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:19:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:15 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:00:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't make you a free mind, it makes you a sucker.

----------------------

And being in the Army makes you a fucking dumbass.

----------------------

wow. talk about somebody with very little appreciation for what they have.

Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:14:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

WTF?? I'm not reading all that!

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:10:14 (#)
Ranking: 0

you through down the gauntlet to somebody not on them.

-------------------

I can throw it where I like.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:07:19 (#)
Ranking: 0

It wasn't vandalism if it was an open internet forum.

And, no I will not shut up. You people need to wake the fuck up.

---------------------

You need to grow some goddamn balls, sack the fuck up and post the growingfamily shit on your website you fucking chickenhawk.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:00:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't make you a free mind, it makes you a sucker.

----------------------

And being in the Army makes you a fucking dumbass.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:10:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

you through down the gauntlet to somebody not on them.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:03:09 (#)
Ranking: 0

Dunno... Seemed to do a preetty good job to me and I'm a skeptic. Anyway, I was just wondering is all, now I'll be on my merry way.

-------------------

You're not a fucking skeptic. You spent an entire post bashing me once for my "crazy theories".

Now you're a fucking liar too.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:07:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:28:01 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:05:33 (#)
Ranking: 0

I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, he admits it!

Buddy, take a step back, breathe, close your eyes and then think about it. You're actually defending the whole GrowingFamily thing? Dude, it was an attack on a company. I mean, it would have been one thing if Method just randomly made a collage of baby pictures from their website and made obscene comments. Fine. You laugh. I laugh. I laugh again. I laugh one more time.

But then people start logging onto the other site and vandalizing it. Yes, "vandalizing" it. Was it funny? Yeah, of course, but if I were the owner of that company I'd do exactly what they did. What, do you expect to be allowed to walk into your local pizza shop and start spraypainting their walls? You're just expressing yourself, are you not?

I really think this would not have been an issue if it had been kept to Ubersite. I mean, it's making fun of babies, for pete's sake. Who would really take it that seriously unless they own a website that promotes leaving comments about babies?

I think the lesson to be learned here is that we're not as invincible here as some of us think we are. Whatever influence we think we have on others on this site do not carry over into other sites or the real world. Try coming over near my neighborhood and see how many times you can say "nigger" before your ass gets whooped. Brad, you have many liberties that billions others in this world do not have. I personally would like to see you jailed just so your shit conspiracy posts would stop appearing on Uber, but I know that unfortunately will not happen.

In closing, please shut the fucking fuck up and get back to covering rock albums.

--SS Agent Jon (I'm watching you right now)

---------------------

It wasn't vandalism if it was an open internet forum.

And, no I will not shut up. You people need to wake the fuck up.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:03:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Dunno... Seemed to do a preetty good job to me and I'm a skeptic. Anyway, I was just wondering is all, now I'll be on my merry way.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:02:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:52:02 (#)
Ranking: 0

They (Hezbollah) kidnapped 2 soldiers and, for that, thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians were bombed and killed. You can try to spin it however you like, but that's a fucking fact, jack.

-------------------------------

The blood is all on hezebullah's hands. they kidnapped the soilders, they attacked with civilian shields, how you find Israel to be the only one in the wrong really baffles me.

But lets get back tot he heart of this post. Post the pictures, and all your anti-Bush Posts on your website and lets see how you fight for freedom of speech when your name is on the line you fucking coward.

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:00:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I was in the army in said time and your numbers are absolute shit, ETS. You always say "LOOK IT UP!" and then people show you something else and you look like a fucking moron.

http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/read.php?story_id_key=9197

The fact is, you haven't spent a single day in the military and you are talking shit from that oversized hole in your face.

I'd like to see you join, however. You'd cry like a bitch on your first front-back-go smoke session. I'd make you do the dying cockroach until you completely toed the Bush party line. Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't make you a free mind, it makes you a sucker.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:00:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:52:02 (#)
Ranking: 0

They (Hezbollah) kidnapped 2 soldiers and, for that, thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians were bombed and killed. You can try to spin it however you like, but that's a fucking fact, jack.

Attacking the Israeli Army in an isolate attack is a different story than attacking civilian targets in an all-out bombardment. Furthermore, it is certainly no excuse for the Bush administration to be defending Israel in the matter when their actions were clearly misdirected overkill, and possibly even constituting war crimes.

Talk about misinformation...

--------------------------------

Hahaha, all-out bombardment? Don't make claims like that and bring up misinformation.

Civilians were struck because Hezebullah launched rockets from civilian areas. There is photographic proof from journalists, there is testimony from christian towns, there is testimony from the NATO forces that were hit, and the IDF has released videos proving this. Israel has no responsibility to the Lebanese people, and they should not let hezebullah launch rockets without repraisal because civilians will get hurt.

It is amazing to me that you hate Bush so much you will excuse a terrorist group for using civilians as human shields.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:59:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:55:39 (#)
Ranking: 0

I'd be intrested to know if you've read this or not -

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

-------------------------

Been linked to and read on numerous fucking occasions, and it's bullshit. It does nothing to debunk the actual questions asked in the film.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:58:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:26:42 (#)
Ranking: 0

all the pictures you should ever need of the Pentagon

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

---------------------

No sir. That's not even CLOSE.

I want to see the goddamn videotapes.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:55:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I'd be intrested to know if you've read this or not -

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:53:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:47:06 (#)
Ranking: -2

glad to see you're still fucking shit up, as usual. your rights end where another person's begin. free speech does not give you free reign over someone else's property, sorry dick.

-------------------

No one ever said it did, moron.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:52:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:41:24 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:12:32 (#)
Ranking: 0

No, I said find me pictures of bodies. And I quit uber for longer than a week before I decided I wasn't going to give up that easily.

Why stop? Do you think the Iranian Oil Bourse is ancient history or something? Guess what...it's alive and well. Why do you think they've been desperately trying to tie Iran and Syria and Hezbollah together? Why do you think the news media has managed to spin the cause of the recent Israeli/Lebanese conflict to seem as if Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel first? President Bush stood up the other day at a press conference and stated flatly that the whole thing started because Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. I've got the whole fucking press conference on videotape and rewound the fucker about 20 times to ensure myself that's what he was suggesting. Sure enough, it was. I couldn't fucking believe it.

-------------------------------------------

Where the fuck do you thinnk Hezebullah got the thousands of rockets they have stockpiled over the last 6 years?

If the Oil Bourse is going to be so good for the Euro and Iran is so peaceloving why is the EU unified in its calls for Iran to stop trying to refine Uranium, or to stop arming Hezebullah?

Hezebullah didn't alunch rockets first (some Israeli's might disagree since there have been sporadic rocket attacks from hezebullah over the last 6 years) but they did initiate the lates agression by crossing the border and attacking the Israeli Army.

----------------------

They (Hezbollah) kidnapped 2 soldiers and, for that, thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians were bombed and killed. You can try to spin it however you like, but that's a fucking fact, jack.

Attacking the Israeli Army in an isolate attack is a different story than attacking civilian targets in an all-out bombardment. Furthermore, it is certainly no excuse for the Bush administration to be defending Israel in the matter when their actions were clearly misdirected overkill, and possibly even constituting war crimes.

Talk about misinformation...

Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:50:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"Bodies or plane parts."

Or. If only you'd made it "and plane parts" this wouldn't be an issue.

As it stands he satisfied your request, didn't he?
Half of it, sure, but you're the one that proposed an either/or situation.

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:49:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

and I discounted all of your links on that post showing that they were all dated from last year having nothing to do with supporting your points that there are recruiting shortfalls.

aside from that all of those links used the DoD for their information, looking back into the DOD releases you can find that yes they did have shortfalls in the timespan that THOSE articles were written about

so as I said then and do now...the DOD info is good enough to use when it suits your argument but not good enough when it points to something positive....that is hypocritical.

Aside from all of that the max. age was never 26 unless it was pre 93 when I joined.

Professional or not, posting something as fact and then retracting it or 'correcting' as you delicately put it, is disinformation.

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:49:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Musicians, despair: olga.net has been taken down due to accusation of copyright infringement: http://www.olga.net/

Sad...it was such a wonderful guitar tablature source. I hope the owner of the site wins the case.

I'm going to go cry now.

Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:47:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:19:32 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:13:08 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:46:48 (#)
Ranking: 0

IF he was making fun of the pictures (aka satire), was not using more than a significant portion of the total book, was found not to be hampering the market value of the original in any way, and was GIVING the book away, it's fair use.

Period.
--------------------

I think he mentioned taking "every photo in this book," which constitutes a significant portion of work. If you have a good lawyer it is very easy to argue that it hurts the market value.

As I mentioned here http://www.ubersite.com/m/92670#2129310 in the case of the photos on Ubersite, it would hurt growingfamilies business if anyone saw the posts on Ubersite.

--------------------

He DID mention taking every photo in the book, but that obviously doesn't apply to this scenario whatsoever, because Method wasn't taking every photo in the book.

As for you argument about growingfamilies business being hurt, it would not be difficult to argue that since they left their forum entirely open and unmoderated, they are at fault for any losses, and their recourse should not extend beyond moderating the offending material on their site and disallowing any futher offenders from registering and posting comments.

---------------------------------------

glad to see you're still fucking shit up, as usual. your rights end where another person's begin. free speech does not give you free reign over someone else's property, sorry dick.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:44:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:37:26 (#)
Ranking: 0

as far as disinformation I'd point to your whole post on the involuntary draft

you said something like it was a clear sign on a coming draft, it was shown on the post that this call up had been done before

you said the maximum age for enlistment was 26 and miraculously bumped to 42, it was shown that the enslistment age was infact 35 and recieeved a bump to 42

------------------------

It had gone from 26 to 35 to 42 during the fucking course of the Bush administration. Look it the fuck up.

As far as I'm concerned, that post and the point I made stands. I clarified any mistakes I had made clearly in the reviews. I'm not disseminating disinformation here. It was a hurried post and I'm not a fucking paid professional here.

I showed you all clearly in the reviews hwo the Army's numbers were being fixed to skew the truth. I gave you a shitload of links to support that.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:41:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:12:32 (#)
Ranking: 0

No, I said find me pictures of bodies. And I quit uber for longer than a week before I decided I wasn't going to give up that easily.

Why stop? Do you think the Iranian Oil Bourse is ancient history or something? Guess what...it's alive and well. Why do you think they've been desperately trying to tie Iran and Syria and Hezbollah together? Why do you think the news media has managed to spin the cause of the recent Israeli/Lebanese conflict to seem as if Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel first? President Bush stood up the other day at a press conference and stated flatly that the whole thing started because Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. I've got the whole fucking press conference on videotape and rewound the fucker about 20 times to ensure myself that's what he was suggesting. Sure enough, it was. I couldn't fucking believe it.

-------------------------------------------

Where the fuck do you thinnk Hezebullah got the thousands of rockets they have stockpiled over the last 6 years?

If the Oil Bourse is going to be so good for the Euro and Iran is so peaceloving why is the EU unified in its calls for Iran to stop trying to refine Uranium, or to stop arming Hezebullah?

Hezebullah didn't alunch rockets first (some Israeli's might disagree since there have been sporadic rocket attacks from hezebullah over the last 6 years) but they did initiate the lates agression by crossing the border and attacking the Israeli Army.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:28:48 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:08:27 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 0

You spread disinformation and attack someone for wanting to not have to shut down their hobby. That's enough.

-------------------

What disinformation have I spread?
-----

1) The part where you told him to call the ACLU, who won't TOUCH THIS CASE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE GOVERNMENT.

[Is that so now? http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2003/100612/ Now who's offering up the disinformation, punk?]

2) The part where you don't understand that parody and satire don't involve using a company's trademarked logos without permission.

[To my knowledge, there was no trademark violation here. That wasn't even at issue. Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?]

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:37:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

as far as disinformation I'd point to your whole post on the involuntary draft

you said something like it was a clear sign on a coming draft, it was shown on the post that this call up had been done before

you said the maximum age for enlistment was 26 and miraculously bumped to 42, it was shown that the enslistment age was infact 35 and recieeved a bump to 42

you said it was an 'involuntary callup', it was shown and told to you buy members or past member that we are all aware that this can and does happen...its part of a contract.

so don't envoke your prowess over all things you've posted and then bitch when people jump off of the topic of the current post.

you do get proven wrong, you do have a selective memory, you have been proven to provide less than factual information

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:31:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

"No, I said find me pictures of bodies."

Absolute lie right there. You asked for pictures of fuselage or airplane parts. Don't make me dig up the post, please.

----------------------

I'll do it for you:

I actually said bodies or plane parts.

http://www.ubersite.com/m/87450

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:28:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:08:27 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 0

You spread disinformation and attack someone for wanting to not have to shut down their hobby. That's enough.

-------------------

What disinformation have I spread?
-----
1) The part where you told him to call the ACLU, who won't TOUCH THIS CASE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE GOVERNMENT.
2) The part where you don't understand that parody and satire don't involve using a company's trademarked logos without permission.

Need more, chimp?

Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:28:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:05:33 (#)
Ranking: 0

I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, he admits it!

Buddy, take a step back, breathe, close your eyes and then think about it. You're actually defending the whole GrowingFamily thing? Dude, it was an attack on a company. I mean, it would have been one thing if Method just randomly made a collage of baby pictures from their website and made obscene comments. Fine. You laugh. I laugh. I laugh again. I laugh one more time.

But then people start logging onto the other site and vandalizing it. Yes, "vandalizing" it. Was it funny? Yeah, of course, but if I were the owner of that company I'd do exactly what they did. What, do you expect to be allowed to walk into your local pizza shop and start spraypainting their walls? You're just expressing yourself, are you not?

I really think this would not have been an issue if it had been kept to Ubersite. I mean, it's making fun of babies, for pete's sake. Who would really take it that seriously unless they own a website that promotes leaving comments about babies?

I think the lesson to be learned here is that we're not as invincible here as some of us think we are. Whatever influence we think we have on others on this site do not carry over into other sites or the real world. Try coming over near my neighborhood and see how many times you can say "nigger" before your ass gets whooped. Brad, you have many liberties that billions others in this world do not have. I personally would like to see you jailed just so your shit conspiracy posts would stop appearing on Uber, but I know that unfortunately will not happen.

In closing, please shut the fucking fuck up and get back to covering rock albums.

--SS Agent Jon (I'm watching you right now)

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:26:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

all the pictures you should ever need of the Pentagon

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:23:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:14:31 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:09:28 (#)
Ranking: -2

You get discreditted on facts CONSTANTLY. I hardly try anymore because you simply ignore them. Like the pictures of WTC#7 damaged from debris.

-------------------

You're a LIAR!

You never gave me a single picture of WTC7's supposed 20 foot hole damage.

You sent me a link to a picture that didn't show a goddamned thing and, I guess assumed no one would click on it to find out.

You're a fucking liar and a fake and I'm onto you, you piece of shit.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I never said I sent you picture of a 20 ft hole. I sent you a picture of some of the damage to WTC7 and a huge fire.

Before you go calling people Liars why don't you retract all you statements about not paying taxes, leaving the site if people found pics of debris from 93's crash and all the opther BS you go on and on about.

Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:19:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:33:51 (#)
Ranking: 0

e) I am fully aware of my own spiritual development or lack thereof without you trying to point it out. Why would you think that everything I say is grandstanding? What reason have I given you to think that? Is it the sheer volume of my apparent passion for this shit? If you think I do this for some kind of sick negative popularity or notoriety you're sorely mistaken. I wish I could prove that to you somehow, but I really can't. Even if someone emailed me the fucking pictures and I posted them on my website you wouldn't believe my sincerity. I just don't see how, after all the shit I've put myself through in the past year to expose some of the shit I feel passionately about with you all, you can question, of all things, my sincerity. I am NOT a fucking liar! I DO NOT wear a goddamned mask! If there's nothing I hate more than anything, it's a fucking fake, and if there's anything I'm not, it's one of those. I might be a conspiracy theorist. I might be a fucking dick. I might be an uneducated, worthless internet pissant. But I'm not a fake.

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

"No, I said find me pictures of bodies."

Absolute lie right there. You asked for pictures of fuselage or airplane parts. Don't make me dig up the post, please.

---

Do it, Method.

Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:16:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Comment

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:16:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

"No, I said find me pictures of bodies."

Absolute lie right there. You asked for pictures of fuselage or airplane parts. Don't make me dig up the post, please.

Submitted by sealclubber (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:15:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Bart should just -2 no comment this bitch

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:14:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:09:28 (#)
Ranking: -2

You get discreditted on facts CONSTANTLY. I hardly try anymore because you simply ignore them. Like the pictures of WTC#7 damaged from debris.

-------------------

You're a LIAR!

You never gave me a single picture of WTC7's supposed 20 foot hole damage.

You sent me a link to a picture that didn't show a goddamned thing and, I guess assumed no one would click on it to find out.

You're a fucking liar and a fake and I'm onto you, you piece of shit.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:12:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:49:02 (#)
Ranking: -1

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:08:27 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 0

You spread disinformation and attack someone for wanting to not have to shut down their hobby. That's enough.

-------------------

What disinformation have I spread?

-----
Jeez, where do we start, Brad? You're worse than the 9th Directorate of the KGB!
OK. Remember when you said that there was no proof of United 93 crashing in Pennsylvania? And said you'd quit Uber if anybody could find some valid proof? And Method did in about 10 minutes? (to your credit, you did quit Uber...for a week)

I could go on and on (Iranian Oil Bourse, etc etc), but frankly, it's too tiresome.

----------------------

No, I said find me pictures of bodies. And I quit uber for longer than a week before I decided I wasn't going to give up that easily.

Why stop? Do you think the Iranian Oil Bourse is ancient history or something? Guess what...it's alive and well. Why do you think they've been desperately trying to tie Iran and Syria and Hezbollah together? Why do you think the news media has managed to spin the cause of the recent Israeli/Lebanese conflict to seem as if Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel first? President Bush stood up the other day at a press conference and stated flatly that the whole thing started because Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel. I've got the whole fucking press conference on videotape and rewound the fucker about 20 times to ensure myself that's what he was suggesting. Sure enough, it was. I couldn't fucking believe it.

August 27, 2006
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=45313&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs
"The minister added the Bourse Organization of Iran has approved the establishment of an oil bourse and every thing is ready for its inauguration."

Sep 4, 2006
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=jain%2Fjain96.txt&writer=jain
If Iranian President Ahmadinejad is serious about opening a Euro-based oil bourse in Tehran to undermine the US dollar, now is the time to strike. Strategic experts believe that internationally, the mega strategic energy deals are slipping away from corporate America, whose strong arm tactics are alienating growing nationalist sentiment across the world.

Washington's use of the September 2001 New York terror strike to cynically assume a commanding position in oil and gas rich Central Asia has startled the international community, especially after the unwarranted invasion of Iraq and takeover of its economy by cronies of the White House. This has forced a major rethink in world capitals, and resource-rich regimes in the Gulf and Central Asia are responding to Russia and China, who are cooperating to combat America's monopolistic ambitions.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:09:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:00:33 (#)
Ranking: 0

Here's an accusation for ya though...YOU combat my every post because you're getting PAID to do it. You cannot discredit me on facts. Not a goddamned one of you can. So what do you do? You attack me personally to try and discredit me in the eyes of others. It'll work for a while, but it can't work forever. Eventually, too many of my predictions will come true and you motherfuckers will have no choice but to reconsider what that crazy fucker had to say.

At this point, it's tempting to wish it happens just so I can tell you all to go fuck yourselves and laugh while you stumble over yourselves trying to explain what I've been telling you would happen all along.

Case in point...

Gas prices went down sharply last week. Yes, right before one of the biggest travel weekends of the year, gasoline prices fell from about $2.84 or $2.90 to $2.46 at area stations. I told you all last year how the gas prices were being lowered before the Christmas holiday to increase consumer confidence and I warned that prices would skyrocket after New Years. And what happened? I was right.

Now the same thing is happening, but his time there's an election involved. The same thing will happen again.

You say there is no kind of conspiracy, explain why gasoline prices fell before a holiday weekend. If it's truly about the markets, then why did this happen? Explain it to me.
----------------------------------------------------------

You get discreditted on facts CONSTANTLY. I hardly try anymore because you simply ignore them. Like the pictures of WTC#7 damaged from debris.

I personally try and discredit you because you are either doing this for attention or full of shit or both. What else would you say about someone who asks people not to pay taxes then pays? I am sure you will pull the same shit with the growing family pictures. You are worse than a fucking coward because you encourage people to do what you are afraid to do. You are what is wrong with the world.

That happens with the Gas prices every year.

The dip was pretty big recently because of the news of a huge oil find in the Gulf. It jumps and lowers all the time on the strenght of fucking rumnors.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:00:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:44:02 (#)
Ranking: -2

You don't see how it is grandstanding? You float from topic to topic trying to get as much attention as possible, not for any cause but attention to yourself.

---------------

I float from topic to topic because there are a lot of important topics that face us right not that no one here seems to be discussing without me bringing it up.

You ASSUME it's for attention, but how much sense does that make when you don't even really know me personally? What POSSIBLE benefit could that have for me?

Here's an accusation for ya though...YOU combat my every post because you're getting PAID to do it. You cannot discredit me on facts. Not a goddamned one of you can. So what do you do? You attack me personally to try and discredit me in the eyes of others. It'll work for a while, but it can't work forever. Eventually, too many of my predictions will come true and you motherfuckers will have no choice but to reconsider what that crazy fucker had to say.

At this point, it's tempting to wish it happens just so I can tell you all to go fuck yourselves and laugh while you stumble over yourselves trying to explain what I've been telling you would happen all along.

Case in point...

Gas prices went down sharply last week. Yes, right before one of the biggest travel weekends of the year, gasoline prices fell from about $2.84 or $2.90 to $2.46 at area stations. I told you all last year how the gas prices were being lowered before the Christmas holiday to increase consumer confidence and I warned that prices would skyrocket after New Years. And what happened? I was right.

Now the same thing is happening, but his time there's an election involved. The same thing will happen again.

You say there is no kind of conspiracy, explain why gasoline prices fell before a holiday weekend. If it's truly about the markets, then why did this happen? Explain it to me.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:57:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:33:51 (#)
Ranking: 0

a) I don't care if Bart doesn't respond to this.

===============

What?

You create a post *about* him, with his name in the title, and hell, there's nothing NOT related to him in some way here.

Yet, you don't care if he responds?

100% bullshit.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:57:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:22:22 (#)
Ranking: 0

And as for hosting the images on my site or elsewhere, do you think I have nothing better to do than wage some sort of free speech war upon growingfamily.com? If I were to do it, it sure as hell wouldn't be with this, because this would never make it to the Supreme Court. If I felt that I was involved in something that could get appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, I just might, but this...THIS.....is MAKING FUN OF BABIES. It was crude and vile and absolutely hysterical, but I just really don't give a shit enough to deal with it, and I'm glad that Bart took it down (Thank you Bart). If those lawyers come after me, Eric D. Rice of West Virginia, you bet your sweet ass I'll fight it until my dying breath, but I'm not going to sit here and poke sticks at them by hosting the image again. Bart could have been an asshole, given them all our information, and removed the images, but he's protecting our identities. That's a whole hell of a lot more than I would expect from some admin on a website, and I respect him for it.

Sure, I'm a proponent of free speech, but who the fuck really wants to deal with that shit, unless you have nothing better to do? I have a job and some sort of social life. """

exactly.

there are bigger battles.

Plus, look at it this way would you want to defend anything in a court of law that you would be ashamed to show your parents?

I know I wouldn't.

Bart handled it perfectly - i didn't see that at first - but now i do.

Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:49:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

BEEP BEEP BEEP

UBER ETIQUTTE ANOMALY

BEEP BEEP BEEP

System initialized...
Analyzing...
Comment too long to be a comment and therefore turned into a post...
Rating program initialized...
Calibrating...

-2.

Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:49:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:08:27 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 0

You spread disinformation and attack someone for wanting to not have to shut down their hobby. That's enough.

-------------------

What disinformation have I spread?

-----
Jeez, where do we start, Brad? You're worse than the 9th Directorate of the KGB!
OK. Remember when you said that there was no proof of United 93 crashing in Pennsylvania? And said you'd quit Uber if anybody could find some valid proof? And Method did in about 10 minutes? (to your credit, you did quit Uber...for a week)

I could go on and on (Iranian Oil Bourse, etc etc), but frankly, it's too tiresome.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:44:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:33:51 (#)
Ranking: 0

c) As for me having nothing to risk, or not putting my money where my mouth is, I resent that. You ask FilthyAssistant what I have risked lately by doing some of the things I've done and writing some of the posts I have written. I'm sure she'll give you more than an earfull about some of the choices I've made.
--------------------------------------

You buckled like a cheap whore when it cam to paying your taxes. The fact is you backed out on everysingle grand claim you made about fighting the man.

e) I am fully aware of my own spiritual development or lack thereof without you trying to point it out. Why would you think that everything I say is grandstanding? What reason have I given you to think that? Is it the sheer volume of my apparent passion for this shit? If you think I do this for some kind of sick negative popularity or notoriety you're sorely mistaken. I wish I could prove that to you somehow, but I really can't. Even if someone emailed me the fucking pictures and I posted them on my website you wouldn't believe my sincerity. I just don't see how, after all the shit I've put myself through in the past year to expose some of the shit I feel passionately about with you all, you can question, of all things, my sincerity. I am NOT a fucking liar! I DO NOT wear a goddamned mask! If there's nothing I hate more than anything, it's a fucking fake, and if there's anything I'm not, it's one of those. I might be a conspiracy theorist. I might be a fucking dick. I might be an uneducated, worthless internet pissant. But I'm not a fake.
-------------------------------------------

You don't see how it is grandstanding? You float from topic to topic trying to get as much attention as possible, not for any cause but attention to yourself.

You are a fake. You did pay your taxes, you won't leave the US, help third world countries, live off the grid, and even if you posted those growing family pictures you would take them off the second you got a letter of complaint.

When it comes to your fight against the man you are a fucking chickenhawk. How many times have you cried out to people to stop paying taxes and rise up, but what are you doing? Paying your taxes and keeping your head down in your 9-5.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:33:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:50:54 (#)
Ranking: 0

I can't believe that you, of all people, are arguing that those posts and pictures and the comments made were ok.

Legally ok....that is possible but as someone who supposedly 'gives a shit' don't you think that the content (read: suggestions of raping babies and whatnot) was questionable?

Sure it was fun/funny whatever but when it comes down to it who wants to stand up and fight and let the world know that their battle, the one they've decided to make their stand on and take to task is the one where a bunch of internet retards (that would be us here at uber) were laughing and hootin it up at the idea of raping babies.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that why put so much effort into this brad, to show that with your education (does reading something on the web constitute education?) that you could out research Bart?

What will you do, how will it feel if he doesn't respond to you at all on this....will you stammmer and demand the fight that is due to you?

It's easy to sit and say someone should do this and someone should make this stand and it's bullshit and someone is having their rights taken away....its easy to do all that WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO RISK!

As it was mentioned below, put up your own site, make your own threats to the president, post your own pictures taken from other sites...do this and you are doing something...do this and you are putting your money where your mouth is....do this and you MIGHT gain some respect.

Don't do it and all you're doing is grandstanding, as with your last post I'll make this comment and go, no -2 because I've got no reason to fight with you and you'll likely ignore me because I don't come here to argue with you and the things I say are logical and you cannot counter me. I did it on your last post, scourge even quoted what I said and you ignored it.

you have no desire for truth, for fighting for what's right, for helping the people, you shut want your goddamn name in the fucking lights and its getting regoddamndiculous.

-------------------

a) I don't care if Bart doesn't respond to this.

b) I just said below that I'd be more than happy to host the images on my site, even though I disagree with the content.

c) As for me having nothing to risk, or not putting my money where my mouth is, I resent that. You ask FilthyAssistant what I have risked lately by doing some of the things I've done and writing some of the posts I have written. I'm sure she'll give you more than an earfull about some of the choices I've made.

d) I don't want to threaten the president. I do, however, want to have the ability to express my solemn wish to see his head roll off a guillotine blade into a little basket. I will express that wish and then I will judge myself for it because it directly conflicts with what I REALLY want, which is peace.

e) I am fully aware of my own spiritual development or lack thereof without you trying to point it out. Why would you think that everything I say is grandstanding? What reason have I given you to think that? Is it the sheer volume of my apparent passion for this shit? If you think I do this for some kind of sick negative popularity or notoriety you're sorely mistaken. I wish I could prove that to you somehow, but I really can't. Even if someone emailed me the fucking pictures and I posted them on my website you wouldn't believe my sincerity. I just don't see how, after all the shit I've put myself through in the past year to expose some of the shit I feel passionately about with you all, you can question, of all things, my sincerity. I am NOT a fucking liar! I DO NOT wear a goddamned mask! If there's nothing I hate more than anything, it's a fucking fake, and if there's anything I'm not, it's one of those. I might be a conspiracy theorist. I might be a fucking dick. I might be an uneducated, worthless internet pissant. But I'm not a fake.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:15:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

disinformation  /dsnfərmeən, dsn-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-in-fer-mey-shuhn, dis-in-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

-noun

false information, as about a country's military strength or plans, publicly announced or planted in the news media, esp. of other countries.

-----------------

How APPROPRIATE.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:08:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 0

You spread disinformation and attack someone for wanting to not have to shut down their hobby. That's enough.

-------------------

What disinformation have I spread?

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:07:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:50:54 (#)
Ranking: 0

I can't believe that you, of all people, are arguing that those posts and pictures and the comments made were ok.

Legally ok....that is possible but as someone who supposedly 'gives a shit' don't you think that the content (read: suggestions of raping babies and whatnot) was questionable?

--------------------

I also think that the content of much of what passes for 'art' these days is questionable, but that shouldn't give me the license to abridge someone else's freedom to decide for his or herself what constitutes 'art'.

This is the beauty of America, man...or, rather, was SUPPOSED to be the beauty of America.

There is no law against being an asshole with a sick sense of humor, but there IS a law that protects our right to be one.

I'm not defending the post by any means. In fact, I saw it was was fairly disgusted by it. I felt it was thoughtless and perverse and didn't even deserve my time to -2 it. But that's not the point.

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 14:05:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

You spread disinformation and attack someone for wanting to not have to shut down their hobby. That's enough.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:51:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:42:47 (#)
Ranking: 0

The ACLU won't touch most copyright cases. Too hard to win, too expensive to fight against corporate pockets, too little to prove. But you knew that, right? You knew that he should really contact the EFF, right? RIGHT?

---------------------

Nope. I didn't know about the EFF, but thank you for the information.

http://www.eff.org/

Why do you have to be a dick about it though? I did nothing to you.

Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:50:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I can't believe that you, of all people, are arguing that those posts and pictures and the comments made were ok.

Legally ok....that is possible but as someone who supposedly 'gives a shit' don't you think that the content (read: suggestions of raping babies and whatnot) was questionable?

Sure it was fun/funny whatever but when it comes down to it who wants to stand up and fight and let the world know that their battle, the one they've decided to make their stand on and take to task is the one where a bunch of internet retards (that would be us here at uber) were laughing and hootin it up at the idea of raping babies.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that why put so much effort into this brad, to show that with your education (does reading something on the web constitute education?) that you could out research Bart?

What will you do, how will it feel if he doesn't respond to you at all on this....will you stammmer and demand the fight that is due to you?

It's easy to sit and say someone should do this and someone should make this stand and it's bullshit and someone is having their rights taken away....its easy to do all that WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO RISK!

As it was mentioned below, put up your own site, make your own threats to the president, post your own pictures taken from other sites...do this and you are doing something...do this and you are putting your money where your mouth is....do this and you MIGHT gain some respect.

Don't do it and all you're doing is grandstanding, as with your last post I'll make this comment and go, no -2 because I've got no reason to fight with you and you'll likely ignore me because I don't come here to argue with you and the things I say are logical and you cannot counter me. I did it on your last post, scourge even quoted what I said and you ignored it.

you have no desire for truth, for fighting for what's right, for helping the people, you shut want your goddamn name in the fucking lights and its getting regoddamndiculous.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:28:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

What no one takes into account is that I didn't create the actual work in question, I just took it from another post, saved it to my hard drive, and reposted it, as a POINT OF REFERENCE. I didn't create the original work. Neither did the person that I took it from. It was emailed to him from someone else who put the collage together. Who the fuck is at fault here?

If I had never reposted that image from said post, this entire affair wouldn't have happened. The lawyers would have said "Well, fuck, we can't get them on anything", because leaving those comments was perfectly legal, (which, I might add, I did not partake in, so they can blow me), so they passed it back to the IT department to STOP BEING SUCH FUCKING RETARDS AND LOCK DOWN THE SITE, which they did anyway.

You DO realize that what these lawyers were really angry about was the comments made, and there was NOTHING illegal about that, so they went after the bullshit copyright thing to force Barts hand to take the posts down and scare us into not going to that site again?

Technically, they have a case, if they wanted to pursue it, but they won't. They sicced their lawyers on us to stop the comments from flowing in.

Scare tactics, plain and simple.

-------------------------

I realize you didn't author the original post. I was using your name out of convenience.

You're right though. It was scare tactics. And you're right also that they DO have a case, but Bart also has a case! That's what I'm trying to get across here. It's one of those grey areas in the law where two statues conflict with one another.

The question is....where does it end?

-----------------------------------------

The question is do you have the balls to fight growing family over your right to "free speech".

You made a big post about what Bart should have done, you claim that the ACLU would probably be on your side, you seem to think the law will be on your side.

Are you going to back up the BS you preach about just one single time? I am sure Method will provide you with the pictures. The real question is do you have the balls to do anything with them.

Submitted by Poots (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:45:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

everyone hates me...

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

The ACLU won't touch most copyright cases. Too hard to win, too expensive to fight against corporate pockets, too little to prove. But you knew that, right? You knew that he should really contact the EFF, right? RIGHT?

Nope. Not right. You're a wannabe lawyer and a permanent victim of THE MAN. The easiest way to defeat any threatened lawsuit is to ask that GrowingFamily.com show that they have exclusive rights to all content, including the ORIGINAL background which was cited in the complaint letter. Want that passage? "The copyright infringement part of it is legitimate in that neither I nor anyone here has any right to reproduce the photos and other copyrighted work (logos, backgrounds, etc.) from their site."

No, Captain Screams-a-lot, Satire does NOT allow to take a trademarked logo and use it. It does NOT allow you to take someone else's copyrighted work and use it in the same fashion. How do I know? I know because of the yearly seminar I have to go to regarding how to deal with complaints about copyrighted content. See, as I have root access to our web server, it is part of my job to delete infringing content when proof of infringement is provided.

All Bart did was skip the step of demanding proof of infringement because he was liable to have an upstream provider pull the plug in order to limit their own liability. He pulled them because he can't afford to fight it and piss off his provider for a HOBBY. A HOBBY! Go out and find a few of those, and I guarantee your world will expand beyond unfounded fears of government/corporate conspiracies to keep you from talking about raping babies.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:36:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:32:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

"one of those grey areas in the law where two statues conflict with one another."

OMFUG I HATE IT WHEN TEH STATUES FIGHT!!!

BAD STATUES! STALIN! BAD! THE GUY WHO INVENTED THE DONUT HOLE! BAD!

STOP FIGHTING, STATUES!

---------------

Don't even pretend to protray ME as the neandertal when you're the one that posted a guitar solo what was in about 27 different keys at once.

Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:35:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

You'll find people don't like wasting time on things that aren't important to them. Obviously, fighting some retarded freedom of speech campaign was not something Bart was prepared to spend valuable time and energy on.

You on the other hand would fight for the right of Negroes to; boycott showering in perpetuity, just because it gave you something to do for 7 years.

Most normal people have things to do. Luckily for you, you're not normal, you're a fucking tap case.

Keep fighting the good fight, Princess. Someone is bound to get sick of your bullshit eventually and take you up on of your baseless offers of confrontation.

Hopefully it will be someone who shoots first and asks questions later.

Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:35:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

He said that because ALL of your "arguments" are "Ill-informed", you fucking idiot.

Submitted by BadAssJulie (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:34:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Dude, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LET IT GO. I am so over this yet you keep bringing it up. Please just stop.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:32:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

"one of those grey areas in the law where two statues conflict with one another."

OMFUG I HATE IT WHEN TEH STATUES FIGHT!!!

BAD STATUES! STALIN! BAD! THE GUY WHO INVENTED THE DONUT HOLE! BAD!

STOP FIGHTING, STATUES!

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:31:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:12:23 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:08:52 (#)
Ranking: -2

Bradley, look around you. There are wars, melting ice caps, smog, and children who have to go to bed at night without canned crab, and you're getting your man-panties in a bunch over one of Method's jokes?

Shit, man, don't you have a mouse to bathe or something?

--------------------

Yea, and you know something, motherfucker...I've posted about every goddamned one of those subjects multiple times! In fact, I do nothing but beat my head against the wall with you people about those things on a constant basis.

Your criticism is unfounded.
-----

Come on, man. Do you expect me to believe that someone as intelligent and as well spoken as you seem to be would not only promote their cause on Ubersite, but expect to be taken seriously? Hell no, but that's okay. It's what makes your persona such an uber classic. You've got the mad professor bashing his head against the wall as he tries to explain his brilliant (but insane) theories to a bunch of farting, mouth-breathing middle-schoolers.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:28:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

What no one takes into account is that I didn't create the actual work in question, I just took it from another post, saved it to my hard drive, and reposted it, as a POINT OF REFERENCE. I didn't create the original work. Neither did the person that I took it from. It was emailed to him from someone else who put the collage together. Who the fuck is at fault here?

If I had never reposted that image from said post, this entire affair wouldn't have happened. The lawyers would have said "Well, fuck, we can't get them on anything", because leaving those comments was perfectly legal, (which, I might add, I did not partake in, so they can blow me), so they passed it back to the IT department to STOP BEING SUCH FUCKING RETARDS AND LOCK DOWN THE SITE, which they did anyway.

You DO realize that what these lawyers were really angry about was the comments made, and there was NOTHING illegal about that, so they went after the bullshit copyright thing to force Barts hand to take the posts down and scare us into not going to that site again?

Technically, they have a case, if they wanted to pursue it, but they won't. They sicced their lawyers on us to stop the comments from flowing in.

Scare tactics, plain and simple.

-------------------------

I realize you didn't author the original post. I was using your name out of convenience.

You're right though. It was scare tactics. And you're right also that they DO have a case, but Bart also has a case! That's what I'm trying to get across here. It's one of those grey areas in the law where two statues conflict with one another.

The question is....where does it end?

Look at the posts on B@W! How many of them contain copyrighted photographs? What would happen to ubersite if people started turning up out of the woodwork to challenge our ability to post comical material based on found photographs on google?

Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:27:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

http://www.ubersite.com/m/24173

Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:26:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Quit whining, you sound like a girl.

Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:24:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Here is an idea, why don't you start your own website where you can say and do whatever you want maybe even get your own little visit from some jack booted thugs.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:23:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:08:21 (#)
Ranking: 0

You know... That's an excellent idea.

I don't have the original material, so if someone wants to send it to me, I will mirror it: electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com

Although, I suggest Method do that as well, because he'd have a better case in court than I would being the author.

-------------------------

Given your track record on things you will do to fight that man? I doubt it.

Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:23:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"Nobody knew who Rosa Parks was once upon a time either."

Bradley, I know you're tired of being all 'back of the bus and shit', but this ain't the place, smart guy. You're not some black woman that's been repressed her whole life. There's no comparison. You're a white male in a country run by white males, stupid shit. You're some little blinking and beady-eyed faggot still living at home, afraid of the sun and open spaces, using your Daddy's internet connection to complain about how all your freedoms are gone. You want this country to be free like it was back in the Wild West yet you don't enjoy the freedoms you complain about losing. Get out of your parents' house and become a productive member of society, then maybe you'll have a foot to stand on. And another thing, get your Momma's tit out of your mouth, the spoiled milk is seeping into your writing.

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:23:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:18:27 (#)
Ranking: 0

Fuck that "The_Mighty_Badger" guy is remotely funny.

(Some dipshit owes him money now)
-----------------------------------

Justice.

You owe $50USD Oathmeal, chop chop hurry, I'll probably give it to the poor. Or maybe to some poor, fat, ginger tele sales rep.... infact keep it..

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:22:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

All this debate over "fair use", copyright infringement, and what not makes me wonder if we should reconsider our efforts to produce our Pink Floyd arrangement and post it on here.

Because someone from growingweed.com might protest and call the suits on us. Fo shizzle.

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

And as for hosting the images on my site or elsewhere, do you think I have nothing better to do than wage some sort of free speech war upon growingfamily.com? If I were to do it, it sure as hell wouldn't be with this, because this would never make it to the Supreme Court. If I felt that I was involved in something that could get appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, I just might, but this...THIS.....is MAKING FUN OF BABIES. It was crude and vile and absolutely hysterical, but I just really don't give a shit enough to deal with it, and I'm glad that Bart took it down (Thank you Bart). If those lawyers come after me, Eric D. Rice of West Virginia, you bet your sweet ass I'll fight it until my dying breath, but I'm not going to sit here and poke sticks at them by hosting the image again. Bart could have been an asshole, given them all our information, and removed the images, but he's protecting our identities. That's a whole hell of a lot more than I would expect from some admin on a website, and I respect him for it.

Sure, I'm a proponent of free speech, but who the fuck really wants to deal with that shit, unless you have nothing better to do? I have a job and some sort of social life.

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:20:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:10:40 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:07:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/scotus.parks.ap/

ESAD

--------------------

Is that supposed to negate my point in some way?

Funny article though. She should lose.

----------------

it destroys your point. You are using Rosa Parks as an example of somebody who campaigned for civil rights, which you seem to think this case is about, meanwhile rosa parks was on the prosecuting side in a trademark infringement case, which is what this case is actually about

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:20:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

SHAMONE!

Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:20:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

What no one takes into account is that I didn't create the actual work in question, I just took it from another post, saved it to my hard drive, and reposted it, as a POINT OF REFERENCE. I didn't create the original work. Neither did the person that I took it from. It was emailed to him from someone else who put the collage together. Who the fuck is at fault here?

If I had never reposted that image from said post, this entire affair wouldn't have happened. The lawyers would have said "Well, fuck, we can't get them on anything", because leaving those comments was perfectly legal, (which, I might add, I did not partake in, so they can blow me), so they passed it back to the IT department to STOP BEING SUCH FUCKING RETARDS AND LOCK DOWN THE SITE, which they did anyway.

You DO realize that what these lawyers were really angry about was the comments made, and there was NOTHING illegal about that, so they went after the bullshit copyright thing to force Barts hand to take the posts down and scare us into not going to that site again?

Technically, they have a case, if they wanted to pursue it, but they won't. They sicced their lawyers on us to stop the comments from flowing in.

Scare tactics, plain and simple.

-------------

I wouldn't have been too happy getting fucked for something dredged up from last January anyway. Didn't comment either, just put the thing together.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:19:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:13:08 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:46:48 (#)
Ranking: 0

IF he was making fun of the pictures (aka satire), was not using more than a significant portion of the total book, was found not to be hampering the market value of the original in any way, and was GIVING the book away, it's fair use.

Period.
--------------------

I think he mentioned taking "every photo in this book," which constitutes a significant portion of work. If you have a good lawyer it is very easy to argue that it hurts the market value.

As I mentioned here http://www.ubersite.com/m/92670#2129310 in the case of the photos on Ubersite, it would hurt growingfamilies business if anyone saw the posts on Ubersite.

--------------------

He DID mention taking every photo in the book, but that obviously doesn't apply to this scenario whatsoever, because Method wasn't taking every photo in the book.

As for you argument about growingfamilies business being hurt, it would not be difficult to argue that since they left their forum entirely open and unmoderated, they are at fault for any losses, and their recourse should not extend beyond moderating the offending material on their site and disallowing any futher offenders from registering and posting comments.

This is THEIR responsibility, not the general public's.

Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:18:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Fuck that "The_Mighty_Badger" guy is remotely funny.

(Some dipshit owes him money now)

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:16:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

What no one takes into account is that I didn't create the actual work in question, I just took it from another post, saved it to my hard drive, and reposted it, as a POINT OF REFERENCE. I didn't create the original work. Neither did the person that I took it from. It was emailed to him from someone else who put the collage together. Who the fuck is at fault here?

If I had never reposted that image from said post, this entire affair wouldn't have happened. The lawyers would have said "Well, fuck, we can't get them on anything", because leaving those comments was perfectly legal, (which, I might add, I did not partake in, so they can blow me), so they passed it back to the IT department to STOP BEING SUCH FUCKING RETARDS AND LOCK DOWN THE SITE, which they did anyway.

You DO realize that what these lawyers were really angry about was the comments made, and there was NOTHING illegal about that, so they went after the bullshit copyright thing to force Barts hand to take the posts down and scare us into not going to that site again?

Technically, they have a case, if they wanted to pursue it, but they won't. They sicced their lawyers on us to stop the comments from flowing in.

Scare tactics, plain and simple.

Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:13:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:10:40 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:07:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:03:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

It certainly won't occur here if we don't fight for it.

Nobody knew who Rosa Parks was once upon a time either.

-----------------

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/scotus.parks.ap/

ESAD

--------------------

Is that supposed to negate my point in some way?

Funny article though. She should lose.

------------

She died last year.

As much as I'd like to fight for free speech, I can't see a jury supporting masturbating on babies, or the misuse of the GrowingFamily trademarks. If it came to a suit, Uber should win, but I wouldn't expect them too.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:46:48 (#)
Ranking: 0

IF he was making fun of the pictures (aka satire), was not using more than a significant portion of the total book, was found not to be hampering the market value of the original in any way, and was GIVING the book away, it's fair use.

Period.
--------------------

I think he mentioned taking "every photo in this book," which constitutes a significant portion of work. If you have a good lawyer it is very easy to argue that it hurts the market value.

As I mentioned here http://www.ubersite.com/m/92670#2129310 in the case of the photos on Ubersite, it would hurt growingfamilies business if anyone saw the posts on Ubersite.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:12:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:08:52 (#)
Ranking: -2

Bradley, look around you. There are wars, melting ice caps, smog, and children who have to go to bed at night without canned crab, and you're getting your man-panties in a bunch over one of Method's jokes?

Shit, man, don't you have a mouse to bathe or something?

--------------------

Yea, and you know something, motherfucker...I've posted about every goddamned one of those subjects multiple times! In fact, I do nothing but beat my head against the wall with you people about those things on a constant basis.

Your criticism is unfounded.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:10:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:07:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:03:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

It certainly won't occur here if we don't fight for it.

Nobody knew who Rosa Parks was once upon a time either.

-----------------

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/scotus.parks.ap/

ESAD

--------------------

Is that supposed to negate my point in some way?

Funny article though. She should lose.

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:10:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Do you really mean it Oathmeal? Or is it like this little gem below;

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-04 14:19:12 (#)
Ranking: 0

So I guess I'm going to have to get used to you trolling around and following every review I post with some sort of mud-slinging, infantile shit commentary?

Do you REALLY have nothing better to do?

Get off my ass you *stupid* fuck. I'm DONE with you.

---

Yet here you are slagging me off in this post before I have said anything. make up your mind you fucking woman.

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:08:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Bradley, look around you. There are wars, melting ice caps, smog, and children who have to go to bed at night without canned crab, and you're getting your man-panties in a bunch over one of Method's jokes?

Shit, man, don't you have a mouse to bathe or something?

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:08:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:05:18 (#)
Ranking: 0

well why don't YOU, free speech champion of the internet, set up your own webhost server and mirror the offending images, then you can be free to ignore every legal threat you get, what you don't seem to get is this whole matter has nothing to do with you and nobody asked you for your opinion. You're obviously very confused if you can't differentiate between free speech and copyright infringement, so why don't you just shut the fuck up and keep fucking the good fight with your neck tied to your doorknob with a noose and a tennis racket handle up your ass

---------------------

You know... That's an excellent idea.

I don't have the original material, so if someone wants to send it to me, I will mirror it: electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com

Although, I suggest Method do that as well, because he'd have a better case in court than I would being the author.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:07:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:59:26 (#)
Ranking: 0

Oathmeal, do you just ignore all the people on your posts saying 'not funny' etc. Do they not exist in your world? Your picture posts sucked, someone even bothered to do a parody because yours sucked so much - their's was funny. All these times I've said to you you have no sense of humour and yesterday when I had to explain the joke that everyone else got by PFF, and you still think ignoring it makes you cool / funny / not a fat ginger slob?

=================

You really are not worth talking to. So, I'll end this little spat here. I know I'm funnier and *far* more intelligent (again, *far*) than you could even imagine yourself being.

Just do yourself a favor and get over it, mmmkay?

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:07:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:03:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

It certainly won't occur here if we don't fight for it.

Nobody knew who Rosa Parks was once upon a time either.

-----------------

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/08/scotus.parks.ap/

ESAD

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:05:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:03:08 (#)
Ranking: 0

You know ETS, I sincerely believe you have a Superiority Complex. It's painfully obvious and maybe you should see someone about it. Or meditate or some shite, this is just sad.

--------------------

My superiority is not complex. It's actually quite simple. Observe:

I am superior and you're all not.

See? Simple. ;)

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:05:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

well why don't YOU, free speech champion of the internet, set up your own webhost server and mirror the offending images, then you can be free to ignore every legal threat you get, what you don't seem to get is this whole matter has nothing to do with you and nobody asked you for your opinion. You're obviously very confused if you can't differentiate between free speech and copyright infringement, so why don't you just shut the fuck up and keep fucking the good fight with your neck tied to your doorknob with a noose and a tennis racket handle up your ass

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:03:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:58:48 (#)
Ranking: -2

It's not a matter of discontinuing the internet, you fuck. See, this isn't exactly the forum by which any degree of change or reaffirmation of the internet's freedom will occur.

---------------------------

It certainly won't occur here if we don't fight for it.

Nobody knew who Rosa Parks was once upon a time either.

Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2006-09-05 13:03:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

You know ETS, I sincerely believe you have a Superiority Complex. It's painfully obvious and maybe you should see someone about it. Or meditate or some shite, this is just sad.

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:59:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Oathmeal, do you just ignore all the people on your posts saying 'not funny' etc. Do they not exist in your world? Your picture posts sucked, someone even bothered to do a parody because yours sucked so much - their's was funny. All these times I've said to you you have no sense of humour and yesterday when I had to explain the joke that everyone else got by PFF, and you still think ignoring it makes you cool / funny / not a fat ginger slob?

Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:58:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

It's not a matter of discontinuing the internet, you fuck. See, this isn't exactly the forum by which any degree of change or reaffirmation of the internet's freedom will occur. You are a faceless name on a page whining about something petty. Initiate change in the real world, not the fake one here. Or have you forgotten what it's like to interact with real people?

See, we have this thing here in this country called Congress. You know, the legislative branch of the country you love to hate? Well, I hear that you can run for office and perhaps even get a seat and get your opinion out there where changes can be made. Bitchin' on de intarnet just ain't gonna cova it, boy.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:57:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:42:34 (#)
Ranking: 0

You've got it around the wrong way, retard. In this case they aren't claiming they will suffer losses because ubersite is reproducing it for free and their potential customers will look at the photos on ubersite where there is no links to whatever products or services they are selling. They are claiming they will suffer losses because those reproductions portray their site as something on par with a hot or not for pedophiles.

-----------------

They can claim that all they like, but that doesn't preclude fair use in our ability to take a screenshot of the pages that contain the questionable comments, particularly if the author (Method) is trying to make a critical statement about the time-honored tradition of complimenting babies on their looks regardless of esoteric appeal.

That would constitute satire and would be protected speech.

Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:56:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:45:51 (#)
Ranking: -2

Why couldn't this have been done in an e-mail?

Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:55:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

+2 for standing up for what you believe in, even if I disagree with it.

And I for one am interested in the answer you guys come up with.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:55:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:53:47 (#)
Ranking: 0

So Oathy you're a wanna' be emo huh? Funny shit man, now I realise why you cry whenever I say something to you.

----

TMB, you find one person who thinks you're even remotely funny. ONE.

Have them say so, to me, and I will paypal you $50. No shit.

Fact: you blow.

See that little dot at the end of that sentence right there? That's a period.

Period.

Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:54:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

+2 most heated.

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:53:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

So Oathy you're a wanna' be emo huh? Funny shit man, now I realise why you cry whenever I say something to you.

Submitted by TigerLilly (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:52:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Man o man. You certainly know how to stir shit up around here.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Hey! Look at the cute ETS alters below! See them play? See them eat cake?

Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:51:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Ok, someone had to say it, so, it might as well be Bob Dole:

Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win you're still retarded.

That said, good job on the research. Bob Dole feels fair use is an under appreciated concept.

Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=A+Munier

A Munier- A kid who thinks their emo. even though they just got into the emo scene just recently. typical poser. starts off with mainstream bands. thinking that its soo emo. senses fuck, silverstain, fall out bitch, underoathmeal, my chemical gayass, green die,all american retards. cleary a new comer to the scene. because the newly dyed jet black hair at a 40 degree angle grown out. usually drives friends around. even though friends are just using for the free ride. thinks that hawthorne hates is so hardcore and screamo. steals "what your listening to" on msn. has a myspace full of favorite bands. even though A Munier never even heard a single song from those bands. claims to have been emo and taught u all the bands u know. although A Munier gets it from cds, compilations, purevolume.com, and record label sites.

Submitted by TheEye (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:47:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

No Comment

Submitted by nya_nyo (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:47:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

enjoys a good conspiracy theory

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:46:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:43:21 (#)
Ranking: -2

2: You assume in one scenario about the Ansel Adams book that the person using the material is using it for commerical reasons, Method was not using it for such reasons. Actually you lump both scenarios (for profit and not-for-profit) together as if it doesn't affect the outcome of a case, which is completely wrong.

----------------------------------

In the scenario he put forth I don't think it would affect the outcome of the case.

------------------

IF he was making fun of the pictures (aka satire), was not using more than a significant portion of the total book, was found not to be hampering the market value of the original in any way, and was GIVING the book away, it's fair use.

Period.

Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:46:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Hey man, if I want to read contracts and legal shit, I'll do my actual job.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:45:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Why couldn't this have been done in an e-mail?

Brad, you take the cake for being *the* most dramatic Ubersite user ever. Secondly, you win runner-up for most ill-informed, whiney little bitch ever conceived.

(Sorry but The_Mighty_Badger won 1st place in that second contest)

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:43:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

2: You assume in one scenario about the Ansel Adams book that the person using the material is using it for commerical reasons, Method was not using it for such reasons. Actually you lump both scenarios (for profit and not-for-profit) together as if it doesn't affect the outcome of a case, which is completely wrong.

----------------------------------

In the scenario he put forth I don't think it would affect the outcome of the case.

Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:42:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

2: You assume in one scenario about the Ansel Adams book that the person using the material is using it for commerical reasons, Method was not using it for such reasons. Actually you lump both scenarios (for profit and not-for-profit) together as if it doesn't affect the outcome of a case, which is completely wrong.

3: You never mention that fair use claims are good if they can show that the market value of the underlying work has not been compromised. (I don't think growingfamilies users are suddenly going to flock to ubersite in droves for their baby viewing needs.)

4: You never account for the fact that, of the total number of baby pictures and materials on that site, Method used but a tiny portion in a not-for-profit manner.

----------------

You've got it around the wrong way, retard. In this case they aren't claiming they will suffer losses because ubersite is reproducing it for free and their potential customers will look at the photos on ubersite where there is no links to whatever products or services they are selling. They are claiming they will suffer losses because those reproductions portray their site as something on par with a hot or not for pedophiles.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:42:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

3: You never mention that fair use claims are good if they can show that the market value of the underlying work has not been compromised. (I don't think growingfamilies users are suddenly going to flock to ubersite in droves for their baby viewing needs.)

----------------

No but if they find out the picture from growing family has been used to make raping baby jokes on Ubersite I am pretty sure they won't want to work with growing family.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:38:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:35:21 (#)
Ranking: -2

Seriously, you fucking retard, this is just the internet. Get over it.

--------------------

You know...you're right.

We should discontinue the internet today. Better yet, keep it going, but only allow 'approved' web pages that meet rigorous government standards of decency, and do not criticise governments or traditions.

Now welcome yourself to communist China, you fucking moron.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:37:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

I hope enough people -2 this so it disappears.

Submitted by Maltese (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:36:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Now go +2 my post.

Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2006-09-05 12:35:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Seriously, you fucking retard, this is just the internet. Get over it.