SixofNine

Joined

• started 531 topics
• posted 14,326 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by SixofNine

• 
  4

  Woman to be stoned to death......

  by ISP in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  justice.......iran-style.......a throw back to bible times(did i say that?).

  woman sentenced to death by stoning .

  by our foreign staff .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Thank God they didn't have football back when these concepts were invented!!!
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Whoa, whoa, WHOA!

  Alan you said

  ....and understands that he has to set a context, and that setting a wrong context is diametrically opposed to rational discussion.

  Geeez man! Could it be that I have been getting involved in arguments with someone who has no use for, perhaps even has a style that is, "opposed to", rational discussion????

  Yikes, he's right. I am an idiot.
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  six i'm pointing and laughing. we both told you to follow your own links. the proof is in the pudding,

  Man, if you guys weren't such clowns, you would really have me questioning my own intelligence. I really must have missed something. Oh, no I didn't, this is more of that "TWO people being loud and insulting, but without any substance" style of argumentation, right? If two people, especially a boyfriend/girlfriend couple agree on something pertaining to copyright law, it must be right! Right? Perhaps your criteria for feeling victorious is just getting in the last word?

  "c'back here! I'll chew yeer leg off!"

  Question: Are you two really so stupid as to think I would post a link w/o knowing what is on it?

  If the proof is in the pudding, how about humoring me (and everyone else), and spoon feeding us a little of that pudding. Just a little bit? Enough for us to see that it is really pudding and not bullshit? You sound as if you are very familier with the content of those links, so it shouldn't take too much time away from choosing your outfit color for tommorrow. Here, I'll help you out with that. Black.
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Suzi, before you start actively ignoring me, could you just at least try to make your point? Just this once? It sounds like you have already got this figured out, so all it will take is a quick cut n' paste to look really smart.

  They support MY case, even in fair use

  Just real quick, would you mind posting a "for example" snippet of how they support your case. You can follow my lead in how to do it if you want. Don't worry, you won't be violating any copyright.

  Then, if you make your case, you could say something to the effect of, "the issue is settled. Drop it. Ciao." {use a kind of deep authoritarian voice for that part} w/o sounding like an ignorant bitch who runs from an argument.
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Well, one thing is for sure, none of the participants in this argument are working solely on principle, as evidenced by our silence when poor Mr. Vallejo’s copyrights where being so viciously infringed on this very db.

  Rf, you said,

  Stupider, even though granted, is a word, just sounds... well...STUPID.

  Why didn’t you just say so, lol. You said, “ Btw, there's no such word as "stupider". Better go look it up in your english manual.”. I can’t think of a more stupid way to express the idea that something “sounds stupid”.

  You also said:

  You DON'T know what you're talking about.

  Hehe, uhmm, yeah, I do. Unlike some people involved in this discussion, I don’t take a position of authority on things that I don’t have good knowledge of. That’s why I don’t take a position of authority very often, liq. I think it is safe to wager that I have more understanding of this subject than anyone else on this board, right up to and including DaveM.

  I don't agree. Criticism in this sense is meant as "Critiqueing the work itself" and that is not what the work was being used for.

  Ok, I’ll bite; how would you characterize the way Alan used this picture?

  Granted, very few judges, if any, would grant damages to Suzy for Alan using her picture in a discussion forum. It all comes down to common sense. But the picture itself, IS PROTECTED by the Copyright law. And that's what Suzy told Alan, and Suzy was right. Now whether she could get a court of law to make it stick IN THIS INSTANCE OF USE, that's another story altogether.

  
  So which is it? If a judge would NOT “protect” it, is it protected from this usage? Saying, “…the picture itself, IS PROTECTED by the Copyright law”, is not really saying…..well, anything really. ALL images are copyrighted at the time of their creation. The question comes down to this particular usage, is it “fair use”? The fair use doctrine exist for situations like this. Otherwise, yeah, it would be very cut and dried, ie., the copyright holder says no, so, no you can’t use the picture for anything. The copyright holder in this case seems to be one Mike Bann. It would be interesting to know if he has a contract with Mrs. Mayhem that goes beyond a simple verbal, “sure, you can put my pics up on your website”.
  

  You're just basically making fun of Suzy's work here. Low blow, Six. I didn't think her work itself was bad, and she DOES have a copyright on it. I think personally that it should be respected, to a certain extent.

  
  Well…..maybe, a bit. (although it seems to just be Suzie’s face, not her work) But hey, we are in an argument aren’t we? Gotta get a jab in here or there, betwixt all the facts. [J] Actually, I kinda like that pic. It’s pretty, it’s graphic, it has a kind of neat blanco obscuro thing going. Although, I must say that if you’re going to crop it that much, why not go ahead and crop so that it no longer begs the “why is she shocked by her armpit” question that Alan parodied.
  ____________________________________________
  DC blathered, “you are not even wrong!!! ” And then went downhill from there.
  

  remember when you and your clan thought that Suzi and I where the same person? you were wrong, see the pics we have posted if you need further evidence

  
  Remind me who my clan is again, bluster boy*? And then remind them to send in their clan dues. They are getting WAY behind. I thought you might be the same person, since you posted minutes apart, agreeing with, and patting each other on the back, with a very similar lack of substance. As if the person with the loudest insulting comments wins the argument. And then, if TWO people make similar loud, insulting comments, on the same side of the argument, anyone should see that they win the argument, right? Sure bluster boy, whatever.
  Case in point:

  about as long as it takes to surgically remove a hymen,..

  
  Did you forget that I supported my arguments with facts in that discussion, Bluster Boy? Still hurting that you didn’t know everything (or even very much) about hymens? I really have to recommend that you let it go. This kind of obsession could lead to some very antisocial behavior on your part, if you feel you have to keep on…uhm…exploring this issue.
  

  you are very wrong, your links will show you that

  
  Curiously, you didn’t post anything from those links to support your statement. I wonder why?
  

  besides fair use was never issued

  
  Now that’s a seemingly stupid statement in this particular discussion. ‘Splain, lucy.
  You further garbled,

  Comprehension would avoid so much
  it is synonymous to common sense only problem is that common sense is not common. . . .

  
  On it’s own, the above is mostly incomprehensible, but since I know your sentiments, I think I understand. The funny thing to me is, that comprehension is where I excel, and common sense is what you seem to lack. I feel sure that you test well.

  Riz, you ign…. Heeehheee.

  She's a great gal- and very intelligent.

  
  I’m sure she is, latent hostility aside. But this is a discussion board, and if someones sole purpose is to stroke their boyfriend, and vice versa, they can do that at home. As to, “She was simply sharing an idea she had. This idea opened the floodgates of criticism.” Go take a look at the way that “idea” was introduced to the board. I think you will agree that the presentation invited criticism, especially since it was brought in during an argument in the first place, if memory serves me well.
  

  I didn't want the crap flung in my direction that comes with defending someone with a different viewpoint that happens all too often here. I'm sorry, Suzi.

  IMO, better to just defend or argue ideas, and let people handle themselves, for the most part. I think that is what got the brunt of criticism, her idea. I’ll agree there have been some noticeable exceptions to this on the board.

  Alan,

  More generally, a smart person is aware of what he or she does not know. The ignorant are often too ignorant to understand how much they don't know. But they sometimes want to impress others with gobble-de-gook.

  
  Well put.

  I will now put on a rain coat for the bluster spiddle I expect will be coming my way as soon as I hit send.

  I'ma be a freakin' Papist in a John Paul mask-- The Real Slim Sixy, copyright 2001
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Catabout, what the hell is this?

  Btw, there's no such word as "stupider". Better go look it up in your english manual.

  Geez, even children raised by wolves know that "stupider" is a word.

  stu·pid (stpd, sty-)
  adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
  Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
  Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
  Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
  Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
  Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

  n.
  A stupid or foolish person.

  From: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Actually Wolflady, she is wrong on this one. Not surprising, as I wouldn't be lol'ing here if I was wrong. And as I said, a quick tutorial, absent of what she wants to believe, or was led to believe in her way cool curriculum, will show her that she is, as usual, spitting in the wind.

  Here is a good start, the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/501.html

  And here is an interesting commentary on the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.notes.html

  I suggest you pay particular attention to this passage when feeling infringed:

  Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities.

  And what is the bulk of that criteria?

  . These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107: ''(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.''

  More specifically:

  ''Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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, purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT an infringement of copyright."

  {italics and bolding mine}

  A quick take on the above "criteria":
  1) the purpose and character of the use. Seems to be parody, ( http://www.publaw.com/parody.html) with a bit of education and comment and critisism thrown in. Not to mention parody and comment in a discussion forum wherein the pic is linked by the complainer itself. Huge fair use points to Alan.

  2) The nature of the work. no comment

  3 the amount and substantiality of the portion used... Gotta admit, he used the whole pic, but then, that is what one does when commenting on a picture, as opposed to a written work. Just the nature of the medium. Draw.

  4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[/b] Now you see why I was laughing out loud?

  Lets just say that none of the above mattered, that there was none of the above criteria; do you really think a court would find infringement in a use such as this, when you have already said that using it is fine, so long as it is served from your server/website? What is the logic for a court to chew on there?

  Also, given the "handshake" nature of businesses run by kiddies eager to make a buck on the lack-of-bravery-in-choosing-colors idiom of their gothic friends network, one has to wonder if our mistress of mayhem actually has rightful ownership to the picture in question herself?
• 
  40

  WTS SAYS ELDERS SINS DON'T COUNT!

  by Amazing in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sometime ago i posted a discussion on h20 about the nov. 1991 kingdom ministry school for elders / ms held at woodburn, oregon.

  during that school session the co stated that elders who commit a serious sin, even a gross sin, did not have to be removed if the event took place two or three years prior, and the elder continued to be respected, giving evidence of jehovahs blessing.

  the co stipulated that this only applied to elders and ms and not to regular publishers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Sue, please reread until you understand why your post would cause one to believe you have low reading comprehension.
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  Wow, lol again. Alan, nice work on the picture. No more or less parody and comment than before, but definitely funnier. If you did it because of Suzies protest (and I'm sure you didn't), you wasted your time however.

  Suzie, could you be any stupider?

  x
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SixofNine

  What part of that lil info bit is not being understood by YOU?

  The part where you say something, anything, to indicate that you have a clue about copyright law.

  I'm stating what I don't like before it gets out of hand.

  lol, again. I bet judges care deeply what people in your situation "don't like".