Oh but I got to reply to aldiboront first.
This place is supposed to have a very different purpose than the Vatican or the Rupublican website. Unless you think the Vatican is into exposing myths, lol.
The fact they removed the link doesn’t bother me in the slightest. They could pick out posters who they have spats with and pig-latinize their posts and be well within their rights.
What bothers me is Tuba’s nonsensical reading of the rules to try and justify her position when most rational folks can read right there in the rule she posted that it says not to post i)spam … ii)or other messages primarily intended to iii)promote a website.
I think we can all agree that it isn’t spam. Which leaves the fact that it’s a message primarily intended to promote a website. Well duh. Isn’t that what the space in the profile is for? Forgetting for the moment that the spirit of the rule (at least how I read it) is to prevent people from going around saying “Go to www.givemesomemoney.com!!!”, how many people have links to websites in their profiles? All these people are promoting their websites as well, and in the exact same manner as CarnalK was. The rule which Tuba emphasized mentions nothing about content.
Were they within their rights to remove the site? Of course.
Should they have? I don’t know, and I don’t particularly care.
Should they have the balls to say “We don’t like it, we think it’s not good for the boards, etc.”, instead of bullshitting excuses based on ridiculous interpretations of rules that magically apply to just this one situation? Absolutely.
You are so very concerned with your ‘right’ to borrow board drama and comment on it, but you don’t support my right to observe that you are a childish fuckwidget?
Your hobby requires a constant stream of excerpts, quotes, links, and references to the SDMB. It couldn’t be any clearer to me that the continuous reliance on material from the SDMB nullifies any fair use argument. Hey, don’t take my word for it:
http://www.lib.auburn.edu/madd/copyright/fair_use.html
With regard to the “amount and substantiality”, as I said, your hobby is entirely reliant. And if there was any doubt about the purpose, character, and effect, you’ve cleared it up by taking the debate here and pooping in the public pool.
I don’t think the admins need any more of a reason to not only take issue with you here, but take up the matter of your site with your host. If they had the urge to screw you, you’d be screwed, which makes it all the more stupid that you didn’t just quietly do as you were asked.
Well since you went to the trouble of making a real post rather than just calling me a baby, I guess I should answer it.
From your link:
The “fair use” of a copyrighted work, including use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
I think the first three apply. Also, I have almost no actual content from the SDMB on my site. If you think a bunch of links and “references” to the SDMB constitutes any kind of an infringemment you are delusional. The CR lawyers aren’t exactly the itching to litigate types so I hope they don’t take your uneducated advice.
Any copyright lawyers in the house can feel free to correct me.
They commanded me to remove the link. It’s gone and I won’t put it back but the hiding behind a twisted rule intrepretation is BS. Or do you think Tuba’s rule quote clearly applies here?
Actually, I agree with that. I do think the link was out of place, for the reasons I gave earlier, but the reason given for removing it was specious, to say the least. Far better to have said, we don’t want it there because we don’t like it.
And, yes, CarnalK, the Vatican analogy was stretching it a bit, although the idea of Pope Cecil I does appeal, and the mods and admins in their scarlet robes and cardinals’ hats might look rather fetching. Then you would have to be careful! Banning is one thing, but excommunication and the torments of eternal hellfire is something else again!
Yup. This says it all. Too bad some of the Administrators around here arn’t more honest.
FWIW, except for the very first line, I agree with Garfield226’s post as well. I care some, obviously. It’s my baby after all and I feel unfairly singled out. I realize that fair isn’t their business.
CarnalK or someone, could you email me a link to your homepage so that I can what the hullabaloo is about?
Exactly correct.
Well, as much as some of us are fans of this or your site, the 2 mentioned are organizations that have actual, you know, influence and power.
Just wanted to remind you that your site isn’t all that important to anyone other than members/visitors. Get over yourself. This is embarrassing.
Thanks for the reminder, retard. I was so confused.
And I’m still not putting you up. You a boring blowhard.
What the fuck are talking about? This would be fun if it weren’t so fucking sad. Putting me up? I a boring blowhard?
Don’t let the bugs crawling on your skin eat you! We need the entertainment!
Funny thing is, I was on your side for most of this, in principle, but now I see what standing on principle gets me.
Hey, duffer’s not boring!
The nicest thing you’ve ever said to me. I’m touched.
Nah. He’s only boring if you try to read his posts.
Touched I can agree with.
You come in to remind me that I’m not as important as the Vatican and you expected some different kind of response? How drunk are you?
Whoopdeedoo. I’m glad I pissed you off before you actually showed any support.
Only because when I think about you, I touch myself. You have an unknowable effect on me. You are my special power.
Says a lot about the person reading them. Since you do, I can only imagine how vapid your life must be. I’d feel pity, but I’m touching myself right now. And getting drunk. And picturing a 3-way with you and CarnalK.
I feel dirty now, I need disinfecting.
I knew I was going to have to explain this.