Well, ok, to be fair, that’s what this thread was about. Now it’s about what every other Reverend Mykeru thread has been about too.
Sauron
OK, now I know it’s not that you can’t be bothered reading. Now you are just perversely ignoring something because you think it gives you something to bitch about.
I said to Hamlet:
In other words, thanks for the info, unlike Kabbas who was playing this “here’s a word, look it up game”. Again:
“Thank you though for trying to post something of substance”
Which of those words don’t you understand?
White Lightning
[quote]
White Lightning
Horseshit. I tried to leave this thread before it became a discussion about the discussion and was greated with accusations of cowardice. Can’t have it both ways.
I wasn’t being viscious, my dear Reverend. You’d have noticed, trust me.
Whether my remark was stupid - well… if you shape up and try something constructive in one of our other fine forums, then it wasn’t stupid of me to try and guide you in the right direction. If you don’t heed the advise, and carry on as you are doing now, your future on this message board will most likely be a short one, in which case my remark wasn’t stupid either.
Damn, you just can’t win, can you, Rev?
Reverend Mykeru, now it’s you that apparently has a problem with reading, or at least with inference and context.
Look again at what you’ve posted four times now. “Thank you though for trying to post something of substance …” (bolding mine)
In other words, Hamlet didn’t post anything of substance – he just tried to do so. As I said, I’m certainly not versed in the law, but his posts appear to answer your requests for information. If you therefore determine that’s not of substance – well, that would be a reflection on the initial query, wouldn’t it?
It seems to me you took offense at a tone you perceived in kabbes’ post (which may or may not have been justified, frankly). Perhaps I’m wrong, and you’re just this acrimonious on a regular basis.
I’ve been to your Web site, and I’ve enjoyed reading some of your writings. I’m trying to get you to tone things down just a bit; you appear to be an excellent addition to this board, and you write well. I’d like to see you stick around.
But hey, maybe the SDMB isn’t your cup of tea. No harm, no foul. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, nor am I looking for something to bitch about. Just trying to pass along some friendly advice.
Sure. Here you said:
You said that the AOL case was not relevant and that the Chicago Reader would not face legal action to reveal a person’s identity since it’s not a content provider. In fact, the case dealt discussed an entity that is not a content provider facing legal action to reveal a person’s identity.
You said the distinction was that the case dealt with a content provider so it didn’t apply. The case did not only deal with a content provider. You were wrong.
Sauron
While you are using your amazing powers to tell me what I thought, can you pick some lotto numbers for me?
No, I meant thank you for the attempt, for even trying, as opposed to the laziness displayed by Kabbas. I did then indicate that although substantial it was also somewhat irrelevant.
Coldfire
Please do tell me, my sweet, sweet Coldfire, why everyone thinks everything is about them.
Yes sir. In the future I will refrain from having an opinion and/or questioning the reasoning and/or relevency of information.
Official motto of the Waffen SS?
I will be happy to, if you can explain to me why someone possessing your vocabulary and obvious erudition can’t write “Thank you though for posting something of substance” instead of “Thank you though for trying to post something of substance.” Surely you can see a difference there.
And, as I said, what Hamlet provided does seem to be relevant to me. Again, though, I’m not a legal scholar, so I could easily be wrong on that.
For Pete’s sake, man, I’m trying to help here.
Well, back to the OP, I tried to lure Ed Zotti to post here on the cost of maintaining the Message Board to the READER, but after all the tempers, tantrums, scolding, name-calling, and tongue-sticking-out, I can see why he didn’t.
Thanks for ruining another worthy OP, Reverend Mykeru.
Why don’t you do a search on “Gaudere’s Law?”
Once upon a time, a person said: It’s odd that on a forum associated with the Straight Dope a mere request for information become yet another chance for regulars to engage in personal attacks, faulty reasoning, poor reading skills, strawmen and another whole host of fallacies. That person was you. Then, shortly after that in an effort to deal with the issue, I ask you to clarify your point and, rather than a response, I get more insults. The bald-face hypocrisy you display is simply astounding.
**Manhattan explained that, in a vast majority of cases, the information provided to respond to the question would be used to violate copyrights. He also went so far as to say there are plenty of other places to find out the information. All in a civil manner, without the personal attacks you so love. Seemed like a pretty good response to me. It is completely possible to create MP3’s without violating copyrights, but, again, as manhattan said, that is a small minority. The answering the question would necessarily give information about how to circumvent copyrights.
You want me to explain it AGAIN, after you’ve ignored the explanation 2 times already? Going for a trifecta? I’ll repost exactly what I said last time you asked: *I cited the AOL case for the proposition that it is not just being a defendant in a lawsuit, but also the compliance with subpoenas that will cost a forum provider money to deal with a libel issue. And, if you decided to actually read the case, before shooting off your mouth, you would have read this:
Although AOL was challenging the subpoena, it was Yahoo that also had to comply with a subpoena for their information. So now we have established you don't read my posts, nor the caselaw I cite. Why the hell would I do any more research for you?*
Do you get it now? The part about Yahoo, the host of the message board, having to respond to a subpoena. Has it sunk in yet? Again, your intellectual dishonesty and stupidity amaze me.
You raised the issue of libel, dumbshit, not I. I answered your specific concerns, and now you have the gall to ask me what it has to do with IPR? Good God man, I can appreciate a bit of namecalling and teasing, it makes these threads more interesting. But to say I’m not addressing the OP when I respond to some of your wrong assertions is mind-boggling.
OK, bored now.
If somebody who knows what s/he is talking about would like to email me the information I’d be much obliged. Can’t say as I see too much more coming out of this thread and I can’t think of a way to wrest it back from the hijacker. Thanks to those who offered information that was on-topic.
Did I mention that publishing can be insanely profitable?
Um, Godwin’s Law.
Oh, do beware, Marcus, simply suggesting somebody searches for something. You’ll get accused of being lazy and a dipshit, not to mention the fact that if the individual can’t find what you are talking about, you’ll also be accused of making the whole thing up.
As far as our newest attention whore is concerned: I can’t help feeling that this angry-boy-lost, under siege mentality has to be an act. Nobody can be that angry with the world. Any time anybody says anything to him whatsoever that cannot unequivocably be called supportive, he blows up. It doesn’t matter if it is a vaguely sarcastic comment, a bare posting of facts or a really very friendly suggestion that he might consider being a bit nicer. It’s all bad.
Can you imagine really being like that? In real life?
“Train ticket please sir.”
“WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Dipshit. Attacking me like that. You train nazis are a clique of masturbatory pricks!”
or
“Excuse me, can you tell me where the toilets are?”
“What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you suggesting that I don’t know? OTHER places ALSO have toilets, you know. It IS possible to know about toilets without ever having BEEN here before!”
No way - you wouldn’t last one day.
One small piece of advice Reverend: if you don’t want people to think of you an an insufferable know-it-all with a superiority complex who can’t bear being wrong then don’t start lecturing people as soon as you meet them. It simply doesn’t sit well. If you choose to set yourself up as grand poobah of the internet - which is definitely the perception you’ve given me - don’t be surprised when people are a little sarcastic when you prove your knowledge deficient.
Mr. Angry might be funny for a while, but people never like him.
pan
Make a new thread in ATMB. Then maybe Zotti will make an appearance.
Don’t wanna go there.