Google Wins Legal Battle
Ray Gordon
reporters have been contacting me about this.
Source: http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6050667.html?tag=tb
In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a
writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by archiving
a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search
results.
The lawsuit was filed by Gordon Roy Parker, also known as Ray Gordon, who
publishes his writings under the business name of Snodgrass Publishing
Group. Parker, of Philadelphia, also posted a chapter of one of his e-books
on the Usenet bulletin board network, a collection of thousands of
discussion forums called newsgroups.
In his 2004 lawsuit against Google, Parker alleged that the search giant
violated copyright law by automatically archiving a copy of his posting on
Usenet and by providing excerpts from his Web site in search results.
However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ruled on Friday that under case law, Google's activities, akin to those of
an Internet Service Provider, do not constitute infringement (click for PDF
of court documents).
"When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human
intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its users,
the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is missing,"
the court said.
The ruling cited a decision in January by a federal court in Nevada that
concluded that cached versions of Web pages Google stores and offers as a
part of many search results do not infringe copyright.
The ruling comes after a decision last month in which a federal judge in Los
Angeles said that portions of Google's image search feature, which displays
thumbnail versions of images found on adult photo site Perfect 10 and
others, likely violate U.S. copyright law.
The search engine also faces copyright lawsuits filed last year by authors
and publishers groups over its controversial Library Project book-scanning
plans, and a lawsuit filed by Agence France Press and threat of litigation
from the World Association of Newspapers for aggregating headlines and
photos without permission or compensation.
In a legal blow to Google earlier this week, a federal judge in San Jose,
Calif., said he would grant federal prosecutors at least part of their
request for excerpts from Google's index of Web sites. Google is challenging
a subpoena from the Department of Justice for a random sampling of Internet
addresses and search queries that the DOJ says it needs to help defend a
measure designed to hold Web sites liable if minors can access pornography
on them.
In his lawsuit, Parker also claimed Google was liable for defamation because
the search company archived allegedly defamatory messages posted by Usenet
users and that Google was invading his privacy by creating an "unauthorized
biography" of him, the court said. However, the court said Google is immune
because it either archived or provided access to content that was created by
a third party.
In other news:
a.. Piecing together Windows Vista
b.. Your secret PIN may not be so secret
c.. In games arena, play or pause?
d.. News.com Extra: Over-50 crowd finding love online too
Most of the 11 claims in the lawsuit, which also included racketeering,
negligence, abuse of process and civil conspiracy, were dismissed for
failure to state a claim. Others were dismissed because Google was found not
to be held liable under certain statutes.
The ruling also complained about the "rambling" and "unwieldy" lawsuit,
which named "50,000 John Does" as defendants. Parker, a former paralegal,
said he wrote the complaint himself and does not have a lawyer.
Parker said he will appeal the decision. "The court is confused about what
cache means," he said in a telephone interview. "Google really is a
third-party republication."
"Google takes my content, uses it to bolster its search engine and attracts
traffic to which they pitch advertising from my competitors," Parker
complained.
Google representatives did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
HeeroYuy
lousy fist impression to make... failing with flying colors and all...
Did I say sad? I meant pathetic.
"Ray Gordon" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:hLidnVq73JC-coTZ...@pghconnect.com...
Ross
R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/16/06 3:05 PM:
> From CNET. There will be other media coverage in the coming days, as
> reporters have been contacting me about this.
>
> Source: http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6050667.html?tag=tb
>
> In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a
> writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by archiving
> a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search
> results.
Parker loses, AGAIN.
I look forward to his coming defeat in his idiotic RICO case, after which
time we will be moving the court for sanctions against him as well as
seeking to have him formerly classified as a vexatious and serial litigant
who must receive special permission from the Court to file any further suits
in that district.
Will Parker EVER learn?
RJ
Robert Juliano
Is there any chance I can reserve friend Parker for the role of
aggreived party? Given his track record, I shouldn't have any trouble at
all.
Bob
Ross wrote:
> in article hLidnVq73JC-coTZ...@pghconnect.com, Ray Gordon at
> R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/16/06 3:05 PM:
>
>
>>From CNET. There will be other media coverage in the coming days, as
>>reporters have been contacting me about this.
>>
>>Source: http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6050667.html?tag=tb
>>
>>In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a
>>writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by archiving
>>a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search
>>results.
>
>
> Parker loses, AGAIN.
>
> I look forward to his coming defeat in his idiotic RICO case, after which
> time we will be moving the court for sanctions against him as well as
> seeking to have him formerly classified as a vexatious and serial litigant
> who must receive special permission from the Court to file any further suits
> in that district.
>
> Will Parker EVER learn?
>
> RJ
>
parker hath spoken:
<<< an incredible amount of things that - while interesting - fail to
impress me with his legal acumen.>>>
Lawyerkill
They cited my case in the 230 section.
Ray Gordon
> They cited my case in the 230 section.
Have you seen Barrett v. Rosenthal?
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
alt.seduction.fast newsgroup, along with spam and misinformation, alt.seduction.fast
now also has a website and discussion forums in which this individual is prevented
from posting. The website forums have proven extremely popular and successful since
off-topic material and bad behavior is prevented there. The forums are completely
FREE to read and post to. See the footer in the message for more information.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
New visitors to alt.seduction.fast are welcomed and directed to the main website
http://www.fastseduction.com
Most seduction discussion has been relocated to the forums on this website, which
can be accessed through your news reader just like this newsgroup, or through a
web interface. The forums were created as an alternative to the large amount of
spamming, misinformation, and offensive behavior by a high-volume poster known to
unfotunately suffer disabling mental illness, in the regular alt.seduction.fast
newsgroup.
Anyone can read forum articles but registration is required (which can be done
through an anonymous email account) in order to post articles. This effectively
prevents disruptive individuals from posting and results in a MUCH more useful and
productive forum.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ray Gordon
websites rather than have free discussions on USENET without sponsorship
influences.
Those who spend money on anyone who profits from the promotion in the
previous posting are encouraging that type of "hate marketing."
Bill Reid
> From CNET. There will be other media coverage in the coming days, as
> reporters have been contacting me about this.
>
> Source: http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6050667.html?tag=tb
>
> In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a
> writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by
archiving
> a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site in search
> results.
...
> Most of the 11 claims in the lawsuit, which also included racketeering,
> negligence, abuse of process and civil conspiracy, were dismissed for
> failure to state a claim. Others were dismissed because Google was
> found not to be held liable under certain statutes.
>
> The ruling also complained about the "rambling" and "unwieldy" lawsuit,
> which named "50,000 John Does" as defendants. Parker, a former paralegal,
> said he wrote the complaint himself and does not have a lawyer.
>
Wow, this reminds so much of a "Doug Grant" lawsuit, where he
sued the casino industry for $1billion, and named hundreds of "Does"
as co-defendants because they in any way said it was possible to
win at casino blackjack on Usenet. He even threatened to sue
"Usenet" itself...
You should have seen the language the judge used in THAT
decision...and he HAD a lawyer (or rather, the lawyer HAD
him)...
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
Eastern
> District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>
So THAT'S who's responsible for this mess...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 287
corky
> The previous hate posting is an attempt to get you to go to commercial
> websites
the quality materials)
>rather than have free discussions on USENET
(Jammed with spam, off topic posts)
> without sponsorship influences.
>
> Those who spend money on anyone who profits from the promotion in the
> previous posting are encouraging that type of "hate marketing."
mASF is the single best thing I have ever read in my life and I am eternally
grateful to the seduction community for what it really is.
Ross
Here's what the Judge said in this Parker v Google ruling about Raytard's
RICO claim:
F. Racketeering (Counts VIII, IX) and Civil Conspiracy (XI)
While we have endeavored to make sense of Plaintiff¹s racketeering and civil
conspiracy claims, these sections of the Complaint are completely
incomprehensible. Parker spends eleven
pages and sixty-six paragraphs discussing the ³RICO enterprise² but fails
to, in any way, make clear his allegations.
Can we hear an amen?
"COMPLETELY INCOMPREHENSIBLE"
A great companion phrase to "INEXCUSABLE FAILURE".
HeeroYuy
>> LK
>> They cited my case in the 230 section.
>
> Have you seen Barrett v. Rosenthal?
Does Gordon have the ability to apply the ruling? No.
Ray Gordon
--
Ray Gordon
>>> They cited my case in the 230 section.
>>
>> Have you seen Barrett v. Rosenthal?
>
> Does Gordon have the ability to apply the ruling? No.
California also has jurisdiction over Google.
If Barrett holds up, the defamation claim could be refiled there.
Lawyerkill
> They cited my case in the 230 section.
Ray Gordon
Have you seen Barrett v. Rosenthal?
LK
Yes
Ray Gordon
Yes.
John C. Randolph
> From CNET. There will be other media coverage in the coming days, as
> reporters have been contacting me about this.
Are you going to tell them why Dominique Mocneau thinks you're a creep?
-jcr
Ray Gordon
> violating CNET's copyright.
It is up to CNET to decide if I violated their copyright, and a court to
agree or disagree if they press the issue. Only the copyright holder has
standing to sue me.
I have never been sued for reposting a copyrighted news article to USENET.
I also always quote the source. Obviously, I claim that this is a fair use.
So far, no copyright holder has taken any action against me which would
dispute this.
Mighty Mouse
less than 100. Not to mention the fact that you have no money, no business
and nothing anyone wants. A nothing, a joke, entertainment for the bored, a
nobody what brays into the darkness, and nobody hears....
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Odious
> From CNET. There will be other media coverage in the coming days, as
> reporters have been contacting me about this.
>
One wonders why gordo is pleased to have newspapers announcing that he
lost... again.
Is he going to try suing them for libel too?
Odious
Oh pleas oh pleas oh please file one of your kooksuits in CA?
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
Odious
> --
> "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick,
> Eastern District of PA Judge
> From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
>
Hey gordo... I see you changed the punctuation in the judge's statement and
cut off the rest of the sentence.
Isn't that a crime... to edit a judge's words in a ruling and then present
it as an exact quote?
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
Dane
"Odious" <Odi...@cox.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:MnBSf.138440$0G.16517@dukeread10...
Sounds like something....a judge would do....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
HeeroYuy
By "no", I meant that Gordon doesn't have the comprehension skills necessary
to apply the ruling PROPERLY. I really don't like spelling it out for
Gordon, but he asked for it.
HeeroYuy
Seeing it is one thing, understanding the application of it is a whole
different ball of stinky cheese.
Krus T. Olfard
q...@pghconnect.com:
> It is up to CNET to decide if I violated their copyright
Wrong again, you pathetic liar.
There is NO question as to whether or not you violated their copyright.
There is only the question as to whether or not they will do something
about it.
Considering the bitch slapping you recently received in court you really
should think a few times before spouting off with more nonsensical legal
ignorance like the above quote.
YOU REALLY DO APPEAR TO BE INCREDIBLY STOOPID WHERE LEGAL MATTERS ARE
CONCERNED but I'm truly amazed at the way you just love to show that
ignorance.
--
Krustavus Teofilus Olfard
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Krus T. Olfard
@dukeread10:
I could second that.
Thrasher Remailer
Note that "Ray", whose actual name is Gordon Roy Parker, fails to identify
ANY "hate marketing" whatsoever. If he really believes that it exists then
why does he snip every single trace of whatever post he is supposedly
referring to? It seems he merely wants OTHER people to believe
it exists. This is the kind of misleading misinformation he is famous for
and which led to the creation of the asf web forums where he is banned
from posting.
ghoul-cow
> From CNET. There will be other media coverage in the coming days, as
> reporters have been contacting me about this.
>
> Source: http://news.com.com/2100-1030-6050667.html?tag=tb
>
> In a legal win for Google, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a
> writer who claimed the search giant infringed on his copyright by
> archiving a Usenet posting of his and providing excerpts from his Web site
> in search results.
>
> The lawsuit was filed by Gordon Roy Parker, also known as Ray Gordon, who
> publishes his writings under the business name of Snodgrass Publishing
> Group. Parker, of Philadelphia, also posted a chapter of one of his
> e-books on the Usenet bulletin board network, a collection of thousands of
> discussion forums called newsgroups.
>
> In his 2004 lawsuit against Google, Parker alleged that the search giant
> violated copyright law by automatically archiving a copy of his posting on
> Usenet and by providing excerpts from his Web site in search results.
>
> However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
> ruled on Friday that under case law, Google's activities, akin to those of
> an Internet Service Provider, do not constitute infringement (click for
> PDF of court documents).
>
> "When an ISP automatically and temporarily stores data without human
> intervention so that the system can operate and transmit data to its
> users, the necessary element of volition (willful intent to infringe) is
> missing," the court said.
>
> The ruling cited a decision in January by a federal court in Nevada that
> concluded that cached versions of Web pages Google stores and offers as a
> part of many search results do not infringe copyright.
>
> The ruling comes after a decision last month in which a federal judge in
> Los Angeles said that portions of Google's image search feature, which
> displays thumbnail versions of images found on adult photo site Perfect 10
> and others, likely violate U.S. copyright law.
>
> The search engine also faces copyright lawsuits filed last year by authors
> and publishers groups over its controversial Library Project book-scanning
> plans, and a lawsuit filed by Agence France Press and threat of litigation
> from the World Association of Newspapers for aggregating headlines and
> photos without permission or compensation.
>
> In a legal blow to Google earlier this week, a federal judge in San Jose,
> Calif., said he would grant federal prosecutors at least part of their
> request for excerpts from Google's index of Web sites. Google is
> challenging a subpoena from the Department of Justice for a random
> sampling of Internet addresses and search queries that the DOJ says it
> needs to help defend a measure designed to hold Web sites liable if minors
> can access pornography on them.
>
> In his lawsuit, Parker also claimed Google was liable for defamation
> because the search company archived allegedly defamatory messages posted
> by Usenet users and that Google was invading his privacy by creating an
> "unauthorized biography" of him, the court said. However, the court said
> Google is immune because it either archived or provided access to content
> that was created by a third party.
>
> In other news:
> a.. Piecing together Windows Vista
> b.. Your secret PIN may not be so secret
> c.. In games arena, play or pause?
> d.. News.com Extra: Over-50 crowd finding love online too
> Most of the 11 claims in the lawsuit, which also included racketeering,
> negligence, abuse of process and civil conspiracy, were dismissed for
> failure to state a claim. Others were dismissed because Google was found
> not to be held liable under certain statutes.
>
> The ruling also complained about the "rambling" and "unwieldy" lawsuit,
> which named "50,000 John Does" as defendants. Parker, a former paralegal,
> said he wrote the complaint himself and does not have a lawyer.
>
> Parker said he will appeal the decision. "The court is confused about what
> cache means," he said in a telephone interview. "Google really is a
> third-party republication."
>
> "Google takes my content, uses it to bolster its search engine and
> attracts traffic to which they pitch advertising from my competitors,"
> Parker complained.
>
> Google representatives did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
>
>
Perhaps this is GAME OVER, for your fifteen minutes of infamy. Just a
thought.
--
GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOWGHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!
richa...@usa.com
As a user of usenet you were already aware that google, and others
archived posts made by you and others, unless otherwise directed not to
archive those posts.
You chose to post an excerpt of your copyrighted work for others to
read. Doing so gives google, and others, to maintain that posted work
of yours for as long as they desire.
In essence, you gave them permission to archive the work regardless of
copyright issues.
As you are the author, you have the legal right to make public your
work in any way you choose, including usenet. Therefor, the court sided
with google on it's decision.
You should have taken the time to educate yourself further on the
copyright issue before intitiating the lawsuit and you would have
learned it would be a lost cause.
But then again, you may be doing this purely for publicity and now
you'll get it in more ways than you can imagine. Bad or good. You'll
get the attention.
Wonder if Just Taylor has an award he could present you with?
Ray Gordon
> archived posts made by you and others, unless otherwise directed not to
> archive those posts.
That's never been addressed by the SCOTUS.
If what you say is true, then the only way to keep your work protected is
NOT to publish it on the internet, and instead use the "dinosaur" channels.
Otherwise, the AAP lawsuit against Google would also have to fail, because
Google is doing to them exactly what it does to USENET and websites, in fact
they do less (just snippets in the search results).
Google has no property rights to USENET. If, as a USENET user, I choose to
make my writing available to a USENET audience, that does not mean that I
give anyone the right to permanently archive it, or to use my writing to
sell advertising.
If the ruling stands, then you're going to see a lot of free content
disappear from the internet, as people won't have the same incentive to
create it. Radio stations increase record sales by playing records, yet
they still have to pay royalties. Why?
> You chose to post an excerpt of your copyrighted work for others to
> read. Doing so gives google, and others, to maintain that posted work
> of yours for as long as they desire.
What right is that? Opt-out copyright has never worked anywhere else. In
fact, the AAP is suing over that with regard to their books.
The only difference between the AAP books and internet publishing is that
one is done on the web -- more cheaply, and with no barriers to writers --
and the other is done in print -- many barriers, expensive distribution,
etc.
It is not in the public interest to tell people that they have to tolerate
having their work copied by others *only* because they published it online
as opposed to on paper.
> In essence, you gave them permission to archive the work regardless of
> copyright issues.
I never gave anyone permission to archive my posts, nor should I have to
opt-out.
> As you are the author, you have the legal right to make public your
> work in any way you choose, including usenet. Therefor, the court sided
> with google on it's decision.
>
> You should have taken the time to educate yourself further on the
> copyright issue before intitiating the lawsuit and you would have
> learned it would be a lost cause.
It's not a lost cause by any means. Just ask the AAP.
> But then again, you may be doing this purely for publicity
Not at all. I did it to get the law settled so I could determine what is
legal to do as an internet publisher. The court gave me the same rights to
archive work as it gave google, should I choose to enter that field. They
also made me immune to defamation actions that relate to my message boards.
Krus T. Olfard
>
> If what you say is true, then the only way to keep your work protected
> is NOT to publish it on the internet, and instead use the "dinosaur"
> channels.
>
The fact that you can make a statement like that only shows that you are
again twisting facts to fit your current agenda.
Pathetic... as usual...
johnebravo836
Wasn't the defamation claim one of the ones that was dismissed with
prejudice?
Ray Gordon
>
> See that statement above? It tells google not to archive this post.
> If all goes well, this post will not be able to be read directly in 8
> days.
In my case, a third party copied my post (a copy of a copyrighted work), and
reposted it without the x-no-archive tag. I did not consent to that.
So you see, I DID use the tag and it still wound up in Google.
> For information presented on websites, there are available means to
> keep search engines from scanning your website and storing that
> infromation.
There's also something called a registered copyright that does the same
thing.
> Although it won't protect that infromation from thieves who would
> simply copy and store the site as is.
Personal use is not the issue here. My site's visitors can do a "home
recording" of my site just as they can record a TV show on their personal
VCR for their personal use.
Google is putting it on public display and selling advertising from my work.
> If you could show that google had scanned your published works and then
> presented them online, then you'd have a viable case.
So because the source is on the internet, it's legal to steal it, but if the
source is on a piece of paper, it is not? That requires authors to
surrender certain rights to their property just because they choose to
release it online, a cheaper distribution method that requires far less risk
and reaches a global audience.
Who died and left Google exempt from copyright law?
> Ever hear the old saying, "You can't sue the newstand"?
Actually, you can. As a distributor.
> Goggle is a newstand. Like the thousands of others usenet servers. A
> portal to access usenet.
Their archive is not their usenet server. You can't reply to years-old
postings.
> Without it, you wouldn't be here.
Actually, my ISP has a news server, and I pay for access to that.
> Can you sue a bookstore that sells a book which contains damning
> information about you?
If they are put on notice of it, I can sue them as a distributor.
(Disclaimer: I am not an attorney).
> No you can not. You can sue the author and publisher, not the
> bookstore.
Look up "distributor liability" sometime.
> That's what you're doing. You're suing a service that YOU gave
> permission to use your work on their system.
I never gave any such permission. Google claims they don't need it anyway
(fair use).
> Whether or not you used google directly, makes no difference. Google is
> connected to usenet and therefor anything on usenet can be stored on
> their system by them for any length of time they choose.
I was talking about the web cache, but on USENET, their news server is not
the same thing as their archive.
You can't reply directly to their archived posts.
> Did you know there are other archiving machines out there? Some don't
> even recognize the "no archive" line at all.
> You gonna sue them too?
Depends on what they do. Perhaps there's a certain time limit that the
courts will set for news, after which one could claim royalty. Who knows?
The law is very unsettled.
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
Alex
R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/20/06 1:39 PM:
>> X-NO-ARCHIVE: YES
>>
>> See that statement above? It tells google not to archive this post.
>> If all goes well, this post will not be able to be read directly in 8
>> days.
>
> In my case, a third party copied my post (a copy of a copyrighted work), and
> reposted it without the x-no-archive tag. I did not consent to that.
>
> So you see, I DID use the tag and it still wound up in Google.
Your complaint is then with the person who removed the tag and reposted the
info. NOT GOOGLE.
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
Ray Gordon
>>>
>>> If Barrett holds up, the defamation claim could be refiled there.
>>
>>Wasn't the defamation claim one of the ones that was dismissed with
>>prejudice?
>
> dismissed with prejudice can not be refiled.
If there is a change in controlling law, it could be (Google would of course
change its conduct if this became controlling law), and if Barrett holds up,
but the SCOTUS leaves the rest intact, then I could file there since the law
would be different.
I of course will be appealing this ruling.
Alex
R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/21/06 3:09 PM:
Try to make that filing comprehensible.
Thom E. Geiger
wrote:
>>They
>>also made me immune to defamation actions that relate to my message boards.
>>
>
> I don't see that in the ruling. Could you explain how you
>would be immune to such action?
I believe he's talking about Google caching what he considers to be
defamatory messages about him. That was one of his claims vs. Google.
In the case of the website I pointed a domain name to, he claimed that
was defamatory and since Google cached it, he made a claim based on
that as well as usenet posts. He's also claimed my website at
ChewOnThis.Org has content defamatory towards him, but what he has
recounted in court documents amounts to little more than highly
critical personal opinion of his behavior and his business practices.
To my knowledge, not one line of content, on usenet or the web
concerning Mr. Parker, has ever been judged to be defamtory by a court
or a jury.
You should know that this is all from a person who has also claimed in
court documents that if you point a domain name at a website, it gives
you total control over that website and you, somehow, mysteriously
know who authors that website. That's why Ray-Gordon.Net is pointing
where it is, to disprove his asinine and idiotic claims about domain
name pointing. I doubt there are many people who know the identity of
the person who authors that website, and I am not one of them.
Mr. Parker's technical knowledge is irrelevant to anything. Once he
has painted himself into a corner on an issue, his monster ego won't
let him any more admit he is wrong about something than his
pathological paranoia will allow him to post his real name to usenet.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
ChewOnThis.Org
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
shast...@rock.com
have records of slanderous posts about me. It could keep him from
gettin a job.
----------------------
www.betathetapi.net
----------------------
UKNOWWHO
Parker, your whole life is one big "..also..", "..could..",
"..IF..", "..presuming..", "..can..", "..but..", "..then..",
"..since.." etc etc etc etc etc "..inexcusable failure.." after
"..inexcusable failure.." after "..inexcusable failure.." after
Under-Roo wetting "..maybe..", "..someday.." wet dream nightmare.
You have NEVER completed ANYTHING in your life.. EVER..
Your not even a 'joke' anymore..
JJT
grp-ie dreams of the "In" crowd
He follows where the "In" crowd goes
grp-ie jerks off to the "In" crowd
tries' to learn what the "In" crowd knows (How to have fun!)
Any time of the year, dripping fear.. (he cannot have fun..)
grp-ie cries, grp-ie whines..
He screams up and down the Net..
Wishes death on children, U bet..
The world laughs, day & night
grp-ie just runs and hides in fright..
grp-ie jerks off to the "In" crowd
..ya JUST know he sure can't dance
Cause WE ARE in with "In" crowd
while grp-ie can't find romance (STD rot!)
ANY spot where the beat's really hot (While we have fun!)
grp-ie's square, he ain't there
We meet more women then not..
Our share is always the biggest amount
grp-ie fears and/or hates us..
while he still lives in mommie's basement..
grp-ie fears where we're walkin'
grp-ie fears how we're talkin' (Gotta have fun!)
Any time of the year, don't you hear (Gotta have fun!)
We're spendin' cash, talkin' trash..saying :
"Girl, I'll show you a real good time
Come on with me and leave your troubles behind
I don't care where you've been
You ain't been nowhere till you been in... with "In" crowd"
HeeroYuy
<shast...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1142985260.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I can kinda see his point of view on this. I wouldn't want google to
> have records of slanderous posts about me. It could keep him from
> gettin a job.
Gordon has continually threatened people for "repeating the lies", which is
ironic, since everything that's repeated is what he said. Was he then
slandering himself?
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
johnebravo836
Ray Gordon wrote:
Apparently, Mr. Legal Scholar is not completely familiar with the
principle of "res judicata".
Krus T. Olfard
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> I can kinda see his point of view on this. I wouldn't want google to
> have records of slanderous posts about me. It could keep him from
> gettin a job.
>
One thing you should take into consideration with this type of thing -
the kind of posts you get in response will usually mirror the kind of
posts you make.
If in your posts you come across as an aggressive and abrasive and
insulting asshole then people will respond to you that way. If you make
reasonable and rational posts then you will usually get responses of the
same type.
If you look at someone's posting history and find that they have nuked
their posts from the archives you can check the responsive posts they get
and get an idea (and often because of quotes an exact idea) of the type
of person they are online and this will give you an idea of the type of
person they are offline.
After all, gordon roy parker files kooksoots about copyright infringement
and yet he does not hesitate to post complete news articles taken from
sites that in their copyright notices specifically forbid doing so. This
alone tells you a lot about him and his ideas of the way the world should
work around him.
This is, apparently, the kind of thing that he is afraid of but because
of the ruling on his google kooksoot he's discovering that he can run but
he can't hide.
What effect should this have on him and everyone else? Simple - don't
make posts that you will be ashamed of later. This means that you think
about what you've written before you click the 'send' button.
After all, who hasn't left a phone message that they later wished they
hadn't? I certainly have and as a result I now think carefully before
leaving anything other than an innocuous phone message.
Krus T. Olfard
>> Presuming I understand the applicable law correctly, a case
>> dismissed with prejudice can not be refiled.
>
> If there is a change in controlling law, it could be (Google would of
> course change its conduct if this became controlling law),
This is Legal Loser's version of spin control.
Kinda funny in a pathetic way, ain't it?
Krus T. Olfard
> In my case, a third party copied my post (a copy of a copyrighted
> work), and reposted it without the x-no-archive tag. I did not
> consent to that.
>
> So you see, I DID use the tag and it still wound up in Google.
>
>
Why do I not believe you?
Oh yeah, it's because I know you're a liar. Do you remember the grievous
and injurious lies you told about me? If you don't I could post the
messages with headers just to refresh your memory.
Krus T. Olfard
a4PZ4...@pghconnect.com:
>> For information presented on websites, there are available means to
>> keep search engines from scanning your website and storing that
>> infromation.
>
> There's also something called a registered copyright that does the same
> thing.
>
The fact that you think that a copyright is the same as a robots.txt file
shows once again how incredibly ignorant you are about copyright law.
After all, you have numerous times claimed that when you post entire
copyrighted news article if the copyright holder does not sue you then
you have not broken the law. That, of course, is either an absolute lie
or an example of incredible stupidity. Which of these is it, Legal Loser?
Krus T. Olfard
>
> Google is putting it on public display and selling advertising from my
> work.
>
>
You LOST!
Do you really have that much of a problem understanding the words
'Dismissed with prejudice'?
Krus T. Olfard
news:qeou12hh880qncmqg...@4ax.com:
>>The law is very unsettled.
>>
>
> Seems the courts settled the matter regarding your suit.
>
And settled it very thoroughly from all appearances.
Well, except for the 'completely incomprehensible' portion. Nothing to
settle there as even legal experts could not make out what he meant.
Kinda pathetic, ain't it?
Krus T. Olfard
> There is a significant difference. With Usenet, you imply
> consent for your posts to be copied. I've copied your post so that I
> can reply to it and allow readers to follow the context. And I've
> granted consent to anyone who wishes to reply to this post. All I had
> to do to grant this consent was post.
>
>
And his posts are copied to every newsserver that carries
alt.seduction.fast. That's why some people can reply to text posts that
are a few years old. Some large newsservices carry text posts that long
and those posts are not archived, they just haven't spooled off the
servers yet.
And gordito grosso's stoopid posts are still out there for a lot of the
world to read, even after he has nuked them from google, simply because
some newsservices have a large amount of storage space for the text
groups.
Ray Gordon
>>court documents that if you point a domain name at a website, it gives
>>you total control over that website and you, somehow, mysteriously
>>know who authors that website.
>
> bother visiting, there's nothing to see but a message from godaddy.com
> stating it's parked) to some random site. Does this mean I have
> control over the site? No.
> Gordon can do the same thing, and have the same level of
> control. None.
You've misconstrued what he means by "pointing." He's talking about
"pointing" the domain to THAT DOMAIN, not to another domain (as in a
hyperlink). He didn't point Domain1 at Domain2, but at the IP address for
Domain1.
It's worth noting that the anonymous author he alleged for the site on his
domain would now be subject to the new law governing anonymous internet
speech.
If you own http://www.domain.com, and you "point" at
http://www.domain.com/document1.html, then your site is "pointing" at
itself.
That's what he's essentially claiming.
HC
Get some sleep, freak.
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
alt.seduction.fast newsgroup, along with spam, misinformation, off-topic,
and other worthless posts, alt.seduction.fast now also has a website
and discussion forums in which this individual is prevented from posting.
The website forums have proven extremely popular and successful since
off-topic material and bad behavior is prevented there. The forums are
COMPLETELY FREE to both read and to post to. See the footer in the message
Krus T. Olfard
>
> It's worth noting that the anonymous author he alleged for the site on
> his domain would now be subject to the new law governing anonymous
> internet speech.
>
>
Once again Legal Loser shows that he does not understand that law at all.
Actually, I suspect that he does understand what that law actually is and
just uses it in the manner above to try and silence those whose opinions
he does not like.
Then again, he is a liar (remember those grievous and injurious lies you
told about me, Legal Loser?) so no one should place too much faith in
anything that he posts.
Krus T. Olfard
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:13:24 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <R...@cybersheet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>You should know that this is all from a person who has also claimed
>>>>in court documents that if you point a domain name at a website, it
>>>>gives you total control over that website and you, somehow,
>>>>mysteriously know who authors that website.
>>>
>>> That's funny, actually. I could point compuelf.org (don't
>>> bother visiting, there's nothing to see but a message from
>>> godaddy.com stating it's parked) to some random site. Does this
>>> mean I have control over the site? No.
>>> Gordon can do the same thing, and have the same level of
>>> control. None.
>>
>>You've misconstrued what he means by "pointing."
>
> Not at all. He means forwarding. When you go to
> ray-gordon.net, you are forwarded to another site.
>
>>He's talking about
>>"pointing" the domain to THAT DOMAIN, not to another domain (as in a
>>hyperlink). He didn't point Domain1 at Domain2, but at the IP address
>>for Domain1.
>
> That's not what happened when I visited. Before I replied, I
> checked the site. I manually entered the URL and was taken to The
> United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
> I just checked it again, and was taken to the same site.
>
>>
>>It's worth noting that the anonymous author he alleged for the site on
>>his domain would now be subject to the new law governing anonymous
>>internet speech.
>
> Who, on the Pennsylvania site is anonymous?
>
>>
>>If you own http://www.domain.com, and you "point" at
>>http://www.domain.com/document1.html, then your site is "pointing" at
>>itself.
>
> True, but this is not what is occurring with the
> ray-gordon.net domain. Unless you are claiming that the owner of
> http://www.paed.uscourts.gov (where ray-gordon.net forwards to) is the
> owner of ray-gordon.net. Is this what you are claiming?
>
>>
>>That's what he's essentially claiming.
>>
>
> He's not, of course.
>
Of course he's not but having to lie to make a point does not seem to
bother gordito grosso.
Ray Gordon
>
No, he does NOT mean forwarding. If you read the lawsuit, you'll see where
I made this clear.
In 2003, I subpoenaed Google regarding the site and Google's copies of its
pages. In response, Google sent me a letter documenting exactly this. As
an additional precaution, I paid the Internet Archive for an affidavit to
further verify which domains were used to host which documents.
He is trying to claim that registering a domain has little or nothing to do
with which documents are published ON THAT DOMAIN. The "pointing" he speaks
of is the redirection of a web browser to a numerical IP address that is
linked to the domain.
It's a word game.
Thrasher Remailer
In an attempt to eliminate disruption caused by this individual in the
Mighty Mouse
> Apparently, Mr. Legal Scholar is not completely familiar with the
> principle of "res judicata".
>
only hear 80 cases a year. Of course the cases they do hear have
Constitutional overtones, They don't really have the sense of humor that
some of the lower courts have to have. I wonder if he knows that every time
he appeals the trial Court Judge is aware of it. Really pisses them off
too.....
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Thom E. Geiger
wrote:
>>>You've misconstrued what he means by "pointing."
Those words are "LIAR" and "IDIOT", and it's no game.
You're still a liar and an idiot Mr. Parker. This is the second
instance where you outright lied to the court about what I did or
didn't do, and I was prepared to make sure you paid the penalty for
perjury on that one too.
You claimed, in your complaint, the domain name Ray-Gordon.com was
once hosted on the same site where the files were that made up the
RayFAQ. That was, and will always be, a lie and you signed that one
under penalty of perjury like the first one you told. The RayFAQ was
never hosted by either MyDomain.com or JumpDomain.com, ever.
The Ray-Gordon.com domain name had been registered at NamesDirect.com
(D/B/A MyDomain.com) and the pointing was handled through the
MyDomain.com domain management console, that is, until you had a powow
with a like minded effiminate moron at NamesDirect.com, who cancled
the account in violation of US law. This is all documented on the
http://ChewOnThis.Org website.
The only reason they couldn't revoke my registration is because I
registered a complaint with ICANN and NamesDirect.com had just settled
a high visibility, well publicized case with another domain name
registrant, whose domain name they had let another individual take
control of. They didn't need another such story hitting the press, so
your buddy disabled the account and I transferred it to
JumpDomain.com, where it seems you can't find another similar pushover
for your "irresistable hypnotic skills" to get it bounced again.
Now the pointing is handled through Jumpdomain.com, just as it was
through NamesDirect.com. It has NEVER been stored anywhere else since
it was registered by me and your claims are lies and you know it.
I dare you to post one domain name registrar who is willing to swear,
under oath, the Ray-Gordon.com domain name has been registered, stored
and pointed from their servers, other than NamesDirect.com (D/B/A
MyDomain.com) or JumpDomain.com.
I submitted this information to the court to prove you had made
another false claim, under penalty of perjury, and you're too stupid
to realize you're doing the same thing someone did when they made
claims about your USCF rating. But continue to lie about me and see
what happens.
Mighty Mouse
>
> No, he does NOT mean forwarding. If you read the lawsuit, you'll see
> where I made this clear.
>
reasons the Court gave to tossing your bullshit temper tantrum out.
> In 2003, I subpoenaed Google regarding the site and Google's copies of its
> pages. In response, Google sent me a letter documenting exactly this. As
> an additional precaution, I paid the Internet Archive for an affidavit to
> further verify which domains were used to host which documents.
>
Pity you didn't have the sense to properly explain yourself and attach the
documents as exhibits to your overly long and totally incomprehensiable
temper tantrum.
> He is trying to claim that registering a domain has little or nothing to
> do with which documents are published ON THAT DOMAIN. The "pointing" he
> speaks of is the redirection of a web browser to a numerical IP address
> that is linked to the domain.
>
What he said was that he has owned that domanin for a number of years before
anyone had ever heard of you, and that someone asked him to let them use it
and he allowed them to do that since it was one of a number of domain names
he had purchased and was not using. He also stated that he did not know the
name and address of the person who was using it. Apparently it's also the
name of a Wrestler that he was fond of years ago. YOU claimed he was the
author of the website, and the Court did not agree with you. Case
Dismissed.
> It's a word game.
>
Pity you are not better at it. Perhaps then your bullshit pleadings would
not be deemed TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSABLE!!!
Alex
R...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/26/06 12:33 AM:
>>> You've misconstrued what he means by "pointing."
>>
>> Not at all. He means forwarding.
>
> No, he does NOT mean forwarding. If you read the lawsuit, you'll see where
> I made this clear.
Not hardly.
Your lawsuit was called INCOMPREHENSIBLE by a Federal Judge.
That means NOTHING was clear in it.
ghoul-cow
>> As a user of usenet you were already aware that google, and others
>> archived posts made by you and others, unless otherwise directed not to
>> archive those posts.
>
> That's never been addressed by the SCOTUS.
>
> If what you say is true, then the only way to keep your work protected is
> NOT to publish it on the internet, and instead use the "dinosaur"
> channels. Otherwise, the AAP lawsuit against Google would also have to
> fail, because Google is doing to them exactly what it does to USENET and
> websites, in fact they do less (just snippets in the search results).
>
> Google has no property rights to USENET. If, as a USENET user, I choose
> to make my writing available to a USENET audience, that does not mean that
> I give anyone the right to permanently archive it, or to use my writing to
> sell advertising.
>
> If the ruling stands, then you're going to see a lot of free content
> disappear from the internet, as people won't have the same incentive to
> create it. Radio stations increase record sales by playing records, yet
> they still have to pay royalties. Why?
>
>
>> You chose to post an excerpt of your copyrighted work for others to
>> read. Doing so gives google, and others, to maintain that posted work
>> of yours for as long as they desire.
>
> What right is that? Opt-out copyright has never worked anywhere else. In
> fact, the AAP is suing over that with regard to their books.
>
> The only difference between the AAP books and internet publishing is that
> one is done on the web -- more cheaply, and with no barriers to writers --
> and the other is done in print -- many barriers, expensive distribution,
> etc.
>
> It is not in the public interest to tell people that they have to tolerate
> having their work copied by others *only* because they published it online
> as opposed to on paper.
>
>
>> In essence, you gave them permission to archive the work regardless of
>> copyright issues.
>
> I never gave anyone permission to archive my posts, nor should I have to
> opt-out.
>
>
>> As you are the author, you have the legal right to make public your
>> work in any way you choose, including usenet. Therefor, the court sided
>> with google on it's decision.
>>
>> You should have taken the time to educate yourself further on the
>> copyright issue before intitiating the lawsuit and you would have
>> learned it would be a lost cause.
>
> It's not a lost cause by any means. Just ask the AAP.
>
>> But then again, you may be doing this purely for publicity
>
> Not at all. I did it to get the law settled so I could determine what is
> legal to do as an internet publisher. The court gave me the same rights
> to
> archive work as it gave google, should I choose to enter that field. They
> also made me immune to defamation actions that relate to my message
> boards.
Its not yours to give permission.
--
GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOWGHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!!GHOULCOW!GHOULCOW!
Thom E. Geiger
wrote:
>>>You've misconstrued what he means by "pointing."
I've detailed the efforts you went to in trying to remove my domain
name from NamesDirect.com's servers, the lies that were told, the
illegal so-called DMCA complaint, everything. It's all there on
http://www.ChewOnThis.org/lawsuit1.htm
On both my web pages, I've made it clear how you can respond to any
errors you think I made in my account of the events dealing with
Ray-Gordon.com and both of our dealings with NamesDirect.com and Mr.
Ravi Puri. I will gladly post rebuttals you might want to make, within
reason on length.
If you're now claiming Mr. Puri told you the RayFAQ files were hosted
on NamesDirect.com's servers, or that the domain name Ray-Gordon.com
was not managed and directed from NamesDirect.com's servers from the
time I registered it until the time you and Mr. Puri pulled your tryst
to suspend the account, I think NamesDirect will have something to say
about your claims.
If what you're claiming (that the domain name and the RayFAQ files
were hosted on the same server) is something you now say Mr. Puri told
you, then I have cause for action against Mr. Puri and NamesDirect,
but, if you're claiming Mr. Puri told you that and he didn't, then
Puri and NamesDirect would have cause for action against you. Which is
it?
Iceberg
news:uo7e225m710u11vvk...@4ax.com...
How does this Ray Gordon idiot afford to file such ridiculous lawsuits? he
reminds me of another famous USENET kook, Doug Grant from the gambling groups.
Is it possible for somebody to get the RayFAQ hosted on a foreign non-US
server, then the moron couldn't do a single thing about it.
johnebravo836
Mighty Mouse wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>No, he does NOT mean forwarding. If you read the lawsuit, you'll see
>>where I made this clear.
>>
>
> Actually you didn't make much of anything clear. Which was one of the
> reasons the Court gave to tossing your bullshit temper tantrum out.
Yes, that's still another wonderful slice of unintended irony from the
keyboard of Mr. Looney Tunes. He's one of a kind, and I, for one,
appreciate his efforts immensely. ;)
HeeroYuy
"Iceberg" <big_bad...@moc.liamtom> wrote in message
news:qPNVf.284278$YJ4.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
You know, the answer to your question about him being able to pay for his
legal antics has eluded me, as well.
Paul Knight
>>reminds me of another famous USENET kook, Doug Grant from the gambling
>>groups.
>
> legal antics has eluded me, as well.
By filing pro se he saves a ton of costs. His only real costs are filing
fees which tend to run in the low three digits. I suspect this is why he
goes pro se. One can almost always find an attorney to support even the
most idiotic lawsuit if the pay is right. But if you haven't got the
money and the lawsuit is bordering on frivolous (i.e. no likely
compensation), then you gotta go it yerself.
Of course, if any of the countersuits for attorneys fees go through
successfully, then Ray is going to find out exactly how expensive
frivolous lawsuits can be.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "The only thing more expensive than education
is ignorance." I suspect Ray is about to experience an education due to
his ignorance.
Sean Monaghan
news:1142822187.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> As I said eons ego that you would lose you fumbling idiot of the
> world. As a user of usenet you were already aware that google, and
> others archived posts made by you and others, unless otherwise
> directed not to archive those posts.
> You chose to post an excerpt of your copyrighted work for others to
> read. Doing so gives google, and others, to maintain that posted work
> of yours for as long as they desire.
>
> In essence, you gave them permission to archive the work regardless of
> copyright issues.
> As you are the author, you have the legal right to make public your
> work in any way you choose, including usenet. Therefor, the court
> sided with google on it's decision.
>
> You should have taken the time to educate yourself further on the
> copyright issue before intitiating the lawsuit and you would have
> learned it would be a lost cause.
> But then again, you may be doing this purely for publicity and now
> you'll get it in more ways than you can imagine. Bad or good. You'll
> get the attention.
>
> Wonder if Just Taylor has an award he could present you with?
Checks AUK nominations' page -
http://www.netcabal.com/auk/nominations.html
This month's nominations for Gordon Roy Parker, alias "Ray Gordon":
Bobo Award
Clueless Newbie of the Month
Looney Maroon Award
George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$" Award
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart
Gordon is up for at least *5* awards this month, Richard.
*You* have already won 3 of those five awards.
http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=richard+bullis
Kookle Search Results
30 matches for "richard bullis".
--Richard S "Richard the St00pid" Bullis--
Rookie Kook of the Year, 1999
Kook of the Month, April 1999
Clueless Newbie of the Month, April 1999
Golden Killfile, July 1999
Looney Maroon Award, April 1999
Looney Maroon Award, May 1999
Looney Maroon Award, June 1999
Looney Maroon Award, August 1999
Looney Maroon Award, May 2001
Looney Maroon Award, July 2001
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, July 1999
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2001
Palmjob Paddle, July 1999
Palmjob Paddle, August 1999
Palmjob Paddle, September 1999
Palmjob Paddle, January 2000
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, August 1999
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, January 2000
Coward of the Month, February 2001
John Martin Grubor Memorial Award
Busted Urinal Award
Unabomber Surprise
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck #5
George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$" Award
Tar & Feathers
Clueless Eternal Newbie Kook of the Century
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Spades
Kook Chess Set, Blue King's Pawn
--Richbull.Com [Richard S Bullis]--
Palmjob Paddle, August 1999
Busted Urinal Award
--
Nominations and Official FAQ for alt.usenet.kooks -
even sociopaths get the blues
Peter J Ross
in alt.usenet.kooks:
> Richard "The St00pid" Bullis <richa...@usa.com> wrote in
> news:1142822187.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> As I said eons ego that you would lose you fumbling idiot of the
>> world. As a user of usenet you were already aware that google, and
>> others archived posts made by you and others, unless otherwise
>> directed not to archive those posts.
>> You chose to post an excerpt of your copyrighted work for others to
>> read. Doing so gives google, and others, to maintain that posted work
>> of yours for as long as they desire.
>>
>> In essence, you gave them permission to archive the work regardless of
>> copyright issues.
>> As you are the author, you have the legal right to make public your
>> work in any way you choose, including usenet. Therefor, the court
>> sided with google on it's decision.
Interesting theory, St00pid. It's a shame that the judge's reasons for
dismissing Gordie's case had nothing to do with your fantasy.
Why are you giving Gordie BAD ADVICE, St00pid?
>> You should have taken the time to educate yourself further on the
>> copyright issue before intitiating the lawsuit and you would have
>> learned it would be a lost cause.
>> But then again, you may be doing this purely for publicity and now
>> you'll get it in more ways than you can imagine. Bad or good. You'll
>> get the attention.
>>
>> Wonder if Just Taylor has an award he could present you with?
Taylor-obsession noted.
Wow! WOWWOWWOW!!! This is what I *call* a kookfight!
<useful facts that St00pid will be too st00pid to understand snipped>
PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ FSM: http://www.venganza.org/
._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, PJR: http://www.insurgent.org/~pjr/
/ (`---'\ `-. AUK: http://www.netcabal.com/auk/
,-` _) (_, F_P God's Own Newsreader: http://www.slrn.org/
anyone...@gmail.com
I dreamt it last night.
Don't make waves,the end is near for your group.
Nazi experimetns on children, among others, does not sit well with
anyone, even some of meow.
So fuck off, trash.
Dr. Quakenbush, PHd, Dept. of Psychology for the study of scientific kooks...
So, like , you're a 26 year old shithead <Medical student? god help
your patients, MY GOD>, and you think knowing hypnosis and graduating
from Princeton is keWL, and you hypnotize minor children as part of a
research study, or part of adult psy ops games.
As a student, there are people here who can have your projects, your
schooling revoked. Imagine waking up one morning and being unable to
concentrate, your intellectual ability impaired by...hypnosis.
Has it happened yet, kids?