Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

LEGAL: Ray sues Yahoo! and Microsoft for copyright infringement

62 views
Skip to first unread message

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:04:46 AM7/4/07
to
On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:

http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf

This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the
same thing, the Court held that I had not alleged direct infringement of a
registered work. Consequently, that legal issue was not addressed (the
Google case is still under appeal).


--
Ray Gordon
Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

FREE e-books on how to get laid!


HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:19:19 AM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 9:04?am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, <snip>

If this wasn't so pathetic it would be the funniest thing I ever read.

"There was no significant loss of life in those towers, not a one." -
Gordon "Ray Gordon" Roy Parker, son of Penny, September 11, 2001,
while theground was still smoldering

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:28:06 AM7/4/07
to
>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, <snip>
>
> If this wasn't so pathetic it would be the funniest thing I ever read.

More stellar legal analysis from HC.

HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:47:08 AM7/4/07
to
HC anonymous coward???

How do you figure, Kookenstein?

My information is readily available to anybody with a right to it.

You just don't have a right to it.

Too bad for you, enjoy the day! Happy 4th of July, cockroach!

PS,

Funny how you posted this KOOKSOOT to the stocks newsgroup . . .
having delusions of grandeur again? Think your kooksoot's gonna crash
MSFT and YHOO?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:51:07 AM7/4/07
to

>From parragraph #53, KOOK vs. Yahoo/Microsoft:

As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' conduct,
Plaintiff has
suffered irreparable harm, and will continue to suffer this harm
unless Defendants are enjoined
by this Court. The damages are especially severe because Plaintiff's
career plan has relied on his
earning income from online and offline sources.

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

QUESTION:

If Plaintiff's "career plan" has relied on his earning income from
online sources, why does Plaintiff seemingly spend every waking hour
destroying his reputation online by making statements such as those he
made on 9/11 before the fire was even extinguished?

Helluva carrer plan.

HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 10:02:51 AM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 9:04?am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
> copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
> copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf
>
> This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the
> same thing, the Court held that I

was an idiot?

HeeroYuy

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 10:50:58 AM7/4/07
to

"HC" <TheHC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183557067.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

I wonder how Microsoft caused him harm. Is it because he read insults at his
expense through OE? Is it because he typed his materials out on Word? Is it
because they let him use their software? All this is going to do is drive
people to Linux "if he succeeds," and then MS will have a case against HIM
for lost business.


HeeroYuy

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 10:51:34 AM7/4/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:aqWdnSvFaZyLBhbb...@pghconnect.com...

> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
> copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
> copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf
>
> This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the
> same thing, the Court held that I had not alleged direct infringement of a
> registered work. Consequently, that legal issue was not addressed (the
> Google case is still under appeal).

So you are going to sue the maker of your newsreader, and your OS, AND
another search engine who doesn't even ARCHIVE Usenet? Real smart, dipshit.
I can see Microsoft revoking your license to use Windows and Office when
they get through with you, as is well within their right to do so.


HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 11:03:29 AM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 10:50?am, "HeeroYuy" <h...@h.h> wrote:
> "HC" <TheHCap...@aol.com> wrote in message

He's suing Microsoft because of their search engine function not
because of their software.

The BEST part is, the reason he's doing so is because they reproduce
an exact copy of his pages on his obscure domain, which is the only
chance he has of making his obscure domain less obscure. Without
Google et al doing what they do, indexing the web, NOBODY would know
about this imbecile.

Just as good is his reference to the "pay per click" programs . . . in
which he refers to Google et al charging "between $.10 and $.50" a
click. More evidence that the self proclaimed genius hasn't got a
clue how the SEs work or what they cost. Poor little pathetic Parker.
Unable to play the game for lack of talent or otherwise . . . so he's
suing the ballpark. Oh. . . you shoudl see thepartwhere he explains to
the court what a cache is and how it works.

Parker gothis education where again? Degree from what accredited
University?

Fucking lump of shit.


> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Blash

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 11:08:37 AM7/4/07
to
Why do all the "headcases" who want to sue whenever their tender little
feelings get hurt gravitate to misc.invest.stocks???

Lawyerkill

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 11:25:52 AM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 9:04?am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
> copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
> copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf
>
> This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the
> same thing, the Court held that I had not alleged direct infringement of a
> registered work. Consequently, that legal issue was not addressed (the
> Google case is still under appeal).
>
> --
> Ray Gordon
> Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

>
> FREE e-books on how to get laid!

I really like this one in his lawsuit;

This document may not be altered in ANY way and mav be
viewed ONLY bv the user who downloaded it. It is nontransferable.l

Now if you even look at his stuff he'll sue you.

One Judge sues over his lost pants, this guy sues because he lost his
mind.


JJTj

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 11:41:32 AM7/4/07
to

Ray Gordon
Foxhunting: wrote the below:


>On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
>copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
>copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:
>
>http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf


Oh go get them, grp-ie. Make the evil people pay...

I hereby offer Yahoo! & MS any info I have rights to send them.

I just want to thank you, grp-ie. You made #15 a lo lo.

oh: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. !!!

>This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the
>same thing, the Court held that I had not alleged direct infringement of a
>registered work. Consequently, that legal issue was not addressed (the
>Google case is still under appeal).

I bet you have your dollies all lined up, ready to "sue anybody, anytime"..

Parker, this will be fun. U n ya dollies against Yahoo! n MS..n reality.

JJTj


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Do I take LSD...na, I can paint better then that"

Don Van Vliet (Capt Beefheart)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 12:23:25 PM7/4/07
to
gordy roy, creator of foolish legal theories, whined:

> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for
> direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement,
> and vicarious copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be
> found at this link:
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf
>
> This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing
> the same thing, the Court held that I had not alleged direct
> infringement of a registered work. Consequently, that legal issue was
> not addressed (the Google case is still under appeal).
>
>

gordy roy just don't ever learn...

Apparently you have not even paid the court costs of your suit against
google and here you are going after YAHOO and MICROSOFT?

Wotta fuckin' macaroon...

--
I'm an opinionated bastard. Everything I post is my opinion. If you do
not like my opinions then killfile me - if you like my opinions then send
me money.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 12:25:13 PM7/4/07
to
HC <TheHC...@aol.com> wrote in news:1183556828.806484.151300
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

I didn't even notice that. Hilarious!
He will do anything to drag uninvolved individuals into his kookrants...

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 12:29:32 PM7/4/07
to
Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in news:C2B13035.6FBA1%blash1
@comcast.net:

> Why do all the "headcases" who want to sue whenever their tender little
> feelings get hurt gravitate to misc.invest.stocks???
>
>

I think that gordy roy crossposts like that just to attempt to drag
others into his kookrants and get others to pay attention to him. It
seems that any time he is feeling ignored he will start crossposting his
bullshit to half a dozen or so groups, most of them unrelated to each
other.

Lawyerkill

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 12:34:19 PM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 12:29?pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in news:C2B13035.6FBA1%blash1
> @comcast.net:
>
> > Why do all the "headcases" who want to sue whenever their tender little
> > feelings get hurt gravitate to misc.invest.stocks???
>
> I think that gordy roy crossposts like that just to attempt to drag
> others into his kookrants and get others to pay attention to him. It
> seems that any time he is feeling ignored he will start crossposting his
> bullshit to half a dozen or so groups, most of them unrelated to each
> other.
>

Well he will be lucky if the court just ordered him to pay cost in
this latest suit and not have him commited.

Message has been deleted

Odious

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 1:41:05 PM7/4/07
to

The very fact that you posted this to misc.invest.stocks, shows bad faith
and an intent to cause those companies damage.

You're a fucking moron.

You've already lost.

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:aqWdnSvFaZyLBhbb...@pghconnect.com...

Odious

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 1:47:09 PM7/4/07
to

"HC" <TheHC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183561409....@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

The best part is that the reason those sites archived his website, is
because mr. net expert coded his pages as public pages with no instructions
not to archive the pages. His own ignorance of how the web works is the
only problem. Gordon suing microsoft because he coded his pages as public
would be like someone who can't drive getting behind the wheel, crashing,
then trying to sue ford.


Odious

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 1:48:57 PM7/4/07
to

"Blash" <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2B13035.6FBA1%bla...@comcast.net...

> Why do all the "headcases" who want to sue whenever their tender little
> feelings get hurt gravitate to misc.invest.stocks???
>

He hopes that by crossposting his kooksuit to MIS, he'll somehow cause the
stocks for Microsoft and yahoo to crash causing the companies to go bankrupt
and forcing them out of business.

In other words, he's a fucking tard.


Odious

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 1:51:34 PM7/4/07
to

"HeeroYuy" <h@h.h> wrote in message
news:468bb3d9$0$8912$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

HA! I didn't even think of that. I bet they would. That is if his
software is all licensed in the first place.

He better have all the documentation to show that every scrap of software on
his mommy's puter is licensed or they'll burry him in fines.


JJTj

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 2:32:32 PM7/4/07
to

>The best part is that the reason those sites archived his website, is
>because mr. net expert coded his pages as public pages with no instructions
>not to archive the pages. His own ignorance of how the web works is the
>only problem. Gordon suing microsoft because he coded his pages as public
>would be like someone who can't drive getting behind the wheel, crashing,
>then trying to sue ford.


Did not a Judge say..


"..inexcusable failure.."

JJTj


Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 5:18:19 PM7/4/07
to
Lawyerkill <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in
news:1183566859.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

While I can understand some logic behind huge corporations not wanting to
be seen as stomping the shit out of a mentally ill individual (he has
admitted to being bi-polar) since he has sued Google and now waves his
limp dick at Yahoo and MICROSOFT (fer christ's sake) one of them is going
to have to get him shut down simply as a method of avoiding wasting
resources.

But gordon roy parker seems to think he can just keep this up as long and
as often as he wishes.
The probem is that so far he has actually been right about something for
a change.

HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 5:40:08 PM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 5:18?pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:

> Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote innews:1183566859.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 12:29?pm, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
> >> Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in news:C2B13035.6FBA1%blash1
> >> @comcast.net:
>
> >> > Why do all the "headcases" who want to sue whenever their tender
> >> > little feelings get hurt gravitate to misc.invest.stocks???
>
> >> I think that gordy roy crossposts like that just to attempt to drag
> >> others into his kookrants and get others to pay attention to him. It
> >> seems that any time he is feeling ignored he will start crossposting
> >> his bullshit to half a dozen or so groups, most of them unrelated to
> >> each other.
>
> > Well he will be lucky if the court just ordered him to pay cost in
> > this latest suit and not have him commited.
>
> While I can understand some logic behind huge corporations not wanting to
> be seen as stomping the shit out of a mentally ill individual (he has
> admitted to being bi-polar) since he has sued Google and now waves his
> limp dick at Yahoo and MICROSOFT (fer christ's sake) one of them is going
> to have to get him shut down simply as a method of avoiding wasting
> resources.
>
> But gordon roy parker seems to think he can just keep this up as long and
> as often as he wishes.
> The probem is that so far he has actually been right about something for
> a change.
>


Do tell, Krus, do tell, what exactly is he right about?

Yahoo/Microsoft (or Google) doesn't benefit because of the quality of
the content on the pages that he claims a copyright to, they benefit
because they index the page, REGARDLESS of what's on the page. How is
the court jester damaged by what they do? The page itself - his page
- is irrelevant. If the quality of the content or the composition of
the content itself was an issue do you think his pages would be
indexed by the search engines in the first place? This is like suing
the phone company for including your phone number in telephone
directory. Hey man, the phone company obliges (for a fee) those that
want their names/numbers ommitted from the directory. So do the search
engines - for free! Gordon Roy Parker, the KOOK that thinks there is a
different set of rules for him than for everybody else, KNOWINGLY
REFUSED to add a simple line of code in the html of his pages to
prevent the search engines from indexing his pages, probably because
if he did that, he wouldn't be able to participate in all the benefits
of having yourpages indexed by Google and Yahoo, and now sues
them . . . for indexing his pages. He wants to have his cake and eat
it to, and collect 150,000 for passing go.

As best as I remember (and I'm sure to be corrected if I'm wrong) it
doesn't even refer to the "opt out" process that's available to him,
that he refuses to use. So even if the argument was that it shouldn't
be an "opt-out" system, but rather an "opt-in" system, he doesn't even
refer to that in his complaint.

His plan seems to be the same as it always is . . . he's going to tell
his side of the story, leave out the two or three (or eight thousand)
small details that kill his case . . . and hope nobody notices. This
becomes apparant as you see how he's instructing the court as if he's
some kind of expert in the ins and outs of the inner workings of how
the search engines do what they do.

Really, you should read the whole complaint (if you hadn't already). I
breezed through it earlier today and unless I missed something I fail
to see what this schmeckala putz is right about.

But please, tell me what you think he got right with all this, I
really would like to know what you think.

> --
> I'm an opinionated bastard. Everything I post is my opinion. If you do
> not like my opinions then killfile me - if you like my opinions then send

> me money.- Hide quoted text -

Message has been deleted

HC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 5:59:18 PM7/4/07
to
On Jul 4, 5:51?pm, "Ted E Bear" <Teddyb...@johndoes.org> wrote:

> On 4-Jul-2007, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote:
>
> > While I can understand some logic behind huge corporations not wanting to
> > be seen as stomping the shit out of a mentally ill individual (he has
> > admitted to being bi-polar) since he has sued Google and now waves his
> > limp dick at Yahoo and MICROSOFT (fer christ's sake) one of them is going
> > to have to get him shut down simply as a method of avoiding wasting
> > resources.
>
> > But gordon roy parker seems to think he can just keep this up as long and
> > as often as he wishes.
> > The probem is that so far he has actually been right about something for
> > a change.
>
> In my opinion, he desperately wants attention any way he can get it. But I
> also think that he wants someone to just crush him. Closet machoist....

In his complaint he talks about all the time and money he's spent on
research and this and that . . . what a fucking joke . . . he "prays"
for relief. I pray that somebody makes his back up his MOUTH and
DOCUMENT all this money he says he's out.

Is it a criminal offense to lie in a complaint?


> --
> "...serial and vexatious litigant in both the state and federal courts..."
> Gordon Roy Parker in his Memorandum Opposing Google's MTD
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


Message has been deleted

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 6:54:38 PM7/4/07
to
HC <TheHC...@aol.com> wrote in news:1183585208.209266.170940
@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

>
> Do tell, Krus, do tell, what exactly is he right about?
>
>

What he's been right about so far is actually only something that I have
imagined him thinking - that he can keep doing this kinda bullshit for as
long as he wants.
So far he's been able to do that.

Now admittedly this is only something that I have imagined him thinking
but his actions certainly seem to verify that he thinks this.

John C. Randolph

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 8:33:44 PM7/4/07
to
On 2007-07-04 06:04:46 -0700, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<r...@cybersheet.com> said:

> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for
> direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and
> vicarious copyright infringement.

Because you have nothing better to do than waste other people's time and money.

-jcr

Message has been deleted

The Evil Tessmacher

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:18:50 PM7/4/07
to

Krus T. Olfard writes...

> HC wrote:
>>
>> Funny how you posted this KOOKSOOT to the stocks newsgroup...
>> having delusions of grandeur again? Think your kooksoot's
>> gonna crash MSFT and YHOO?
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>
> I didn't even notice that. Hilarious!
> He will do anything to drag uninvolved individuals into
> his kookrants...
>

Well, I sure hope that Yahoo! and Microsoft know how to use
Google, because if this complaint is averred under penalty of
perjury, GRP is going to jail.

Just a few things for them to look for:

1) GRP claimed that his books were being sold for profit, and
that it was the collusion of the "seduction mafia" that forced
him to give them away. He says in this complaint that it was
"his pioneering business model" to give them away. Lie #1.

2) GRP has claimed in writing that he and he alone invented the
concept of the "pivot" when it has been clearly shown here that
he not only co-opted the concept but the term as well, that they
were both being used and taught before he arrived on the scene.
Lie #2.

3) He averred that his books have "been profitable since his
first book was released" and yet has claimed IFP status in at
least two if not more of his kooksoots. Are they profitable,
or is he a pauper? Lie #3.

4) He claims that "well over a hundred" other gurus have "parroted"
(read stolen) his material, and yet it can be demonstrably shown
that he himself has plagiarized a great deal of his material from
real, respected gurus. Lie #4.

5) Didn't he once say that "Foxhunting" would never need to be
revamped, improved, or upgraded? Here in this complaint, he says
that it has been an ongoing thing for the last "fifteen years".
Lies #5 & #6.

6) I for one seem to remember clearly when he was indeed putting
these "books" and other information out there freely on the internet.
I remember that he said he wanted to get it out to the largest
possible audience. So now he complains about caches? He did this
to himself.

There are many other lies, distortions and outright falsehoods in
his complaint, not to mention some 23 spelling and grammar errors
I noticed in reading the first half of the document.

I really, really hope that Yahoo! and Microsoft allow this to get
in front of a jury. I also hope that Yahoo! moves for a change of
venue to California, so that they can throw that Anti-SLAPP law
at him.

This is the latest, and possibly last chapter in a long series of
screams for help that Gordon Roy Parker has made over the years.

Someone needs to stop this vexatious serial litigant in his tracks.

I think that someone will.

Soon.

--
~
The Evil Tessmacher
Coming Soon to a Kiosk near you!

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:26:27 PM7/4/07
to
>have already been dealt with in the Google matter.

Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need for
this lawsuit.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 9:39:05 PM7/4/07
to
gordon roy parker, creator of odd legal theories, wrote:

>>have already been dealt with in the Google matter.
>
> Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
> infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need
> for this lawsuit.
>
>

I trust that you have looked up what is necessary for a copyright to
actually be a real 'registered copyright'?

Message has been deleted

Thom E. Geiger

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 10:50:45 PM7/4/07
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:02:51 -0700, HC <TheHC...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jul 4, 9:04?am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""


><r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
>> copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious

>> copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:
>>
>> http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf
>>
>> This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the
>> same thing, the Court held that I
>

>was an idiot?

If usenet's most well known sissy, Gordon Roy Parker, thinks Micro$oft
would let him slide on a court mandate for costs, he's even more
stupid than I thought.
Let's see, for him it's trollng for settlements again, but for M$?
Hhmm, about 6 billion potential litigants, UNLESS they make an example
of the few morons, like Parker, who come begging for a legal handout.

My money is on Parker wimping out. Stevie "The Embalmer" would crush
him like a bug and take Penny "Skull Crusher Parker, the Fairfax and
everybody within ten square blocks of 4247 Locust St., #806,
Philadelphia, PA with him.

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
ChewOnThis.Org
(the Official GRP NewsLoon tracking website)
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.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.

>More of the all too similar coincidences and shared behavior between
>the "Speeding" nym and Gordon Roy Parker.
>
>Both lie in every message
>Neither can quote accurately
>Both reword message content
>Both practice the same lame and ineffective disingenuousness
>Both deflect when proven wrong
>Both misdirect when losing an argument
>Neither one can fake any positive human emotions
>Both have the same lack of basic understanding of seduction in general
>Both have the same warped and skewed opinion of women
>Both ignore and refuse to address the horrible things Parker has
>admitted to, even when it is relevant to the discussion at hand
>
>Have I missed anything?

Formhandle

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 1:41:26 AM7/5/07
to
Shouldn't you be paying the legal liabilities that the PA court assessed
against you on a recently lost case before filing a new one?

I don't think the court would be happy to know about assessments going
unpaid as new cases are filed.


Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:

> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for direct
> copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
> copyright infringement. A copy of the lawsuit can be found at this link:
>
> http://www.cybersheet.com/complaint-yahoo-070307.pdf
>
> This lawsuit was made necessary, because when I sued Google for doing the

> same thing, the Court held that I had not alleged direct infringement of a
> registered work. Consequently, that legal issue was not addressed (the
> Google case is still under appeal).


--
Form <formh...@fastseduction.com>

Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...

Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain (FREE) access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 1:52:06 AM7/5/07
to
>> Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
>> infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need
>> for
>> this lawsuit.
>
> You forgot to read the rest of the opinion....

That was the "Google maintains the USENET" ruling. This is about a search
engine and a web "cache" that is actually a mirror site. Google had stopped
putting my pages in its cache in 2003 in response to a request from me. My
position here is that I don't need to warn Yahoo or Microsoft because I have
registered copyrights and they aren't entitled to DMCA protection due to
their profiting from the infringement. This is a different set of facts.

On the other hand, until the appellate court rules on the Google case,
nothing is binding on this case, so even if what the previous poster said
were true, it would still not matter.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:19:41 AM7/5/07
to
> Shouldn't you be paying the legal liabilities that the PA court assessed
> against you on a recently lost case before filing a new one?
>
> I don't think the court would be happy to know about assessments going
> unpaid as new cases are filed.

So odd he tells this to USENET rather than the court itself, where I could
make a formal response.

For someone who finds this group useless, he also seems to read it every day
given his response times.

Odious

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 2:11:31 AM7/5/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:TpSdnY4-gaizGhHb...@pghconnect.com...

>>> Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
>>> infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need
>>> for
>>> this lawsuit.
>>
>> You forgot to read the rest of the opinion....
>
> That was the "Google maintains the USENET" ruling. This is about a
> search engine and a web "cache" that is actually a mirror site. Google
> had stopped putting my pages in its cache in 2003 in response to a request
> from me. My position here is that I don't need to warn Yahoo or
> Microsoft because I have registered copyrights and they aren't entitled to
> DMCA protection due to their profiting from the infringement. This is a
> different set of facts.

You mean a different set of delusions.

You coded the pages as public, dumbass.

Microsoft or Yahoo can't be held responsible for you ignorance of how the
web works.

> On the other hand, until the appellate court rules on the Google case,
> nothing is binding on this case, so even if what the previous poster said
> were true, it would still not matter.
>

Just keep telling yourself that.


ZFORCE

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 6:10:17 AM7/5/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:VYCdnYfqPOYrBhHb...@pghconnect.com...

>> Shouldn't you be paying the legal liabilities that the PA court assessed
>> against you on a recently lost case before filing a new one?
>>
>> I don't think the court would be happy to know about assessments going
>> unpaid as new cases are filed.
>
> So odd he tells this to USENET rather than the court itself, where I could
> make a formal response.
>
> For someone who finds this group useless, he also seems to read it every
> day given his response times.
>
>

So what was that about telling USENET before the court Mr " LEGAL: Ray sues
Yahoo! and Microsoft for copyright infringement"


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Formhandle

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 10:23:22 AM7/5/07
to
Gordon Roy Parker wrote:

>> Shouldn't you be paying the legal liabilities that the PA court assessed
>> against you on a recently lost case before filing a new one?
>>
>> I don't think the court would be happy to know about assessments going
>> unpaid as new cases are filed.
>
> So odd he tells this to USENET rather than the court itself, where I could
> make a formal response.

And this thread of yours is anything but odd?

Are you so gone that you can't even see the logic you use is
contradicted by the very thread you're posting into? A thread you started.

> For someone who finds this group useless, he also seems to read it every day
> given his response times.

So odd you tell this to USENET rather than...

Lawyerkill

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 10:30:52 AM7/5/07
to
Why don't you save us the pain of this. when you reply take our ng off
this

Thanks

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:20:46 PM7/5/07
to
> For someone who has no training in the law, and no legal education, you
> certainly do talk a lot and listen very little.

Such an ironic observation from an anonymous layperson.

Lawyerkill

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:39:23 PM7/5/07
to
On Jul 5, 3:20?pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""

<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > For someone who has no training in the law, and no legal education, you
> > certainly do talk a lot and listen very little.
>
> Such an ironic observation from an anonymous layperson.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon
> Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html

>
> FREE e-books on how to get laid!

Why are you posting to M.I.S.? You think Microsoft or Yahoo stock
going to tank once your stupid suit is out?


Message has been deleted

HC

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 3:41:35 PM7/5/07
to
On Jul 5, 3:20?pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"absolutely nothing\""

<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > For someone who has no training in the law, and no legal education, you
> > certainly do talk a lot and listen very little.
>
> Such an ironic observation from an anonymous layperson.
>


LOL, Parker just called the guy that's embarrasing him with his grasp
of Parker's kooksoots, the guy that's trying to save his pathetic
life, a layperson.

If this was a sporting event I'd make the odds on "Is 'Ted E. Bear'
formally trained in some area of the law?"

YES -1000
NO +850

Geez, the guy posts from johndoes.org. IMO, he posts using a pseudonym
so that OBVIOUSLY he can comment as an individual and not as an
ATTORNEY. I'd bet a million dollars he's a lawyer somewhere. And if
he's not he sure as shit is a lot more educated than Parker is. Is
there any doubt that this guy has a degree? Hell, he's as smart as
Vance for cryin' out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a
federal judge somewhere.

Poor Parker. About to get DEMOLISHED and doesn't even see the frieght
train coming or hear the whistle blowing.

Think Wile E. Coyote and a very high cliff and a big round boulder.

Acme.

Message has been deleted

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 7:19:36 PM7/5/07
to
> Do you actually believe that? The Court said absent volition there was no
> infringment.

Volition was pled, as was direct infringement of a registered work. In the
Google case, I was claiming infringement by a third party of a USENET
posting that was then archived through another website that was in the
search engine.

In this case, I'm pleading that the search engine itself copied my work, of
its own voltion, and placed it on its own website and "internet cache"
pages.

The Google ruling from the lower court is not binding on this case
regardless.

The case I have here is based on my registered works and the rights I have
under the law to control their distribnution and display.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 7:27:00 PM7/5/07
to
gordon roy parker, creator of volumes of unconscious humor, whined:

>> Shouldn't you be paying the legal liabilities that the PA court
>> assessed against you on a recently lost case before filing a new one?
>>
>> I don't think the court would be happy to know about assessments
>> going unpaid as new cases are filed.
>
> So odd he tells this to USENET rather than the court itself, where I
> could make a formal response.
>
> For someone who finds this group useless, he also seems to read it
> every day given his response times.
>
>

But gordy roy - when someone provides all the free laffs that you provide
why would someone not enjoy it?

Message has been deleted

Alex

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 9:33:32 PM7/5/07
to
in article WZ6dnRiM8JB21RHb...@pghconnect.com, Ray Gordon,
creator of the "pivot" at r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 7/4/07 9:26 PM:

>> have already been dealt with in the Google matter.
>
> Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
> infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need for
> this lawsuit.
>

Have you since actually REGISTERED your copyright?

John Michaels

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 9:43:27 PM7/5/07
to
Elegantly said


"Ted E Bear" <Tedd...@johndoes.org> wrote in message
news:11836669...@sp12lax.superfeed.net...
> The interesting thing about Ray is that everyone sees a trainwreck but
> him.
> He really thinks that he's smarter, and has a better grasp of the
> Copyright
> laws than attorneys that have practiced in that area of the law for years.
>
> Microsoft is probably the only Corporation in America that is as hated as
> the RIAA. If there was the slightest chink in their armor, hundreds of
> hungry and greedy sharks would have sunk Microsoft and Yahoo (and Google)
> faster than the Bismark sunk the Hood. Six minutes from hello, to
> goodbye.
>
> Ray has this wonderful little child view of the law. Oh but things should
> be so simple....
> --
> Educations purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one! ~Malcolm
> Forbes~
>
> ----== 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
> =----


John Michaels

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 9:45:45 PM7/5/07
to
You missed one thing

It will be a woman intern who write the MTD. Wouldn't you have a woman
research the problem child and then have them compose the MTD. I would. I
wouldn't need to provide any additional motivation.

"Ted E Bear" <Tedd...@johndoes.org> wrote in message

news:11836820...@sp12lax.superfeed.net...
>I can't say this any more clear, you don't know what the hell you are
>doing.
> You can save the technical arguments for the Special Master who will be
> appointed by the Court, and will almost certainly cut you to ribbons. IF
> you get that far. I'm betting they dump you at the first MTD with a very
> technical and brilliantly written pleading that will probably be authored
> by
> an intern who knows more about the technical aspects of the internet than
> you ever will.
>
> And that's BEFORE Yahoo gets their licks in. I'm betting that the Redmond
> Boys will drop one of their East Coast Heavyweight firms on you. I'm
> breathless to see who it is.


>>
>> Volition was pled, as was direct infringement of a registered work. In
>> the Google case, I was claiming infringement by a third party of a USENET
>> posting that was then archived through another website that was in the
>> search engine.
>>
>> In this case, I'm pleading that the search engine itself copied my work,
>> of its own voltion, and placed it on its own website and "internet cache"
>> pages.
>>

> What the Court was trying to tell you bonehead, is that an automatic
> system
> cannot have volition. There has to be HUMAN intervention. Your case
> fails
> on that point alone. Quoting the Court, ""a plaintiff must also show
> volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a
> finding of direct copyright infringement." Field v. Google, Inc., No.
> CV-S-04-0413, 2006 WL 242465, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 19, 2006) (citing
> Netcom,
> 907 F. Supp. at 1369-70)." The Court also said, "The United States Court
> of
> Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has concluded that while the Copyright Act
> does not require that the person intentionally infringe a copyright, "it
> nonetheless requires conduct by a person who causes in some meaningful way
> an infringement."
>
> Don't you understand that very clear point? A machine cannot infringe
> Copyright, only HUMANS can do that. Google, Yahoo etc, simply recall
> information it has stored, and recalls that information and puts it inside
> a
> frame so you can view it. There is no HUMAN intervention on the part of
> the
> search engine.


>
>> The Google ruling from the lower court is not binding on this case
>> regardless.
>

> Well let's see, it's in the ED of PA, and the appeal is overdue. What
> makes
> you think that it won't have an effect on this case? If you had been
> smart,
> you would have waited to see what the DCA had to say. What's your hurry?
> The appeal will engrave your loss at the District Court level in stone.


>
>> The case I have here is based on my registered works and the rights I
>> have
>> under the law to control their distribnution and display.
>

> You are about to get another lesson in what your rights are. I can tell
> you
> now they are not what you think they are. Have you never heard of OCILLA?
> Read what the man said and learn something.
> --
> "...serial and vexatious litigant in both the state and federal courts..."
> Gordon Roy Parker in his Memorandum Opposing Google's MTD

Thom E. Geiger

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 9:55:08 PM7/5/07
to
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:45:45 GMT, "John Michaels"
<hpn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>You missed one thing
>
>It will be a woman intern who write the MTD. Wouldn't you have a woman
>research the problem child and then have them compose the MTD. I would. I
>wouldn't need to provide any additional motivation.

Funny, when I contacted Google, to ask them to preserve all message
content Gordon Roy Parker has demanded be removed from public archive
view, which he had to claim authorship of, I was forwarded to a female
intern who, I was told, was handling the trenchwork in the Google
case. I almost lost my lunch from laughing at the irony of it.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 10:12:08 PM7/5/07
to
Alex <akau...@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com> wrote in
news:C2B3142C.10B5C1%akau...@nyc.NOSPAM.rr.com:

It's been a long time since I looked this stuff up and it may have
changed since then but I do believe that the copyright not only has to be
registered properly but also has to be registered in a timely manner.

But that really will not matter. gordy roy will simply provide us with
more laffs, which is the main reason anyone hangs around a.s.f.

Odious

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 11:28:16 PM7/5/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:wdSdnUHcMJUs4RDb...@pghconnect.com...

>> Do you actually believe that? The Court said absent volition there was
>> no
>> infringment.
>
> Volition was pled, as was direct infringement of a registered work. In
> the Google case, I was claiming infringement by a third party of a USENET
> posting that was then archived through another website that was in the
> search engine.
>
> In this case, I'm pleading that the search engine itself copied my work,
> of its own voltion, and placed it on its own website and "internet cache"
> pages.
>
> The Google ruling from the lower court is not binding on this case
> regardless.
>
> The case I have here is based on my registered works and the rights I have
> under the law to control their distribnution and display.
>

Who wrote your website code?

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 2:47:22 AM7/6/07
to
>I can't say this any more clear, you don't know what the hell you are
>doing.

"Teddybear" has to post his legal advice anonymously lest he run afoul of
any UPL statutues. Oh wait, he's doing that anyway -- and repeateedly. He
has to post anonymously so no one will give a shit enough to discover his
identity and then nail him for UPL.


> You can save the technical arguments for the Special Master who will be
> appointed by the Court, and will almost certainly cut you to ribbons.

By telling me I don't have the right to enforce my copyright?

> IF
> you get that far. I'm betting they dump you at the first MTD with a very
> technical and brilliantly written pleading that will probably be authored
> by
> an intern who knows more about the technical aspects of the internet than
> you ever will.

That the internet gives people the right to violate others' copyright?

> And that's BEFORE Yahoo gets their licks in. I'm betting that the Redmond
> Boys will drop one of their East Coast Heavyweight firms on you. I'm
> breathless to see who it is.

So having big lawyers gives a company the right to violate my copyright?
Interesting.


>> Volition was pled, as was direct infringement of a registered work. In
>> the Google case, I was claiming infringement by a third party of a USENET
>> posting that was then archived through another website that was in the
>> search engine.
>>
>> In this case, I'm pleading that the search engine itself copied my work,
>> of its own voltion, and placed it on its own website and "internet cache"
>> pages.
>>

> What the Court was trying to tell you bonehead,

Don't mind "Teddybear," he needs an outlet that allows him to pretend he has
balls. Humor him.

>is that an automatic system
> cannot have volition.

Like Napster?

>There has to be HUMAN intervention.

There is.

>Your case fails
> on that point alone.

Odd that Perfect 10 and the news agencies managed to file suit. Also odd
that Viacom bothered suing YouTube.


>Quoting the Court, ""a plaintiff must also show
> volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a
> finding of direct copyright infringement." Field v. Google, Inc., No.
> CV-S-04-0413, 2006 WL 242465, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 19, 2006) (citing
> Netcom,
> 907 F. Supp. at 1369-70)."

Field is not a precedential ruling and not from this jurisidiction. Field
copyrighted some poems and put them on the web, apparently for the purpose
of gaining standing to sue over this issue. My writing is a lot more
central to my business than Field's poems were to his law practice.


>The Court also said, "The United States Court of
> Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has concluded that while the Copyright Act
> does not require that the person intentionally infringe a copyright, "it
> nonetheless requires conduct by a person who causes in some meaningful way
> an infringement."

Such as by operating the search engine and internet cache pages, and
choosing to publish them.

> Don't you understand that very clear point?

Quite well. It's why I filied suit.

>A machine cannot infringe
> Copyright, only HUMANS can do that.

Odd that Napster ran afoul. Humans who run infringing machines can be sued
for infringement.


>Google, Yahoo etc, simply recall
> information it has stored,

Stored at the direction of a human.

>and recalls that information and puts it inside a
> frame so you can view it. There is no HUMAN intervention on the part of
> the
> search engine.

The human intervention is in setting up the engine and having it crawl the
web. Otherwise, it'd be like saying one couldn't be arrested if their robot
robbed a bank.


>> The Google ruling from the lower court is not binding on this case
>> regardless.
>

> Well let's see, it's in the ED of PA, and the appeal is overdue.

Odd that such a "simple" issue would take so LONG to get ruled upon. If I
win the appeal, of course, then this suit is also valid under that
precedent. Even if not, it's necessary to preserve the issue for the
SCOTUS.


>What makes
> you think that it won't have an effect on this case?

The lower court in the Google case dodged the direct infringement claims by
saying I hadn't pled infringement of a registered copyright. Had they done
so, they'd have had to rule on Google's claim to fair use.

They didn't.

>If you had been smart,
> you would have waited to see what the DCA had to say. What's your hurry?

More like I waited long enough to file this. I had thought that the Google
case would be resolved by now.

> The appeal will engrave your loss at the District Court level in stone.

Wishful thinking or inside information? Wishful thinking.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 3:04:22 AM7/6/07
to
>> That was the "Google maintains the USENET" ruling. This is about a
>> search engine and a web "cache" that is actually a mirror site. Google
>> had stopped putting my pages in its cache in 2003 in response to a
>> request from me. My position here is that I don't need to warn Yahoo or
>> Microsoft because I have registered copyrights and they aren't entitled
>> to DMCA protection due to their profiting from the infringement. This is
>> a different set of facts.
>
> You mean a different set of delusions.

That my copyright is enforceable is now a delusion, according to some.

> You coded the pages as public, dumbass.

Only the public that visits my site, not mirror sites.

> Microsoft or Yahoo can't be held responsible for you ignorance of how the
> web works.

Nor me for their ignorance of how copyright law works.


>> On the other hand, until the appellate court rules on the Google case,
>> nothing is binding on this case, so even if what the previous poster said
>> were true, it would still not matter.
>>
>
> Just keep telling yourself that.

See what the court says.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 3:28:47 AM7/6/07
to
\>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, for

>> direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and
>> vicarious copyright infringement.
>
> Because you have

...registered copyrights that were infringed.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 4:45:45 AM7/6/07
to
>> Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
>> infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need
>> for
>> this lawsuit.
>>
>
> Have you since actually REGISTERED your copyright?

The complaint stated when the copyrights were registered.

ZFORCE

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:16:28 AM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:qsmdnTIKDMP-nBPb...@pghconnect.com...

>>> Incorrect. In the google case, the court said I had not alleged
>>> infringement of a registered copyright, which is what created the need
>>> for
>>> this lawsuit.
>>>
>>
>> Have you since actually REGISTERED your copyright?
>
> The complaint stated when the copyrights were registered.
>
>

Link?
Proof?
Thought not!


Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 7:43:44 AM7/6/07
to
>>> Have you since actually REGISTERED your copyright?
>>
>> The complaint stated when the copyrights were registered.
>>
>>
>
> Link?

In the original posting.

The Evil Tessmacher

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 7:45:36 AM7/6/07
to

Gordon Roy Parker, creator of \"piffle\"" writes...

>
>>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo!
>>> and Microsoft, for direct copyright infringement,
>>> contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
>>> copyright infringement.
>>
>> Because you have
>
> ...registered copyrights that were infringed.
>

So the fact that you perjured yourself when you made that
claim doesn't bother you in the least?

They're going to tear you to shreds, and you're the only
one that can't see that.

--
~
The Evil Tessmacher
Coming Soon to a Kiosk near you!

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 8:17:16 AM7/6/07
to
>>>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo!
>>>> and Microsoft, for direct copyright infringement,
>>>> contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
>>>> copyright infringement.
>>>
>>> Because you have
>>
>> ...registered copyrights that were infringed.
>>
>
> So the fact that you perjured yourself

No perjury. The copyrights were registered.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 8:22:05 AM7/6/07
to
> The very fact that you posted this to misc.invest.stocks, shows bad faith
> and an intent to cause those companies damage.

Actually it is just a matter of disclosure. Lawsuits don't do much to these
companies' stock prices.

It took the people on the GOOG boards about a year to use GOOG to figure out
I was suing them even while they were touting what useful service they have.

Odious

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:41:47 AM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:RaGdndRzBNOLqRPb...@pghconnect.com...

>> The very fact that you posted this to misc.invest.stocks, shows bad faith
>> and an intent to cause those companies damage.
>
> Actually it is just a matter of disclosure.

No it isn't. Disclosure is made between the parties in a suit, not on
usenet.

The fact you posted to a stocks groups shows your intent and demonstrates
bad faith.


Odious

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:42:27 AM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:sZ-dne_Swr5rrxPb...@pghconnect.com...

>>>>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo!
>>>>> and Microsoft, for direct copyright infringement,
>>>>> contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious
>>>>> copyright infringement.
>>>>
>>>> Because you have
>>>
>>> ...registered copyrights that were infringed.
>>>
>>
>> So the fact that you perjured yourself
>
> No perjury. The copyrights were registered.
>

Not properly...


Odious

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:48:51 AM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:GpidnXo2zZ09dBDb...@pghconnect.com...

>>> That was the "Google maintains the USENET" ruling. This is about a
>>> search engine and a web "cache" that is actually a mirror site. Google
>>> had stopped putting my pages in its cache in 2003 in response to a
>>> request from me. My position here is that I don't need to warn Yahoo
>>> or Microsoft because I have registered copyrights and they aren't
>>> entitled to DMCA protection due to their profiting from the
>>> infringement. This is a different set of facts.
>>
>> You mean a different set of delusions.
>
> That my copyright is enforceable is now a delusion, according to some.
>

No, that your copyright was violated is a delusion, moron.

You wrote the code on your website. You coded the pages with your book on
them as public, not private, and you put no anti-archival code into your
pages.

That's YOUR FAULT, not google, not microsoft, and not yahoo.

>> You coded the pages as public, dumbass.
>
> Only the public that visits my site, not mirror sites.

Are you seriously this retarded? Pages coded as public, and not as private,
with no anti-archive code get archived. Even newbie web designers know
this.

You coded your pages as public.... in other words you stupid fuck, you
entered your work into the public domain.

It would be no different than if you taped pages of your book to the window
of good morning america, and then tried to sue them for putting your book on
TV.

>> Microsoft or Yahoo can't be held responsible for you ignorance of how the
>> web works.
>
> Nor me for their ignorance of how copyright law works.

It's going to be great fun watching them stomp the shit out of you.

>>> On the other hand, until the appellate court rules on the Google case,
>>> nothing is binding on this case, so even if what the previous poster
>>> said were true, it would still not matter.
>>>
>>
>> Just keep telling yourself that.
>
> See what the court says.
>

Yes, we will....


Odious

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:56:51 AM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:E4ydndTrT5w5eBDb...@pghconnect.com...

> >I can't say this any more clear, you don't know what the hell you are
> >doing.
>
> "Teddybear" has to post his legal advice anonymously lest he run afoul of
> any UPL statutues. Oh wait, he's doing that anyway -- and repeateedly.
> He has to post anonymously so no one will give a shit enough to discover
> his identity and then nail him for UPL.
>

Gordo doesn't understand that just like with medicine, in order to be
practicing law, one must be exchanging their services for goods or money.
Simply giving advice or sharing an opinion does not constitute practicing
law, nor practicing medicine.


>
>> You can save the technical arguments for the Special Master who will be
>> appointed by the Court, and will almost certainly cut you to ribbons.
>
> By telling me I don't have the right to enforce my copyright?

By telling you that you made the choice to code your pages as public, and
you made the choice not to put anti-archival code in your pages.

You are an idiot who doesn't understand copyright law, nor the web... and
now you've decided to pit your ignorance against some of the most powerful
legal forces on the fucking planet. And you're just the kind of limp-dicked
useless idiot that these guys will destroy in order to make their position
that much stronger for future legal battles.


>> IF
>> you get that far. I'm betting they dump you at the first MTD with a very
>> technical and brilliantly written pleading that will probably be authored
>> by
>> an intern who knows more about the technical aspects of the internet than
>> you ever will.
>
> That the internet gives people the right to violate others' copyright?
>
>> And that's BEFORE Yahoo gets their licks in. I'm betting that the
>> Redmond
>> Boys will drop one of their East Coast Heavyweight firms on you. I'm
>> breathless to see who it is.
>
> So having big lawyers gives a company the right to violate my copyright?
> Interesting.
>

Gordo, your copyright was never violated.


>
>>> Volition was pled, as was direct infringement of a registered work. In
>>> the Google case, I was claiming infringement by a third party of a
>>> USENET
>>> posting that was then archived through another website that was in the
>>> search engine.
>>>
>>> In this case, I'm pleading that the search engine itself copied my work,
>>> of its own voltion, and placed it on its own website and "internet
>>> cache"
>>> pages.
>>>
>> What the Court was trying to tell you bonehead,
>
> Don't mind "Teddybear," he needs an outlet that allows him to pretend he
> has balls. Humor him.
>
>>is that an automatic system
>> cannot have volition.
>
> Like Napster?
>

Napster wasn't an automatic system you fucking tard. It was a peer to peer
file sharing network where one person connected to another person and they
shared files.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 11:56:58 AM7/6/07
to
>> No perjury. The copyrights were registered.
>>
>
> Not properly...

So odd that the LOC raised no objection when they sent back the completed
registration.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 11:58:11 AM7/6/07
to
> You wrote the code on your website. You coded the pages with your book
> on them as public, not private, and you put no anti-archival code into
> your pages.

That's "opt out" copyright protection, which has never been recognized by
the courts, and which is why so many others are suing Google.

If opt-out is valid, all of these copyright suits will lose.

Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 12:01:27 PM7/6/07
to
>> >I can't say this any more clear, you don't know what the hell you are
>> >doing.
>>
>> "Teddybear" has to post his legal advice anonymously lest he run afoul of
>> any UPL statutues. Oh wait, he's doing that anyway -- and repeateedly.
>> He has to post anonymously so no one will give a shit enough to discover
>> his identity and then nail him for UPL.
>>
>
> Gordo doesn't understand that just like with medicine, in order to be
> practicing law, one must be exchanging their services for goods or money.

The bar association says otherwise, and whether or not one is paid for the
service, they are still providing it. There's a host of precedent on this
case that any lawyer could easily cite, so go ask one.


> Simply giving advice or sharing an opinion does not constitute practicing
> law, nor practicing medicine.

The governing bodies say otherwise, but hey maybe Odiot knows better.


>>> You can save the technical arguments for the Special Master who will be
>>> appointed by the Court, and will almost certainly cut you to ribbons.
>>
>> By telling me I don't have the right to enforce my copyright?
>
> By telling you that you made the choice to code your pages as public, and
> you made the choice not to put anti-archival code in your pages.

That's opt-out copyright, which has never been validated by any court. It's
a risky defense.

>>>is that an automatic system
>>> cannot have volition.
>>
>> Like Napster?
>>
>
> Napster wasn't an automatic system

Yes, it was an automated system. Napster's owners didn't infringe on
anyone, their users did.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

JJTj

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 1:17:21 PM7/6/07
to

>. And you're just the kind of limp-dicked
>useless idiot that these guys will destroy in order to make their position
>that much stronger for future legal battles.


Fuck that, these company legal bastards can keep a 'lawsuit' going
for longer then grp-ie will live. Ask any insurance lawyer..

One told me, he was being paid 1/5th the intrest the I/company earns
to keep my case out of court. They won. At the time, they had bigger
pockets, case over. Today, I hope..things have changed. But I'd bet
MS/YH/Go can lste longer then Parker's shameless begging to the court.

I think, next week, I will personaly call the legal folks at those company(s)
and offer any info I have control over to help them make sure reality wins.

JJTj


> Path:
> sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!feeder.qis.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!how
> land­.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey
> 04.news.a­ol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 56
> X-Admin: n...@aol.com
> From: iteachhypno...@aol.come4menow (Ray Gordon)
> Newsgroups: alt.romance
> Date: 20 Feb 2001 00:04:52 GMT
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Subject: AMAZING PROOF WOMEN ARE WHORES
> Message-ID: <20010219190452...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
> Xref: sn-us alt.romance:325108
>
>
> I go online as a female secretary looking for work again.
>
>
> Idiot lawyer solicits me for a job.
>
>
> Gives me his REAL name.
>
>
> His pic.
>
>
> The name of his firm.
>
>
> The name of the previous secretary he "wore out" before firing her.
>
>
> And a TON of other evidence which I could EASILY use to verify his
> identity.
>
>
> I thought about all the "Defenders of women" and how SILENT they'd be
> EVEN IF I posted all the evidence here.
>
>
> Never mind that he SOLICITED A PROSTITUTE in addition to
> discriminating.
>
>
> This is a very good-looking man. Very successful.
>
>
> What you folks would call a "winner."
>
>
> I wonder what God would call him?
>
>
> Of course, people would STILL say it's MY attitude, even in the face
> of evidence like this.
>
>
> Nothing makes me suicidal more quickly than to see this up front.
>
>
> I believe suicide should be a fundamental legal right.
>
>
> Suicide on demand.
>
>
> My body, my choice.
>
>
> A lawsuit can make that a reality. If I win, EVERY person gets the
> right to end their lives at any time for any reason.
>
>
> I think of all the neurotic women who would go off the deep end at
> some point under that law and how the gene pool would self-cleanse so
> quickly.
>
>
> I do have pity for the people who know these truths and ignore them,
> and what God will do to them for trying to blame me and for ignoring
> what happens to "women" while pretending to be their defenders.
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: I left USENET but have returned as "one-way Ray." I post
> but refuse to respond to people who can't handle truth about women and
> who feel compelled to lie about me.
>

Message has been deleted

The Evil Tessmacher

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 2:08:28 PM7/6/07
to

Gordon Roy Parker, creator of \"piffle\"" writes...

The Evil Tessmacher wrote:
>
>>
>> So the fact that you perjured yourself

when you made that claim doesn't bother you in the least?

They're going to tear you to shreds, and you're the only
one that can't see that.

I restored what I originally wrote, so as to not take things
out of context.

Why can't you quote in entirety, Gordon Roy?

>
> No perjury. The copyrights were registered.
>

Has nothing to do with "copyrights"... Nothing at all.

The perjury was elsewhere.

Here:

Message-ID: <MPG.20f61102b...@news.aioe.org>:

- Well, I sure hope that Yahoo! and Microsoft know how to use
- Google, because if this complaint is averred under penalty of
- perjury, GRP is going to jail.
-
- Just a few things for them to look for:
-
- 1) GRP claimed that his books were being sold for profit, and
- that it was the collusion of the "seduction mafia" that forced
- him to give them away. He says in this complaint that it was
- "his pioneering business model" to give them away. Lie #1.
-
- 2) GRP has claimed in writing that he and he alone invented the
- concept of the "pivot" when it has been clearly shown here that
- he not only co-opted the concept but the term as well, that they
- were both being used and taught before he arrived on the scene.
- Lie #2.
-
- 3) He averred that his books have "been profitable since his
- first book was released" and yet has claimed IFP status in at
- least two if not more of his kooksoots. Are they profitable,
- or is he a pauper? Lie #3.
-
- 4) He claims that "well over a hundred" other gurus have "parroted"
- (read stolen) his material, and yet it can be demonstrably shown
- that he himself has plagiarized a great deal of his material from
- real, respected gurus. Lie #4.
-
- 5) Didn't he once say that "Foxhunting" would never need to be
- revamped, improved, or upgraded? Here in this complaint, he says
- that it has been an ongoing thing for the last "fifteen years".
- Lies #5 & #6.
-
- 6) I for one seem to remember clearly when he was indeed
- putting these "books" and other information out there freely
- on the internet. I remember that he said he wanted to get it
- out to the largest possible audience. So now he complains
- about caches? He did this to himself.
-
- There are many other lies, distortions and outright falsehoods in
- his complaint, not to mention some 23 spelling and grammar errors
- I noticed in reading the first half of the document.
-
- I really, really hope that Yahoo! and Microsoft allow this to get
- in front of a jury. I also hope that Yahoo! moves for a change of
- venue to California, so that they can throw that Anti-SLAPP law
- at him.
-
- This is the latest, and possibly last chapter in a long series of
- screams for help that Gordon Roy Parker has made over the years.
-
- Someone needs to stop this vexatious serial litigant in his tracks.
-
- I think that someone will.
-
- Soon.

Anyone out there want to bet that Gordon Roy won't address any of
these? And that if he does, he'll cherry pick them and snip the rest?

John Michaels

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 2:30:53 PM7/6/07
to
Ray, you would have to be a material item, not a pimple on someone's butt,
to be a disclosure item. Your actions are irrelevant and are covered in
their SEC filing very well with the typical they might be sued by some idiot
disclaimer.


"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message

news:RaGdndRzBNOLqRPb...@pghconnect.com...

JJTj

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 2:38:18 PM7/6/07
to

>Anyone out there want to bet that Gordon Roy won't address any of
>these? And that if he does, he'll cherry pick them and snip the rest?

..or..he can play 'rayworld' here all he wants.. Posts like:

..in a "..fuckin' court..' in front of "..one of them fuckin' judges.."

...Parker's words, not mine.. 'google it'... Sick stuff...anyway..

..grp-ie posts like that in the alt.law.<duh> will come back to haunt him.

There is no way in the world we know of Parker can win his case, if for no
other reason, he's one sick flouc child molesting, hate monger I/Failure.

..the people he sues have the only weapons grp-ie fears..

Sort of like he's trying to go out in a blaze of whatever, yet he hasn't
the stones to do it himself, he needs to play it out on 'ray TV'..

I said it years ago, and mean in more then ever now..

"..I feel sorry for Gordon Roy Parker.. I hope he gets the help he needs.."

JJTj


Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 3:20:17 PM7/6/07
to
>> No perjury. The copyrights were registered.
>>
>
> Has nothing to do with "copyrights"... Nothing at all.
>
> The perjury was elsewhere.

Not according to any court.

> Here:
> - 1) <ray> claimed that his books were being sold for profit, and


> - that it was the collusion of the "seduction mafia" that forced
> - him to give them away. He says in this complaint that it was
> - "his pioneering business model" to give them away. Lie #1.

One can be forced to do something which is pioneering. It was the lesser of
all evils. That still doesn't give search engines the right to violate my
copyright.


> - 2) <ray> has claimed in writing that he and he alone invented the


> - concept of the "pivot" when it has been clearly shown here that
> - he not only co-opted the concept but the term as well, that they
> - were both being used and taught before he arrived on the scene.
> - Lie #2.

Some guy puts the word "pivot" in a post on a totally unrelated subject and
supposedly invented it, while I outlined the entire theory for it and coined
the term as it is commonly used now.

Men who complain about the lack of new theory in the seduction community
should realize that this is due in part to the problem of people not giving
proper attribution. They would like you to think my new theory is somehow
stolen from other gurus, and to that I say go find it if you believe that,
and don't whine if you can't find it since others don't have it.


> - 3) He averred that his books have "been profitable since his
> - first book was released" and yet has claimed IFP status in at
> - least two if not more of his kooksoots. Are they profitable,
> - or is he a pauper? Lie #3.

One can earn money from something and still not earn a lot of it. Books
have a low overhead on the internet, and the money they generate is a useful
second income.

> - 4) He claims that "well over a hundred" other gurus have "parroted"
> - (read stolen) his material, and yet it can be demonstrably shown
> - that he himself has plagiarized a great deal of his material from
> - real, respected gurus. Lie #4.

More like libel #4 against me (accusing me of plagiarism).


> - 5) Didn't he once say that "Foxhunting" would never need to be
> - revamped, improved, or upgraded? Here in this complaint, he says
> - that it has been an ongoing thing for the last "fifteen years".
> - Lies #5 & #6.

Not the subjective basis of this defamatory "perjury" allegation.


> - 6) I for one seem to remember clearly when he was indeed
> - putting these "books" and other information out there freely
> - on the internet. I remember that he said he wanted to get it
> - out to the largest possible audience. So now he complains
> - about caches? He did this to himself.

Wrong. The largest audience through MY site, not third-party sites.

By that logic, I could copy anyone's website and put it on my domain.
Copyrights would quickly become worthless.


> - There are many other lies, distortions and outright falsehoods in
> - his complaint, not to mention some 23 spelling and grammar errors
> - I noticed in reading the first half of the document.
> -
> - I really, really hope that Yahoo! and Microsoft allow this to get
> - in front of a jury. I also hope that Yahoo! moves for a change of
> - venue to California, so that they can throw that Anti-SLAPP law
> - at him.

There won't be a change of venue.

The EFF took the other side in the CONNECTICT case, and now they stand
against anonymous speech. Did SLAPP have something to do with that?


> - This is the latest, and possibly last chapter in a long series of

> - screams for help that <snip> has made over the years.

The audience should be reminded that they are reading the words of an
anonymous coward who wants credibility passing that type of judgment over
another.

One can only imagine the ugly truths about themselves they need to hide by
not signing their names.


> - Someone needs to stop this vexatious serial litigant in his tracks.
> -
> - I think that someone will.
> -
> - Soon.

That sounds like an anoymous threat.

HC

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 3:53:55 PM7/6/07
to

> > - 6) I for one seem to remember clearly when he was indeed
> > - putting these "books" and other information out there freely
> > - on the internet. I remember that he said he wanted to get it
> > - out to the largest possible audience. So now he complains
> > - about caches? He did this to himself.
>
> Wrong. The largest audience through MY site, not third-party sites.

How does posting shit to Usenet keep it on YOUR site, moron?


>
> By that logic, I could copy anyone's website and put it on my domain.
> Copyrights would quickly become worthless.
>


By THAT logic, you're admitting you're not human. Which by the way is
something I've suspected for years.


>
> The audience

Which audience is that, Parker, the one that laughs at you until their
faces hurt?


> should be reminded that they are reading the words of an
> anonymous coward who wants credibility passing that type of judgment over
> another.
>
> One can only imagine the ugly truths about themselves they need to hide by
> not signing their names.
>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Says GORDON ROY PARKER, signing his name as RAY GORDON!

Oh how he must HATE that people posting with psuedonyms, some with
RIDICULOUS psuedonyms, have more credibility than he does!

Parker, when you posted all that shit that you posted on 9/11 I said
to myself that one day it would all come back around to you. And here
we are. You live in poverty, Judges call you names, courts throw you
out . . . the legal bills are piling up, hmmmm, you know what I'd say?

K A R M A !

Message has been deleted

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:09:24 PM7/6/07
to
"Ted E Bear" <Tedd...@johndoes.org> wrote in news:1183752977_47631
@sp12lax.superfeed.net:

> Perhaps he's
> just an attention whore.....
>

It's really rather rude to insult whores like that, you know...

--
I'm an opinionated bastard. Everything I post is my opinion. If you do not
like my opinions then killfile me - if you like my opinions then send me
money.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:12:25 PM7/6/07
to
The gordy loser Show, a laff a minute in his own stupid way, whined:

>
>> Microsoft or Yahoo can't be held responsible for you ignorance of how
>> the web works.
>
> Nor me for their ignorance of how copyright law works.
>
>

Now this is the kind of shit that makes the gordy loser show so
enjoyable!

gordy roy knows more about copyright law than Yahoo and Microsoft.

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:19:03 PM7/6/07
to
gordon roy parker, legal loser, whined:

>
> So having big lawyers gives a company the right to violate my
copyright?
> Interesting.
>
>

you're going in circles as bad as the other half of the gordy loser and
speedy superhero duo...
you can ignore what has actually been said and rephrase it in your own
fantasy version but you still gonna get stomped flat here, gordy roy...

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:22:09 PM7/6/07
to
gordon roy parker, NOTalawyer, whined:

>>is that an automatic system
>> cannot have volition.
>
> Like Napster?
>

>>There has to be HUMAN intervention.
>
> There is.
>
>>Your case fails
>> on that point alone.
>
> Odd that Perfect 10 and the news agencies managed to file suit. Also
> odd that Viacom bothered suing YouTube.
>
>

That statement right there shows that gordon roy parker has absolutely no
idea of what he's talking about...

you are NOT a lawyer, gordy roy, you really should stop trying to sound
like one...

you ARE a legal loser, gordy roy, and everyone knows that...

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:25:32 PM7/6/07
to
gordon roy parker, legal loser, whined:

> If I
> win the appeal, of course,

"if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if"
"if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if"
"if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if"
"if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if"
"if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if" "if"

So much of your bullshit relies on ifs and maybes and perhaps and other
waffling terms...

your whole life seems to be based on waffling terms...

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 6:31:12 PM7/6/07
to
gordy roy, liar in the past, whined:

>>>> Have you since actually REGISTERED your copyright?
>>>
>>> The complaint stated when the copyrights were registered.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Link?
>
> In the original posting.
>
>

and yet gordy roy will not actually answer such a simple request...
perhaps it's not really such a SIMPLE answer for him to provide?

John Michaels

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 8:03:09 PM7/6/07
to
Hey, Krus, you did have to copy this group. We know where to find the
entertainment. Just a suggestion. I know you are going to do what you want
but now we will get flooded by cross post because the problem child acted up
again.
"Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99659BCF2...@68.142.88.120...

HeeroYuy

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 8:14:50 PM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:dqSdnbUDj6np-xPb...@pghconnect.com...

>>> No perjury. The copyrights were registered.
>>>
>>
>> Not properly...
>
> So odd that the LOC raised no objection when they sent back the completed
> registration.

Given the amount of times Gordon manages to lie, it's no shock that I don't
believe him.


HeeroYuy

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 8:19:20 PM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:MtWdnd8a8P0j-xPb...@pghconnect.com...

>> You wrote the code on your website. You coded the pages with your book
>> on them as public, not private, and you put no anti-archival code into
>> your pages.
>
> That's "opt out" copyright protection, which has never been recognized by
> the courts, and which is why so many others are suing Google.
>
> If opt-out is valid, all of these copyright suits will lose.

Just like the Google kooksoot did...


Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 9:52:22 PM7/6/07
to
"John Michaels" <hpn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:1LAji.20832$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:

You're right - I should not have done that.

I've just bitched about other people doing something that I've never done
myself so I decided that I should try it to see if there was some unknown
thrill in it.
There wasn't.

Sigh...

Thom E. Geiger

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 9:56:03 PM7/6/07
to
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:12:25 GMT, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com>
wrote:

>The gordy loser Show, a laff a minute in his own stupid way, whined:
>
>>
>>> Microsoft or Yahoo can't be held responsible for you ignorance of how
>>> the web works.
>>
>> Nor me for their ignorance of how copyright law works.
>>
>>
>
>Now this is the kind of shit that makes the gordy loser show so
>enjoyable!
>
>gordy roy knows more about copyright law than Yahoo and Microsoft.

Or 6 gazzillion criminals and worthless unemployed dirtbags out there
who haven't been able to figure out how to milk M$-Goog-Yah all this
time, but no---little Gordon Roy Parker thinks he's come across a
brilliant idea nobody from the Russian mob to the international league
of underground hackers have thought of yet.

What you want to bet at least one of these heavyweights is going to
throw mommy a couple dozen subpoenas before little Norman Parker can
get his fat ass down to the courthouse and withdraw his bullshit?

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
ChewOnThis.Org
(the Official GRP NewsLoon tracking website)
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.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.

>More of the all too similar coincidences and shared behavior between
>the "Speeding" nym and Gordon Roy Parker.
>
>Both lie in every message
>Neither can quote accurately
>Both reword message content
>Both practice the same lame and ineffective disingenuousness
>Both deflect when proven wrong
>Both misdirect when losing an argument
>Neither one can fake any positive human emotions
>Both have the same lack of basic understanding of seduction in general
>Both have the same warped and skewed opinion of women
>Both ignore and refuse to address the horrible things Parker has
>admitted to, even when it is relevant to the discussion at hand
>
>Have I missed anything?

Krus T. Olfard

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 11:06:36 PM7/6/07
to
Thom E. Geiger <ThomE...@Gmail.com> wrote in
news:5cst839ed1hg78d3t...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:12:25 GMT, "Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The gordy loser Show, a laff a minute in his own stupid way, whined:
>>
>>>
>>>> Microsoft or Yahoo can't be held responsible for you ignorance of
>>>> how the web works.
>>>
>>> Nor me for their ignorance of how copyright law works.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Now this is the kind of shit that makes the gordy loser show so
>>enjoyable!
>>
>>gordy roy knows more about copyright law than Yahoo and Microsoft.
>
> Or 6 gazzillion criminals and worthless unemployed dirtbags out there
> who haven't been able to figure out how to milk M$-Goog-Yah all this
> time, but no---little Gordon Roy Parker thinks he's come across a
> brilliant idea nobody from the Russian mob to the international league
> of underground hackers have thought of yet.
>
> What you want to bet at least one of these heavyweights is going to
> throw mommy a couple dozen subpoenas before little Norman Parker can
> get his fat ass down to the courthouse and withdraw his bullshit?
>
> Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
> ChewOnThis.Org
> (the Official GRP NewsLoon tracking website)
> Ray-Gordon.com
> Ray-Gordon.net
> Newsloon.com
>

I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them does exactly that.
While they all are huge corporations they did not get that way by buying
off loonies and I doubt that any of them want to have to waste time and
$$ dealing with a repeat filer like the gordy loser.

Odious

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 11:42:04 PM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:dqSdnbUDj6np-xPb...@pghconnect.com...

>>> No perjury. The copyrights were registered.
>>>
>>
>> Not properly...
>
> So odd that the LOC raised no objection when they sent back the completed
> registration.
>

What's the ISBN number?


Odious

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 11:53:58 PM7/6/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:MtWdnd8a8P0j-xPb...@pghconnect.com...

>> You wrote the code on your website. You coded the pages with your book
>> on them as public, not private, and you put no anti-archival code into
>> your pages.
>
> That's "opt out" copyright protection, which has never been recognized by
> the courts, and which is why so many others are suing Google.
>
> If opt-out is valid, all of these copyright suits will lose.
>

What part of YOU CODED YOUR PAGES AS PUBLIC, did you not understand?

It is not "opt out" to designate your pages content as either public or
private.

Your wrote the code, and you decided to make the content public or to make
it private. You decided to put anti-archival code or to put archival code
in your html. You made the choice, not Microsoft or Yahoo or Google.

If you are too fucking stupid to know how the web works, you have no
business being on the web, let alone trying to blame anybody else for your
own fucking ignorance. Especially when you were, at the time, touting
yourself as an EXPERT on the web.


Odious

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 12:40:02 AM7/7/07
to

"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:dMadnboXK8wc-hPb...@pghconnect.com...

>>> >I can't say this any more clear, you don't know what the hell you are
>>> >doing.
>>>
>>> "Teddybear" has to post his legal advice anonymously lest he run afoul
>>> of any UPL statutues. Oh wait, he's doing that anyway -- and
>>> repeateedly. He has to post anonymously so no one will give a shit
>>> enough to discover his identity and then nail him for UPL.
>>>
>>
>> Gordo doesn't understand that just like with medicine, in order to be
>> practicing law, one must be exchanging their services for goods or money.
>
> The bar association says otherwise, and whether or not one is paid for the
> service, they are still providing it. There's a host of precedent on this
> case that any lawyer could easily cite, so go ask one.

Note that gordo can't cite shit to support his claim, because giving
opinions or advice is not practicing law. Gordo can't find any legal source
to say otherwise. But hey, lets have some fun, and put the boot to
gordita's widdle red arse.

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/model-def/model_def_statutes.pdf

(b) Unauthorized Practice of Law. (1) For purposes of the practice of law
prohibition for disbarred and suspended attorneys in subparagraph (a)(6) of
this rule, except for attorneys suspended solely for non-payment of bar
fees, "practice of law" is defined as: (A) holding oneself out as an
attorney or lawyer authorized to practice law; (B) rendering legal
consultation or advice to a client; (C) appearing on behalf of a client in
any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator,
mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, hearing
officer, or governmental body which is operating in its adjudicative
capacity, including the submission of pleadings; (D) appearing as a
representative of the client at a deposition or other discovery matter; (E)
negotiating or transacting any matter for or on behalf of a client with
third parties; or (F) receiving, disbursing, or otherwise handling a
client's funds. (2) For purposes of the practice of law prohibition for
attorneys suspended solely for the non-payment of fees and for inactive
attorneys, "practice of law" is defined as it is in subparagraph (b)(1) of
this rule, except that these persons may represent another to the extent
that a layperson would be allowed to do


>
>> Simply giving advice or sharing an opinion does not constitute practicing
>> law, nor practicing medicine.
>
> The governing bodies say otherwise, but hey maybe Odiot knows better.

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/model-def/model_def_statutes.pdf

All 50 states definitions of UPL, and not one says that a lay opinion
presented in a public forum constitutes UPL.


>
>>>> You can save the technical arguments for the Special Master who will be
>>>> appointed by the Court, and will almost certainly cut you to ribbons.
>>>
>>> By telling me I don't have the right to enforce my copyright?
>>
>> By telling you that you made the choice to code your pages as public, and
>> you made the choice not to put anti-archival code in your pages.
>
> That's opt-out copyright, which has never been validated by any court.
> It's a risky defense.
>

It is not "opt-out" when you decide to code your page content as public or
as private... or when you code archival instructions. This are standard
html code commands that any remedial web designer knows. You made the
content public and put archival code on your pages. You did that, not
anybody else.

You apparently were either lying about knowing anything about the web, or
you knowingly entered your page content into the public domain, and are now
quite fraudulently trying to sue over the results of a code instruction hat
you fucking wrote.

>
>
>>>>is that an automatic system
>>>> cannot have volition.
>>>
>>> Like Napster?
>>>
>>
>> Napster wasn't an automatic system
>
> Yes, it was an automated system.

No, an automatic system would have gone out on the web and rounded up files,
then archived them.

Napster did not do anything but connect users, and the users shared files.

>Napster's owners didn't infringe on anyone, their users did.

And the users are not automatic are they, you moron?

The users were people, hence the infringement being committed by people...
not by an automated system.

John C. Randolph

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 12:48:14 AM7/7/07
to
On 2007-07-04 06:28:06 -0700, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<r...@cybersheet.com> said:

>>> On July 3, 2007 I filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! and Microsoft, <snip>
>>
>> If this wasn't so pathetic it would be the funniest thing I ever read.
>
> More stellar legal analysis from HC.

Yes, the man has a keen grasp of the obvious.

When are you going to quit embarassing yourself like this, grp?

-jcr

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages