Re: Wedding of the year -Exclusive picture
Jerry L
Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =
from Douglas wrote:
> MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT
>
> My announcement today is that my pet troll - the one who defames me and
> post lies about me, claiming to have "mates" in ASIC who'll decend on me in
SNIP
> may not be reproduced without express written permission from the author
>
> --
> Trolls are not the little blue characters of folklore
> They are the evil of the Internet, don't feed them and
> they'll look elsewhere for their gratification...
William Graham
"Jerry L" <ski2...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1137470740....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Even in folklore trolls are evil characters. They are definitely not fairys
or leprachans. Like gnomes, they do evil things to good people......
Douglas
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TbWdnZZs9Ih...@comcast.com...
>
>> --
>> Trolls are not the little blue characters of folklore
>> They are the evil of the Internet, don't feed them and
>> they'll look elsewhere for their gratification...
>
> Even in folklore trolls are evil characters. They are definitely not
> fairys or leprachans. Like gnomes, they do evil things to good
> people......
>
I searched high and low for a troll wedding. Then realized the little blue
men were smurfs.
Every picture and caricature of a troll I found was a hideous monster...
Sort of fits in well with the one dogging me.
Douglas
"Jerry L" <ski2...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1137470740....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?
Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
= = =
Odd comment Jerry.
Every Photographer I come across in these groups demands and expects
copyright protection for their pictures yet when I decide to exercise my
right to copyright my written works... You post a snide reference to what I
might do next? FWIW in Australia (where I hail from) I have an absolute
right to copyright protection of my emails and written work I post to the
Internet. What is wrong with exercising that right?
Can't please 'em all the time. Just keep in mind Jerry, next time you post a
picture on the Internet (presuming you do), your own opinion of someone
using copyright to protect their work. Same thing, no difference. YOU don't
think it should be an even playing field. Sorry to tell you this chum; We
are all equal. I get the same right to protection of my work as everyone
else.
And in case you are interested in the whole story...
Google are recording every character and every image ever published on the
Internet. Microsoft also have a database of every Usenet post made in the
last 10 years too. What you post today, could be dug up by a researcher in
the future and used in evidence against you in a court of law. No web site,
no newsgroup post, no image posted on a web site is safe from them. Only by
forbidding Google (or anyone else) from archiving your messages and copying
your images, can you hope to have protection from this activity.
Never before in history has it been possible to harvest so much information
and compile it into searchable form than now. Think about it. It's like
someone with a tape recorder listening in to every conversation in every bar
in the world. If anyone attempts to use my posts in evidence against
anyone - not just me, They can't. Google can't archive them and they can't
index my images or download thumbnails either. If they do, I can (probably
wouldn't stand the cost ATM) sue them for theft of copyright material.
The way the American legal system is spreading like a cancer all over the
western world, it will only be a matter of time before someone sets up a
class action against the biggest of the big. The fact each need each other
will be lost in the millions of bucks lawyers will make from it. Every
artist has automatic copyright on their pictures, articles and stories.
Fictitious or otherwise.
Mark˛
> "Jerry L" <ski2...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1137470740....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "© Copyright D. MacDonald 2006" for this use of English?
>
> Next time, maybe you will 'trademark' (tm) the dictionary?
> = = =
>
> Odd comment Jerry.
> Every Photographer I come across in these groups demands and expects
> copyright protection for their pictures yet when I decide to exercise
> my right to copyright my written works...
You consider usenet posts your "written works..." even though usenet posts
are automatically replicated on thousands of computers and servers the world
over???
Doesn't that seem a little silly?
Douglas
--
----m0o0m
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:s32zf.12602$V.2468@fed1read04...
I suppose in a distant time on a far away galaxy, It may well seem silly.
Is it any more silly than "selling" someone some software for an exorbitant
price (given it's on a 13¢ piece of plastic and then not providing any
updates to it so you have to "buy" it all over again a year later and the
EULA says it not really your program anyway, just the author's permission to
use it until they deem you've used it enough?
Is it any sillier than New York Times publishing their version of the daily
news, replicated on thousands of computers around the globe, stored in proxy
servers strangely located (and independently owned) in every country on the
globe so the owners don't need to pay for anymore bandwidth than the first
reader uses ...and the Times not knowing who actually has an unauthorised
copy of their precious article, then claim it is copyright material?
Have you any idea Mark, how silly the whole concept of copyright in relation
to the Internet, actually is?
DD
re...@the.group says...
> And in case you are interested in the whole story...
> Google are recording every character and every image ever published on the
> Internet. Microsoft also have a database of every Usenet post made in the
> last 10 years too. What you post today, could be dug up by a researcher in
> the future and used in evidence against you in a court of law. No web site,
> no newsgroup post, no image posted on a web site is safe from them. Only by
> forbidding Google (or anyone else) from archiving your messages and copying
> your images, can you hope to have protection from this activity.
Pardon the interjection (it's lunch time on a hot and slow day here)...
How would the said researcher be able to prove that a usenet post was
physically made by any one person in particular? They would have to
provide some kind of physical evidence to prove that YOU were at the IP
address logged at the time of the posting. How could they do that? You
don't know that it's me writing this right now? It could be somebody who
has access to my computer or IP, pretending to be me.
--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer
Mark˛
I look forward to the day when you attempt to enforce this "copyright" on
your usenet posts...
Peter Chant
> Google are recording every character and every image ever published on the
> Internet. Microsoft also have a database of every Usenet post made in the
> last 10 years too. What you post today, could be dug up by a researcher in
> the future and used in evidence against you in a court of law. No web
> site, no newsgroup post, no image posted on a web site is safe from them.
> Only by forbidding Google (or anyone else) from archiving your messages
> and copying your images, can you hope to have protection from this
> activity.
Well, I'm afraid that X-No-Archive: yes only stops messages being stored by
people who _want_ to not store them on your request, or have implimented
not storing them. There is nothing to stop me, you or anyone else from
saving your posts to disk. I could, if I had nothing better to do, set up
a news server and record and archive all posts I see on the rec.photo
newsgroups for as long as I liked. Including yours. Even if you took
legal action to prevent me you have no way of stopping someone archiving
your posts if they do not tell you they are doing it.
It does however stop someone taking the easy route and looking up your posts
on Google.
Pete
Douglas
--
----m0o0m
"DD" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e36fedf...@news.mweb.co.za...
> In article <RJ1zf.219163$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> re...@the.group says...
>
>
> Pardon the interjection (it's lunch time on a hot and slow day here)...
>
> How would the said researcher be able to prove that a usenet post was
> physically made by any one person in particular? They would have to
> provide some kind of physical evidence to prove that YOU were at the IP
> address logged at the time of the posting. How could they do that? You
> don't know that it's me writing this right now? It could be somebody who
> has access to my computer or IP, pretending to be me.
>
> --
> DD
> www.dallasdahms.com
> Central Scrutinizer
I always presume your posts came from a pretender, Dallas :-)
Happy new year and I hope your liquidation sale yields you the results you
seek.
no_name
1. Message-ID: <MPG.1e36fedf...@news.mweb.co.za> links it to
your computer.
2. Linguistic analysis -- how they identified the Unabomber from his
manifesto -- would link it to you. We all use the same styles, voices,
words and phrases repeatedly. With a large enough sample, and since
you're a regular poster, there **IS** a large enough sample, it's
possible to show that the writings are yours because they use your
individual style & voice.
Douglas
--
----m0o0m
"Peter Chant" <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
news:434rp0F...@individual.net...
>
> Well, I'm afraid that X-No-Archive: yes only stops messages being stored
> by
> people who _want_ to not store them on your request, or have implimented
> not storing them. There is nothing to stop me, you or anyone else from
> saving your posts to disk. I could, if I had nothing better to do, set up
> a news server and record and archive all posts I see on the rec.photo
> newsgroups for as long as I liked. Including yours. Even if you took
> legal action to prevent me you have no way of stopping someone archiving
> your posts if they do not tell you they are doing it.
>
> It does however stop someone taking the easy route and looking up your
> posts
> on Google.
>
> Pete
Speed bumps don't stop hoons either... Just slows 'em down. At least if a
court case ever did eventuate, I can point to 2 separate steps I've taken to
stop the use of my words in ways I don't approve of. Who knows if that in
itself will have any influence. Eventually someone, somewhere will test the
system. It's only then will we know.
If Google don't store my original message, I have at least achieved part of
my goal. No header, no evidence.
William Graham
"Douglas" <re...@the.group> wrote in message
news:Fk1zf.219124$V7.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
bridge, either........
William Graham
"Douglas" <re...@the.group> wrote in message
it will ever become an issue. No one else is going to protect your
copyrights for you.....You will have to do it yourself. If you publish one
of your photos on the internet, and I take it an sell it, you have the legal
right to collect from me, but you will have to do it all yourself. Hire the
lawyers, get the evidence, get me into court, and make it all happen.....In
the long run, it will probably cost you a lot more than you will get. It's
sort of like the government listening to all those overseas phone
conversations. Sure, they are trespassing on people's individual rights, but
there aren't enough FBI agents, even including all their brothers and
sisters, uncles and aunts, to even come close to listening to even 1% of all
the conversations that take place every day to and from this country, so I
am not going to lose much sleep over it.......
William Graham
"Douglas" <re...@the.group> wrote in message
news:RJ1zf.219163$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
God, I hope they have the stomach to read all that trivia without throwing
up.........That's like keeping all the carbon paper from all the offices of
all the corporations in the world between 1900 and 1950......The only saving
grace is that there aren't enough human beings on earth to even read 10% of
it......
DD
no_...@no.where.invalid says...
I'not trying to be otherwise here, I just find this an interesting piece
of forensics. What if somebody deliberately immitates your typical style
of writing? It can be done, surely? Take Annika for instance - very easy
to immitate.
DD
re...@the.group says...
>
>
My software has trimmed your reply, but same to you.
So far I have nibbles on the F4s, Canon F-1N, F100, 17-35mm and one or
two ridiculous offers for my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Of course it is not the
right time of year to be asking people to come up with money...
William Graham
exhume his body to make sure he was still dead.......:^)
ch...@go.com
and without descending to the level of a five-year-old having a
tantrum.
(And if you click on this silly thread, you probably deserve to be
bored anyway.. If you have heard the Douglas and Graham Hunt story
before, read on at your own peril..)
For the record:
1. I have never, not once, lied about Douglas MacDonald. (This is the
same Douglas MacDonald who posts as, wait for it.. alienjones himself,
bigpix, the administrator, henretta, douglas, from douglas,
technoaussie, one million pics, one million pictures, joe bailey,
alvie, the yowie, graham hunt, healthypcs.. and more. Me? - I'm just
Chrlz...)
And at times he does indeed use those pseudonyms fraudulently, eg here
(easily verifiable, just check the message headers against Douglas'
other posts at the time):
Douglas was mighty annoyed about being sprung posting as 'Graham Hunt'
and ended up with numerous excuses. The last was that 'Graham' was an
employee (it would still be highly fraudulent, of course). As it
happens, and you can easily verify this too, he *has* no franchise, so
my mates at ASIC will do nothing (unless he does now start one, which I
think is very unlikely indeed).
>who called me a fraud
Douglas IS a fraud. See above link for unequivocal proof - the message
headers do not lie. I'll stand before a judge and say it if necessary.
And it's already in writing on the ASIC records.
>..said I didn't have a storefront
But Douglas doesn't have a storefront *according to his own website*,
here:
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/contact.htm
which says and I quote:
>Email: inqu...@douglasjames.com.au
>Post: Douglas, Post Office Box 2116,
> Wellington Point, Qld 4160
>On Sundays: At The Cleveland Craft Market opposite Iluka arcade, in Bloomfield >Street.
>By Telephone: (07) 3821 1429 Business hours only please
That's all, folks. In other words, no shopfront address, and Douglas
presents his wares at a street market on Sundays. Uhuh. Or isn't that
site his? Gee, maybe it's Graham Hunt's?
>and didn't have any authority to photograph and take photographic tours in
>National parks
I *never* said Douglas didn't have a simple permit for photography in
national parks - crikey, *anybody* can get one of those - it's just a
moneymaker for the Parks and Wildlife Service. Douglas implied it was
some badge of honour!! *That* is what I corrected - having a permit
for commercial shooting in a national park does *not* mean anything
about your ability as a photographer. The fact that Douglas thinks it
*does*, probably gives a better indication..
>The one who claims the 600mm x 900mm enlargements I do from snapshots
>on a daily basis and print on Canvas can't be done...
Douglas claims that he has a 'special' enlarging algorithm that allows
you to print to those sizes and more from scans of 6"x4" prints, and
from 1-2 megapixel images. Well, whooppee, I can print them that big
*too*. But they are *soft*, and if the image is detailed, it will look
like something from a bull's rear end.. It's the *quality* I question.
No-one disputes that you might get away with this on *selected* images,
like macros of frangipanis.. When asked for actual examples of his
secret algorithm, Douglas strangely always gets his maths wrong, and
will never allow his secret methods to be demonstrated on *any* image
that has actually got real detail, or in fact any image except his own.
His posted examples were so flawed that once again, as always, he
withdrew them - I can post links if anyone is actually interested.
What I object to is that Douglas claims these prints have 'manufactured
detail'!! - why, even his 'daughter' (who sounds an awful lot like
Douglas, as you might expect (O:) says that too, here:
http://www.w3freaks.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t54125.html
You'll have to scroll down a bit to find the 'One Million Pictures'
posts (another of Douglas' pseudonyms, by the way). In it, 'Kiah' also
refers to a $500,000 printer that Douglas just bought.... Wow.
Personally, I would use such equipment for stuff other than snapshots,
but I guess that's just me... (O:
>The list goes on, just like his lies.
*Who* is lying again? When asked to actually quote any of my 'lies',
Douglas is strangely reticent.
>I don't recall C...@go.com ever originating a single post about any
>subject to do with photography
Perhaps Douglas should look a little harder.
> yet he sure as hell hijacks a lot of threads
I just like to correct misinformation when it is posted, and I don't
particularly like people who use the Internet fraudulently, or pretend
they can do stuff they can't.
>..does a lot of defamation ...
If Douglas has been defamed, any half-decent lawyer can track me down.
Douglas himself at one stage claimed he had a PI on my trail - Geez, he
must be incompetent! I note Douglas has used similar tactics on other
folks, almost always *after* he has been busted in similar ways to that
above. This isn't the first time he has used these tactics and
probably won't be the last.
>© D.MacDonald 2006
>may not be reproduced with written permission from the author.
Sorry, I just did. Sue me.
no_name
Apparently it's not all that easy to disguise your own style even when
imitating someone else, at least not from the guys like the FBI turned
to in the Unabomber case.