Google Feature Copies Your Hardrive
jim
frankt...@ya___.com
>
>http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_02.php#004400
It really drives me bonkers when people post links instead of the
article, so here is the article. (below).
Anyhow, like f**king hell I am going to allow ANY service to copy my
personal data. In fact I partitioned my computer in such a way that
most of my personal data is in a partition that is hidden, I can get
to it, no one else can. And while people praise google, I dont find
them any better than any other online site. They got all their spam
detectors and spyware loaded in their so called "free" software. I
downloaded one ot their free image editors which used to be a
commercial product a few years back. It's called Picasa. The thing
is loaded with spyware and ads.
I suppose google will add the contents of everyones harddrive to the
clutter if their search engine now too. Just what we need is more crap
to flood out searches. Its already bogged down with those f**king
blogs so you cant find anything useful anymore.
All I can say is this is a most assenine move on the part of google.
Yet another reason to use other search engines.
By the way, if you want to search across computers, anyone that knows
how to properly set up a network can do this right at home or the
office. In fact back when I was using DOS, I used a simple dos
command to generate a complete list of everything on my harddrive.
Why do we need google to do this? Is this just so the government can
completely pry into our lives?
Here is the article...........
February 09, 2006
Google Copies Your Hard Drive - Government Smiles in Anticipation
Consumers Should Not Use New Google Desktop
San Francisco - Google today announced a new "feature" of its Google
Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy.
If a consumer chooses to use it, the new "Search Across Computers"
feature will store copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs,
spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google's own servers,
to enable searching from any one of the user's computers. EFF urges
consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal
data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly
private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for
hackers who've obtained a user's Google password.
"Coming on the heels of serious consumer concern about government
snooping into Google's search logs, it's shocking that Google expects
its users to now trust it with the contents of their personal
computers," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "If you use the
Search Across Computers feature and don't configure Google Desktop
very carefully—and most people won't—Google will have copies of your
tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical
files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software
can index. The government could then demand these personal files with
only a subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize
the same things from your home or business, and in many cases you
wouldn't even be notified in time to challenge it. Other
litigants—your spouse, your business partners or rivals, whoever—could
also try to cut out the middleman (you) and subpoena Google for your
files."
The privacy problem arises because the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act of 1986, or ECPA, gives only limited privacy protection to
emails and other files that are stored with online service
providers—much less privacy than the legal protections for the same
information when it's on your computer at home. And even that lower
level of legal protection could disappear if Google uses your data for
marketing purposes. Google says it is not yet scanning the files it
copies from your hard drive in order to serve targeted advertising,
but it hasn't ruled out the possibility, and Google's current privacy
policy appears to allow it.
"This Google product highlights a key privacy problem in the digital
age," said Cindy Cohn, EFF's Legal Director. "Many Internet
innovations involve storing personal files on a service provider's
computer, but under outdated laws, consumers who want to use these new
technologies have to surrender their privacy rights. If Google wants
consumers to trust it to store copies of personal computer files,
emails, search histories and chat logs, and still 'not be evil,' it
should stand with EFF and demand that Congress update the privacy laws
to better reflect life in the wired world."
For more on Google's data collection:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+When+Google+is+not+your+friend/2100-1025_3-6034666.html?tag=nl
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/21/google_subpoena_roils_the_web
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/20/EDGEPGPHA61.DTL
http://news.com.com/%20Bill+would+force+Web+sites+to+delete+personal+info/2100-1028_3-6036951.html
Contact:
Kevin Bankston
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
bank...@eff.org
Posted at 11:04 AM
hubcap
Why is that? Why do you prefer that people clutter up countless
news servers with kilobytes (or worse) of repetitious text
rather than posting a link?
-Mike "not a hostile question"
Harry K
I am the same. I won't open a link without more info.
1. I am on dial-up so need a good reason before I waste time.
2. I need at least some info to decide if it is worth my time.
3. It doesn't take 'kilobytes of..." to post a quick summary.
Harry K
Larry Caldwell
frankt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
When you are on dialup it takes time to load webpages, and I dont have
all day to spend on the computer. I agree about clutter with huge
articles and binaries, but a small article like this one should be
pasted in the newsgroup.
Offbreed
hubcap wrote:
> >It really drives me bonkers when people post links instead of the
> >article...
>
> Why is that? Why do you prefer that people clutter up countless
> news servers with kilobytes (or worse) of repetitious text
> rather than posting a link?
I prefer it because I dislike clicking on random links, and because it
us usually _text_ in the news group. The original link usually a much
larger download.
The OP sounds a bit paranoid, though. Not for refusing to install the
program, but for raising a fuss about it.
frankt...@ya___.com
wrote:
Well, if the persons posting links without at least a partial
description would only know that they are losing a large portion of
their audience, they might reconsider.
As I said, I am on dialup, an that is all I can get out here in the
boonies. I come to the newsgroups to read thru articles and info
quickly. Text loads fast, websites dont. If I want to just read the
news, I'll go to CNN.com. or MSNBC, or any of the others. But I will
say this in all honesty. When I am reading the newsgroups and people
post links without a description, I rarely ever go to their link,
maybe 1 in 250 will I go to the link. This has NOTHING to do with
paranoia, it has ALL to do with my time, and the chaos it creates on
my screen to be reading the newsgroups and have 10 or 20 websites
loading, and eventually my computer is chaos, and I get frustrated and
shut it off.
People that regularly post links without a description often get added
to my killfiles. Not that they did anything wrong, it's just because
they are only wasting my time to keep opening their messages and
finding links, which only gets me irritated.
I just clicked on a message on here a minute ago, something about
cutting forests down. It sounded interesting, but when I got there,
it was a link, no description...... I deleted it.
I know I am not alone in this, in fact I know quite a few other prople
that feel the same way.
The bottom line is this. By the time a poster cuts and pastes the
URL. they could just as easily cut and paste the article. The only
exceptions would be huge articles, or pictures (binaries).
And for those that fear copyright infringement, consider this. It's
NEWS. While the reporter or news company states they have a
copyright, they are referring to SELLING the article, or using it in
other publications that make a profit. They are not going to read all
the newsgroups looking for people that posted their article. No money
is being made, and in many ways, you are doing them a favor by
spreading their news (as long as their URL is included). I am not
worried in the least to post something from the news that I find on a
website. It's NEWS..... NEWS is MEANT to be READ.
Just my opinion, but I know I am not alone in this, and this NG in
particular probably has many more dialup users. Keep that in mind.
Frank
Gene
>
>As I said, I am on dialup, an that is all I can get out here in the
>boonies. I come to the newsgroups to read thru articles and info
>quickly. Text loads fast, websites dont. If I want to just read the
>news, I'll go to CNN.com. or MSNBC, or any of the others. But I will
>say this in all honesty. When I am reading the newsgroups and people
>post links without a description, I rarely ever go to their link,
>maybe 1 in 250 will I go to the link. This has NOTHING to do with
>paranoia, it has ALL to do with my time, and the chaos it creates on
>my screen to be reading the newsgroups and have 10 or 20 websites
>loading, and eventually my computer is chaos, and I get frustrated and
>shut it off.
I agree but I am on cable, however ATM I have no mouse and so I
navigate by the teb button. But also, there's a website I visit often
who have the policy of the link and max of 25% of the article which
would be enough to let you know it's either interesting, or you're
better off looking at pretty flowers instead.
Harry K
I totally agree and operate just as you do. A bare link will not be
followed up unless subsquent posts show what it is about. I don't,
however, expect the entire article to the posted. I do exptect enough
of the beginning or a summary to show what it is about.
Harry K
Brock Ulfsen
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:57:27 -0600, jim <@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_02.php#004400
>
>
> It really drives me bonkers when people post links instead of the
> article, so here is the article. (below).
There's this little thing called copyright.
...Brock.
Sheldon Harper
Farm1
Copying an entire article could never be considered to be "fair use".
Extracts maybe when used to illustrate a comment, but the entire article
would be a definite breach of copyright.
Brock Ulfsen
Not applicable in Australia...
And our copyright laws can now be applied to US citizens, courtesy of
the FTA...
...Brock.
Sheldon Harper
> Sheldon wrote:
>> Fair use doctrine:
>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
> Copying an entire article could never be considered to be "fair use".
> Extracts maybe when used to illustrate a comment, but the entire article
> would be a definite breach of copyright.
The gov web page says:
"If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
Requoting entire usenet postings, as is often done (including the
immediate parent to this one) isn't the only thing generally immune
based on "the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes..." Google groups exists.
Making statements in absolute terms about what a law means is
usually inane.
Sheldon Harper
> Sheldon Harper wrote:
Australia is a member of the Berne convention.I'd suggest you read this:
<http://www.copyright.com.au/info%20sheets/PA08_international%20copyright.pdf>
Also, Australia became a member of WTO in 1995 which involves TRIPS (which
see) effectively imposing international copyrights on WTO members.
Ann
> Farm1 trolled:
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>
>>> Fair use doctrine:
>
>>> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
>> Copying an entire article could never be considered to be "fair use".
>> Extracts maybe when used to illustrate a comment, but the entire article
>> would be a definite breach of copyright.
>
> The gov web page says:
>
> "If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
>
> Requoting entire usenet postings, as is often done (including the
> immediate parent to this one) isn't the only thing generally immune
> based on "the purpose and character of the use, including whether
> such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
> purposes..."
Imo, that probably refers to distributing a limited number of hardcopies
of copyrighted material as "supplemental reading" for courses. (That was
negotiated several years ago.) There is also making a copy for personal
use, e.g. online newspapers' printer-friendly format. But no way is it ok
to re-publish "full-text" copyrighted material on the internet without
permission. I'm also reasonably sure you know this and are amusing
yourself. <g>
Sheldon Harper
news:pan.2006.02.23....@epix.net:
> Imo, that probably refers to distributing a limited number of hardcopies
> of copyrighted material as "supplemental reading" for courses. (That
> was negotiated several years ago.) There is also making a copy for
> personal use, e.g. online newspapers' printer-friendly format. But no
> way is it ok to re-publish "full-text" copyrighted material on the
> internet without permission. I'm also reasonably sure you know this and
> are amusing yourself. <g>
Well first there's the law (convention.)
Whatever that says or means doesn't begin to have any significance
unless and until a case is brought to the courts. Here's the story
of a fellow who enforced his copyright in court, and managed to
lose out in the long run anyway. He's still angry about it.
http://www.esva.net/~thom/philkatz.html
Copyright enforcement isn't usually worth the time and trouble it
involves unless there's significant *collectable* money at stake.
So if I have an idea that someone isn't going to haul me into court
to enforce a copyright because I post some on line newspaper's entire
article, with a link to the original, in a usenet posting, doesn't
have the the same net effect as though I had asked and gotten written
permission? Oh I suppose we could argue till doomsday about active
and passive permission, but why bother.
What can I repost into usenet by copying from a publically accessable
web page that causes demonstrable damage to the person or organization
that put it on a web page in the first place? No demonstrable damage,
no lawsuit, no fault, no foul, regardless of whatever the Berne Convention
says. It seems to me that relying on what words a law uses instead of
taking the common sense approach to how things work in the real world
is an exercise in futility with no purpose beyond amusement, and so
here we are.
Ann
> Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote in
> news:pan.2006.02.23....@epix.net:
>
>> Imo, that probably refers to distributing a limited number of
>> hardcopies of copyrighted material as "supplemental reading" for
>> courses. (That was negotiated several years ago.) There is also
>> making a copy for personal use, e.g. online newspapers'
>> printer-friendly format. But no way is it ok to re-publish "full-text"
>> copyrighted material on the internet without permission. I'm also
>> reasonably sure you know this and are amusing yourself. <g>
>
> Well first there's the law (convention.)
>
> Whatever that says or means doesn't begin to have any significance
> unless and until a case is brought to the courts. Here's the story of a
> fellow who enforced his copyright in court, and managed to lose out in
> the long run anyway. He's still angry about it.
>
> http://www.esva.net/~thom/philkatz.html
>
> Copyright enforcement isn't usually worth the time and trouble it
> involves unless there's significant *collectable* money at stake.
I wouldn't argue that.
> So if I have an idea that someone isn't going to haul me into court to
> enforce a copyright because I post some on line newspaper's entire
> article, with a link to the original, in a usenet posting, doesn't have
> the the same net effect as though I had asked and gotten written
> permission? Oh I suppose we could argue till doomsday about active and
> passive permission, but why bother.
The "it's ok if it's possible and you can get away with it" justification?
> What can I repost into usenet by copying from a publically accessable
> web page that causes demonstrable damage to the person or organization
> that put it on a web page in the first place? No demonstrable damage, no
> lawsuit, no fault, no foul, regardless of whatever the Berne Convention
> says. It seems to me that relying on what words a law uses instead of
> taking the common sense approach to how things work in the real world is
> an exercise in futility with no purpose beyond amusement, and so here we
> are.
I have posted full text a few times, when it was a registration-only
website. But I wouldn't regularly because the "deal" is that I get to
read the article free in exchange for downloading the ads too ... which is
income for the publisher of the article. A prime example of what happens
when enough people "share" protected material is the Windows XP activation
requirement. Another consideration is that I don't want people stealing
stuff from websites that I do. Imo, it's in my overall best interest that
the copyright laws be obeyed.
As for usenet in particular, I don't think it's generally appropriate or
useful to post the full text of articles.
Sheldon Harper
news:pan.2006.02.24....@epix.net:
No, not at all. More like, "It's ok if the owner doesn't care enough
about it to enforce his copyright" bearing in mind enforcement can mean
as little as an email or a even a formal "cease and desist" letter.
>> What can I repost into usenet by copying from a publically accessable
>> web page that causes demonstrable damage to the person or organization
>> that put it on a web page in the first place? No demonstrable damage,
>> no lawsuit, no fault, no foul, regardless of whatever the Berne
>> Convention says. It seems to me that relying on what words a law uses
>> instead of taking the common sense approach to how things work in the
>> real world is an exercise in futility with no purpose beyond amusement,
>> and so here we are.
> I have posted full text a few times, when it was a registration-only
> website. But I wouldn't regularly because the "deal" is that I get to
> read the article free in exchange for downloading the ads too ... which
> is income for the publisher of the article.
As I mentioned, copying has to have a demonstrable loss. A few cents
per incident" times the number of readers of misc rural is how much?
> A prime example of what
> happens when enough people "share" protected material is the Windows XP
> activation requirement.
Now that's a serious financial loss per incident. The argument is, of
course, that theft is theft, no matter the size. The real world
practicality is otherwise.
> Another consideration is that I don't want
> people stealing stuff from websites that I do.
> Imo, it's in my overall best interest that the copyright laws be obeyed.
I agree as a general rule, though the specifics are often a tad
blurry.
> As for usenet in particular, I don't think it's generally appropriate or
> useful to post the full text of articles.
I have a specific example of an individual with usenet access with
no internet/web page access, so "generally not" is an agreeable
sentiment. And of course those of us who know how to cut and paste
(with reference to those who won't even cull their responsive
postings) regularly quote the only the points important to the
discussion.
Ann
> Ann
>>> Ann
You're ignoring the difficulty and expense of detecting violations.
Your argument reminds me of those some trespassers use; didn't see a sign,
saw someone else (other than the owner) there, no one told me to leave,
etc. (Imo, it should be sufficient that the trespasser know he/she
doesn't own/rent/lease it or have explicit permission.)
>>> What can I repost into usenet by copying from a publically accessable
>>> web page that causes demonstrable damage to the person or organization
>>> that put it on a web page in the first place? No demonstrable damage,
>>> no lawsuit, no fault, no foul, regardless of whatever the Berne
>>> Convention says. It seems to me that relying on what words a law uses
>>> instead of taking the common sense approach to how things work in the
>>> real world is an exercise in futility with no purpose beyond
>>> amusement, and so here we are.
>
>> I have posted full text a few times, when it was a registration-only
>> website. But I wouldn't regularly because the "deal" is that I get to
>> read the article free in exchange for downloading the ads too ... which
>> is income for the publisher of the article.
>
> As I mentioned, copying has to have a demonstrable loss.
For the copyright owner to collect damages ... but not for it to be
illegal.
> A few cents
> per incident" times the number of readers of misc rural is how much?
>
>> A prime example of what
>> happens when enough people "share" protected material is the Windows XP
>> activation requirement.
>
> Now that's a serious financial loss per incident. The argument is, of
> course, that theft is theft, no matter the size. The real world
> practicality is otherwise.
Violators make the argument that they wouldn't buy the software, so there
is no loss.
Sheldon Harper
>Sheldon wrote:
>> No, not at all. More like, "It's ok if the owner doesn't care enough
>> about it to enforce his copyright" bearing in mind enforcement can mean
>> as little as an email or a even a formal "cease and desist" letter.
> You're ignoring the difficulty and expense of detecting violations.
Nope. The premise is that if one doesn't protect their property (or rights
for that matter) then they are apt to lose it. "Prudent man" rules have
been applied to all sorts of things by the courts. In particular take
a look at "adverse posession" in real estate. In many cases, failure to
enforce results in a loss of ownership. That's one of the reasons the
music and movie industries adamently protect their ownership interests.
If they allow copying, even through carelessness, things have a way of
landing in the public domain.
For some decades RCA's David Sarnoff Labs didn't pay attention to the
fact that people in the neighborhood were using the stream on their
property as a swimming hole. Over the years, a bucket at at time,
they enlarged the swimming hole to make it more useful. Locally it
was known as "the sheepwash" though nobody had any idea where the
name originated because there were no sheep raised locally.
Eventually RCA decided to re-privatise the property and ran into
complaints by several neighbors. It was cheaper to buy them off
than to drag the thing through the courts. Then for 7 years they
blocked off all access one 24 hour period per year, and eventually
were able to permanently restrict access to the property they had
officially owned all along.
> Your argument reminds me of those some trespassers use; didn't see a
> sign, saw someone else (other than the owner) there, no one told me to
> leave, etc. (Imo, it should be sufficient that the trespasser know
> he/she doesn't own/rent/lease it or have explicit permission.)
Trespass in the US is different from Great Britain and several of the
former colonies where trespass exists upon entry without specific
permission. In the US it is only trespass where "notice has been
given." Signage is officially sufficient.
The Brits take the standard to be that when an intruder steps onto
private property at the very least the inflict damage by breaking a
blade of grass. In an absolutist world that's true regardless of
what the law says on the subject. But the reality, in a practical
world, is that usually we just don't care.
I'm not excusing copyright infringment. I am differentiating between
what I consider to be nonsensical approachs to the matter and what
practical realities are.
>> As I mentioned, copying has to have a demonstrable loss.
> For the copyright owner to collect damages ... but not for it to be
> illegal.
There's some difference in how civil statutes are viewed in comparison
to criminal statutes. Although there have been a few cases in which
copyright has been enforced by criminal charges being brought (see
Craig Neidorf for example) copyright is generally a civil cause of
action where actual loss determines culpability. If someone writes and
records a lousy song with no commercial value and I were to copy it and
distribute a few thousand copies it might be a technical infraction of
the statute, but as a practical matter what is it?
>>> A prime example of what
>>> happens when enough people "share" protected material is the Windows
>>> XP activation requirement.
>> Now that's a serious financial loss per incident. The argument is, of
>> course, that theft is theft, no matter the size. The real world
>> practicality is otherwise.
> Violators make the argument that they wouldn't buy the software, so
> there is no loss.
Denial doesn't make it so.
Brings up an interesting point. Does posession alone make it a theft or
copyright infringment? If a person has an unauthorized copy of OS on a
CD sitting on the shelf unused, is there a loss? I think not. It is the
same question if someone copies a complete book, and then never reads it,
is there a violation?
So it is, IMO, possible to have a technical violation of the statute
while the act/possession does not rise to create a loss to the artist
which, after all, is the stated purpose of the protection scheme.
I'll leave the question about immoral profits (Gates) to someone else. LOL
Then there's complete absurdity. Ace Hardware recently had a 10% off
everything you can fit into the bag sale. The printed information on
the bag, the conditions of sale, all copyright. I wonder who might
want to copy their stupid bag, and what financial losses Ace Hardware
might experience if someone did. "But that's a violation of the
statute!" "So what."
You do know that it is possible to argue about this forever. :-)
Ann
> Ann
>
>>> No, not at all. More like, "It's ok if the owner doesn't care enough
>>> about it to enforce his copyright" bearing in mind enforcement can
>>> mean as little as an email or a even a formal "cease and desist"
>>> letter.
>
>> You're ignoring the difficulty and expense of detecting violations.
>
> Nope. The premise is that if one doesn't protect their property (or
> rights for that matter) then they are apt to lose it. "Prudent man"
> rules have been applied to all sorts of things by the courts. In
Another example is trademarks, e.g. Scotch Tape. But these losses take
place over decades and I doubt whether many online publishers are
concerned about someone republishing 20 years from now.
>> Your argument reminds me of those some trespassers use; didn't see a
>> sign, saw someone else (other than the owner) there, no one told me to
>> leave, etc. (Imo, it should be sufficient that the trespasser know
>> he/she doesn't own/rent/lease it or have explicit permission.)
>
> Trespass in the US is different from Great Britain and several of the
> former colonies where trespass exists upon entry without specific
> permission. In the US it is only trespass where "notice has been given."
> Signage is officially sufficient.
I'm not going to look up all 50 states, but I'm sure that's not
universally correct. The penalty may differ, depending on whether there
are/not signs.
> The Brits take the standard to be that when an intruder steps onto
> private property at the very least the inflict damage by breaking a
> blade of grass.
Doesn't have to be damage for there to be trespass.
But denial does make it so that there isn't loss (of adverting revenue)
when thousands read something on other than the publisher's website? <g>
> Brings up an interesting point. Does posession alone make it a theft or
> copyright infringment? If a person has an unauthorized copy of OS on a
> CD sitting on the shelf unused, is there a loss? I think not. It is the
> same question if someone copies a complete book, and then never reads
> it, is there a violation?
Isn't it redistribution and/or republishing that's considered the
violation? And when someone has a hard drive full of music downloaded via
P2P, the assumption is that he/she in involved in distribution.
> So it is, IMO, possible to have a technical violation of the statute
> while the act/possession does not rise to create a loss to the artist
> which, after all, is the stated purpose of the protection scheme.
>
> I'll leave the question about immoral profits (Gates) to someone else.
> LOL
That was such a predictable response that I pondered preemption. <vbg>
> Then there's complete absurdity. Ace Hardware recently had a 10% off
> everything you can fit into the bag sale. The printed information on the
> bag, the conditions of sale, all copyright. I wonder who might want to
> copy their stupid bag, and what financial losses Ace Hardware might
> experience if someone did. "But that's a violation of the statute!" "So
> what."
>
> You do know that it is possible to argue about this forever. :-)
It does seem so ....
Farm1
> Farm1 trolled:
>
> > Sheldon wrote:
>
> >> Fair use doctrine:
>
> >> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> > Copying an entire article could never be considered to be "fair use".
> > Extracts maybe when used to illustrate a comment, but the entire article
> > would be a definite breach of copyright.
>
> The gov web page says:
>
> "If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney."
But the article also says:
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:"
It also says:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
before using copyrighted material."
And:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material
should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to
the situation."
And:
"Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute
for obtaining permission."
Newsgroups DO qualify as being a place for comment or criticsm but this is
only for a PORTION of an article NOT reproducing the entire article. The
poster clealry did not obtain the copyright holders permission to post the
entire article. Reproduction of the entire article with or without
attribution to the author would bea breach of copyright.
> Requoting entire usenet postings, as is often done (including the
> immediate parent to this one) isn't the only thing generally immune
> based on "the purpose and character of the use, including whether
> such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
> purposes..." Google groups exists.
Requoting of newgroups postings is irrelevant as that is not what is under
discussion. Do try to understand the issue involved!
> Making statements in absolute terms about what a law means is
> usually inane.
You certaily are inane. You don't understand the difference between
newsgroup postings and an article copied from a website. Obviously you know
nothing of the formulation, interpretaion or implementation of legislation.
I have nealry 30 years experience in this area.
Farm1
> I'm not excusing copyright infringment. I am differentiating between
> what I consider to be nonsensical approachs to the matter and what
> practical realities are.
Rubbish. You have tried to justify infringement of copyright by claiming
"Fair Use Doctrine" and now you are trying to justify it by wittering on
about "nonsensical approaches".
You either have no idea what a breach of copyright is, or you are trying to
excuse breaches. You can't have it both ways
Sheldon Harper
news:43fec7cb$0$12235$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
snip <self-inflicted frustration blatherings unworthy of detailed response>
Brock Ulfsen
>>the FTA...
> Australia is a member of the Berne convention.I'd suggest you read this:
> <http://www.copyright.com.au/info%20sheets/PA08_international%20copyright.pdf>
> Also, Australia became a member of WTO in 1995 which involves TRIPS
(which
> see) effectively imposing international copyrights on WTO members.
We've been mebers of the Berne Convention forever. However there is
substantial variation in implimentation from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Both the Berne Convention and WTO agreements are
superceded by the Australia-US FTA.
Worse luck.
...Brock.
Sheldon Harper
news:3130303039303...@zetnet.co.uk:
snip <predictably more of the same>
> Btw, you were equally wide of the mark when you ascribed aspects of
> Germany's school-year and road-law to Europe, as if they applied
> Europe-wide. Both instances apply only to Germany.
You're mistaken however I refuse to become embroiled in arguments
with you. I am content to have you "win" by default.
Brock Ulfsen
Under the FTA, you no longer need to demonstrate any loss or harm in
Australia, and the US is bound by the treaty to enact similar
provisions... Anyone can now bring civil suit for any amount where
intellectual property is concerned. Fun isn't it.
...Brock.
Sheldon Harper
> Under the FTA, you no longer need to demonstrate any loss or harm in
> Australia, and the US is bound by the treaty to enact similar
> provisions... Anyone can now bring civil suit for any amount where
> intellectual property is concerned. Fun isn't it.
In the US anyone can bring a civil suit in any amount for any
reason. Obviously that's less then half the entire story.
AL
> "Sheldon Harper" wrote
>
>>Making statements in absolute terms about what a law means is
>>usually inane.
>
>
> [...] Obviously you know
> nothing of the formulation, interpretaion or implementation of legislation.
> I have nealry 30 years experience in this area.
<chuckle>
As WHAT? A filing clerk in a cheezy two-bit law office?
AL
Goedjn
>>> about it to enforce his copyright" bearing in mind enforcement can mean
>>> as little as an email or a even a formal "cease and desist" letter.
>
>> You're ignoring the difficulty and expense of detecting violations.
>
>Nope. The premise is that if one doesn't protect their property (or rights
>for that matter) then they are apt to lose it. "Prudent man" rules have
>been applied to all sorts of things by the courts. In particular take
Copyright law is a matter of international treaties. Not only
does the statutory law trump the common-law practices you mention,
the treaties involved trump the constitution.
What is LEGAL, therefore, is exactly what the law says
is legal, no more and no less.
What you can get away with, what is actually enforced, and
what people want, expect, and do are all different things.
If you're going to pretend to speak logically about it,
you should be clear about which thing you're talking
about.
If a text appears on a registeration-only website,
or other place where it is clear that the owner of it
wants to drive traffic through that site, then it
is not true that it is either legal or right for
you to reproduce it in it's entirety elsewhere.
It is true that you can probably do so without any
noticable consequences.
--Goedjn
Sheldon Harper
Sheldon Harper
4ax.com:
> Copyright law is a matter of international treaties. Not only
> does the statutory law trump the common-law practices you mention,
> the treaties involved trump the constitution.
> What is LEGAL, therefore, is exactly what the law says
> is legal, no more and no less.
> What you can get away with, what is actually enforced, and
> what people want, expect, and do are all different things.
For a discussion about "what the law is" see Marbury vs Madison.
Google is your friend.
After all this discussion I see you're still attempting to put
a face of absolutism on "the laws." It really doesn't work that
way. With all due respect to your ideology, please read this
piece which is an interesting little work which manages to
discuss the rule of law.
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/2_1/2_1_2.pdf
Hayek, one of the excellent minds of the 20th century, did a
very nice job of explaining the many facets of the relationships
between the governed and the government. I urge you to read
his original works while I realize that this is university
and graduate level stuff and I have noticed that a few of
the participants here just aren't going to "get it" I
think you capable.
> If you're going to pretend to speak logically about it,
> you should be clear about which thing you're talking
> about.
I have spoken logically about it. The problem you appear to
be having is that you seek strict definition where such things
are, by the very nature of the legal system as well as human
relationships, elusive.
Take a look at the Blackberry case:
<>http://www.techworld.com/mobility/features/index.cfm?featureid=2241>
> If a text appears on a registeration-only website,
> or other place where it is clear that the owner of it
> wants to drive traffic through that site, then it
> is not true that it is either legal or right for
> you to reproduce it in it's entirety elsewhere.
> It is true that you can probably do so without any
> noticable consequences.
In the final sentence you captured the crux of the entire
discussion. So isn't that the measure we use?
Goedjn
>
>> If a text appears on a registeration-only website,
>> or other place where it is clear that the owner of it
>> wants to drive traffic through that site, then it
>> is not true that it is either legal or right for
>> you to reproduce it in it's entirety elsewhere.
>> It is true that you can probably do so without any
>> noticable consequences.
>
>In the final sentence you captured the crux of the entire
>discussion. So isn't that the measure we use?
No.
Sheldon Harper
4ax.com:
ROTFL
I know a fellow who opened up a wall in his home to redo
perfectly functioning plumbing because he happened to see
it before the carpenters put up the drywall and he didn't
like the appearance of the work. Then he replaced the
drywall, taped it properly, and repainted the entire
room since he couldn't get the paint to match.
Best of luck in your life's quests.
Farm1
> snip <self-inflicted frustration blatherings unworthy of detailed
response>
More comclusion jumping Sheldon. Your strategic snip of proof that you are
a hypocrite is duly noted.
Farm1
> snip <predictably more of the same>
>
> > Btw, you were equally wide of the mark when you ascribed aspects of
> > Germany's school-year and road-law to Europe, as if they applied
> > Europe-wide. Both instances apply only to Germany.
>
> You're mistaken however I refuse to become embroiled in arguments
> with you. I am content to have you "win" by default.
Not at all surprising when you can't win with either the facts or logic.
Farm1
> > Farm1 wrote:
>
> >> "Sheldon Harper" wrote
>
> >>>Making statements in absolute terms about what a law means is
> >>>usually inane.
>
> >> [...] Obviously you know
> >> nothing of the formulation, interpretaion or implementation of
> >> legislation. I have nealry 30 years experience in this area.
>
> > <chuckle>
> > As WHAT? A filing clerk in a cheezy two-bit law office?
>
> Janitor. LOL
Sorry to disappoint you two boys but if you paid attention when reading
posts, you'd already know that I worked for Federal Government for nearly 30
years. And janitorial services were always, and still are, done by firms
who would employ brainless broom fodder such as you two.
Farm1
> > If a text appears on a registeration-only website,
> > or other place where it is clear that the owner of it
> > wants to drive traffic through that site, then it
> > is not true that it is either legal or right for
> > you to reproduce it in it's entirety elsewhere.
> > It is true that you can probably do so without any
> > noticable consequences.
>
> In the final sentence you captured the crux of the entire
> discussion. So isn't that the measure we use?
How many more times are you going to try this cop out line? So far you have
tried defending copyright infringement by "Fair Use Doctrine" and continue
with the "Do it if you can get away with it" line with masses of irrelevant
verbage in between. You are simply wrong, are not being logical and try to
hide by obfuscation.
AL
> "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>
>>AL <lit...@hamiltoncom.net> wrote in
>
>
>>>Farm1 wrote:
>>
>>>>"Sheldon Harper" wrote
>>
>>>>>Making statements in absolute terms about what a law means is
>>>>>usually inane.
>>
>>>>[...] Obviously you know
>>>>nothing of the formulation, interpretaion or implementation of
>>>>legislation. I have nealry 30 years experience in this area.
>>
>>><chuckle>
>>>As WHAT? A filing clerk in a cheezy two-bit law office?
>>
>>Janitor. LOL
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you two boys but if you paid attention when reading
> posts, you'd already know that I worked for Federal Government for nearly 30
> years.
Ok, so you were a filing clerk for some cheezy two-bit bureaucrat - big
deal!
AL
Sheldon Harper
news:eNOdnRysmtMlYGLe...@shawneelink.net:
> Farm1 wrote:
>> Sorry to disappoint you two boys but if you paid attention when reading
>> posts, you'd already know that I worked for Federal Government for
>> nearly 30 years.
> Ok, so you were a filing clerk for some cheezy two-bit bureaucrat - big
> deal!
A civil servant for ~30 years.
Well that explains *everything*.
Farm1
> A civil servant for ~30 years.
>
> Well that explains *everything*.
It certainly explains why I can read information and understand it. What is
your excuse for being unable to do the same thing?
Sheldon Harper
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>> A civil servant for ~30 years.
>> Well that explains *everything*.
> It certainly explains why I can read information and understand it.
A civil servant's understanding. Needless to say that's a prism
most of us refuse, with good reason, to look through. Here in the
US there are several employer categories that make a person
undesirable as an employee after the first two or three years of
experience. At the top of everyone's list are former civil servants
(the term itself is an oxymoron.)
> What is
> your excuse for being unable to do the same thing?
You build fallacy atop fallacy. Do your own reading:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
But you might actually learn something useful, so perhaps you
shouldn't after all. I predict you'll brag about how well read
and how well versed you are in the subject. The proof to the
contrary is obvious in your repeated retreat into arguing using
fallacious reasoning. One has only to look at almost any short
history of your offerings.
The rest of the time you're busy raining common platitudes on
the ng.
You're unworthy of the discourse offered here, but there are
others with the capacity to actually understand.
Farm1
> > "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>
> >> A civil servant for ~30 years.
>
> >> Well that explains *everything*.
>
> > It certainly explains why I can read information and understand it.
>
> A civil servant's understanding.
But provable since I understood the "Fari Use Doctrine" cite YOU gave and
which you subsequently proved that you can't read and comprehend.
Needless to say that's a prism
> most of us refuse, with good reason, to look through. Here in the
> US there are several employer categories that make a person
> undesirable as an employee after the first two or three years of
> experience. At the top of everyone's list are former civil servants
> (the term itself is an oxymoron.)
But then the US is know for being a very odd place with strange value
systems.
> > What is
> > your excuse for being unable to do the same thing?
>
> You build fallacy atop fallacy. Do your own reading:
No thanks, I dn't mind playing with you for a while but I really couldn't be
bothered. I've learned that you continue to build obfuscations onto
obfuscatin and encase it in irrelevent verbage.
> You're unworthy of the discourse offered here, but there are
> others with the capacity to actually understand.
When you decide to engage in what could be considered to be "discourse" then
I'll be ready. Till then keep trolling. I like playing with trolls.
Sheldon Harper
news:44017420$0$30868$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>> "Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in
>> > "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>> >> A civil servant for ~30 years.
>> >> Well that explains *everything*.
>> > It certainly explains why I can read information and understand it.
>> A civil servant's understanding.
> But provable since I understood the "Fari Use Doctrine" cite YOU gave
> and which you subsequently proved that you can't read and comprehend.
Yet another fallacious remark.
>> Needless to say that's a prism
>> most of us refuse, with good reason, to look through. Here in the
>> US there are several employer categories that make a person
>> undesirable as an employee after the first two or three years of
>> experience. At the top of everyone's list are former civil servants
>> (the term itself is an oxymoron.)
> But then the US is know for being a very odd place with strange value
> systems.
Yet another fallacious remark considered a platitude in some places
outside the USA. Anti-Americanism is stupid and ugly.
>> > What is
>> > your excuse for being unable to do the same thing?
>> You build fallacy atop fallacy. Do your own reading:
You snipped here, let me put it back for you:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
>
> But you might actually learn something useful, so perhaps you
> shouldn't after all. I predict you'll brag about how well read
> and how well versed you are in the subject. The proof to the
> contrary is obvious in your repeated retreat into arguing using
> fallacious reasoning. One has only to look at almost any short
> history of your offerings.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> No thanks,
Well good. God forbid the former civil servant actually become educated
about something as important as logic when she can blather incessantly
just fine basking in the ignorance she so clearly demonstrates.
You probably don't need to understand fallacies because you already
use them so very well. After all, the point of understanding them
is to avoid their use as rational people do. But that's another of
those things you can't be bothered about.
> I dn't mind playing with you for a while but I really
> couldn't be bothered. I've learned that you continue to build
> obfuscations onto obfuscatin and encase it in irrelevent verbage.
This is a classic example of why civil servants are so disliked with
their circular argumentation.
>> You're unworthy of the discourse offered here, but there are
>> others with the capacity to actually understand.
> When you decide to engage in what could be considered to be "discourse"
> then I'll be ready.
Thanks for interjecting a touch of humor. Apparently you don't
know "discourse" when it comes right up and bites you.
> Till then keep trolling. I like playing with trolls.
You've become the resident troll in this newsgroup with Janet Barclough
following you around kissing your virtual ass.
Sheldon Harper
> The message <Xns9775E8664...@208.49.83.94>
> from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
> I predict you'll brag about how well read
>> and how well versed you are in the subject.
I was mistaken. She simply declined to educate herself about fallacies
because then she'd have to stop using them in lieu of a sane approach
to discussion.
> That was your own tactic re Shakespeare plays (and "Dunn", and
> "Austin", LOL)
> Your own multiple, hilarious errors, proved otherwise.
And so the sole tag team member chimes in on cue. Stick to what you
understand, chambermaid.
So Janet, how does kissing Fran's virtual ass taste? Electrifying? LOL
Sheldon Harper
> The message <Xns97765521D...@208.49.83.94>
> from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
>> And so the sole tag team member chimes in on cue.
> Er, no. You may not have noticed, but virtually everyother poster on
> this group has contradicted your posts, got tired of you, and killfiled
> you. Fran and I are a little more persistent, but soo we'll be tired of
> you too. Then you'll be left talking to yourself and the trolls Jim and
> Al
You posess the all seeing eye then? LOL
> Stick to what you
>> understand, chambermaid.
>
> See, there's one of your city-brain mistakes. You categorise people by
> the work they do. Rural people don't do that, because they take it for
> granted that their apparently modest and simple neighbour has developed
> a wide range of skills and interests.
That's just plain wrong. Rural people here say, "Oh, he's a log truck
driver" and other similar categorizations just like they do in most
places in the world. If you're going to make up "facts" you'd do well
to make them reasonable. It is the rare human in any setting that doesn't
identify themselves and all around them on the basis of what it is they do
for a living.
Perhaps you need to get out more?
> They know better than to guess at
> financial or intellectual or social status by anyone's work or
> appearance. Only city people do that, and boy do they make some stupid
> assumptions.
I made a mistake in thinking you were civilized. Generally my errors are
in giving folks more credit that is really due, as I did with you. So
that's not to say you're never right, often you are. My mistake was
probably one of assuming you could keep it up.
> Chambermaid is just one of a hundred jobs I've done. Every one of
> them, even the lowliest and worst paid , taught me new skills that I
> could turn to enhance my own lifestyle, and also into a much more
> lucrative venture.
This is the classic Pygmalion problem. In the story version the young
woman was successful in outgrowing her roots, which Higgins initially
failed to grasp because in your society and culture the glass ceiling
existed as it continues to do today. You haven't clambered past the
chambermaid mentality, so you're what Higgins would have expected of
you had he spent his energies pulling you up out of whatever you were.
> I'm a self-made skivvy who reached your rural dream before 30.
I never had a "rural dream." I spent a full 20% of my adult life living
in a rural environment even when I was working in R&D. While "self-made"
isn't a bad thing, and it certainly beats the hell out of not growing at
all, it is all too often a case of a little knowledge being dangerous.
Your strictly textbook understanding of Romeo & Juliet coupled with an
inability to "boil down" the story to a phrase or a short sentence is
typical of the self-taught.
> You're the city smart arse who had to spent a lifetime
> waiting for retirement before moving to a culture you're too old, and
> too set, and too dim, ever to understand
Too bad you run so angry that you can't appreciate the humor in that
sentiment. To those of us with the experience accumulated by paying
attention throughout the wonderful experience of a full and rich life,
the "old fart" genre of flames is universally laughable.
Your time will come, God willing and the creek don't rise, and with
any luck you'll eventually be laughing just as I am now. Perhaps
by then you'll have acquired some modicum of wisdom.
In the meantime what you've written here is what I've come to expect
of you. If you were just a bit more intelligent you'd be finding
a way to make something worthwhile out of these discussions. I
invite you to try.
AL
> Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote in
> news:pan.2006.02.23....@epix.net:
>
>
>>Imo, that probably refers to distributing a limited number of hardcopies
>>of copyrighted material as "supplemental reading" for courses. (That
>>was negotiated several years ago.) There is also making a copy for
>>personal use, e.g. online newspapers' printer-friendly format. But no
>>way is it ok to re-publish "full-text" copyrighted material on the
>>internet without permission. I'm also reasonably sure you know this and
>>are amusing yourself. <g>
>
>
> Well first there's the law (convention.)
>
> Whatever that says or means doesn't begin to have any significance
> unless and until a case is brought to the courts. Here's the story
> of a fellow who enforced his copyright in court, and managed to
> lose out in the long run anyway. He's still angry about it.
>
> http://www.esva.net/~thom/philkatz.html
>
> Copyright enforcement isn't usually worth the time and trouble it
> involves unless there's significant *collectable* money at stake.
>
> So if I have an idea that someone isn't going to haul me into court
> to enforce a copyright because I post some on line newspaper's entire
> article, with a link to the original, in a usenet posting, doesn't
> have the the same net effect as though I had asked and gotten written
> permission? Oh I suppose we could argue till doomsday about active
> and passive permission, but why bother.
Janet who shares the brain cell with Fran, has this copyright issue well
in hand. Regarding her reason for not archiving her posts she has this
to say: (I think you, Sheldon, will especially enjoy this)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From Oct 2005
Janet Baraclough wrote:
The reason I do prohibit archive, is nothing to do with evading
responsibility for my posts. I do it because unscrupulous hacks raid
google's archive of usenet for material I wrote, to sell as their own
work and publish in other media.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Harper
> Janet who shares the brain cell with Fran, has this copyright issue well
> in hand. Regarding her reason for not archiving her posts she has this
> to say: (I think you, Sheldon, will especially enjoy this)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> From Oct 2005
> Janet Baraclough wrote:
> The reason I do prohibit archive, is nothing to do with evading
> responsibility for my posts. I do it because unscrupulous hacks raid
> google's archive of usenet for material I wrote, to sell as their own
> work and publish in other media.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, perfect, thank you so much for this tidbit.
In one post at 11:54AM CST today she writes:
"I'm a self-made skivvy who reached your rural dream before 30."
In another post at 8:37PM CST today, a hair over 8 and 1/2 hours
later, she has this to say:
"From my standpoint as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit). Oh
yes, and one of my other jobs, college lecturer in English."
Self-made and university graduate student are mutually exclusive
concepts, but let's not confuse her with facts, eh? :-) Based
on her performance here I do believe the former, not the latter.
And in your historical tidbit, grandiose ideation as well? Nice
pattern emerging here. Really informative.
Thanks again.
AL
Well at least she drew the line at "lecturer" not professor - gotta give
her credit for that...
So, let's take stock of the situation. On the one hand we have a civil
servant filing clerk who claims all her neighbors and relatives seek her
wisdom and on the other hand a pompous gas bag lecturer who's words
people clamor to steal for profit - yup, that all seems to fit.
BTW, Fran as Farm1 is a fairly recent identity but
Fran<ma...@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au>, her previous identity,
has a long and equally disagreeable history
AL
Farm1
> "Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in
> > "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
> >> "Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in
> >> > "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> A civil servant for ~30 years.
>
> >> >> Well that explains *everything*.
>
> >> > It certainly explains why I can read information and understand it.
>
> >> A civil servant's understanding.
>
> > But provable since I understood the "Fari Use Doctrine" cite YOU gave
> > and which you subsequently proved that you can't read and comprehend.
>
> Yet another fallacious remark.
Well IF you did manage to read and understan the "Fair Use Doctrine" cite
you posted perhaps you could explain why you tried to weasel out of
admitting that a breach of copyright had occurred when at least 4 other
people were terlling you it had.
You are a fraud or a fantasist.
> >> Needless to say that's a prism
> >> most of us refuse, with good reason, to look through. Here in the
> >> US there are several employer categories that make a person
> >> undesirable as an employee after the first two or three years of
> >> experience. At the top of everyone's list are former civil servants
> >> (the term itself is an oxymoron.)
>
> > But then the US is know for being a very odd place with strange value
> > systems.
>
> Yet another fallacious remark considered a platitude in some places
> outside the USA. Anti-Americanism is stupid and ugly.
LOL. Sucked right in. I knew you wouldn't know enough about the civil
service in the US to figure out what I meant.
Since you are clealry ignorant, I will fill you in. The US, unlike most of
the rest of the rest of the western world, has a politicised civil service.
If one wishes to discuss world's best practice in civil service then the US
is NOT the destination to visit. And before you yet again can't manage to
figure out your arse from your elbow, this is something I DO know about. My
husband has done world's best practice trips and those visits were to the
UK, NZ and EU countries.
The civil service here has (until this current government which seems to
have learned only bad things from the US) has always been rabidly
unpoliticised because the civil service was just that. Service for all the
people of the country and not just for the party which held power. The
motto was "without fear or favour" and that is how decisons and advice to
government was formulated. You don't get nearly the sort of cynicism of our
civil service in my country as I see constantly here from Americans about
their own civil service.
> >> > What is
> >> > your excuse for being unable to do the same thing?
>
> >> You build fallacy atop fallacy. Do your own reading:
>
> You snipped here, let me put it back for you:
Yes and I said why I snipped. I'm not going to play your verbage,
obfuscation games. Put up or shut up and forget the cites. Use you own
head for once instead of someone else's.
> > Till then keep trolling. I like playing with trolls.
>
> You've become the resident troll in this newsgroup with Janet Barclough
> following you around kissing your virtual ass.
There you go again not being able to even get a name right. No wonder you
have trouble understanding Shakespeare and "Fair Use Doctrine". The marbles
are starting to fall out.
And, if you mean Janet Baraclough, then she, like me, can tell an idiot when
she sees one and you are certainly an idiot. And a fraud, a hypocrite and a
jerk
Sheldon Harper
> The message <Xns9776B2D3C...@208.49.83.94>
> from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
>> Janet Baraclough <janet.a...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:3130303039303...@zetnet.co.uk:
>> > The message <Xns97765521D...@208.49.83.94>
>> > from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
>> >> And so the sole tag team member chimes in on cue.
>> > Er, no. You may not have noticed, but virtually everyother poster
>> > on
>> > this group has contradicted your posts, got tired of you, and
>> > killfiled you. Fran and I are a little more persistent, but soo
>> > we'll be tired of you too. Then you'll be left talking to yourself
>> > and the trolls Jim and Al
>> You posess the all seeing eye then? LOL
> Easy enough to see how few answer your posts.
You're keeping track? One wonders why that is. Is that really
so important to you that you'd take note of the replies or lack
of? LOL
>> > Stick to what you
>> >> understand, chambermaid.
>> > See, there's one of your city-brain mistakes. You categorise people
>> > by
>> > the work they do. Rural people don't do that, because they take it
>> > for granted that their apparently modest and simple neighbour has
>> > developed a wide range of skills and interests.
>> That's just plain wrong. Rural people here say, "Oh, he's a log truck
>> driver" and other similar categorizations just like they do in most
>> places in the world.
> The difference from people like you, is that they respect someone
> for being a truck driver, and don't sneer at manual work, such as
> cleaning, because they know its value.
Bwahahahahaha.
Summary:
Janet: Rural people don't categorize by occupation
Sheldon: They certainly do, it is human nature
Janet: Well they respect someone for being a truck driver
Janet is roped, brought to ground, tied, and branded, but somehow
she still tries to make the case that something, anything, about
her opponent is wrong.
Once your caught this way, Janet, the decent thing to do is to
agree you've been caught. Denial in such cases really undoes
whatever legitimacy you might have had. But then, that's a logical
error on your part, and you appear to lack anything resembling logic.
>> > They know better than to guess at
>> > financial or intellectual or social status by anyone's work or
>> > appearance. Only city people do that, and boy do they make some
>> > stupid assumptions.
>> I made a mistake in thinking you were civilized. Generally my errors
>> are in giving folks more credit that is really due, as I did with you.
>> So that's not to say you're never right, often you are. My mistake was
>> probably one of assuming you could keep it up.
>> > Chambermaid is just one of a hundred jobs I've done. Every one of
>> > them, even the lowliest and worst paid , taught me new skills that I
>> > could turn to enhance my own lifestyle, and also into a much more
>> > lucrative venture.
>> This is the classic Pygmalion problem. In the story version the young
>> woman was successful in outgrowing her roots, which Higgins initially
>> failed to grasp because in your society and culture the glass ceiling
>> existed as it continues to do today.
> LOL. God knows where you get this crap you spout. Fox news, maybe,
> or Oprah?
See what I mean about denial?
> The world turns on inventions by Scots who started from nothing.
I've heard the same thing from Russians, Germans, Japanese, and
mathematicians, about their own groups.
> The
> glass ceiling in England disappeared half a century ago. That's why
> Britain has Prime Ministers who started out from nowhere, including a
> woman, and a socialist care and education system. And why chambermaids,
> with no family financial support, can go from a free state education,
> to university alongside Prince Charles.
The real beauty of the glass ceiling is that the people underneath
it actually deny it exists because they can see up there and think
they can get there.
Is there an equitable distribution in yuor government of all the
identifiable ethnic groups let alone 50% women in power?
>> Your strictly textbook understanding of Romeo & Juliet coupled with an
>> inability to "boil down" the story to a phrase or a short sentence is
>> typical of the self-taught.
> You 'd clearly never seen or read it when you gave an entirely
> inaccurate synopsis of the plot,
Still another denial on your part. If Romeo and Juliet knew their
parents wouldagree to the union there would have been no story.
> which I corrected.
Which you still, to this day, fail to comprehend.
> From my standpoint
> as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit). Oh yes, and one of my other
> jobs, college lecturer in English.
If I believed for a second that could be true I'd ask the British
Government to declare a national day of mourning for the state of
education in Great Britain. Your claim sounds a lot like the woman
who claimed her husband was a professor when he was a mere janitor.
The main difference is she had her story down pat and you make it
up as you go.
But for more grins let me reassemble that paragraph:
> You 'd clearly never seen or read it when you gave an entirely
> inaccurate synopsis of the plot, which I corrected. From my standpoint
> as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit). Oh yes, and one of my other
> jobs, college lecturer in English.
Would any "double Honours graduate" try to pass this off as a sentence?
"From my standpoint as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit)."
And this is a sentence?
"Oh yes, and one of my other jobs, college lecturer in English."
This is no double honours graduate in anything other than chambermaidery.
Farm1
> > The message <Xns9775E8664...@208.49.83.94>
> > from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
>
> > I predict you'll brag about how well read
> >> and how well versed you are in the subject.
>
> I was mistaken. She simply declined to educate herself about fallacies
> because then she'd have to stop using them in lieu of a sane approach
> to discussion.
Now why would I need to read some cite you give when I see your fallacious
approach day in and day out> Lets see how many I can remember -
Ahakespeare, Austin, Barclough, "Fair Use", Dunne and statements on the
applicability of civil servant prejudices internationally.........
Keep posting Sheldon. You keep digging yourself deeper into the shit each
day.
Sheldon Harper
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
snip <Fat Fran (with apologies to J Ball) failed to write anything
worthy of response>
Farm1
> from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
> Stick to what you
> > understand, chambermaid.
>
> See, there's one of your city-brain mistakes. You categorise people by
> the work they do. Rural people don't do that, because they take it for
> granted that their apparently modest and simple neighbour has developed
> a wide range of skills and interests. They know better than to guess at
> financial or intellectual or social status by anyone's work or
> appearance. Only city people do that, and boy do they make some stupid
> assumptions.
>
> Chambermaid is just one of a hundred jobs I've done. Every one of
> them, even the lowliest and worst paid , taught me new skills that I
> could turn to enhance my own lifestyle, and also into a much more
> lucrative venture. I'm a self-made skivvy who reached your rural dream
> before 30.
Very well said. And I heartily agree with you. When I retired from the
government, I thought I'd like to try anything at all that was going, so
long as it didn't involve sitting in meetings and analysing, writing and
develping and then negotiating and implementing. I thought a job working in
the local supermarket would be good if a job was available. I got a job in
the local Post Office and boy was it hard!
I'd had to introduce major change programs nationwide, had to negotiate
nationally with a very tough industrial union that was not above using
filthy stand over tactics and none of that was hard, but the PO! Sheesh!
All that nitty gritty minute detail! I'd had staff to do that shit and it
was both a culture shock and tiring trying to cross all Ts and dot all Is.
I stuck it out but boy was a glad to leave when the business was sold.
I see nothing wrong with being a skivvy or a chambermaid. I do both these
roles constantly as well as dogbody, stepnfetchit, kennel maid, housemaid,
greasetrap cleaner, painter and decorator, rough plumber, dressmaker and
driveway dogshit remover. Sheldon must live in some sort of Nirvana if he
thinks he can avoid those sorts of jobs and yet still claim to be a rural
dweller.
Farm1
> > Stick to what you
> >> understand, chambermaid.
> I made a mistake in thinking you were civilized.
Snort! You deliberately tried to insult Janet by calling her a chambermaid.
You wouldn't know civil from savage!
> > Chambermaid is just one of a hundred jobs I've done. Every one of
> > them, even the lowliest and worst paid , taught me new skills that I
> > could turn to enhance my own lifestyle, and also into a much more
> > lucrative venture.
>
> This is the classic Pygmalion problem.
No, it's yet another example of your falure to comprehend but to blater
meaningless verbage.
> Your strictly textbook understanding of Romeo & Juliet coupled with an
> inability to "boil down" the story to a phrase or a short sentence is
> typical of the self-taught.
LOL. Still trying to recover from that blooper Sheldon! Too late by
multiple threads!
> If you were just a bit more intelligent you'd be finding
> a way to make something worthwhile out of these discussions. I
> invite you to try.
Now just how many people argued with you about your understanding of
copyright infringement? You aren't posting anything worth discussing. You
are only worth arguing with.
Sheldon Harper
news:440287b8$0$30897$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
Thank you for such an erudite display of your ignorance! LOL
> Keep posting Sheldon. You keep digging yourself deeper into the shit
> each day.
Sure sure. I know you don't know what a logical fallacy is, and
you refuse to avail yourself of that knowledge, but you are, by
your own admission, well versed in shit.
Sheldon Harper
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
snip <another post devoid of content>
Sheldon Harper
news:44029127$0$30872$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> I see nothing wrong with being a skivvy or a chambermaid. I do both
> these roles constantly as well as dogbody, stepnfetchit, kennel maid,
> housemaid, greasetrap cleaner, painter and decorator, rough plumber,
> dressmaker and driveway dogshit remover. Sheldon must live in some sort
> of Nirvana if he thinks he can avoid those sorts of jobs and yet still
> claim to be a rural dweller.
Nirvana: Buddhist term for self-realization.
http://www.yogajournal.com/meditation/142.cfm
Has nothing to do with chores or work.
But to the point, it isn't a matter of avoidance but rather delegating
menial tasks to those (much like yourself) who are better suited to
such tasks. It isn't difficult to achieve when one has more than one
active brain cell, but that's beyond your comprehension. LOL
OTOH if it weren't for menial tasks you couldn't justify your existance.
Farm1
> > Janet
> "From my standpoint as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit). Oh
> yes, and one of my other jobs, college lecturer in English."
>
> Self-made and university graduate student are mutually exclusive
> concepts, but let's not confuse her with facts, eh? :-)
You really are a spectacularly stupid man.
If Janet gained sufficient grades to earn University entrance in a merit
based system and undertook her own study and didn't send a stand in to sit
her exams, how could she be anything else but self-made?
Presumably, you bought your way into University, had someone write your
papers for you or plaigarised others papers and had a cash strapped but
smart student sit your examinations for payment. No wonder you are as
stupid as you sound.
Farm1
> > Easy enough to see how few answer your posts.
>
> You're keeping track?
She doesn't need to. If she reads all posts it's obvious. Hadn't you
noticed? How sad.
> Once your caught this way, Janet, the decent thing to do is to
> agree you've been caught. Denial in such cases really undoes
> whatever legitimacy you might have had.
Snort! Hypocrite! Just remember Shakespeare, Fair Use, Dunne, Austin, "I
don't call people names" etc.
> > You 'd clearly never seen or read it when you gave an entirely
> > inaccurate synopsis of the plot, which I corrected. From my standpoint
> > as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit). Oh yes, and one of my other
> > jobs, college lecturer in English.
>
> Would any "double Honours graduate" try to pass this off as a sentence?
She's writing for a dumb audience, but clearly hasn't dumbed down enough for
you.
Farm1
> "Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in
> snip <Fat Fran (with apologies to J Ball) failed to write anything
> worthy of response>
LOL This is simply too, too funny.
Poor Sheldon. You've been dragging yourself through all the google archives
looking for ammunition! What a sad specimen. I enjoyed Jon Ball but at
least he could fight his own corner. Stand on your own feet and fight like
a man!
Farm1
> > Keep posting Sheldon. You keep digging yourself deeper into the shit
> > each day.
>
> Sure sure. I know you don't know what a logical fallacy is, and
> you refuse to avail yourself of that knowledge, but you are, by
> your own admission, well versed in shit.
Yes. I read your shitty posts. I enjoy watching you make a spectacle of
yourself.
Sheldon Harper
news:44029efd$0$30864$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> Snort! Hypocrite! Just remember Shakespeare, Fair Use, Dunne, Austin,
> "I don't call people names" etc.
to keep count.
> She's writing for a dumb audience, but clearly hasn't dumbed down enough
> for you.
How nice. The audience in misc.rural is dumb.
Sigh.
Farm1
> snip <another post devoid of content>
Your inability to formulate a reply duly noted.
I'm off for a few days so perhaps you'll recover by the time I return. I
know I won't be mising anything in your posts
Sheldon Harper
news:44029d5c$0$30909$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>> AL <lit...@hamiltoncom.net> wrote:
>> > Janet
>> "From my standpoint as a double Honours graduate (Eng Lit). Oh
>> yes, and one of my other jobs, college lecturer in English."
>> Self-made and university graduate student are mutually exclusive
>> concepts, but let's not confuse her with facts, eh? :-)
> You really are a spectacularly stupid man.
> If Janet gained sufficient grades to earn University entrance in a merit
> based system and undertook her own study and didn't send a stand in to
> sit her exams, how could she be anything else but self-made?
It is clear you don't understand idioms either, and it sound like you
aren't even aware that they exist. Par for the course. Speaking of
spectacular stupidity, you've been outdoing all the previous front
runners.
Sheldon Harper
news:44029fb8$0$30875$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> "Sheldon Harper" <sha...@nonsense.com> wrote in message
>> "Farm1" <please@askifyouwannaknow> wrote in
>> snip <Fat Fran (with apologies to J Ball) failed to write anything
>> worthy of response>
> LOL This is simply too, too funny.
> Poor Sheldon. You've been dragging yourself through all the google
> archives looking for ammunition! What a sad specimen.
Hardly. It took all of a few minutes when you first mentioned him to
discover what was what. You are your own worse enemy, leaving me no
need for ammunition which you hand me with every one of your ignorant
posts.
> I enjoyed Jon
> Ball but at least he could fight his own corner. Stand on your own feet
> and fight like a man!
Jon Ball fought like a "typical man," cussing and cursing with
relatively little thought (more than you deserve) going into his
posts. I engage you and keep catching you on your own terms, your
own pathalogical stupidities. You're so damn stupid you keep
coming back with more of the same repetitive inane nonsense.
Sheldon Harper
t...@shawneelink.net:
> BTW, Fran as Farm1 is a fairly recent identity but
> Fran<ma...@takethisbitoutwebone.com.au>, her previous identity,
> has a long and equally disagreeable history
Women like that usually don't have much of a home life
or friends of any sort. She's a classic ball buster.
AL
An empty dried up husk of a woman who hangs out at a local saloon where
she gleans her knowledge. Actually the only thing that hints at female
is the name, Fran. Absolutely *nothing* in her history of posts ever
hints at feminine. She lives with something she calls a "hisself" -
dontcha just envy him - from the hyperventilating hysterical rants she
unleashes here, can you imagine what that poor sap must endure, daily?
AL
Sheldon Harper
> The message <Xns9776E2448...@208.49.83.94>
> from Sheldon Harper <sha...@nonsense.com> contains these words:
>> Self-made and university graduate student are mutually exclusive
>> concepts,
> If you think that, you must have been excluded from both.
That ranks as one of the dumbest things you've said to me
so far. You do keep providing information that supports the
self-made claims while speaking out strongly against any
sort of substantial formal education.
The fact you're on the lookout for others "faking it"
probably has to do with your own activity. It is my
experience that usually people quick to accuse others
are covering for the fact that they themselves guilty
of that act. The mentality holds that "The best defense
is a good offense." But if you're not guilty, then you
need no defense in the first place.
Once the lies start,they always escalate, just as yours
and Fran's have been doing, along with the escalation
in the depth and style of attacks.
You would do well to take a deep breath, relax, and
drop this line of argumentation. There are better
discussions to be had. But if you insist we can
continue as it has been going.