Wikipedia - Check pages for copied articles
Sherman Cahal
have been copied from transportation web-sites.
The Henry Watterson Expwy. (I-264) had information that was lifted from
my site, had the word order rearranged, and parts snipped from the
historical part of my travel guide.
http://www.ohiovalleytransit.com/travelguides/ky/interstate264/interstate264.php3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Watterson_Expressway
I corrected this issue and added a citation. If you find any, please
edit it and give credit where its due!
/will be correcting more in the next day...
blc...@yahoo.com
Roadgeek realm.
My understanding is that Wikipedia largely ignores complaints of
plagiarism, short of C&D letters and/or other litigations threats.
Garrett Wollman
<blc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My understanding is that Wikipedia largely ignores complaints of
>plagiarism, short of C&D letters and/or other litigations threats.
Your are mistaken.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
Scott M. Kozel
Then how can they "publish" such detailed information if in many cases
they don't cite where they got it from? I can see a lot of my original
information in some of their highway articles, in rewritten form in a
somewhat different writing style, and only a few times did they give my
any credit.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
Sherman Cahal
Add to the fact they just cite from the Rand McNally half the time... I
say that we press on and edit the information or remove the article
entirely and cite copyright issues.
blc...@yahoo.com
I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from
other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff
pulls it in (I would hope not), or if an unrelated party submits a
"repackaged version" of the information as if it were their own. The
bottom line is, as I said before, (I've heard of) many occurrences of
this happening.
So then, what to do about it? Either request that the proper
attribution be made, submit an "authentic" version of the article to
make things right, or request that it be pulled altogether.
Problem is, none of the above will get you any results. Examples:
Also as I said before, you pretty much have to take legal action to
correct any plagiarism.
blc...@yahoo.com
Sherman Cahal
You can view changes made my other users and see what work they did to
it. I found the source who copied materials from my site and e-mailed
him a blunt letter about it, since my site does have a copyright for
all materials and photos.
In the previous, when I had edited information and correctly cited it,
they removed the parts I changed ENTIRELY because I violated my own
copyright! I clearly cited where it came from, and made a note to the
mods that I was giving permission to use parts of MY own article.
They ignored. If they continue this, it will be relatively easy to file
suit since some roadgeek sites are copyrighted...
Sherman Cahal
Richard wrote:
else was
> presenting "the same" information.
> So therefor,it's a ripoff.
> Hell, he even ripped off the information himself and he's whining?
Dumbass makes his appearance once again! No wonder he is killfiled by
the majority of the people.
For the record, my sources are cited on the pages that are renovated,
where applicable. The majority of my sources come from official
documents and newspaper articles. I have put forth countless hours of
research into my project, and because of that, all text that I have
wrote is copyrighted. Likewise, if the author at Wiki wants to use my
work, then they ask _me_ for permission for useage of my research and
they are required to cite it in full. If they want to go out and do the
research themselves, that's fine, but they must clearly cite where they
got their information from.
What pissed me off was the fact they copied word-from-word on many
segments of that article and others, rearranged the wording in a few
areas, and failed to cite.
Likewise, if they take any of my photos, those are copyrighted and I
will remove the article entirely without hesitation.
Did you go to high school or college Bullis? Because you would learn
that plagarism is a very bad, bad thing.
Sherman Cahal
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
>
> > I checked Wikipedia, as Scott Kozel mentioned that some articles
may
> > have been copied from transportation web-sites.
>
> > The Henry Watterson Expwy. (I-264) had information that was lifted
from
> > my site, had the word order rearranged, and parts snipped from the
> > historical part of my travel guide.
>
> >
http://www.ohiovalleytransit.com/travelguides/ky/interstate264/interstate2
>
> > I corrected this issue and added a citation. If you find any,
please
> > edit it and give credit where its due!
> > /will be correcting more in the next day...
>
>
> Sources:
> Interstate 264 Travel Guide at Ohio Valley Transit
>
>
http://www.ohiovalleytransit.com/travelguides/ky/interstate264/interstate264
> .php3
And dumbass, once again, did you check the revision history? I made
that edit only a few hours ago, adding in the correct source for the
research that I compiled. SPUI edited it an hour or so later with
correct formatting, since I am unfamilar with Wiki's formatting.
Dumbass! Dumbass! Let's all point to Richard...
Garrett Wollman
<blc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from
>other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff
>pulls it in (I would hope not)
It would be hard, since Wikipedia does not have a staff. (I
understand the Wikimedia Foundation does have a small staff to take
care of financials and system administration, but all the people
working on their projects are volunteers.) The mechanism for
copyright owners to request removal of infringing material is
described in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Designated_agent>. (Note that
there is a specific legal form which must be followed to make the
request valid; see the Act for details.)
Scott M. Kozel
>
> <blc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from
> >other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff
> >pulls it in (I would hope not)
>
> It would be hard, since Wikipedia does not have a staff. (I
> understand the Wikimedia Foundation does have a small staff to take
> care of financials and system administration, but all the people
> working on their projects are volunteers.) The mechanism for
> copyright owners to request removal of infringing material is
> described in
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Designated_agent>. (Note that
> there is a specific legal form which must be followed to make the
> request valid; see the Act for details.)
I would be interested in knowing who compiled their information on
Interstate highways, given the huge amount of information that they have
on that topic, on each individual Interstate highway.
blc...@yahoo.com
Are you a total moron?
The information was made "publicly available" because someone busted
their ass, did some research and published it. It takes time, effort,
energy, and even money to put it out there.
Public != Free
And just because there is not a "precise resemblance" does not make it
legal to repost as if it was one's own work.
Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly
available"...
Sherman Cahal
> Are you a total moron?
>
> The information was made "publicly available" because someone busted
> their ass, did some research and published it. It takes time, effort,
> energy, and even money to put it out there.
>
> Public != Free
And especially if it is copyrighted...
> And just because there is not a "precise resemblance" does not make
it
> legal to repost as if it was one's own work.
>
>
> Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly
> available"...
I am assuming you are replying to Richard? You snipped out the reply :(
blc...@yahoo.com
Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > Many of us wish your special brand of stupidity wasn't "publicly
> > available"...
> I am assuming you are replying to Richard? You snipped out the reply
:(
Yes, I directed that comment to the St00pid one.
Comrade Mr Yamamoto
....
> Dumbass! Dumbass! Let's all point to Richard...
>
Hmmmm.... How about Richard=Queef?
--
Comrade Mr Heavy Heavy Monster Sound Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
"As we go on with our lives we tend to forget that the jails and the
hospitals and the madhouses and the graveyards are packed"
Chris Bessert
Commission -- a part of the state government -- copied several passages
directly from my (former) Wisconsin Highways site. (Some of this infor-
mation is changing as I'm migrating it over to the new site, but the
old site is still there for comparison sake.)
For example, here are two passages -- mine written in 1998 and theirs
"copyright" 2003:
ME:
"Today, the state is home to fourteen US routes: 2, 8, 10, 12, 14,
18, 41, 45, 51, 53, 61, 63, 141 and 151. With the coming of the
Interstates, only one US route has been decommissioned: US-16."
WHC:
"Today, Wisconsin is home to 14 USHs (2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 41, 45,
51, 53, 61, 63, 141, and 151). With the advent of the interstate
system, only one USH was decommissioned - USH 16."
Also...
ME:
"Originally, state routes in Wisconsin were numbered only from 10
through 75 [...]. During various expansions of the state trunkline
system, route numbers into the 190s were used. State routes greater
then 199 are newer designations, mostly running along other
relocated or decommissioned routes."
WHC:
"Originally, STH routes were numbered from 10 through 75. As the
system expanded, route numbers through 199 were assigned. Routes
numbered greater than 199 are recent designations that typically
run along decommissioned or relocated routes."
And...
ME:
"Originally, however, the state was to only have two: I-90 and I-94.
[...] In time, WisDOT was able to convince the federal government to
okay the completion of the US-141 freeway between Milwaukee and
Green Bay and designate it as I-43. In the 1980s, the I-43 designa-
tion was extended southwest of Milwaukee to Beloit along SR-15."
WHC:
"Initially, Wisconsin was to have only two interstate routes, I-90
and I-94. However, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation was
able to convince the federal government to approve I-43 between
Milwaukee and Green Bay. In the 1980s, I-43 was extended southwest
to Beloit."
And again...
ME:
"It was during the late-1950s and 1960s when an extensive system of
freeways was proposed for the Metropolitan Milwaukee area, most of
which were to reside within Milwaukee County itself. The Milwaukee
County Expressway Commission was created to develop this system of
freeways.
WHC:
"An extensive system of freeways was proposed for the Metropolitan
Milwaukee area in the late 1950s and 1960s. The Milwaukee County
Expressway Commission was formed in 1954 to designate the routes,
plan and design the system, and arrange for the necessary right-of-
way acquisition and utility relocation."
Yes, even more...
ME:
"Out of the ten proposed freeways, only five were completed in their
entirety (North-South/I-94 & I-43, East-West/I-94, Zoo I-894 & US-45,
Airport/I-43 & I-894, and Rock/I-43), while four others were begun
but never completed (Stadium Frwy/US-41, Park Frwy/SR-145, Fond du
Lac Frwy/SR-145, and Lake Frwy/I-794). The final proposed freeway,
the Belt Frwy, was never begun."
WHC:
"Of the proposed freeways, only seven were completed in entirety: the
North-South Freeway as I-94 and I-43; the East-West Freeway, I-94;
the Airport Freeway, I-894; a portion of the Lake Freeway, I-794; a
portion of the Fond du Lac Freeway; the Zoo Freeway; and the Rock
Freeway, Highway 15. Four others were begun but never completed:
Stadium Freeway, US 41; Park Freeway, SR 145; Fond du Lac Freeway,
SR 145; and Lake Freeway, I-794. The Belt Freeway was never begun."
NOTE: In the previous version of my website, I used the "SR" abbrevia-
tion for "State Route," while WisDOT *and* the other portions of the
Wisc Historical Commissions website use "STH" for "State Trunk High-
way." I find it odd, then, that the above paragraph uses *SR*! I wonder
where they got THAT from...?
And even more...
ME:
"The tide of public opinion began to change as the freeway system was
under construction, and by the 1970s, most of the remaining portions
of the system were to remain unbuilt. What is left are several "stub-
ends" where freeways or ramps terminate randomly."
WHC:
"Public support changed in the 1970s with rigid opposition to the
uncompleted remnants of the proposed system. Several "stub-ends"
remain today where freeways terminate somewhat randomly."
NOTE: I love how sometimes they changed words around, but other times
simply used the exact same verbiage, like "several 'stub-ends'". I like
how they separated "terminate randomly" with "somewhat" in theirs...
In the end, they borrowed heavily from my website, but didn't even
think enough of it to reccommend it as "Further Reading" at the end
of their website.
Not Cool.
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://www.michiganhighways.org
http://www.wisconsinhighways.org
http://www.ontariohighways.org
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts
Sherman Cahal
> Wikipedia? Hell, just tonight I found out the Wisconsin Historical
> Commission -- a part of the state government -- copied several
passages
> directly from my (former) Wisconsin Highways site. (Some of this
infor-
> mation is changing as I'm migrating it over to the new site, but the
> old site is still there for comparison sake.)
>
> For example, here are two passages -- mine written in 1998 and theirs
> "copyright" 2003:
Do you plan on doing something about it Chris?
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts
said:
>Do you plan on doing something about it Chris?
He'd much rather complain than act.
Sherman Cahal
> Where do you suppose he got the information from?
> The information was obtained from public sources, such as DOT, and
> observings of the actual construction, among other avenues.
> He even names his sources. Therefor, he can not claim copyright on
work
> which is not of his own true creation.
Actually st00pid, I did the research, wrote it in my own words and
terms and provided diagrams and other historical information, correctly
cited it, therefore I could copyright materials that were written by
me. Wiki took it upon themselves (whoever they are) to copy the
research that I did and use it.
I see st00pid never did attend high school or even in college, as doing
what Wiki and others have done would have gotten you an E or have you
expelled.
Chris Bessert
>
> Do you plan on doing something about it Chris?
Well, a little more research led me to the *real* culprit in this
case: an engineering firm that has been doing business with WisDOT for
many years. I had corresponded with someone from their firm a year or
two ago... and now I know why! From the Wisc Historical Society website:
"Architectural historians from Mead & Hunt wrote the text included
in the pages and collected current and historic images."
Yes, I plan on drafting a polite e-mail to the fine folks at the Wisc
Historical Society to inform them of the situation. Since it was the
Mead & Hunt folks that actually did the plagarizing, I won't get too
snippy with the Historical Society folks. I think I'll just ask them
to cite me as a source and include my (new) Wisconsin Highways website
as a listing in their "Suggested Reading" section.
Now, as for the Mead & Hunt people, I don't know what I'll do about
that yet. Maybe the Historical Society people have an idea...
Still... Not Cool.
Chris Bessert
> "Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> said:
>
>>Do you plan on doing something about it Chris?
>
> He'd much rather complain than act.
While I shouldn't acknowledge your stupidity with a response, yes,
Timothy, I will be doing something about it. You don't know how many
times I've had to go after copyright violations, either from my web-
sites or, more commonly, from my cartographic works. This, unfortu-
nately, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Chris Bessert
>
> All of which you state here is a list.
Yes... a listing of their plagiarism from my website.
> No matter how you present it, a list CAN NOT be copyrighted.
No shit, dumbass, but my PROSE can be. The information was obviously
copied from my website -- which is fully copyrighted -- and in a
couple cases, a few of the words were rearranged.
> You have merely taken what has been public domain information long before
> their was an internet and put it into your own words.
Yes, and they copied it. I am not claiming copyright on the information,
you dumbass, I am claiming copyright on my own words and sentence con-
struction. You truly have demonstrated you have absolutely no knowledge
of copyright law, Richard. On the other hand, as a person who publishes
cartographic works (those are "maps," Richard), I have had to become
rather proficient in the workings of copyright law in order to protect
my interests. And, just like with maps, I am fully within my rights to
place a COPYRIGHT on the MAP, while I cannot copyright the INFORMATION
contained on that map. (Elementary, my dear Richard!)
> WHC merely copied your format.
No, they copied my words. I don't give a shit about the format -- that
isn't copyrightable -- but I do care about MY words.
> So what are you gonna do about it hot shot? Sue the bastards for
> infringement?
No, "dumbass" (since we're calling people names), I am going to politely
ask the Wisconsin Historical Society to rectify the situation. This may
include citing my website as a source, adding a link to it in the
"Suggested Reading" section and making the error of the original
article author's actions known.
> You'll have to represent yourself because no attorney will take the case.
> The judge would tell you not to slam the door on your way out of his
> chambers.
> Judge Judy would have a field day.
> Judge Mathis would rip you apart.
Why even open your mouth, Richard? US-27 still ends in Fort Wayne,
I-40 still does NOT end in Raleigh, and you STILL don't know jack
about copyright law. While I am not going to hire a lawyer and I am
not going to court over this, the situation will be rectified. Period.
And, yes, if I wanted to get a lawyer, there are dozens who will take
ANY case, so there wouldn't be a problem there. But, only a moron would
jump to such a conclusion...
> When you idiots understand what a copyright protects, then bitch about
> infringement.
Idiots? Yeah, that's a laugh. I published an original work in MY OWN
WORDS which was fully copyrighted and documented to that effect. Some-
one else copied MY OWN WORDS and published them in another place under
their own copyright. That, my moronic friend, is called copyright vio-
lation.
I am not, nor is anyone else here, pissed that someone else took facts
that I had already written about and then created their own independent
work using those same facts. That would not be copyright violation,
Richard. If it were, I'd be in violation with everything I ever wrote,
as I deal exclusively in non-fiction and, therefore, am always writing
about ACTUAL things and conditions -- things and conditions which any-
one else could conceivably write about as well. But, when someone takes
YOUR words from YOUR own mouth and claims them as their own, THAT is
what is against the law and THAT is what I (and the others here) want
rectified.
As opposed to the Wikipedia situation, which is a different animal, I
have full confidence that when the Wisconsin Historical Society is
apprised of the situation, they will do whatever they can to rectify
it, as the original author does not work for them.
Richard: Next time you want to comment on something like this, do YOUR
own research FIRST instead of spewing crap that is false and makes no
sense.
ta bu shi da yu
Sorry for replying late. I only discovered this issue was happening when
I read a comment on Kuro5hin.org That information on our copyright
violation procedure is incorrect. We have a procedure for removing
copyright violations from the database. The procedure is as follows:
Edit the article and delete all the content from the page. Replace it
with the text {{copyvio|url=http://the.link.to/the/page}}. Then go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations, scroll to
the date that you found the copyright violation and edit that section.
Add the test [[article]] from [http://the.link.to/the/page] - ~~~~ and
we will investigate. If after 7 days we find we don't have copyright
permission we delete the article from the system so that noone can see
it. All the history and all the contributions will be gone.
If you have found specific copyright violations that have NOT been
resolved, I will be more than happy to assist as I am an administrator
on that site. The last thing we want is to cause good people grief!
Please, allow us to sort out any issues. You can even post a message on
my talk page anonymously by going to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu and clicking on
the + sign and adding a comment. I will endeavour to resolve the issue
or refer them on to another trusted site administrator to help me out.
Incidently, if anyone DOES have any good info they want to add, please
feel free to add it :) And I'm asking that if you have good information
from another website and you want to add it that you source where you
got that information from!
Ta bu shi da yu
Wikipedia administrator
ta bu shi da yu
anyone as anyone can contribute to the website. This makes it easy to
copy and paste information into articles. Admins can take out that
information fairly easily so it isn't in the article by reverting
offenders, and we can block those offenders or lock pages to stop them
from editing pages.
I haven't had a chance to get up to speed on the whole controversy here,
but I'll try my best.
To say that you will have to take legal action to force any action is
incorrect, as I've explained in another thread. My suggestion is to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_violations to see our
mechanism that deals with copyvios.
TBSDY
Wikipedia administrator
blc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I think I was misunderstood.
>
> I agree that Wikipedia has a lot of information that was culled from
> other sites such as yours. I don't know whether someone on thier staff
ta bu shi da yu
If you want to know, check the articles in question and look at the page
history. We have a diff based format to show all article revisions. If
you see a specific copyright violator, please let us know on the
administrators noticeboard which can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN
This is where our admins hang out, and you'll most likely find they'll
jump on any bad contributors straight away.
Incidently, I apologise for any inconvience or bad feeling we may have
caused you. I personally wish I'd known sooner! I'm going to investigate
this very soon or get someone to have a look at the problem to see what
we can do.
TBSDY
Wikipedia administrator
Arif Khokar
> While I am not going to hire a lawyer and I am
> not going to court over this, the situation will be rectified. Period.
Given the examples you have posted, I fail to understand why you
wouldn't go to court over this. This obviously isn't one isolated
incident and a court case would certainly dissuade others who would be
inclined to plagerize your work.
Chris Bessert
I'm just saying I don't believe it will come anywhere near going to
court. Since the Wisconsin Historical Society didn't write it -- it
was a third party -- I'm certain they will rectify the situation as
soon as they're made aware of it. (I want to politely craft an e-mail
tonight, so I haven't fired off anything to them yet.)
Now, what they (and possibly I) will want to do with the third party
(the engineering firm that did the actual work they then contributed
to the Society) that actually did the plagarizing isn't clear yet.
I'm just confident the matter will be resolved amicably and promptly
-- no need to threaten law suit when there isn't a need for one!
me
news:cragd...@news1.newsguy.com...
> You'll have to represent yourself because no attorney will take the case.
> Judge Judy would have a field day.
> Judge Mathis would rip you apart.
I doubt either would care, as they do small claims cases, not copyright
infringement cases.
Chris Bessert
>
> If you'll kindly note, on the page in question, there is a source identifier
> at the bottom.
> Mr. Cahal is upset that someone dare to export his "work" to another site
> without his knowledge or consent.
Also known as "plagarism" and "copyright violation," which is against
the law here on Planet Earth, Richard.
> Quite frankly, the information presented is public domain, IMHO, and can be
> found from other sources outside of Mr. Cahal's site.
Please, quit while you're so far behind none of us can even still see
you in our rear-view mirrors. Do I need to use all-caps so that you
will understand? (I feel like I'm arguing with a deaf man, here.)
NO ONE IS CLAIMING COPYRIGHT TO **INFORMATION**, DUMBASS. YOU CAN'T DO
THAT, WHETHER IT BE IN THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN" OR NOT.
As we've stated here several times -- and why you haven't gotten it
yet is beyond me -- is that people are pissed that THEIR OWN COPYRIGHT-
ABLE WORDS are being plagarized and put on other websites without their
consent. That is called "copyright violation."
> Mr. Cahal beleives he is God and everyone should kneel to him.
You must be dense, Richard. Sherman is believes his OWN WORDS that he
composed HIMSELF and then COPYRIGHTED on HIS website are protected,
which they are under U.S. law and International Treaty. Sherman is NOT,
for example, claiming copyright on "I-265 in Louisville," which is a
fact and is not subject to copyright. However, Sherman's own prose he
composed *ABOUT* "I-265 in Louisville" *is* copyrightable and anyone
who takes HIS OWN WORDS (regardless of the subject matter) and copies
them to another location without his prior consent and approval is
committing plagarism and and violating copyright.
So, Richard, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop with your "information in
the public domain isn't copyrightable" crap, because we all know that.
We've all known that for years. They sky is also blue and the Pope is
also Catholic -- other things we're all aware of. We have been discuss-
ing the stealing of our WORDS, **NOT** the FACTS, as you so incorrectly
claim.
> While at the same time, he goes around the internet looking for stuff to
> steal and use on his own site.
Well, if that isn't libelous material, I don't know what is! Speaking
of "lawyering-up," maybe Sherman should contact an attorney to see if
he has any recourse against Richard accusing him of "stealing" and
plagarizing on a worldwide, public discussion forum. Hmmmm...
> Leave it alone.
How about if I come over and steal your car, Richard, and then tell
you to "Just leave it alone" when you try to get it back from me. After
all, your car was in a publicly-accessible area and since you didn't
invent the automobile, how can you REALLY claim ownership of it?
I still cannot understand how someone can be as ignorant as you are
and yet still claim to know everything about every subject. Boggles
the mind.
Sherman Cahal
> ta bu shi da yu wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > Sorry for replying late. I only discovered this issue was happening
when
> > I read a comment on Kuro5hin.org That information on our copyright
> > violation procedure is incorrect. We have a procedure for removing
> > copyright violations from the database. The procedure is as
follows:
>
identifier
> at the bottom.
And dumbass once again failed to note that I was the one who added the
copyright information. Check the IP address of who added it, then check
the IP address of this poster.
> Mr. Cahal is upset that someone dare to export his "work" to another
site
> without his knowledge or consent.
I am upset that someone lifted my content. Once it is fixed, however, I
am quite content. I find Wikipedia to be a good source and in previous
articles, has driven site visits to my web-sites.
It's just not Wikipedia, its other people who have incorrectly cited or
flat-out took my work.
> Quite frankly, the information presented is public domain, IMHO, and
can be
> found from other sources outside of Mr. Cahal's site.
Actually, they would have to do the research if they wanted the same
info. As in, drive to Frankfort, look in the state library, spend
countless hours searching and typing, etc. Very unlikely. And they
failed to cite their sources if they did that.
> Mr. Cahal beleives he is God and everyone should kneel to him.
> While at the same time, he goes around the internet looking for stuff
to
> steal and use on his own site.
Right. I am the King of MTR Richard. You forgot that. I do not go
around the internet looking for "stuff to steal" as I have credible
sources of information.
> Leave it alone.
I'm still waiting for your site Richard. Where is it?
And have you noticed that not a SINGLE person has agreed with you?
Sherman Cahal
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > Actually st00pid, I did the research, wrote it in my own words and
> > terms and provided diagrams and other historical information,
correctly
> > cited it, therefore I could copyright materials that were written
by
> > me. Wiki took it upon themselves (whoever they are) to copy the
> > research that I did and use it.
>
> > I see st00pid never did attend high school or even in college, as
doing
> > what Wiki and others have done would have gotten you an E or have
you
> > expelled.
>
>
> I will strongly suggest that you pay a visit to the US copyright
office and
> learn what can be copyrighted.
I did, hence the reason my works and photos are copyrighted. Strike
another for dumbass!
> Granted, some items you created are copyrightable, while that which
is in
> the public domain, is not.
> If one was to write a historical look at the building of roadways, a
> copyright can not be claimed on public domain items. Such as a list
of the
> roadways, when they were built, by whom they were built and so on.
You did
> not create the original work, therefor you can not copyright it.
You are extremely useless.
> I am always amused by those people who feel they "own" a copyright
simply
> because they put it on their website. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Actually it does. I have gone after other people for copying my work.
It's working.
> One gal insisted her math expressions were copyrighted by her.
> Math is public domain. It in itself can not be copyrighted.
> Websites love to claim copyrights to animated gifs and smileys.
> An animated gif of the US flag is not copyrightable due to the fact
that the
> flag is a symbol, and a symbol is not copyrightable. Period.
You are extremely useless.
> To be copyrighted by YOU, YOU must have created it.
> Capiche?
No. I created the works that I have displayed in my own words, using my
own research. If any other people are going to do an article on
Interstate 64 in Kentucky, they are free to do so, but they must cite
their own sources and write it in a way that does not resemble my work,
since my copyright is of much earlier date and therefore, I have
priority.
Have you noticed not a single person agrees with you Richard?
Sherman Cahal
Thanks for the information. While I was singling out Wikipedia in the
original post, it is not the only occurance of this happening. I love
Wikipedia for the fact that it has a lot of good information that in
the past I have contributed to, and that it brings additional visitors
to my site (grin). I corrected with the sources that are needed and I
am very content with it.
Other sites and materials have copied my materials illegially and I
have gone after them, since there is no way to easily correct it, as on
Wikipedia. I am glad that Wikipedia has ways to do so :)
Sherman Cahal
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > If you'll kindly note, on the page in question, there is a source
identifier
> > at the bottom.
> > Mr. Cahal is upset that someone dare to export his "work" to
another site
> > without his knowledge or consent.
>
> Also known as "plagarism" and "copyright violation," which is against
> the law here on Planet Earth, Richard.
I see Richard failed to go to high school and college? That stuff would
have gotten him an "E" or an expulsion.
> > Quite frankly, the information presented is public domain, IMHO,
and can be
> > found from other sources outside of Mr. Cahal's site.
>
> Please, quit while you're so far behind none of us can even still see
> you in our rear-view mirrors. Do I need to use all-caps so that you
> will understand? (I feel like I'm arguing with a deaf man, here.)
>
> NO ONE IS CLAIMING COPYRIGHT TO **INFORMATION**, DUMBASS. YOU CAN'T
DO
> THAT, WHETHER IT BE IN THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN" OR NOT.
>
> As we've stated here several times -- and why you haven't gotten it
> yet is beyond me -- is that people are pissed that THEIR OWN
COPYRIGHT-
> ABLE WORDS are being plagarized and put on other websites without
their
> consent. That is called "copyright violation."
I couldn't have said it better :)
> Well, if that isn't libelous material, I don't know what is! Speaking
> of "lawyering-up," maybe Sherman should contact an attorney to see if
> he has any recourse against Richard accusing him of "stealing" and
> plagarizing on a worldwide, public discussion forum. Hmmmm...
Too much work :)
> > Leave it alone.
>
> How about if I come over and steal your car, Richard, and then tell
> you to "Just leave it alone" when you try to get it back from me.
After
> all, your car was in a publicly-accessible area and since you didn't
> invent the automobile, how can you REALLY claim ownership of it?
Or his tractor-trailer :)
> I still cannot understand how someone can be as ignorant as you are
> and yet still claim to know everything about every subject. Boggles
> the mind.
He has been wrong countless number of times on transportation issues,
and when corrected, he never admits that he was wrong. It does boggle
the mind.
--Sherman Cahal
King of MTR, as per Richard states.
Chris Bessert
>
> I will strongly suggest that you pay a visit to the US copyright office and
> learn what can be copyrighted.
Personally, I'd suggest you simply visit their website -- much easier
and cheaper than flying to Washington to visit the office in person.
> Granted, some items you created are copyrightable, while that which is in
> the public domain, is not.
I still don't think you're grasping the reality of the situation, here.
IF Sherman had taken something else that was in the public domain and
reproduced it on his website, he could not claim copyright to it and
anyone else could copy it and do with it what they pleased. For example,
the lyrics to the "Star Spangled Banner" are in the public domain and
no one can claim copyright on them.
However, if Sherman researched and then wrote an article on the history
of the "Star Spangled Banner," it's origins and whatnot, THAT WORK of
Sherman's *IS* copyrightable. Those are HIS OWN WORDS about a fact and
he can claim whatever copyrights he wants to on HIS OWN WORDS. There-
fore, it would be up to SHERMAN to decide if HE wanted to place HIS OWN
WORDS into the "public domain," as copyright is automatically placed on
original works.
Speaking of the U.S. Copyright Office, let's all take a look at:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately
becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the
author or those deriving their rights through the author can
rightfully claim copyright."
Thus, Sherman's own article on the "Star Spangled Banner" is IMMEDI-
ATELY protected by copyright (even if he doesn't specifically register
it or place a copyright notice on the work), even though the "Star
Spangled Banner" itself CANNOT be copyrighted by Sherman.
> If one was to write a historical look at the building of roadways, a
> copyright can not be claimed on public domain items.
You are woefully confused, Richard. "Public domain items" are works
(e.g. books, recordings, maps, etc.) that are in the "public domain,"
for which copyright has expired or which have specifically been
placed into the public domain. Sherman did not place his original
works of authorship into the public domain and the copyright has not
expired on those works yet, therefore they are NOT in the public
domain.
Essentially, Richard, what you are saying is that any and all works
of non-fiction published over the past few centuries and which
featured copyright statements are all incorrect? That all of those
works were in the public domain all along? That the copyright on the
Rand McNally Road Atlas is unenforcable because they cannot copyright
their own original work and that I may freely reproduce it and sell
it as my own work? If so, you're plain nuts.
> Such as a list of the
> roadways, when they were built, by whom they were built and so on. You did
> not create the original work, therefor you can not copyright it.
We're not talking about "lists of roads" here, Richard, we're talking
about original works of authorship.
Since you were so fond of citing the U.S. Copyright Office, here's
another excerpt from their website:
WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for
federal copyright protection. These include among others:
* Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of express-
ion (for example, choreographic works that have not been no-
tated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or perform-
ances that have not been written or recorded)
* Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols
or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or
contents
* Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from
a description, explanation, or illustration
* Works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship (for example:
standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures
and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents
or other common sources)
As you can see, Richard, works of "original authorship" are, by all
means, able to be copyrighted. I don't think you comprehend that
Sherman is not mad that someone else has a website with information
about a particular roadway on it, rather he's mad that this other
website took HIS OWN WORDS without his permission to describe that
roadway. There is a BIG difference there that you're failing to
see.
> I am always amused by those people who feel they "own" a copyright simply
> because they put it on their website. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Unless it falls under one of the bulleted items above, they most
definately *DO* "own" the copyright to any original works they place
on their websites. Let's revisit the following statement from above:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created
in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately
becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the
author or those deriving their rights through the author can
rightfully claim copyright."
> One gal insisted her math expressions were copyrighted by her.
> Math is public domain. It in itself can not be copyrighted.
We're not talking about mathematical expressions or "that gal," Richard.
> Websites love to claim copyrights to animated gifs and smileys.
> An animated gif of the US flag is not copyrightable due to the fact that the
> flag is a symbol, and a symbol is not copyrightable. Period.
Richard, Richard, Richard... It's really not that difficult to under-
stand. While you are correct that the U.S. flag *is* a symbol and,
therefore is NOT subject to copyright, the ANIMATED GIF itself *IS*
very much copyrightable, as it is a work of original authorship. A
GIF image is NOT a flag, it's a GIF image -- they are different.
Thus, if I put an animated GIF of the flag of the State of Michigan on
my website, I cannot claim copyright violation if someone else puts
their OWN animated GIF of the flag of Michigan on THEIR website. How-
wever, I can very much claim copyright violation if they steal MY
animated GIF and put it on THEIR website without my permission. Mind
you, they're stealing MY image -- they are not stealing the concept
of the flag.
> To be copyrighted by YOU, YOU must have created it.
> Capiche?
Indeed. If *I* created the animated GIF of the U.S. flag... I created
it! I did not design the flag itself, thus I cannot claim copyright to
the flag itself and anyone is free to make THEIR OWN animated GIFs of
the flag all they want. What they CANNOT do is STEAL MY OWN WORK and
then pass it off as their own work. That's a violation of my copyright
as the CREATOR of that work.
In the end you have not proven that a four-paragraph essay that I might
write on, say, the Stadium Freeway in Milwaukee cannot be protected
under copyright. Yes, we all agree that I cannot copyright the term
"Stadium Freeway," nor can I copyright the City of Milwaukee nor can
I copyright the "US-41" route designation. (None of us are claiming
copyright to those types of items, mind you.) What we ARE saying is
that the words used in that four-paragraph essay ARE *OURS* and ARE
*PROTECTED* under current U.S. Copyright laws, even if we fail to
place a copyright symbol with that work. Anyone else is more than
welcome to write THEIR OWN essay on the Stadium Freeway using THEIR
OWN words, but they have no right to use MY OWN words without my
permission.
Capiche?
Ben Prusia
Anonymous Remailer. His takes on the copyright laws are something to laugh
about. Apparently, a post-secondary institution learning experience is
something that Richard has never had, unlike most of the people on this
newsgroup.
A picture that you take with your camera, or a picture that you make in
Photoshop or something similar is automatically secured copyright under the
person or company that was involved in the creation or the taking of
pictures. There could be over 5,000 pictures of the New York Skyline, each
one might possess same qualities and differences, but the copyrights of the
pictures belongs to each of the photographers. Each photographer took the
time to get out to an area and take a picture of a subject, with that effort
and their picture, they are given a copyright of their image automatically.
Everybody on MTR can go get a picture of the END US-1 sign in Key West,
Florida, everybody would have THEIR OWN copyright to THEIR picture. Just
because something is out in the view of the public, like a Bridge, or a Road
Sign, it DOES NOT mean that somebody can go steal a picture that I took of
it because it is in your mind, "Public Domain". The sign may be in your
mind, "Public Domain", but the picture of it that somebody took IS NOT.
It is the same thing with the coding of a website. When a webpage is
created, the content of the website is automatically copyrighted to the
author or company that the web page is registered to. There are a few
exceptions to what can and cannot be copyrighted in a web site. Databases,
no matter how they are, cannot be copyrighted, but there are certain items
that can be copyrighted in a database, including images used in it. When a
web site is viewed, the user who is viewing it is given "implied consent" to
view the web page and browse around it. That is so because the web page is
stored to the user's CPU RAM. So, whether or not the web page owner
explicitly states a method of information usage on their website, you
legally cannot reproduce or "steal" the webpage or any of the information in
it. The copyright of a web page lasts for the life of the author of the web
page and 70 more years after the death of the author. The author has the
explicit right to pursue WHATEVER THEY WISH in terms of legal matter when
they find their pictures or information from the website being used without
a proper use of citing or permission from the author.
With this in mind, I urge all webmasters to implement copyright policies on
their websites, and image use policies on their pictures.
READ THE DAMN COPYRIGHT LAW RICHARD... THEN THINK ABOUT SOMETHING BEFORE YOU
OPEN YOUR HOLE... YOU ARE THE TOTAL MORON...
Ben Prusia
kcroads.com
midwestbridges.com
Ben Prusia
Chris Bessert
> [major snippage]
I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Prusia for his well-thought-
out and factual retort.
> READ THE DAMN COPYRIGHT LAW RICHARD... THEN THINK ABOUT SOMETHING BEFORE YOU
> OPEN YOUR HOLE... YOU ARE THE TOTAL MORON...
Indeed, although I find it interesting that Richard has not yet been
able to provide any PROOF of his contentions that one cannot copyright
an original work about something that may exist in real life. On the
other hand, myself and others have cited from the very website of the
U.S. Copyright Office to prove him wrong.
If Richard does not want to labeled an Eternal Moron of the Highest
Order, I think he should post here incontrovertable proof that an orig-
inal work by an author CANNOT be copyrighted post haste.
(Unfortunately, I feel Richard will simply ignore these challenges and
move on to some other discussion into which he can insert his always-
infactual rubbish. We may never hear from him again in terms of copy-
right law!)
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts
said:
>I see Richard failed to go to high school and college? That stuff would
>have gotten him an "E" or an expulsion.
Except at my high school or college.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Scott,
>
> If you want to know, check the articles in question and look at the page
> history. We have a diff based format to show all article revisions. If
> you see a specific copyright violator, please let us know on the
> administrators noticeboard which can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN
>
> This is where our admins hang out, and you'll most likely find they'll
> jump on any bad contributors straight away.
>
> Incidently, I apologise for any inconvience or bad feeling we may have
> caused you. I personally wish I'd known sooner! I'm going to investigate
> this very soon or get someone to have a look at the problem to see what
> we can do.
>
> TBSDY
> Wikipedia administrator
Thanks for the reply... can I e-mail you at the address above to ask
questions?
Actually I did receive an e-mail from someone at Wikipedia a couple
months ago, saying that they had run a program designed to search for
duplicated text, and they found an identical passage on the Wikipedia
article for the Capital Beltway, as compared to what I have on my
Capital Beltway article; and they asked me if I put it on Wikipedia, and
when I said that I did not, this person deleted the passage from the
Wikipedia article for the Capital Beltway, judging it to have been
plagiarism.
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>
> > I would be interested in knowing who compiled their information on
> > Interstate highways, given the huge amount of information that they have
> > on that topic, on each individual Interstate highway.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
John R Cambron
educational as wells a amusing exchanges of word smithing I
have seen on USNET in the many years I have read the groups
I normally visit.
Some one here need to archive this and publish it to the web
for all to see !!
Mind you with correct sightation of all participants.
--
John in the sand box of Marylands eastern shore.
ta bu shi da yu
TBSDY
ta bu shi da yu
I think I understand his frustration. He seems to have spent a goodly
amount of time and effort gathering that information! Even if it is from
publically available sources, we should have still cited him at the very
least and not passed it off as our own work. Thankfully, Sherman has had
the good grace to cite his website on our article rather than have us
pull this quite useful information from our website, which I am
extremely grateful for.
If it hadn't have been cited, I would have slapped a copyright violation
on it and we would have eventually deleted it.
So I can definitely understand where Sherman is coming from. I just wish
we'd have picked this up sooner!
TBSDY
Richard wrote:
> ta bu shi da yu wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>
>
>>Sorry for replying late. I only discovered this issue was happening when
>>I read a comment on Kuro5hin.org That information on our copyright
>>violation procedure is incorrect. We have a procedure for removing
>>copyright violations from the database. The procedure is as follows:
>
>
> If you'll kindly note, on the page in question, there is a source identifier
> at the bottom.
> Mr. Cahal is upset that someone dare to export his "work" to another site
> without his knowledge or consent.
> Quite frankly, the information presented is public domain, IMHO, and can be
> found from other sources outside of Mr. Cahal's site.
> Mr. Cahal beleives he is God and everyone should kneel to him.
> While at the same time, he goes around the internet looking for stuff to
> steal and use on his own site.
>
> Leave it alone.
>
>
Chris Bessert
> This thread on copyright violation has to be one of the most
> educational as wells a amusing exchanges of word smithing I
> have seen on USNET in the many years I have read the groups
> I normally visit.
>
> Some one here need to archive this and publish it to the web
> for all to see !!
>
> Mind you with correct sightation of all participants.
Well, I called it in one of my responses, didn't I? I said Richard,
at some point, would simply turn and run away and look for another
thread to poison with his lack-of-facts and lack-of-comprehension. He
hasn't been back for two days now... Hmmm...
While I still loathe their actions, I'm almost starting to see where
the good ol' "Bullis Kook Crew" (or whatever we ended up calling them)
was coming from. Funny thing is even without being able to substantiate
the accusations they kept making, Richard is STILL a handful with all
of the crap he throws around here. And then the insults (followed by
sheer silence) once you try to prove him wrong. Priceless...
John R Cambron
Mike Reaser wrote:
>
> Chris Bessert <bess...@aol.com> wrote:
> >While I still loathe their actions, I'm almost starting to see where
> >the good ol' "Bullis Kook Crew" (or whatever we ended up calling them)
> >was coming from. Funny thing is even without being able to substantiate
> >the accusations they kept making, Richard is STILL a handful with all
> >of the crap he throws around here. And then the insults (followed by
> >sheer silence) once you try to prove him wrong. Priceless...
>
> That's why My Killfile Is My Friend.
Kill files are for people with thin skins.
I don't even know how to killfile a given poster and don't want
to know. Besides some of the people that would be considered
killfile fodder make reading USNET that much more amusing and
educational.
Chris Bessert
>
> Kill files are for people with thin skins.
Allow me to offer a different slant. Killfiles can be useful to block
those who offer nothing of value and end up actually becoming a waste
of your time. I value my time and I don't really need to waste it on
someone who's hell-bent on telling me I'm a "homo" every time I turn
around. So, people like that I killfile. Now, folks like Tim Brown &
some of the other occasional trolls on m.t.r *can* be amusing, so I
don't killfile them.
> I don't even know how to killfile a given poster and don't want
> to know. Besides some of the people that would be considered
> killfile fodder make reading USNET that much more amusing and
> educational.
Agreed, but to a point. As noted above, there are always those extreme
cases where the amusement wears off and all you have is some low-life
calling you childish names. That's time for a killfile...
.Obsidian.
"Richard" <Anon...@127.001> wrote in message
> ta bu shi da yu wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > Sorry for replying late. I only discovered this issue was happening when
> > I read a comment on Kuro5hin.org That information on our copyright
> > violation procedure is incorrect. We have a procedure for removing
> > copyright violations from the database. The procedure is as follows:
>
> If you'll kindly note, on the page in question, there is a source
identifier
> at the bottom.
> Mr. Cahal is upset that someone dare to export his "work" to another site
> without his knowledge or consent.
> Quite frankly, the information presented is public domain, IMHO, and can
be
> found from other sources outside of Mr. Cahal's site.
> Mr. Cahal beleives he is God and everyone should kneel to him.
> While at the same time, he goes around the internet looking for stuff to
> steal and use on his own site.
Well Hello clarice
Hey St00pid you keep spelling *Cabal* incorrectly in the above diatribe.
(Tinc)
Now let's talk about copyright and web pages shall we ?
/Obsidian
.Obsidian.
"Chris Bessert" <bess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:crc5e1$90h$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > If you'll kindly note, on the page in question, there is a source
identifier
> > at the bottom.
> > Mr. Cahal is upset that someone dare to export his "work" to another
site
> > without his knowledge or consent.
>
> Also known as "plagarism" and "copyright violation," which is against
> the law here on Planet Earth, Richard.
>
> > Quite frankly, the information presented is public domain, IMHO, and can
be
> > found from other sources outside of Mr. Cahal's site.
>
> Please, quit while you're so far behind none of us can even still see
> you in our rear-view mirrors. Do I need to use all-caps so that you
> will understand? (I feel like I'm arguing with a deaf man, here.)
>
> NO ONE IS CLAIMING COPYRIGHT TO **INFORMATION**, DUMBASS. YOU CAN'T DO
> THAT, WHETHER IT BE IN THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN" OR NOT.
>
> As we've stated here several times -- and why you haven't gotten it
> yet is beyond me -- is that people are pissed that THEIR OWN COPYRIGHT-
> ABLE WORDS are being plagarized and put on other websites without their
> consent. That is called "copyright violation."
>
> > Mr. Cahal beleives he is God and everyone should kneel to him.
>
> You must be dense, Richard.
You do not know the half of it. Richard The Stupid has an extensive usenet
history
He is clooless beyond comparison, clooless excelsior and as for his other
predilictions.....
/Obsidian
.Obsidian.
"Richard" <Anon...@127.001> wrote in message
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> Oh yeah. Now hire a lawyer and sue the damn bastard over intellectual
> property rights.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
breath
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this like you studying up on law in sydney so you could SUUUUEEEE me over
my webiste
that mirrored your FAQ.
How are you St00pid. Time fer you to dance
Why are you *so* stupid, st00pid.
/Marcvs
.Obsidian.
"Ben Prusia" <spam-k...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9yhCd.183609$T02.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
In line . Please to be made more aware of Richard the Stupid (RtS) acts on
usenet
> I am always amused by how the infamous Richard always hides behind the
> Anonymous Remailer. His takes on the copyright laws are something to
laugh
> about. Apparently, a post-secondary institution learning experience is
> something that Richard has never had, unlike most of the people on this
> newsgroup.
He was in the 'services' dont ya know
> A picture that you take with your camera, or a picture that you make in
> Photoshop or something similar is automatically secured copyright under
the
> person or company that was involved in the creation or the taking of
> pictures. There could be over 5,000 pictures of the New York Skyline,
each
> one might possess same qualities and differences, but the copyrights of
the
> pictures belongs to each of the photographers. Each photographer took the
> time to get out to an area and take a picture of a subject, with that
effort
> and their picture, they are given a copyright of their image
automatically.
> Everybody on MTR can go get a picture of the END US-1 sign in Key West,
> Florida, everybody would have THEIR OWN copyright to THEIR picture. Just
> because something is out in the view of the public, like a Bridge, or a
Road
> Sign, it DOES NOT mean that somebody can go steal a picture that I took of
> it because it is in your mind, "Public Domain". The sign may be in your
> mind, "Public Domain", but the picture of it that somebody took IS NOT.
Ok, here it is. Richard Bullis aka unkown aka cenkoc and many other things
Is known to admit that he has
A: downloaded child pornography
B: posted things about oral sex with children
Has been mirrored globally about these admissions
Loves to threaten to suuueeee people.
He is a Kook and has been widley slapped as such over _many_ years
and that is just a little treatise.
Honestly Ben there is no point
St00pid is clooless. he absorbs cloo's into a clooless zone not understood
by mankind or aliens (because it is without cloo)
Welcome to the world of RtS (Richard the st00pid)
/Marcvs
.Obsidian.
"John R Cambron" <*camb...@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
news:10tkfqg...@corp.supernews.com...
> This thread on copyright violation has to be one of the most
> educational as wells a amusing exchanges of word smithing I
> have seen on USNET in the many years I have read the groups
> I normally visit.
>
> Some one here need to archive this and publish it to the web
> for all to see !!
Really. John are you up for mirroring some content ?
I hace an most excellent idea that could make RtS Squeal
> Mind you with correct sightation of all participants.
As always
petitmorte.com
lart.com
plonk.com
insurgent.org
crank.net
<please to be adding>
/marcvs
John R Cambron
Chris Bessert wrote:
>
> John R Cambron wrote:
> >
> > Kill files are for people with thin skins.
>
> Allow me to offer a different slant. Killfiles can be useful to block
> those who offer nothing of value and end up actually becoming a waste
> of your time. I value my time and I don't really need to waste it on
> someone who's hell-bent on telling me I'm a "homo" every time I turn
> around. So, people like that I killfile. Now, folks like Tim Brown &
> some of the other occasional trolls on m.t.r *can* be amusing, so I
> don't killfile them.
>
> > I don't even know how to killfile a given poster and don't want
> > to know. Besides some of the people that would be considered
> > killfile fodder make reading USNET that much more amusing and
> > educational.
>
> Agreed, but to a point. As noted above, there are always those extreme
> cases where the amusement wears off and all you have is some low-life
> calling you childish names. That's time for a killfile...
Slant acknowledged, However that still doesn't change my belief
that kill files are for people with thin skins. On can still
move on without the censoring crutch of a kill file.
John R Cambron
I vaguely recall seeing a web site that was wholly dedicated to
the USNET exploited of Richard Bullis aka Richard the St00pid.
This thread would be a good candidate to be added to that site.
Arif Khokar
> Slant acknowledged, However that still doesn't change my belief
> that kill files are for people with thin skins. On can still
> move on without the censoring crutch of a kill file.
There are people who overuse their killfile and are compelled to tell
everyone about it (to the point of saying that this person is killfiled
by the majoirity of the group). In my case, outside of the a.u.k trash
+ Richard posts, I have only killfiled 2 people in this group. I don't
feel that that means I'm using it, as you put it, a crutch because I'm
"thin skinned."
Brad Bishop
"Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:P%cDd.2673$Lk5...@news01.roc.ny...
I've kill-filed maybe 3 people in 13 years of using Usenet. They got
kill-filed based on the useless garbage they spit out on a consistent basis
to the point where I thought, "I no longer will sift through their nonsense
trying to find useful information." That's all it comes down to to me. I
don't announce it, though - I just do it. Why would anyone else care? Let
them decide on their own.
Brad
.Obsidian.
I used to host one of these said mirrors and may yet do so again if the mood
takes me
/Obsidian