Mountain Bikers Really HATE Hearing the Truth!

[Mike Vandeman]

Careful! Mountain bikers really HATE hearing the truth....

Mike


From: Linda <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:31:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers

I find it counterproductive that some members here seem to participate
in
the very "attitude poisoning" you're talking about in regards to the
hikers
and wilderness preservationists. To me, spewing such nastiness makes
me
leery of joining any advocacy efforts if those are the attitudes of
the primary representatives.

On 11/16/06, art bbtc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
> due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
> why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak)<<
>
> Yes, Harvey accomplished a lot in regards to preservation and trails
> and I'll give him some credit for that. But, think how much more he
> could have accomplished if instead of alienating other user groups
> with his selfish and hateful agenda he had sought to work together.
>
> We (BBTC) spent the 80's trying to stem the loss of trail access; we
> spent the 90's trying to stay even and rebuild our image; we've spent
> most of this decade struggling to build new trail.
>
> What if Harvey had acknowledged that this new user group was just as
> passionate as he to preserve nature and given us a hand up rather than
> demonizing us with his endless vitriolic diatribes?
>
> How much more could user groups have worked together without his
> attitude poisoning the spirit of cooperation? How many more encounters
> on the trails would have been pleasant interactions instead of a
> scowl? And how many more trails would be enabling the next generation
> of mountain bikers to develop a love for our mountains and trees and a
> passion to preserve that experience.
>
> Yes Harvey accomplished a lot, but when a full accounting is made he
> comes up way short.
>
> -Art
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Andy H]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Careful! Mountain bikers really HATE hearing the truth....
>
> Mike
>
>
> From: Linda <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:31:57 -0800
> Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers
>
> I find it counterproductive that some members here seem to participate
> in
> the very "attitude poisoning" you're talking about in regards to the
> hikers
> and wilderness preservationists. To me, spewing such nastiness makes
> me
> leery of joining any advocacy efforts if those are the attitudes of
> the primary representatives.
>
> On 11/16/06, art bbtc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
>> due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
>> why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak)<<
>>
>> Yes, Harvey accomplished a lot in regards to preservation and trails
>> and I'll give him some credit for that. But, think how much more he
>> could have accomplished if instead of alienating other user groups
>> with his selfish and hateful agenda he had sought to work together.
>>
>> We (BBTC) spent the 80's trying to stem the loss of trail access; we
>> spent the 90's trying to stay even and rebuild our image; we've spent
>> most of this decade struggling to build new trail.
>>
>> What if Harvey had acknowledged that this new user group was just as
>> passionate as he to preserve nature and given us a hand up rather than
>> demonizing us with his endless vitriolic diatribes?
>>
>> How much more could user groups have worked together without his
>> attitude poisoning the spirit of cooperation? How many more encounters
>> on the trails would have been pleasant interactions instead of a
>> scowl? And how many more trails would be enabling the next generation
>> of mountain bikers to develop a love for our mountains and trees and a
>> passion to preserve that experience.
>>
>> Yes Harvey accomplished a lot, but when a full accounting is made he
>> comes up way short.
>>
>> -Art
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Linda seems to be talking about YOU.

"attitude poisoning" - Check
"spewing nastiness" - Check

IT IS you she's talking about. Foot, shot I think.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:43:07 GMT, "Andy H" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Careful! Mountain bikers really HATE hearing the truth....
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> From: Linda <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:31:57 -0800
>> Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers
>>
>> I find it counterproductive that some members here seem to participate
>> in
>> the very "attitude poisoning" you're talking about in regards to the
>> hikers
>> and wilderness preservationists. To me, spewing such nastiness makes
>> me
>> leery of joining any advocacy efforts if those are the attitudes of
>> the primary representatives.
>>
>> On 11/16/06, art bbtc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
>>> due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
>>> why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak)<<
>>>
>>> Yes, Harvey accomplished a lot in regards to preservation and trails
>>> and I'll give him some credit for that. But, think how much more he
>>> could have accomplished if instead of alienating other user groups
>>> with his selfish and hateful agenda he had sought to work together.
>>>
>>> We (BBTC) spent the 80's trying to stem the loss of trail access; we
>>> spent the 90's trying to stay even and rebuild our image; we've spent
>>> most of this decade struggling to build new trail.
>>>
>>> What if Harvey had acknowledged that this new user group was just as
>>> passionate as he to preserve nature and given us a hand up rather than
>>> demonizing us with his endless vitriolic diatribes?
>>>
>>> How much more could user groups have worked together without his
>>> attitude poisoning the spirit of cooperation? How many more encounters
>>> on the trails would have been pleasant interactions instead of a
>>> scowl? And how many more trails would be enabling the next generation
>>> of mountain bikers to develop a love for our mountains and trees and a
>>> passion to preserve that experience.
>>>
>>> Yes Harvey accomplished a lot, but when a full accounting is made he
>>> comes up way short.
>>>
>>> -Art
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
>Linda seems to be talking about YOU.
>
>"attitude poisoning" - Check
>"spewing nastiness" - Check
>
>IT IS you she's talking about. Foot, shot I think.

BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
just IS.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Andy H]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:43:07 GMT, "Andy H" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Careful! Mountain bikers really HATE hearing the truth....
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Linda <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:31:57 -0800
>>> Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers
>>>
>>> I find it counterproductive that some members here seem to participate
>>> in
>>> the very "attitude poisoning" you're talking about in regards to the
>>> hikers
>>> and wilderness preservationists. To me, spewing such nastiness makes
>>> me
>>> leery of joining any advocacy efforts if those are the attitudes of
>>> the primary representatives.
>>>
>>> On 11/16/06, art bbtc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
>>>> due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
>>>> why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak)<<
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Harvey accomplished a lot in regards to preservation and trails
>>>> and I'll give him some credit for that. But, think how much more he
>>>> could have accomplished if instead of alienating other user groups
>>>> with his selfish and hateful agenda he had sought to work together.
>>>>
>>>> We (BBTC) spent the 80's trying to stem the loss of trail access; we
>>>> spent the 90's trying to stay even and rebuild our image; we've spent
>>>> most of this decade struggling to build new trail.
>>>>
>>>> What if Harvey had acknowledged that this new user group was just as
>>>> passionate as he to preserve nature and given us a hand up rather than
>>>> demonizing us with his endless vitriolic diatribes?
>>>>
>>>> How much more could user groups have worked together without his
>>>> attitude poisoning the spirit of cooperation? How many more encounters
>>>> on the trails would have been pleasant interactions instead of a
>>>> scowl? And how many more trails would be enabling the next generation
>>>> of mountain bikers to develop a love for our mountains and trees and a
>>>> passion to preserve that experience.
>>>>
>>>> Yes Harvey accomplished a lot, but when a full accounting is made he
>>>> comes up way short.
>>>>
>>>> -Art
>>> ===
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
>>Linda seems to be talking about YOU.
>>
>>"attitude poisoning" - Check
>>"spewing nastiness" - Check
>>
>>IT IS you she's talking about. Foot, shot I think.
>
> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
> just IS.

BS yourself, you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face,
you're so full of **** and anger it makes me wonder what happened in your
past, where you abused as a child?

You seriously need therapy for that anger projection thing you got going on,
but I feel as you fade into your later years that it's probably too late for
it to do any good.


> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement below
is a LIE.

I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked ones on
your website. Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
information, you break the law in order to do so.

You're a legend in your own mind.


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
> just IS.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:50:52 GMT, "Andy H" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:43:07 GMT, "Andy H" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Careful! Mountain bikers really HATE hearing the truth....
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Linda <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:31:57 -0800
>>>> Subject: Re: Harvey Manning/Trainers
>>>>
>>>> I find it counterproductive that some members here seem to participate
>>>> in
>>>> the very "attitude poisoning" you're talking about in regards to the
>>>> hikers
>>>> and wilderness preservationists. To me, spewing such nastiness makes
>>>> me
>>>> leery of joining any advocacy efforts if those are the attitudes of
>>>> the primary representatives.
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/06, art bbtc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>Yeah the guy was gunning for mt bikers but give him the credit he is
>>>>> due. From everything I've heard and read in the past he IS the reason
>>>>> why there is a Cougar Mt (and Squak)<<
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Harvey accomplished a lot in regards to preservation and trails
>>>>> and I'll give him some credit for that. But, think how much more he
>>>>> could have accomplished if instead of alienating other user groups
>>>>> with his selfish and hateful agenda he had sought to work together.
>>>>>
>>>>> We (BBTC) spent the 80's trying to stem the loss of trail access; we
>>>>> spent the 90's trying to stay even and rebuild our image; we've spent
>>>>> most of this decade struggling to build new trail.
>>>>>
>>>>> What if Harvey had acknowledged that this new user group was just as
>>>>> passionate as he to preserve nature and given us a hand up rather than
>>>>> demonizing us with his endless vitriolic diatribes?
>>>>>
>>>>> How much more could user groups have worked together without his
>>>>> attitude poisoning the spirit of cooperation? How many more encounters
>>>>> on the trails would have been pleasant interactions instead of a
>>>>> scowl? And how many more trails would be enabling the next generation
>>>>> of mountain bikers to develop a love for our mountains and trees and a
>>>>> passion to preserve that experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes Harvey accomplished a lot, but when a full accounting is made he
>>>>> comes up way short.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Art
>>>> ===
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>
>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>>> fond of!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>
>>>Linda seems to be talking about YOU.
>>>
>>>"attitude poisoning" - Check
>>>"spewing nastiness" - Check
>>>
>>>IT IS you she's talking about. Foot, shot I think.
>>
>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>> just IS.
>
>BS yourself, you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face,
>you're so full of **** and anger it makes me wonder what happened in your
>past, where you abused as a child?
>
>You seriously need therapy for that anger projection thing you got going on,
>but I feel as you fade into your later years that it's probably too late for
>it to do any good.

Anger is the only appropriate response to the destruction of the
environment.

>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement below
>is a LIE.
>
>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked ones on
>your website.

That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
public! TOUGH!

Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>
>You're a legend in your own mind.
>
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>> just IS.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not
easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
may safely be taken without permission.
Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for
obtaining permission.
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
before using copyrighted material."


Don't skirt these questions:
- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you complied?

By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the use of
the copyrighted material is invalid.


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement
>>below
>>is a LIE.
>>
>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked ones
>>on
>>your website.
>
> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
> public! TOUGH!
>
> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>
>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>>> just IS.
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[JP]

"Andy H" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of Mikey's useless drivel snipped...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> BS yourself, you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face,
> you're so full of **** and anger it makes me wonder what happened in your
> past, where you abused as a child?

He's not full of anger Andy, he's playing you for a reaction like a kid poking a bug.
He doesn't give a **** for the environment or wildlife or he would be directing his
considerable efforts in a direction where they might actually accomplish something.
Instead he gets his jollys from annoying and namecalling.
As you've seen a reasoned response, logical, annotated, factual is a waste of time.
He's like a child making prank calls when Mommy and Daddy aren't home.
He's only interested in getting a response so he can start calling names.

>
> You seriously need therapy for that anger projection thing you got going on,
> but I feel as you fade into your later years that it's probably too late for
> it to do any good.
>


He loses when his posts get ZERO response and sit alone and ignored between other threads.
That's the only way to defeat a troll. Like Tinkerbelle, when no one believes in him anymore
he will wither and die.

If you must repond to him, please delete his stupid diatribe. It's criminal to consider
how many servers are necessary for Google to preserve his nonsense because people
duplicate his entire post to respond.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not
>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
>may safely be taken without permission.
>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for
>obtaining permission.
>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
>the work.
>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>before using copyrighted material."
>
>
>Don't skirt these questions:
>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?

I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
it.

>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you complied?

I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.

>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the use of
>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement
>>>below
>>>is a LIE.
>>>
>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked ones
>>>on
>>>your website.
>>
>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>> public! TOUGH!
>>
>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>
>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>>>> just IS.
>>>
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:43:29 GMT, "JP" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Andy H" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of Mikey's useless drivel snipped...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>> BS yourself, you wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the face,
>> you're so full of **** and anger it makes me wonder what happened in your
>> past, where you abused as a child?
>
>He's not full of anger Andy, he's playing you for a reaction like a kid poking a bug.
>He doesn't give a **** for the environment or wildlife or he would be directing his
>considerable efforts in a direction where they might actually accomplish something.
>Instead he gets his jollys from annoying and namecalling.
>As you've seen a reasoned response, logical, annotated, factual is a waste of time.
>He's like a child making prank calls when Mommy and Daddy aren't home.
>He's only interested in getting a response so he can start calling names.
>
>>
>> You seriously need therapy for that anger projection thing you got going on,
>> but I feel as you fade into your later years that it's probably too late for
>> it to do any good.
>>
>
>
>He loses when his posts get ZERO response

BS. I don't care if they get a response or not! Either way, I win,
because you guys can't refute what I say.

and sit alone and ignored between other threads.
>That's the only way to defeat a troll. Like Tinkerbelle, when no one believes in him anymore
>he will wither and die.
>
>If you must repond to him, please delete his stupid diatribe. It's criminal to consider
>how many servers are necessary for Google to preserve his nonsense because people
>duplicate his entire post to respond.
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?

> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
> it.

You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.

You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you have
not done so.

It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of your
land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that everyone
else in your country follows.

Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be infringing
on someone else's rights.

How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?


> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.

Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole the
photographs from:
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11

Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).

Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos (thebigchin).
He clearly states that he e-mailed you.

Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.

Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
hosting your site.


Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.


"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
>>not
>>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
>>may safely be taken without permission.
>>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute
>>for
>>obtaining permission.
>>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
>>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
>>the work.
>>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>>before using copyrighted material."
>>
>>
>>Don't skirt these questions:
>>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
>
> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
> it.
>
>>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you complied?
>
> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>
>>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the use of
>>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement
>>>>below
>>>>is a LIE.
>>>>
>>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked
>>>>ones
>>>>on
>>>>your website.
>>>
>>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
>>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>>> public! TOUGH!
>>>
>>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>>
>>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>>>>> just IS.
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?
>
>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>> it.
>
>You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.
>
>You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you have
>not done so.
>
>It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of your
>land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that everyone
>else in your country follows.
>
>Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
>didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be infringing
>on someone else's rights.
>
>How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
>slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?

It's not proof.

>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>
>Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole the
>photographs from:
>http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11

So PROVE who is the owner.

>Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).
>
>Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos (thebigchin).
>He clearly states that he e-mailed you.

That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.

>Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.
>
>Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
>hosting your site.
>
>
>Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.

Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
order to criticize it. QED

>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
>>>not
>>>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
>>>may safely be taken without permission.
>>>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute
>>>for
>>>obtaining permission.
>>>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
>>>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
>>>the work.
>>>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>>>before using copyrighted material."
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't skirt these questions:
>>>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
>>
>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>> it.
>>
>>>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you complied?
>>
>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>
>>>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the use of
>>>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement
>>>>>below
>>>>>is a LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked
>>>>>ones
>>>>>on
>>>>>your website.
>>>>
>>>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>>>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
>>>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>>>> public! TOUGH!
>>>>
>>>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>>>>>> just IS.
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>
>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>>> fond of!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?
>>
>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>> it.
>>
>>You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.
>>
>>You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you have
>>not done so.
>>
>>It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
>>your
>>land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
>>everyone
>>else in your country follows.
>>
>>Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
>>didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
>>infringing
>>on someone else's rights.
>>
>>How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
>>slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?
>
> It's not proof.

Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.

>
>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>
>>Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
>>the
>>photographs from:
>>http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11
>
> So PROVE who is the owner.
>
>>Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).
>>
>>Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
>>(thebigchin).
>>He clearly states that he e-mailed you.
>
> That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.
>
>>Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.
>>
>>Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
>>hosting your site.
>>
>>
>>Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.
>
> Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
> order to criticize it. QED

Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states in
that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the publication,
you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you own
personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to accomplish
this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
your thinking?

Here's a quote from a lawyer:
1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of your
pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
ignorance.

2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or anything
of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his website.


Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right to
display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
"nah nah nah nah nah" response?

>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
>>>>not
>>>>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes
>>>>that
>>>>may safely be taken without permission.
>>>>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute
>>>>for
>>>>obtaining permission.
>>>>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself;
>>>>it
>>>>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed
>>>>in
>>>>the work.
>>>>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>>>>before using copyrighted material."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't skirt these questions:
>>>>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
>>>
>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>> it.
>>>
>>>>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you complied?
>>>
>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>
>>>>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the use
>>>>of
>>>>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement
>>>>>>below
>>>>>>is a LIE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked
>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>your website.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>>>>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
>>>>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>>>>> public! TOUGH!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>>>>>>> just IS.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>> are
>>>>> fond of!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?
>>>
>>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>>> it.
>>>
>>>You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.
>>>
>>>You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you have
>>>not done so.
>>>
>>>It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
>>>your
>>>land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
>>>everyone
>>>else in your country follows.
>>>
>>>Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
>>>didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
>>>infringing
>>>on someone else's rights.
>>>
>>>How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
>>>slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?
>>
>> It's not proof.
>
>Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
>you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.
>
>>
>>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>
>>>Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
>>>the
>>>photographs from:
>>>http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11
>>
>> So PROVE who is the owner.
>>
>>>Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).
>>>
>>>Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
>>>(thebigchin).
>>>He clearly states that he e-mailed you.
>>
>> That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.
>>
>>>Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.
>>>
>>>Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
>>>hosting your site.
>>>
>>>
>>>Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.
>>
>> Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
>> order to criticize it. QED
>
>Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states in
>that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the publication,
>you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
>owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you own
>personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to accomplish
>this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
>your thinking?
>
>Here's a quote from a lawyer:
>1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
>your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of your
>pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
>Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
>ignorance.
>
>2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or anything
>of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
>context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
>would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his website.
>
>
>Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right to
>display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
>"nah nah nah nah nah" response?

It's called "fair use" in the USA.

>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news[email protected]...
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
>>>>>not
>>>>>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes
>>>>>that
>>>>>may safely be taken without permission.
>>>>>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute
>>>>>for
>>>>>obtaining permission.
>>>>>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself;
>>>>>it
>>>>>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed
>>>>>in
>>>>>the work.
>>>>>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>>>>>before using copyrighted material."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't skirt these questions:
>>>>>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you complied?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>>
>>>>>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the use
>>>>>of
>>>>>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your statement
>>>>>>>below
>>>>>>>is a LIE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked
>>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>your website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>>>>>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of the
>>>>>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>>>>>> public! TOUGH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>>>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative. It
>>>>>>>> just IS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> fond of!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>
>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>>> fond of!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Slack]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:49:10 -0800, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:


> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>


I'm going to mail you one of those prepaid phones. Place it either of your
front pockets. I'm gonna ring it, day & night, ceaselessly.
--
Slack - just to be safe

 

[di]

"Slack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:49:10 -0800, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>
>
> I'm going to mail you one of those prepaid phones. Place it either of your
> front pockets. I'm gonna ring it, day & night, ceaselessly.
> --
> Slack - just to be safe

He wouldn't loose anything he would miss, his personality has already taken
care of that.

 

[Roberto Baggio]

The only thing you keep saying is "it's called fair use". Please provide
the statute that clearly states that what you are doing is legal. You
know - a link to the law you are hiding behind, or even copy/paste the text.

Anything else you state is your opinion, which like the rest of your
opinions, is not valid.

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.
>>>>
>>>>You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you
>>>>have
>>>>not done so.
>>>>
>>>>It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
>>>>your
>>>>land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
>>>>everyone
>>>>else in your country follows.
>>>>
>>>>Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
>>>>didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
>>>>infringing
>>>>on someone else's rights.
>>>>
>>>>How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
>>>>slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?
>>>
>>> It's not proof.
>>
>>Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
>>you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.
>>
>>>
>>>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>>
>>>>Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
>>>>the
>>>>photographs from:
>>>>http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11
>>>
>>> So PROVE who is the owner.
>>>
>>>>Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).
>>>>
>>>>Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
>>>>(thebigchin).
>>>>He clearly states that he e-mailed you.
>>>
>>> That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.
>>>
>>>>Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.
>>>>
>>>>Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
>>>>hosting your site.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.
>>>
>>> Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
>>> order to criticize it. QED
>>
>>Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states in
>>that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the publication,
>>you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
>>owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you
>>own
>>personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to accomplish
>>this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
>>your thinking?
>>
>>Here's a quote from a lawyer:
>>1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
>>your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of
>>your
>>pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
>>Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
>>ignorance.
>>
>>2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or anything
>>of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
>>context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
>>would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his
>>website.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right to
>>display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
>>"nah nah nah nah nah" response?
>
> It's called "fair use" in the USA.
>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news[email protected]...
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>may safely be taken without permission.
>>>>>>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not
>>>>>>substitute
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>obtaining permission.
>>>>>>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself;
>>>>>>it
>>>>>>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>the work.
>>>>>>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>>>>>>before using copyrighted material."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't skirt these questions:
>>>>>>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you
>>>>>>complied?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the
>>>>>>use
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your
>>>>>>>>statement
>>>>>>>>below
>>>>>>>>is a LIE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked
>>>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>your website.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>>>>>>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>>>>>>> public! TOUGH!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>>>>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> just IS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> fond of!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>>
>>>>> ===
>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>> are
>>>>> fond of!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>
>>> ===
>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>
>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>> fond of!
>>>
>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:17:34 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The only thing you keep saying is "it's called fair use". Please provide
>the statute that clearly states that what you are doing is legal. You
>know - a link to the law you are hiding behind, or even copy/paste the text.

Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!

>Anything else you state is your opinion, which like the rest of your
>opinions, is not valid.
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:36:06 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:49:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Once again, you are lying, and more than once. Do you ever quit?
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>>You do not know if is copyrighted? Talk about a blatant lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>You yourself said look up the "fair use", yet it is obvious that you
>>>>>have
>>>>>not done so.
>>>>>
>>>>>It IS copyrighted because that is what the law states. Read the law of
>>>>>your
>>>>>land. Not the law that you make up in your head, but the law that
>>>>>everyone
>>>>>else in your country follows.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did you get the material? Did you take the photographs? If you
>>>>>didn't, then you have to consider that using the photos could be
>>>>>infringing
>>>>>on someone else's rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about the watermarks on the photos. Doesn't that give you even the
>>>>>slightest clue that the photographs are copyrighted?
>>>>
>>>> It's not proof.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is proof. Either you know that (in which case you are lying), or
>>>you have not read your laws with regards to copyrights and photographs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, another lie. I looked it up, and found it right where you stole
>>>>>the
>>>>>photographs from:
>>>>>http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=80573&page=11
>>>>
>>>> So PROVE who is the owner.
>>>>
>>>>>Read post #103. This is the opinion of a lawyer (LeeLau).
>>>>>
>>>>>Read post #105. The person who took one or more of the photos
>>>>>(thebigchin).
>>>>>He clearly states that he e-mailed you.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't PROVE that he is the owner.
>>>>
>>>>>Read post #108: thebigchin posts the response you sent to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>Read post #114: thebigchin states that he has e-mailed the ISP that is
>>>>>hosting your site.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like you might get a chance to show a judge how well you lie.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, protected by "fair use". I'm able to quote copyrighted work in
>>>> order to criticize it. QED
>>>
>>>Let me see. A person submits a photograph to a publication. He states in
>>>that publication that the photograph is his. Even within the publication,
>>>you can determine that it is his since the publication displays who the
>>>owner of the photograph is. But you want to use the photograph for you
>>>own
>>>personal gain, so you refute the ownership of the photograph to accomplish
>>>this goal. How convenient. Do you use this type of ill-logic in all of
>>>your thinking?
>>>
>>>Here's a quote from a lawyer:
>>>1. Your copyright on the pictures. You never gave him permission to use
>>>your pictures. He's not engaging in "fair dealing" ie saving a copy of
>>>your
>>>pictures for his own personal use; he's actually broadcasting your pics.
>>>Unlike me, you actually watermarked your pictures so he can't claim
>>>ignorance.
>>>
>>>2. Your "moral rights". This has nothing to do with morality or anything
>>>of that sort. It's your right to have your pictures shown in a certain
>>>context ie trailbuilding or trail work and not in another context. You
>>>would probably object to your pictures shown in the context of his
>>>website.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you could post the law, in full, that states you have the right to
>>>display the pictures on your webite? Or are you going to post your usual
>>>"nah nah nah nah nah" response?
>>
>> It's called "fair use" in the USA.
>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:17:10 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>may safely be taken without permission.
>>>>>>>Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not
>>>>>>>substitute
>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>obtaining permission.
>>>>>>>Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself;
>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>the work.
>>>>>>>The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
>>>>>>>before using copyrighted material."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't skirt these questions:
>>>>>>>- did you ask for permission to use the copyrighted material?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if it's copyrighted. Fair use gives me the right to use
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- has the owner asked you to remove the material, and have you
>>>>>>>complied?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea who the owner is, nor do you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the way, what is depicted is NOT unlawful; your argument for the
>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>the copyrighted material is invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:27:35 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've already proven you to be a LIAR, which means that your
>>>>>>>>>statement
>>>>>>>>>below
>>>>>>>>>is a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I see you also publish photographs illegally, like those watermarked
>>>>>>>>>ones
>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>your website.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a LIE. Look up "fair use" under copyright law. I have a right
>>>>>>>> to post copyrighted material in order to expose unlawful abuses of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> environment. So does everyone. You just don't want your abuses made
>>>>>>>> public! TOUGH!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not only do you spread lies and totally inaccurate
>>>>>>>>>information, you break the law in order to do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You're a legend in your own mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>>> BS. I just tell the truth. That's neither positive nor negative.
>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>> just IS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ===
>>>>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> fond of!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> fond of!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>
>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>>>> fond of!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Roberto Baggio]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:17:34 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The only thing you keep saying is "it's called fair use". Please provide
>>the statute that clearly states that what you are doing is legal. You
>>know - a link to the law you are hiding behind, or even copy/paste the
>>text.
>
> Have you ever heard of Google? DUH!

Have you ever heard of actually answering a question? Or do you have
something to hide?