| 55 acre property north of the Lutheran church |
.... However I understand the 55 acre property,
which is currently accepting sealed bids (you may have seen the sign
next to the Lutheran church advertising for same), does boast of having
Caltrans approval for an entry to the highway for 55 acres of property
zoned for commercial and residential development. ...." Read article.
Related -Pacifica Riptide article, "Rockaway Hillside on the Auction Block", 10/15/2009, includes a land area map outline. Note: Photograph from this article. Posted by Kathy Meeh
105 comments:
Is this the best the eco-nuts can come up with?
Hahahahahahhahahaha.
Kathy I was never asked nor did I ever give you permission to reproduce my Letter to the Editor here on this blog. It goes without saying your added edits, captions and photo's are nothing more than careless hot glueing of your own rubbish onto something you have to my understanding stolen is habitual, as habitual as your incomprehension of right from wrong.
you don't have my permission to post the bove LTE nor do you have my permission to decorate it. Please emove this item from Fixpacifica.
if you really want to add it to you blog you can ask me.
"...I never give you permission to reproduce my Letter to the Editor..." Todd Bray, 12:32 AM
Nope, your Letter to the Editor is public information period.
You say, "I don't know right from wrong?" Who are you trying to kid. That may be your problem, not mine. And Why would I want to ask you "anything" since your "attitude" is all over this blog, Riptide and the Tribune-- all public.
What we have here is your irrational inability to compromise on anything development. Further, you and your friends have destroyed the economic balance in this city, and its beyond time to fix what is possible of that deficiency.
is Scootercon a secret Dramanon? Talk about drama!
I predict that he'll call Kathy a nazi.
Or his stupid brownshirt BS
can Bray cite case law that says his Letter to the Editor, once published, is copyright protected?
ze proof! ve vant ze proof!!
Who retains legal copyright of a letter to the editor? Did the writer of the LTE in question cede his copyright to the Tribune when he submitted his LTE? Lots of certainty in the comments here on both sides of this question and I'm curious. What I find on line seems to indicate permission has to be granted from whomever holds the copyright before the letter can be reproduced by anyone (possible copyright owners here are the letter writer and the Tribune), but if that is the law, from whom was permission granted? Is there a loophole? Anybody know?
I'd like to avoid all drama and snarkiness and just ask a question about reposting a LTE and copyright infringement. From info on-line it would seem that the letter-writer retains copyright over the letter unless it is ceded by agreement to the publisher, in this case the Tribune, who then permits the reposting. Am I mistaken, are we in a gray area, or, is there a loophole? The LTE would seem to be copyrighted material. Who ceded the copyright to Fix Pacifica?
Online on Pacifica's local blog's I see many questions left unanswered. People question Todd Bray, when he states Caltrans plan for Highway 1 is flawed. I have yet to understand why Mr. Bray, claims the plan to be flawed. He is asked this question multiple times and refuses to bring any facts or truths to his claims.
This is coming from the person who was removed as a Planning Commissioner for making inappropriate comments. He seems to have a personal vendetta against city staff. This comes from the person who calls our City Manager overpaid and incompetent. City Employees lazy and overpaid and our brave City Police and Firemen "princess crews."
I have seen him result to calling people who disagree with him "Brownshirts" which according to Webster's definition is, a Nazi SA agent or a racist. And yet the blog masters allow this roguish behavior.
Please Mr. Bray, either come in with facts and truths to your argument or do not bother posting on the local blog's. You are slowly but surely losing what little credibility you have left.
"Copyright policy from the Pacifica Tribune", Anonymous 9:56 AM, 10:10 AM
Todd Bray did not copyright his letter to the editor. The Pacifica Tribune copyright policy has not extended to their volunteer article submissions in the past. However viewing Mercury News copyright, 2013. (a change from prior Tribune copyright), it seems there may be an issue.
Until otherwise confirmed, following federal rules, all but up to 3 paragraphs of Todd's letter to the editor may be removed. Hey, I don't mind doing that if required. Want your letter to the editor stripped to 3 paragraphs, Todd?
So thievery and plagiarism is your "thing."
Kathy I was never asked nor did I ever give you permission to reproduce my Letter to the Editor here on this blog. It goes without saying your added edits, captions and photo's are nothing more than careless hot glueing of your own rubbish onto something you have, to my understanding stolen, is habitual; as habitual as your incomprehension of right from wrong.
You don't have my permission to post the above LTE nor do you have my permission to decorate it. Please remove my LTE from Fixpacifica.
If you really want to add it to you blog you can ask me and we can discuss it. Until then you are a thief to me, and a plagiarist.
Kathy, thanks for response to my two posts re copyright law and Todd's LTE. Second post was simply clarification of where I was coming from on this. I can appreciate that copyright law and it's application is complicated by the internet and would evolve over time. The link to the Mercury Copyright policy is very helpful. Easy enough to link to, but a reprint here(if we don't run a foul of you know what)would be even better and would explain your rationale and subsequent offer to Todd for an update. Thank you, again.
what kind of person attacks everyone he can, then doesn't want his public statements to remain public??
@1112 Oh, probably an opinionated person who's aware of his legal rights. Bummer, I know. Look it as a learning opportunity.
1112 Anon, you've jumped to one too many self-serving conclusions. Bray's objection clearly is to the reprinting and amendment of his LTE, here, on Fix Pacifica, without his permission. Whether we agree with his letter or not, he still has the right to control it's use.
12:03 are you an attorney?
Or do you just play one online?
"...plagiarism..." Wrong word, Todd, 11:00 AM.
No problem, Todd. Your exact words were always quoted in full as stated by you. That's what we do in giving credit to the author. Your Letter to the Editor included my redundant quotation marks, and was linked to the Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor section.
Since you object to reprinting your own Letter to the Editor (your words, your view, your attitude), I have shortened the text to 3 paragraphs, complying with federal copyright standards, (the additional last 2 paragraphs are linked). Framing of the article is my choice, but I do try to capture the essence of the article, the trend, and author intent-- and the pro-economy, pro-economic development view of this blog.
@1242 Yes. And 1145 is a psychiatrist. And 1112 is our secret weapon. We put him out there so the Nimbys will underestimate us.
Hey Todd, I think Fix can repost your LTE but should only use small section of it. Snippets.
"We put him out there so the Nimbys will underestimate us." I don't think you can be underestimated.
Woowee! Make room in the barn. We got ourselves another secret weapon.
For 138 Well then it's mission accomplished! Those Nimbys never knew what hit 'em and we're just getting started.
Not only must this site abide by Title 18 restictions, the various Blogger sites (which Fix Pacifica is one) must abide by Google's terms of use.
If you find ANY portion of your articles, letters or comments reprinted here without your permission, fill out a DMCA takedown notice here:
https://support.google.com/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_dmca&product=blogger
Google WILL have the material removed and the post taken down, though it may take a day or two.
Despite claims to the contrary, Fix Pacifica does not have the right to reprint anyone's articles or letters to the editor without the creators' express permission.
Todd, I encourage you to file the DMCA notice and don't let the operators of this site continue to steal material ESPECIALLY WHEN the creator has asked that it be removed.
This will count as a "strike" against the site and enough of them will result in the site being shut down. Maybe that will be what it takes to get the operators to pay attention and stop stealing everyone's work to repost here.
Anonymous 5/26/13, 6:30 PM, I think you are referring to Title 17, rather than Title 18. The Mercury News 2013 copyright policy is linked in my comment 5/26/13, 11:00 AM.
Federal copyright rules allow up to 3 paragraphs to be reproduced; Mercury News calls that "a couple of paragraphs". The copyright is with Mercury News, rather than the author. Google refers to "creative work"; is a public opinion Letter to the Editor a "creative work"?
I don't like removing comments from Todd's article because 1) he did the research, 2) meaning is lost, and 3) most of you don't do a good job reading or opening links.
Whether there is a CalTrans gap in providing access to the 55 acre property is an interesting issue. However, NIMBY intent is pretty much understood. Todd also represents that view, and their strategy in this city has been brilliant.
Kathy, if you want to provide a direct link to the Pacifica Tribunes LTE page that is swell. However you do not have my permission to use my LTE as a lead in. Now you are cheating as well as stealing and plagiarizing my LTE.
Gee Todd (9:22 AM), you haven't figured-out there are two direct links to the Pacifica Tribune on the article? Boo hoo, bully man. Try "click".
With your public opinion statements, you think I give a damned about "your permission" to quote you? How does it work, you can "sign your name" to what you say, but you don't want others to see what you say.
The Merriam-Webster definition of the word "plagiarize" is "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source." Wrong word, Todd. Your comments and the source have been carefully referenced, linked, and quoted by me.
I don't plagiarize, not my thing, not me and didn't happen. So that makes you not only a bully, but maybe it also makes you a liar (again).
"comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants"
Check
"comments that degenerate into 2) incomprehensible gibberish"
Check
"comments that degenerate into 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls"
Check
Haven't we been through this already? If you put your letter out for public consumption it maybe reprinted elsewhere. Fix Pacifica is not making a profit on it or claiming it's their words.
What does anyone have to fear though?
Wrong-o, Hutch. The writer of a letter to the editor owns the copyright for that letter. Google it.
"The writer of a letter to the editor owns the copyright." Anonymous 10:27 PM. Really???
Sorry, but your opinion comment is WRONG! Here's the link to Mercury News 2013 copyright, and the focus of that text:
"The federal Copyright Act protects our rights and our readers' rights to make fair use of copyrighted content. The law allows people to quote a small amount of a copyrighted story so as to be able to comment on it, perhaps even to criticize us. That's the essence of free speech in a vigorous democracy.
But fair use of our content means reproducing a couple of paragraphs or a summary of a story and then providing a web link to the entire work on our website."
The copyright belongs to the newspaper, "fair use" and "readership protection rights apply". "Readership protection" includes the right to criticize. Don't you just love the right to criticize the printed work?
Hence, does the author (who holds no personal copyright) have the right to withdraw his text from the newspaper copyright source and "readership protection" after it has been printed? No.
BFD some crybaby complains cause you posted his LTE. You post alot of LTE's and never ask the person first.
Cry me a river.
Wrong-o, Kathy. The Mercury News link only states their policy about reproducing their copyrighted material. It does not speak to the point of who owns the copyright for a letter to the editor. The writer of the letter does. It's the law. By sending a letter to the editor, you are giving the newspaper permission to publish it.
Kathy, regardless of your opinion of right or wrong I've clearly stated you have not asked for nor received my permission to reproduce my LTE in any way.
Please remove it from your blog. If you continue to play the fool you are really nothing but a plagiarizing, lying, stealing child who has no respect for anyones feelings but her own.
No Anonymous 7:35 AM, the language of the Mercury News 2013 general copyright is clear. And unless you PROVE otherwise, here's how that works.
1. You give the Mercury News (now including the Pacifica Tribune) your permission to post your Letter to the Editor.
2. Your Letter follows their (Mercury News) general copyright rules (which also complies with Federal copyright rules).
3. Thus, for copyright purposes your Letter is treated the same as Staff Writer articles.
4. Following these copyright rules, once printed, individual newspaper writers and the newspaper, under "fair usage" conditions, do not have the right or authority to resend reproduction of their articles, and that includes Letters to the Editor.
Ultimately, the general copyright rules, as stated by Mercury News (following federal guidelines), are a really simple concept to understand. Re-read the Pacifica Tribune/Mercury News Copyright Policy.
Want an individual "original work of authorship" copyright filing? Try the US Copyright Office, $35 and some paperwork should do it.
questions?
Why does Bray, think he is above every other person in Pacifica?
How long before he turns to name calling cause he didn't get his way?
Everyone's a lawyer.
From what I can tell, Todd still holds the copyright to his letter, but we're allowed to reproduce snippets of it to comment on.
He does have a point in that we shouldn't be surrounding it with headers, footers and pictures meant to mock it. We won't be doing that in the future.
Todd, your "free speech" protest has resulted in a fresh, update look at 2013 Mercury News copyright policy. And that's a good thing.
Again, your protest has an illogical ring to it. Follow-up statements have been made. And for the sake of dialog and discovery, the article appears to be copyright compliant (according to 2013 Mercury News general copyright rules) and should stand.
BTW, your continued protest language directed at me is false, and gross. It makes me wonder if there is something structurally incorrect in your article research, (although I have no further consideration about that at this time). From a NIMBY standpoint, you'd think you'd be proud of your research, and desire to spread the word (including here where you post comments frequently). Cheer up, maybe go surfing or something.
"Todd still holds the copyright to his letter.."Steve Sinai, 9:53 AM. Really???
Then you need to prove that, Steve. Again, Todd has no individual copyright on the Letter to the Editor he submitted to Mercury News/Pacifica Tribune. And 2013 Mercury News general copyright policy is clearly stated.
BTW, the blog article re-title (titled by me) is more descriptive than Todd's LTE title "Highway Widening". The photographs and captions you are criticizing, speak to Todd's apparent NIMBY intent. After all, Todd's Letter to the Editor suggests 1) CalTrans withheld public information, 2) that the 55 acre private property access is not included in the DEIR. 3) Todd questions whether the FEIR will "purposely leave out this growth-inducing impact". 4) He suggests that "the consultant CalTrans favored" might have "included a stop light in the middle of the highway." (Note: these quotations are slightly paraphrased).
So, just how much consideration does such a potentially litigious, mocking articles deserve? As a "fixing Pacifica" advocacy, why would a blog named "Fix Pacifica" be placating the NIMBY overlay in this city? And FMV the article artistic photograph framing with captions were fair, and speak to a long history of NIMBISM which plagues this city. Otherwise, why not include a "Fix Pacifica" subtitle, "Riptide II, lite"?
Fix Pacifica is similar to a news source. If Ted Kaczynski writes a letter to one newspaper (and he did) the other papers and media have a right to reprint it as news (and they did.) Once a letter is sent in for public consumption(as witha dear Santa letter) it is in the public domain and is not subject to copyright law. By sending in a LTE you are saying "I want as many people to see this as possible."
Letters to the Editor: Who owns the property rights?
From "The Economist" Magazine -
Can I reproduce the "Letters to the Editor"?
No, all "Letters to the Editor" remain the copyright of the letter writer and therefore we cannot grant permission to reproduce them.
I believe The Fair Use clause allows reproduction for "criticism, comment, news reporting"
This is what protects news agencies from being sued.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
There was no monetary loss by the writer. Fix Pacifica made no profit.
"So, just how much consideration does such a potentially litigious, mocking articles deserve?"
Dammit Kathy, one of the reasons this blog got started was because Riptide was editing comments and changing the intended message.
You're doing the same thing by surrounding people's writing with your own comments and pictures.
I'll admit that I used to do the same thing, but I stopped when people started complaining that I was changing the tone of their intended message. They had a point.
Confine your Letter to the Editor comments to the comments section.
"This is what protects news agencies from being sued.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html"
Hutch, I was looking at the link, and it kept saying you could reproduce portions and excerpts for various purposes, not the whole thing.
I have watched many episodes of "Matlock," you know.
Numerous posters on here have told Kathy she is in error about this LTE issue, asked her leading questions to point out the pitfalls...all a waste of time when someone has completely lost the ability to be objective. Beyond that, there is just something wrong about butchering and distorting an article simply because you're in a position to do so. It's the weapon you reach for when you're either unable or unwilling to argue your position.
The Economist is good enough for me, particularly because the situation they speak to is the very same one we're arguing over. Not kinda, not similar, but the same exact issue.
Mr. Lawyer, when you send in an LTE to a publication, you are allowing that publication to publish it. That's it. Serial publication of the Uni-bomber letter may have been court-ordered in the interest of capture and public safety, or occurred after his arrest. Apples and oranges.
Dammit Kathy, one of the reasons this blog got started was because Riptide was editing comments and changing the intended message.
Sinai, you edit and remove comments every day.
Pot Kettle Black!
Good on you Sinai. Take the high road.
"Sinai, you edit and remove comments every day."
I remove comments that violate the submission and comment policy at the upper left. (Like yours often do.)
I don't edit comments. They either get published as is, or they don't get published at all.
Steve, the quote I used was from Mercury News, 2013 (the Pacifica Tribune policy). Hutch has the Federal government link. I don't have time to follow-up with Mercury News copyright section today, but may do so sometime this week.
Editing personal blogger comments is not the same thing as an editorial comment about an article in text, picture and/or caption. And if I don't post pictures of my choosing who will, you? Or shall there be no pictures what so ever?
How dull, don't think I want to play.
Kathy, if you want to post articles and add your own pictures, that's fine. I do that. Just don't do it with letters to the editor.
Time to review the mission statement?
Dammit Kathy, one of the reasons this blog got started was because Riptide was editing comments and changing the intended message.
I remove comments that violate the submission and comment policy at the upper left. (Like yours often do.)
Same thing as Riptide, If Sinai, doesn't agree with the post it never gets published.
Pot kettle black
Right, like I agree with all the comments that get posted here.
There never was a mission statement, which may be part of the problem. Everyone has different ideas of what the blog should be about.
Anyone who has actually read Fix and Riptide knows they're very different in content and style. It's like a scoop of perfectly good plain vanilla next to a scoop of tutti frutti piled high with every topping available at Cold Stone. Heavy on the nuts. Fix is messier, but way more interesting.
Kathy and others seem to have a hard time understanding that who owns the copyright to a LTE is a different issue from the rights to reproduce the letter. The letter writer owns the copyright. The Mercury News policy does not state that the newspaper owns the copyright to the letter; instead it's about fair use. They say you can quote a small amount of a copyrighted story but you must also provide a web link to the entire work on their website. Repeatedly citing the Mercury News policy as evidence that the letter writer does not own the copyright is a non sequitur.
Yeah, well Anonymous 2:46 PM, if an individual does not file for a federal copyright on their own opinion LTE or article, what copyright do they have? Clue, none. Again, the news source has the general copyright, not the individual.
But go ahead, explain to me how a person with no copyright has a copyright. This could be very interesting.
Amen 246. The subtleties are often overlooked when we lose our objectivity. Happens to me all the time.
Less heat, more light makes for a better argument.
@246 never any question for me about who held the copyright on a LTE, but please clarify...the Merc cites Fair Use as allowing use of small part of a copyrighted story, so,is a LTE a copyrighted story for our purposes? I just want to understand this and I think you are correct. Thanks.
hey 246 you mean some folk can't identify the real issue in the problem? same reason most people fail the bar exam.
Once again...
From "The Economist" Magazine -
Can I reproduce the "Letters to the Editor"?
No, all "Letters to the Editor" remain the copyright of the letter writer and therefore we cannot grant permission to reproduce them.
Many things get automatic copyright protection. You don't have to register. Software gets automatic copyright protection, and it looks like letters to the editor do, too.
Sinai, no mission statement explains it. you have a vacuum. it's very noticeable post-election. nature abhors a vacuum. posters fill it with whatever is on their minds. imposing order at this point is a lot like trying to herd cats. just when they're all in the same room...
couldn't be any clearer as to who owns the copyright on a LTE
Sorry if my link didn't work.
These 4 criteria for fair use is from the US Copyright Office.
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Hutch, the following was from the web page you provided a link to -
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; ..."
Please notice terms like "quotation of excerpts," "quotation of short passages," and "summary of an address or article, with brief quotations".
It keeps saying that you can only use portions of the work, not the whole work.
So it doesn't matter who holds the copyright if it is exempted under Fair Use section 107.
It looks like Fix Pacifica met all 4 factors. Todd's letter had no commercial value. The nature of the work was not commercial. The entire letter was not reproduced. And reproducing had no effect on "potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
Fair Use is the same thing that allows SNL to parody copyrighted works. So Kathy's comments are legal.
Didn't Kathy use 3/5ths of the LTE? She said 3 of 5 paragraphs. That's hardly a snippet or small amount. They're talking about a phrase or perhaps a sentence or two, not the bulk of the letter.
Re #2 nature of the copyrighted work. Is a LTE even subject to Fair Use? Or does Fair Use apply to "articles"? Are these terms, LTE and article, interchangeable re Fair Use?
KAthy said, "if an individual does not file for a federal copyright on their own opinion LTE or article, what copyright do they have? Clue, none. Again, the news source has the general copyright, not the individual.
But go ahead, explain to me how a person with no copyright has a copyright. This could be very interesting."
The author of any written work has the copyright to that work, unless and until it has been assigned to another entity. There is no need to file for a copyright. That is how "a person with no copyright has a copyright." Not very interesting. Just fact.
You can sue for anything but what would Todd's loss be? His letter has no value. I guess he could claim you damaged his reputation. But with all his nazi accusations he doesn't have much to lose.
I doubt you need to seriously worry about this.
SNL doesn't parody LTEs.
Anon@3:51,
Originally, Todd's whole letter was reproduced, and that was part of the problem. Now only a bit of the letter is reproduced, and Kathy linked to the page with the rest of his letter. Legally, that seems fine to me.
I guess this is an example of why we have Judges.
Anon 406 said: SNL doesn't parody LTEs.
But they could under the law
No, I don't think so. I don't buy the bootstrapped analysis at 351 based on 331. IMHO 246 takes the class honors for bringing real light to the issue and even then I think the answer could possibly be narrowed for LTEs, specifically. That's just my opinion. I'm sure all the Fix legal scholars will be working on this. And hot damn! No name calling today, verdad?--although it's only 525PM.
So the NIMBY's are mad that they're losing and wont let us play with their toys. No wonder he wont let you use his letter. They lost their enviro council. Are losing the Caltrans fight. Losing seats on the planning commish. And the open space committee is at risk. The tides have turned.
Yeah. It'll take years to possibly start a revenue stream the city can count on. Meanwhile, the real good news for Pacifica is that the State of CA has a huge surplus. Handouts should start up again, soon. This council knows where to get in line.
Kathy, Steve, does fixpacifica earn any kind of revenue? Any kind at all... even a dollar?
Not a cent, Todd.
Todd, is looking to sue!
Todd is busy building a case against Fix Pacifica, same as he is against CalTrans high widening, and advising a developer to stay away from building the quarry, etc. What would the NIMBIES do without him, he's a jewel.
But as Hutch said, "no money, no case", the community service to "fix Pacifica" is free, as is speech (including protest and satire) within copyright guidelines.
Maybe the judge will award him ownership of Fix Pacifica.
Will HLN televise the trial?
I wouldn't answer any more of Todd's questions or talk to him about this further. Let him waste his money on an attorney. The hippies and NIMBY's see Fix Pacifica as the enemy that has helped to take away their power. Shutting it down would be a strike against pro development.
^^^ my comment, 10:20 AM correction.
"Highway widening", rather than "high" widening. (Sorry, I must have unconsciously thought Todd was smoking something).
Any lawyer is going to tell Todd it's not worth fighting. Fix Pacifica is non profit and takes in zero money. Todd lost nothing by them posting a letter that he had already put out for free public consumption and anyone can see on the Tribune and Riptide sites. And Fix Pacifica was probably allowed to post the piece under Fair Use anyway. At the most they would get a slap on the hand for posting the entire story at first, but they even corrected that error.
The trial of the century.
You people are assuming NIMBYs are rational.
In any event, if Fix Pacifica was shut down someone would start a similar blog 10 minutes later.
I expect a couple surprise last minute witnesses.
The rumble in the jungle has nothing on this.
Meeh and Bray on Judge Judy!
Results in advance of Todd's 11/21 LTE reprint lawsuit, Anonymous 11:31 AM: Frivolous lawsuit thrown out, counter lawsuit prevails.
First clue, Informs website. Plagiarism? No. Personal copyright filing? No. Compliance with 2013 Mercury News copyright? Yes. Track record of abusive comments and claims from plaintiff? Yes. Counter lawsuit? Definitely.
If the lawsuit goes to Judge Judy, plaintiff is humulated, but sales of his paintings increase (NIMBY discount of course). Meantime Matlock, now a tech guru, builds a new website, with referral from the old website. Win, win.
Vincent "Vinny" Gambini, will represent Fix Pacifica.
^^^ my comment, 12:19 PM correction.
"5/21/13 LTE reprint", rather than "11/21 LTE reprint". (Sorry again, probably distracted by the inconsequential merit of the would be "plaintiff's" evidence, zzzzzz).
So Fix can't be sued because it makes no money. Gotta love the irony!
Will Kathy need a legal defense fund set-up? I wanna contribute.
Kathy
Shouldn't you be preparing your defense for the trial of the century?
Ha, ye all are like a kitten with a ball of twine. I've asked Kathy and Steve to be a good neighbor and remove my LTE. They have chosen not to be good neighbors. End of story.
Kathy and Steve are truly nasty thieving plagiarists, nothing more nothing less. End of story.
Bray, does this mean you will take your toys and leave.
Never to post ever again?
"..nasty thieving plagiarists.", Todd Bray, 2:11 PM
You keep saying the same thing Todd, by now you must have deluded yourself into believing it. So, describe what "plagiarism" you think you are referring to. Here's that good reference again: Informs Guidelines for Copyright & Plagiarism.
Oh geez Bray, have a heart. You know exactly what you just provoked with that accusation of plagiarism. There are innocent bystanders on here. You know, people who don't see you as the Great Satan.
"I've asked Kathy and Steve to be a good neighbor and remove my LTE"
What are we? State Farm?
Nah, with Kathy it's more like Progressive and Flo.
Do we get a special referee. Wrestlemania always had a special guest referee.
Maybe?
Hulk Hogan?
Rowdy Roddy Piper?
I like the mayhem guy better. I think that is Allstate.
I'm going to end the comments for this one.
Post a Comment