Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
It seems you misunderstood me. I use disposable tissues in place of
'hankies'.

The idea of a piece of cloth that one uses many times to collect ever more
germs
is plain disgusting. The idea of offering it to someone else begs belief.

Surely it's better to keep your own germs to yourself on your own hanky in
your own pocket, until such time as you commit it to the washing machine,
where the nasty little buggers will be purged? You can't reinfect yourself
when you have a cold or whatever, it just runs its course.IMHO, it's dumping
your germs into the public domain where they can infect others, by way of a
'disposable' tissue, that ranks as disgusting ... :-\

Tsk. Use disposable handkerchiefs. http://tinyurl.com/3s8oo

--
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad
was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide
is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
-- Jonah Goldberg

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

It seems you misunderstood me. I use disposable tissues in place of
'hankies'.

The idea of a piece of cloth that one uses many times to collect ever more
germs is plain disgusting. The idea of offering it to someone else begs
belief.


Surely it's better to keep your own germs to yourself on your own hanky in
your own pocket, until such time as you commit it to the washing machine,
where the nasty little buggers will be purged? You can't reinfect yourself
when you have a cold or whatever, it just runs its course.IMHO, it's dumping
your germs into the public domain where they can infect others, by way of a
'disposable' tissue, that ranks as disgusting ... :-\

I don't dispose of them in public.

Having a fresh tissue to hand has proven to be handy many many times, not least
since you *can* offer one to someone else.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types ) die in
under a month each.


The first series of 10k rpm drives from them had serious thermal issues,
and if you were a "cram it in and go" idiot (I have no doubt you were),
and did not know what installation considerations were needed, it was
surely destined to fail.

Do, do tell what a "cram it in and go" idiot is.

FYI we installed them in external enclosures similar to the ones that came from
Avid.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.


Yet you sign as "rabbitsfriendsandrelation", you retarded ****.

I see you don't read much you retarded ****.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=rabb...+and+relations

Graham

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:43:58 -0700) it happened Spurious Response
wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:44:31 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Chris Jones blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

No, but come to think of it, yes, yours.

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.

Graham

Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.


Frame captures, and small clips are part of what IS legal.

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:43:58 -0700) it happened Spurious
Response
wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:44:31 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Chris Jones blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards
then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get
in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

No, but come to think of it, yes, yours.

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed
signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion
artifacts.

Graham

Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have
complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.


Frame captures, and small clips are part of what IS legal.

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite, is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

It seems you misunderstood me. I use disposable tissues in place of
'hankies'.

The idea of a piece of cloth that one uses many times to collect ever
more
germs is plain disgusting. The idea of offering it to someone else begs
belief.


Surely it's better to keep your own germs to yourself on your own hanky
in
your own pocket, until such time as you commit it to the washing machine,
where the nasty little buggers will be purged? You can't reinfect
yourself
when you have a cold or whatever, it just runs its course.IMHO, it's
dumping
your germs into the public domain where they can infect others, by way of
a
'disposable' tissue, that ranks as disgusting ... :-\

I don't dispose of them in public.

Having a fresh tissue to hand has proven to be handy many many times, not
least
since you *can* offer one to someone else.

Graham

So, if you don't dispose of them in public, what *do* you do with them ? Put
them back in your pocket, perhaps ? Sounds like a normal hanky to me ...
;-)

Arfa

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:52:06 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in :


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:43:58 -0700) it happened Spurious
Response
wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:44:31 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Chris Jones blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards
then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get
in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

No, but come to think of it, yes, yours.

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed
signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion
artifacts.

Graham

Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have
complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.


Frame captures, and small clips are part of what IS legal.

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite, is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:52:06 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:43:58 -0700) it happened Spurious
Response
wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:44:31 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Chris Jones blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards
then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't)
get
in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

No, but come to think of it, yes, yours.

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed
signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion
artifacts.

Graham

Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have
complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright
infrigment.


Frame captures, and small clips are part of what IS legal.

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite,
is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the train
or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given away
for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

Arfa

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:07 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite,
is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the train
or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given away
for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

Arfa

Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,
but this was in the news.
I think those record companies are represented by some organisation of sharks
that claims trillions are lost each year from illegal copies and in
this case illegal performances.
In my country it is the BUMA that is doing this, and I clearly remember
a well known artist here telling in his show that he had to pay royalties
because he sang one of his own texts (somebody was in the hall and clocked it).
We all know that 'illegal copies' are not the same as buying a CD, in fact
only help make the artist known, and people will buy the music or whatever
anyway if they can.
They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on all
players.
Only to set up their own shops.

It is a bit the elephant principle, if a big elephant comes your way, you step aside.
I can imagine if some couple gets a 'cease and desist' (I am familiar with those
I got one too some years ago), they can either look in their purse and see if they
have 20000$ cash to spare for some lawyers TO START WITH, or just step aside for
the elephant, Hollywood and their knights have _unlimited_ resources.
They do _not_ play fair, for example I suspect that is is people payed
by Hollywood and their clowns that spam sci.crypt to death.
NOBODY shall know about cryptography (might break an other sick copy protection
scheme sold to the suckers by yet other sharks).

What it boils down to for me is: Given the situation where I have to decide
to push the button for the Hollywood targeted ICBM, and asked: Should we launch?
I would think of that case and say: Why not.
Else I would have objected on human grounds.
The love you make is equal to the love you take, (Beatles).

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:07 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the
background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite,
is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the
train
or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given away
for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

Arfa

Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,
but this was in the news.
I think those record companies are represented by some organisation of
sharks
that claims trillions are lost each year from illegal copies and in
this case illegal performances.
In my country it is the BUMA that is doing this, and I clearly remember
a well known artist here telling in his show that he had to pay royalties
because he sang one of his own texts (somebody was in the hall and clocked
it).
We all know that 'illegal copies' are not the same as buying a CD, in fact
only help make the artist known, and people will buy the music or whatever
anyway if they can.
They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on
all
players.
Only to set up their own shops.

It is a bit the elephant principle, if a big elephant comes your way, you
step aside.
I can imagine if some couple gets a 'cease and desist' (I am familiar with
those
I got one too some years ago), they can either look in their purse and see
if they
have 20000$ cash to spare for some lawyers TO START WITH, or just step
aside for
the elephant, Hollywood and their knights have _unlimited_ resources.
They do _not_ play fair, for example I suspect that is is people payed
by Hollywood and their clowns that spam sci.crypt to death.
NOBODY shall know about cryptography (might break an other sick copy
protection
scheme sold to the suckers by yet other sharks).

What it boils down to for me is: Given the situation where I have to
decide
to push the button for the Hollywood targeted ICBM, and asked: Should we
launch?
I would think of that case and say: Why not.
Else I would have objected on human grounds.
The love you make is equal to the love you take, (Beatles).


All that you say is of course true. However, even Hollywood would have to
seek to prosecute in the country that the person who they feel is guilty of
the misdemeanor, resides, I think, unless the 'offence' was actually
committed on U.S. soil. Given that, I can't see any judge in this country at
least, allowing such a silly contention that a toddler dancing to a piece
of music that was already in the public domain from the TV broadcaster,
constituted a 'breach of copyright', and would therefore throw it out of his
(her) court before it wasted any more money. Whenever I see stuff like this
in the press, I always take it with a pinch of salt, as I think that in most
cases, it is either a mis-reporting of the basic facts in that there is more
to it than we are being told, or else it's just perpetuation of an 'urban
myth'. You have to remember that it does not make good 'news' to report a
'proper' crime having taken place. Much better to make it look like some
innocent family (who will of course have been photographed for the piece,
along with granny and grandad and the neighbours all looking suitably
po-faced, and the youngster in question all tearful) has been victimised by
a huge heartless mega-corporation ...

Arfa

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:15:34 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

All that you say is of course true. However, even Hollywood would have to
seek to prosecute in the country that the person who they feel is guilty of
the misdemeanor, resides, I think, unless the 'offence' was actually
committed on U.S. soil. Given that, I can't see any judge in this country at
least, allowing such a silly contention that a toddler dancing to a piece
of music that was already in the public domain from the TV broadcaster,
constituted a 'breach of copyright', and would therefore throw it out of his
(her) court before it wasted any more money. Whenever I see stuff like this
in the press, I always take it with a pinch of salt, as I think that in most
cases, it is either a mis-reporting of the basic facts in that there is more
to it than we are being told, or else it's just perpetuation of an 'urban
myth'. You have to remember that it does not make good 'news' to report a
'proper' crime having taken place. Much better to make it look like some
innocent family (who will of course have been photographed for the piece,
along with granny and grandad and the neighbours all looking suitably
po-faced, and the youngster in question all tearful) has been victimised by
a huge heartless mega-corporation ...

Arfa

Nice try, let's see for real:
Google: 'toddler prince video'

835,000 hits
OK, this looks interesting:
Dancing Toddler Video Yanked from YouTube Triggers Lawsuit
http://digg.com/tech_news/Dancing_To...gers _Lawsuit
Seems the mother gotted ****ed and has some cash to spa
A mother is suing Universal Music Publishing Group for insisting a video of
her toddler dancing to music by pop star Prince be yanked from YouTube on
copyright violation grounds.
Ah, I see it is now EEF that supports the mother in the lawsuit:
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php...5-032305-5848r
EFF lawyers contend Universal is abusing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act
provision that calls on Web sites to remove copyrighted material at the
behest of owners.


So, let's hope she wins.
But for now the Hollywood *******s are bullying everybody and their cat.

The fun part is that technology will get them in the end.
Few more years (if you extrapolate the curve) and memory storage will be
such that everybody will have a copy of all Hollywood ever made, on their bookshelf,
copy too in a second or 2.

Launch

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:53:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:07 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite,
is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the train
or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given away
for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

Arfa

Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,
but this was in the news.
I think those record companies are represented by some organisation of sharks
that claims trillions are lost each year from illegal copies and in
this case illegal performances.
In my country it is the BUMA that is doing this, and I clearly remember
a well known artist here telling in his show that he had to pay royalties
because he sang one of his own texts (somebody was in the hall and clocked it).
We all know that 'illegal copies' are not the same as buying a CD, in fact
only help make the artist known, and people will buy the music or whatever
anyway if they can.
They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on all
players.
Only to set up their own shops.

It is a bit the elephant principle, if a big elephant comes your way, you step aside.
I can imagine if some couple gets a 'cease and desist' (I am familiar with those
I got one too some years ago), they can either look in their purse and see if they
have 20000$ cash to spare for some lawyers TO START WITH, or just step aside for
the elephant, Hollywood and their knights have _unlimited_ resources.
They do _not_ play fair, for example I suspect that is is people payed
by Hollywood and their clowns that spam sci.crypt to death.
NOBODY shall know about cryptography (might break an other sick copy protection
scheme sold to the suckers by yet other sharks).

What it boils down to for me is: Given the situation where I have to decide
to push the button for the Hollywood targeted ICBM, and asked: Should we launch?
I would think of that case and say: Why not.
Else I would have objected on human grounds.
The love you make is equal to the love you take, (Beatles).

---
Ermm...

It's a little different from that.


From the "Abbey Road" album:

The End

Oh yeah, all right, are you going to be in my dreams tonight?

Love you, love you, love you love you…

And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.



--
JF

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:15:34 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

All that you say is of course true. However, even Hollywood would have to
seek to prosecute in the country that the person who they feel is guilty
of
the misdemeanor, resides, I think, unless the 'offence' was actually
committed on U.S. soil. Given that, I can't see any judge in this country
at
least, allowing such a silly contention that a toddler dancing to a piece
of music that was already in the public domain from the TV broadcaster,
constituted a 'breach of copyright', and would therefore throw it out of
his
(her) court before it wasted any more money. Whenever I see stuff like
this
in the press, I always take it with a pinch of salt, as I think that in
most
cases, it is either a mis-reporting of the basic facts in that there is
more
to it than we are being told, or else it's just perpetuation of an 'urban
myth'. You have to remember that it does not make good 'news' to report a
'proper' crime having taken place. Much better to make it look like some
innocent family (who will of course have been photographed for the piece,
along with granny and grandad and the neighbours all looking suitably
po-faced, and the youngster in question all tearful) has been victimised
by
a huge heartless mega-corporation ...

Arfa

Nice try, let's see for real:
Google: 'toddler prince video'

835,000 hits
OK, this looks interesting:
Dancing Toddler Video Yanked from YouTube Triggers Lawsuit
http://digg.com/tech_news/Dancing_To...gers _Lawsuit
Seems the mother gotted ****ed and has some cash to spa
A mother is suing Universal Music Publishing Group for insisting a video
of
her toddler dancing to music by pop star Prince be yanked from YouTube on
copyright violation grounds.
Ah, I see it is now EEF that supports the mother in the lawsuit:
http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php...5-032305-5848r
EFF lawyers contend Universal is abusing a Digital Millennium Copyright
Act
provision that calls on Web sites to remove copyrighted material at the
behest of owners.


So, let's hope she wins.
But for now the Hollywood *******s are bullying everybody and their cat.

The fun part is that technology will get them in the end.
Few more years (if you extrapolate the curve) and memory storage will be
such that everybody will have a copy of all Hollywood ever made, on their
bookshelf,
copy too in a second or 2.

Launch


Ah ... So there you are, you see. Universal were not actually trying to
prosecute the person concerned. They were making use of a law that already
existed to have the content removed from a public domain website, on
copyright grounds. Were they being pedantic - perhaps - and if so, for what
reasons ? Or is there actually yet more to it than we are being told ... ?
Media still trying to make it look like a good 'David and Goliath' story ?
So has the mother decided off her own bat to try to sue Universal, or has
she been 'encouraged' to do so by some other organisation ( EEF Lawyers?? )
as a suitable test-case to suit their own agenda ?

Whilst it all seems a bit silly, and a waste of time and money, a law
never-the-less exists, which appears to cover the case in question, so by
contesting it, you are not trying to prove your innocence of having
committed any offence, which strictly speaking you have, of course, rather,
you are trying to prove that the law is stupid and needs revising. I would
suggest that the chances of that happening are very slim, and all that is
going to happen is that a lot of time and money and court-time that could be
much more valuably used, will be wasted.

I'm all for the little man not falling victim of big corporations, but
sometimes it all just gets rather silly, and blown out of any realistic
proportion.

Arfa

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Spurious Response wrote
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Eeyore wrote

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.

Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.


Frame captures, and small clips are part of what IS legal.

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.

Why would 'Hollywood' sue over the use of a music track ?

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jan Panteltje" wrote

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite, is
slim to zero ...

Jan's got the story back to front. He seems to get everything back to front in
fact.


Youtube video:Mother to Sue

A mother is suing Universal Music Publishing Group for insisting a video of her
toddler dancing to music by pop star Prince be yanked from YouTube on copyright
violation grounds.

Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers said they filed a lawsuit yesterday
asking a San Francisco federal court to protect the woman's fair use and free
speech rights.
http://prince.org/msg/7/236123?jump=9&pg=1

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,

It shows.


but this was in the news.

And you misunderstood it. The mother is suing Universal Music !


They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on all
players.

Allofmp3 was a 'pirate' site you utter fathead, situated in Russia where they paid no
copyright fees. Of course it got shut down.

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

Ah ... So there you are, you see. Universal were not actually trying to
prosecute the person concerned. They were making use of a law that already
existed to have the content removed from a public domain website, on
copyright grounds. Were they being pedantic - perhaps - and if so, for what
reasons ? Or is there actually yet more to it than we are being told ... ?
Media still trying to make it look like a good 'David and Goliath' story ?
So has the mother decided off her own bat to try to sue Universal, or has
she been 'encouraged' to do so by some other organisation ( EEF Lawyers?? )
as a suitable test-case to suit their own agenda ?

Whilst it all seems a bit silly, and a waste of time and money, a law
never-the-less exists, which appears to cover the case in question, so by
contesting it, you are not trying to prove your innocence of having
committed any offence, which strictly speaking you have, of course, rather,
you are trying to prove that the law is stupid and needs revising. I would
suggest that the chances of that happening are very slim, and all that is
going to happen is that a lot of time and money and court-time that could be
much more valuably used, will be wasted.

I'm all for the little man not falling victim of big corporations, but
sometimes it all just gets rather silly, and blown out of any realistic
proportion.

Universal were entirely within their rights to ask for the apparently copyright infriging
material to be removed from YouTube. Were they over-reacting - certainly IMHO in this case
but they weren't suing the mother involved as Jan alleged.

And.... the mother is certainly entitled to sue Universal under 'fair use' provisions of
the law.

This case may actually serve a good purpose by making it clearer what should and shouldn't
be acceptable use. From what I heard, the music was 'in the background'. I'd have said
Universal must be utterly crazy to insist on its removal if that's true.

Graham

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:42:26 -0500) it happened John Fields
wrote in
:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:53:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:07 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite,
is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the train
or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given away
for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

Arfa

Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,
but this was in the news.
I think those record companies are represented by some organisation of sharks
that claims trillions are lost each year from illegal copies and in
this case illegal performances.
In my country it is the BUMA that is doing this, and I clearly remember
a well known artist here telling in his show that he had to pay royalties
because he sang one of his own texts (somebody was in the hall and clocked it).
We all know that 'illegal copies' are not the same as buying a CD, in fact
only help make the artist known, and people will buy the music or whatever
anyway if they can.
They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on all
players.
Only to set up their own shops.

It is a bit the elephant principle, if a big elephant comes your way, you step aside.
I can imagine if some couple gets a 'cease and desist' (I am familiar with those
I got one too some years ago), they can either look in their purse and see if they
have 20000$ cash to spare for some lawyers TO START WITH, or just step aside for
the elephant, Hollywood and their knights have _unlimited_ resources.
They do _not_ play fair, for example I suspect that is is people payed
by Hollywood and their clowns that spam sci.crypt to death.
NOBODY shall know about cryptography (might break an other sick copy protection
scheme sold to the suckers by yet other sharks).

What it boils down to for me is: Given the situation where I have to decide
to push the button for the Hollywood targeted ICBM, and asked: Should we launch?
I would think of that case and say: Why not.
Else I would have objected on human grounds.
The love you make is equal to the love you take, (Beatles).

---
Ermm...

It's a little different from that.


From the "Abbey Road" album:

The End

Oh yeah, all right, are you going to be in my dreams tonight?

Love you, love you, love you love you…

And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Yea, Abbey Road :-), I had the vinyl, got given away once when I moved to
a different city.....
I have some on it on mp3 now.
Now that you Verbatim quated it, maybe there bots scan Usenet too
(4 sure they do).
I got a lot of hits from some of their spy bots on my web site.
All in the firewal (the ones I know).
I had almost all their records, I even have Tony Sheridan yaya :-)

On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:48:58 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in :

Ah ... So there you are, you see. Universal were not actually trying to
prosecute the person concerned. They were making use of a law that already
existed to have the content removed from a public domain website, on
copyright grounds. Were they being pedantic - perhaps - and if so, for what
reasons ? Or is there actually yet more to it than we are being told ... ?
Media still trying to make it look like a good 'David and Goliath' story ?
So has the mother decided off her own bat to try to sue Universal, or has
she been 'encouraged' to do so by some other organisation ( EEF Lawyers?? )
as a suitable test-case to suit their own agenda ?

Whilst it all seems a bit silly, and a waste of time and money, a law
never-the-less exists, which appears to cover the case in question, so by
contesting it, you are not trying to prove your innocence of having
committed any offence, which strictly speaking you have, of course, rather,
you are trying to prove that the law is stupid and needs revising. I would
suggest that the chances of that happening are very slim, and all that is
going to happen is that a lot of time and money and court-time that could be
much more valuably used, will be wasted.

I'm all for the little man not falling victim of big corporations, but
sometimes it all just gets rather silly, and blown out of any realistic
proportion.

Arfa

Yea, well, I dunno, you look at it from the large cooperation POV, sure
EFF lawyers could have contacted her, or vice versa.
What needs to be understood by Hollywood & Clan is that you cannot
charge for somebody whistling a popular song, or dancing to
some popular song, one even being broadcasted freely.

It is like giving out free ice cream and then coming after you, to collect.
They just make money over the back of others anyways, a CD should not cost
more then 41 cent.... but hundreds of people make money producing one.
It is a dead end industry, one of the clearest indications of Hollywood
being dead is the low amount of new movies on TV.
For example BBC is now for the third year transmitting the same Top Cat cartoons.
(Probably more then 3 years but I only noticed it the last 3), other
movies are also circulated and repeated no end.

Well that was just a wink to BBC, but really, if you were forced to watch
it everyday, I could not blame anyone for becoming a terrorist.

I know Hollywood and Clan have produced, and produce more stuff, but nobody
buys it seems.

Just joking around a bit....

All was OK with allofmp3.com, the people bought their mp3s there,
it had no copy protection, they still bought it because the price was fair
for a copy / download.

It is the same as Microsoft, charging hundreds of dollars for a 1$ DVD copy
of a very mediocre OS (Vista), it cannot last.
Price will have to go down, there was an article on NYTimes or CNN that
in China now MS sells legal version of windows for a few dollars, to
grab back the market (from illegal copies and Linux).

Pestering your customers by restricting what they can do with what you make,
is not right for business, not of this time.

Lets leave it at that.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

All was OK with allofmp3.com, the people bought their mp3s there,
it had no copy protection, they still bought it because the price was fair
for a copy / download.

allopmp3.com simply pocketed the money and didn't pay anything to the copyright
holder, taking advantage of Russian law that doesn't respect intellectual property.

What's 'OK' about that ?

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

a CD should not cost more then 41 cent....

You just can't help advertsing how stupid you are can you ?

Graham

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:20 -0400 in sci.electronics.design, "Leonard
Caillouet" wrote,

The reason that one might speculate this is that PbF solder has a higher
melting point and is harder, thus perhaps less prone to thermal damaged due

Lead Fluoride???

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:04:07 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the
background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you
cite, is
slim to zero ...

Arfa

They succeeded in having the clip removed from the internet.

But that's not the same as prosecuting the person for an innocent act. If
you are going to start getting as pedantic as that, then you are going to
have to start prosecuting people for having their iPods on too loud, and
'broadcasting' illegally to the general public surrounding them on the
train
or wherever. I am actually surprised that Prince, or even his record or
publicity company, would have engaged in this piece of negativity, given
that his latest ( soon to be for sale at full price ) album was given
away for free over here in one of the Sunday newspapers two weeks ago ...

Arfa

Yes, I am no lawyer and do not know the exact details,
but this was in the news.
I think those record companies are represented by some organisation of
sharks
that claims trillions are lost each year from illegal copies and in
this case illegal performances.
In my country it is the BUMA that is doing this, and I clearly remember
a well known artist here telling in his show that he had to pay royalties
because he sang one of his own texts (somebody was in the hall and
clocked it).
We all know that 'illegal copies' are not the same as buying a CD, in
fact only help make the artist known, and people will buy the music or
whatever anyway if they can.
They killed allofmp3.com too, a good place to buy mp3 music that plays on
all
players.
Only to set up their own shops.

It is a bit the elephant principle, if a big elephant comes your way, you
step aside.
I can imagine if some couple gets a 'cease and desist' (I am familiar
with those
I got one too some years ago), they can either look in their purse and
see if they
have 20000$ cash to spare for some lawyers TO START WITH, or just step
aside for
the elephant, Hollywood and their knights have _unlimited_ resources.
They do _not_ play fair, for example I suspect that is is people payed
by Hollywood and their clowns that spam sci.crypt to death.
NOBODY shall know about cryptography (might break an other sick copy
protection
scheme sold to the suckers by yet other sharks).

What it boils down to for me is: Given the situation where I have to
decide
to push the button for the Hollywood targeted ICBM, and asked: Should we
launch?
I would think of that case and say: Why not.
Else I would have objected on human grounds.
The love you make is equal to the love you take, (Beatles).


All that you say is of course true. However, even Hollywood would have to
seek to prosecute in the country that the person who they feel is guilty
of the misdemeanor, resides, I think, unless the 'offence' was actually
committed on U.S. soil. Given that, I can't see any judge in this country
at least, allowing such a silly contention

As I understand it, you can be extradited from the UK to the US *without*
anything being proven in a UK court first. For some reason, the US has
forgotten to sign their half of the "reciprocal" agreement, so it only
works one way.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...xtradition.php

Chris

David Harmon wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:20 -0400 in sci.electronics.design, "Leonard
Caillouet" wrote,

The reason that one might speculate this is that PbF solder has a higher
melting point and is harder, thus perhaps less prone to thermal damaged due

Lead Fluoride???

It's for brushing your mercury fillings.

--
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad
was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide
is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
-- Jonah Goldberg

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

Ah ... So there you are, you see. Universal were not actually trying to
prosecute the person concerned. They were making use of a law that
already
existed to have the content removed from a public domain website, on
copyright grounds. Were they being pedantic - perhaps - and if so, for
what
reasons ? Or is there actually yet more to it than we are being told ...
?
Media still trying to make it look like a good 'David and Goliath' story
?
So has the mother decided off her own bat to try to sue Universal, or has
she been 'encouraged' to do so by some other organisation ( EEF
Lawyers?? )
as a suitable test-case to suit their own agenda ?

Whilst it all seems a bit silly, and a waste of time and money, a law
never-the-less exists, which appears to cover the case in question, so by
contesting it, you are not trying to prove your innocence of having
committed any offence, which strictly speaking you have, of course,
rather,
you are trying to prove that the law is stupid and needs revising. I
would
suggest that the chances of that happening are very slim, and all that is
going to happen is that a lot of time and money and court-time that could
be
much more valuably used, will be wasted.

I'm all for the little man not falling victim of big corporations, but
sometimes it all just gets rather silly, and blown out of any realistic
proportion.

Universal were entirely within their rights to ask for the apparently
copyright infriging
material to be removed from YouTube. Were they over-reacting - certainly
IMHO in this case
but they weren't suing the mother involved as Jan alleged.

And.... the mother is certainly entitled to sue Universal under 'fair use'
provisions of
the law.

This case may actually serve a good purpose by making it clearer what
should and shouldn't
be acceptable use. From what I heard, the music was 'in the background'.
I'd have said
Universal must be utterly crazy to insist on its removal if that's true.

Graham

Yes, that's my thought too. Now Universal might be a big organisation, but
they are not stupid. Nor, I'm sure, are their corporate law department, and
any externally retained law experts. Which then begs the question of why
they would pursue this with such apparent vigour, given the negative
publicity which it would - and seemingly *is* - bringing down on their
heads. Which brings us back round to the question of is there more to this
than we are being told.

All of which is a very long way from bad joints on lead-free joints ...

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jan Panteltje" wrote

They are suing somebody for a youtube (or the like) clip, person had
thier
toddler dancing to music from Prince playing on a TV in the background.

Hollywood has gone nuts, probably full of rabits too.


Even given the current copyright laws, I would think that any chance of
successfully prosecuting a ludicrously ridiculous case such as you cite,
is
slim to zero ...

Jan's got the story back to front. He seems to get everything back to
front in
fact.


Youtube video:Mother to Sue

A mother is suing Universal Music Publishing Group for insisting a video
of her
toddler dancing to music by pop star Prince be yanked from YouTube on
copyright
violation grounds.

Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers said they filed a lawsuit yesterday
asking a San Francisco federal court to protect the woman's fair use and
free
speech rights.
http://prince.org/msg/7/236123?jump=9&pg=1

Graham

Yep, sounds like a lawyer-driven test case to me. As soon as I see the words
"fair", "free" and "speech", and "rights" in a sentence that also contains
the word "lawyer", I'm immediately thinking that way ...

Arfa

Liggett wrote in :

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:16:04 -0700, Spurious Response
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:02:23 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

I suggest you bloody **** off trying to tell me what to
do, you
retarded ****.

Do you not even care that authoring retarded posts like the
kook ****s
over in AUK do makes you a kook as well, dumb****?

Do you often talk to yourself ???


It was YOUR post I responded to, dip****.

I suggest you check the thread.

Here, you goddamned idiot! I responded to a post YOU made where
all you ****ing did was quote a remark I made in ANOTHER POST!

You are a true piece of ****, boy.

I KNEW it would be too challenging for you.

I DID check the thread, you stupid ****. YOU AUTHORED IT, and the
first
post in it was yours, and THAT is the post I quoted to prove it, and
that is the post I was referring to as being one YOU posted.

So NO, I did NOT respond to myself, you stupid ****tard.


Shut up you lying ****tard.


You tell him sweet thing.

Eeyore wrote:

PeteS wrote:

Traver wrote:
If high-rel is of upmost importance, we struggle to find tin-lead
parts.
I'm currently consluting in the aerospace / military equipment area and
this place goes to the length of re-balling BGAs with eutectic tin-lead
solder, clearing and refinishing pins etc. - i.e. if it's not the right
finish, the company refinishes the part.

There are some non SnPb finishes that are ok in non-safety critical
systems, but safety critical (flight control computers, FADECs etc) must
have a tin-lead solder profile. Gets to be a real problem with small
passives.

Pushes up the price of everything, of course.

The effort invoved in puting lead back on components always strikes me as one of
the more bizarre aspects of RoHS. Talk about proof the idea was fundamentally
wrong in the first place !

Graham


Got to agree. My view is it was pushed for a political agenda rather
than a scientific one (duh) and a reduction in hazardous substances has
not and will not be achieved from the directive. There are more
hazardous chemicals used (by volume) for the replacement processes than
is removed by the RoHS directive, amusingly. Another issue is because of
the suspect reliability of equipment (there definitely seems to be more
failures in RoHS compliant products), more equipment is actually made.
With the WEEE directive it simply means that more parts are used, and
the costs go up due to the cost of dealing with / recycling defective
equipment. Doesn't make much sense, really.

On the refinishing front, if we could buy SnPb finished parts, we would.
These are still available directly from manufacturers of some parts for
the aerospace industry, but not from others. Having two processes drives
up their costs, so we either pay the manufacturer for it or pay our own
facilities for it. Either way, the end product cost increases.

If the object of the exercise was to reduce hazardous substances, it has
failed spectacularly.

Cheers

PeteS

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.


Yet you sign as "rabbitsfriendsandrelation", you retarded ****.

I see you don't read much you retarded ****.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=rabb...+and+relations

Graham

I know what the source is, you stupid ****.

You bring shame to it.

**** off you stupid ****ing ****.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Universal were entirely within their rights to ask for the apparently copyright infriging
material to be removed from YouTube.

Wrong. Single frames of video, as well as short clips are 100%
allowable.

What part of " within their rights to ask" did you misunderstand ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.


Yet you sign as "rabbitsfriendsandrelation", you retarded ****.

I see you don't read much you retarded ****.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=rabb...+and+relations

Graham

I know what the source is, you stupid ****.

You bring shame to it.

**** off you stupid ****ing ****.

Graham


Why does it always have to disintegrate into this? Pack it in, the lot of
you. I'm surprised that you have been swept along in all of this Graham, as
I previously thought that you actually knew better ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:

Yet you sign as "rabbitsfriendsandrelation", you retarded ****.

I see you don't read much you retarded ****.

I know what the source is, you stupid ****.

You bring shame to it.

**** off you stupid ****ing ****.


Why does it always have to disintegrate into this? Pack it in, the lot of
you. I'm surprised that you have been swept along in all of this Graham, as
I previously thought that you actually knew better ...

I'd hoped you'd all realise I was joking. Maybe I should have made it more
extreme to make the point better but I couldn't thing of any easy way to
increase the number of f-words in that final reply. That kind of humour doesn't
always translate well on Usenet I realise.

Graham

PeteS wrote:

I personally hope it comes back to bite the politicians (and there are
good reasons it might), but most of them are either teflon covered or
have safely retired.

I'd like to see Emperor Barroso humiliared over something for sure.

Graham

Spurious Response wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:10:26 -0400, PeteS wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
PeteS wrote:

Traver wrote:
If high-rel is of upmost importance, we struggle to find tin-lead
parts.
I'm currently consluting in the aerospace / military equipment area and
this place goes to the length of re-balling BGAs with eutectic tin-lead
solder, clearing and refinishing pins etc. - i.e. if it's not the right
finish, the company refinishes the part.

There are some non SnPb finishes that are ok in non-safety critical
systems, but safety critical (flight control computers, FADECs etc) must
have a tin-lead solder profile. Gets to be a real problem with small
passives.

Pushes up the price of everything, of course.
The effort invoved in puting lead back on components always strikes me as one of
the more bizarre aspects of RoHS. Talk about proof the idea was fundamentally
wrong in the first place !

Graham

Got to agree. My view is it was pushed for a political agenda rather
than a scientific one (duh) and a reduction in hazardous substances has
not and will not be achieved from the directive. There are more
hazardous chemicals used (by volume) for the replacement processes than
is removed by the RoHS directive, amusingly. Another issue is because of
the suspect reliability of equipment (there definitely seems to be more
failures in RoHS compliant products), more equipment is actually made.
With the WEEE directive it simply means that more parts are used, and
the costs go up due to the cost of dealing with / recycling defective
equipment. Doesn't make much sense, really.

On the refinishing front, if we could buy SnPb finished parts, we would.
These are still available directly from manufacturers of some parts for
the aerospace industry, but not from others. Having two processes drives
up their costs, so we either pay the manufacturer for it or pay our own
facilities for it. Either way, the end product cost increases.

If the object of the exercise was to reduce hazardous substances, it has
failed spectacularly.


I do not know if the term "amusingly" is appropriate.

I don't know if I would ever describe a failure of any kind as being
"spectacular" either.

The term miserably comes to mind in both instances, as that is exactly
what it has caused nearly all involved.

Hopefully, said misery will come full circle, and bite the politicians
that started this CRAP right in the ass. It will certainly have an
economic impact, and they will likely find some way to squirm clear of
any blame, but the fact remains, that there was no science involved, and
that technically we already knew about this decades ago when our REAL
scientists formulated the solders we now know for a fact to be superior
in all respects.

Amusing does not need to be 'funny' - it's more sarcastic in this sense.
Spectacular, likewise, does not need to imply something good - merely
that the failure of the directive to achieve it's aims was not merely
'fail', but a very impressive fail.

I personally hope it comes back to bite the politicians (and there are
good reasons it might), but most of them are either teflon covered or
have safely retired.

Cheers

PeteS

Spurious Response wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:26:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

Too bad....
How about conductive glue replacing solder?
Na, will have to wait until the first EU politician's cellphone fails in
some emergency.

There have been polymer based conductive circuit assembly adhesives
around for several years now.

NOT cheap.

The answer will be Rhodium alloy solders for safety and mission
critical applications... perhaps.

Perhaps is right.

There are no people as conservative as the safety case folks in avionics
safety critical systems. They will want 20 years worth of data because
that is the typical lifetime of a system once installed in the civilian
market.

Cheers

PeteS

Eeyore wrote:


I'd hoped you'd all realise I was joking. Maybe I should have made it more
extreme to make the point better but I couldn't thing of any easy way to
increase the number of f-words in that final reply. That kind of humour doesn't
always translate well on Usenet I realise.

A few 'emoticons' or better yet humor tags can prevent misunderstandings

Regards,

Michael

On 7/29/07 6:45 PM, in article ,
"Spurious Response" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:27:23 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.


Yet you sign as "rabbitsfriendsandrelation", you retarded ****.

I see you don't read much you retarded ****.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=rabb...+and+relations

Graham

I know what the source is, you stupid ****.

You bring shame to it.

**** off you stupid ****ing ****.



Bwuahahahahahah! Glad I could be the burr under your saddle.

You aren't a donkey... You're a bloody, crappy headed ho!

If we could put a filth filter on your computers, about all we'd see is
pronouns.

Neither of you should be allowed out in polite company.

On 7/30/07 2:16 AM, in article ,
"Spurious Response" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:33:32 -0700, Don Bowey wrote:

On 7/29/07 6:45 PM, in article ,
"Spurious Response" wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:27:23 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.


Yet you sign as "rabbitsfriendsandrelation", you retarded ****.

I see you don't read much you retarded ****.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=rabb...+and+relations

Graham

I know what the source is, you stupid ****.

You bring shame to it.

**** off you stupid ****ing ****.



Bwuahahahahahah! Glad I could be the burr under your saddle.

You aren't a donkey... You're a bloody, crappy headed ho!

If we could put a filth filter on your computers, about all we'd see is
pronouns.

Neither of you should be allowed out in polite company.


Good thing I do not have to live up to your E-1 grade, petty wuss
assessments, you petty wuss.

You're so nasty I'd have had you given the brush treatment to clean you up.
Or else.....

Brandon D Cartwright wrote:


Try asking for liters of gas...

What are "liters"? Do you mean "litres"?


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk