Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf contact both the
offender's isp and tinypics through photobucket.com. Their email is biz
at photobucket dot com. From http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm
"Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users'
web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement." Both will
take your complaints seriously. Upon further investigation there are
several other routes for complaining as well some that will result in
legal charges. Theft of intellectual property is not to be taken
lightly as I'm sure our little thief is going to find out.

Directly quoted from Tinypics TOS

"Terms of Service: TinyPic is not responsible, nor holds copyright on
the content uploaded. All pictures maintain the copyright of the
respective owners. TinyPic reserves the right to remove any picture at
any time if it is found offensive, pornographic, violates copyright or
trade laws, or is consuming large amounts of system resources. As a user
of TinyPic you agree that TinyPic is not liable for your images or any
lost business due to the unavailability or loss of the website. TinyPic
reserves the right to modify the Terms of Service at any time and
without prior notice to its users. Pictures can be publically viewed and
we do not guarantee picture privacy. TinyPic owned and operated by
Photobucket.com, a Free Image Hosting company."


--
A two faced, low-life, sorry excuse for a person, posting on
rec.food.cooking steals other posters' pics posing them as their own.
The same two faced piece of crap likes to harass other posters and is an
internet stalker. This gutless wonder tries to use intimidation to
harass other posters on rfc.

~patches~ wrote:
> Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
> stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA

You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
pictures of food. Who cares?!

And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
something.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>>Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
>>stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
>
>
> You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
> all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
> you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
> Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
> pictures of food. Who cares?!
>
> And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
> Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
> tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
> something.
>
> Jill
>
>

Whatever Jill. It is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is
theft of intellectual property, pure and simple. Such theft is
punishable legally. FTR, I am busy with RL now I just got busier. This
two faced poster is going to find out it wasn't a real smart thing to
do. Whether you like it or not, there will be fallout for this type of
intimidation. Now it isn't so funny, is it? And it doesn't take an
brain to figure out who the two faced person is, does it? Except, I
have that person's info and their isp. And their isp is more than
willing to act on this one. Even though you don't think it is a
problem, it is and the thief will find that out very soon!

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> ~patches~ wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
>>> stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
>>
>>
>> You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to
>> think we
>> all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you
>> said
>> you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the
>> Library of
>> Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking
>> about
>> pictures of food. Who cares?!
>>
>> And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
>> Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really
>> getting
>> tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
>> something.
>>
>> Jill
>>
>>
>
> Whatever Jill. It is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is
> theft of intellectual property, pure and simple. Such theft is
> punishable legally. FTR, I am busy with RL now I just got busier. This
> two faced poster is going to find out it wasn't a real smart thing to
> do. Whether you like it or not, there will be fallout for this type of
> intimidation. Now it isn't so funny, is it? And it doesn't take an
> brain to figure out who the two faced person is, does it? Except, I
> have that person's info and their isp. And their isp is more than
> willing to act on this one. Even though you don't think it is a
> problem, it is and the thief will find that out very soon!

Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
in this situation.

If the copyrighted property was used in a manner that satisfies the
criteria of fair use, you have no legal standing. I don't know how the
picture was used, and since you come up well short of a useful
description of the infraction I am unable to imagine accurately what it
is that's put you in such high dudgeon.

I could better understand your indignation if you labored as an artist
and found a prized work of yours deliberately attributed to someone
else. I could understand it if you were a commercial food photographer
and some poser was stealing your reputation and potential income. I have
a hard time understanding *your* motivation. But I can say that the
mental picture of Joe or Jane Sixpack cruising web pages and suddenly
pulling up short and exclaiming "That's MY pizza!" has kept me in
stitches all day!

Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your could
support your argument. If you are intent on following this through to
the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position. It will be up
to you to bring the proof.

Pennyaline wrote:

> Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your could
> support your argument. If you are intent on following this through to
> the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position. It will be up
> to you to bring the proof.

Not likely. After her whacky assertions are questioned you normally
hear "Do your own research!".

It's gone from whacky to psychotic at this point.

--
Reg

Pennyaline wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> ~patches~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
>>>> stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to
>>> think we
>>> all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you
>>> said
>>> you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the
>>> Library of
>>> Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're
>>> talking about
>>> pictures of food. Who cares?!
>>>
>>> And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
>>> Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really
>>> getting
>>> tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
>>> something.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whatever Jill. It is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is
>> theft of intellectual property, pure and simple. Such theft is
>> punishable legally. FTR, I am busy with RL now I just got busier.
>> This two faced poster is going to find out it wasn't a real smart
>> thing to do. Whether you like it or not, there will be fallout for
>> this type of intimidation. Now it isn't so funny, is it? And it
>> doesn't take an brain to figure out who the two faced person is, does
>> it? Except, I have that person's info and their isp. And their isp
>> is more than willing to act on this one. Even though you don't think
>> it is a problem, it is and the thief will find that out very soon!
>
>
> Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
> depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
> fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
> in this situation.

No the pic is mine and I maintain copyright. It was posted as a form of
harassment to try to get me from posting. It was posted after another
heated discussion. Google, tinypics, and the two faced poster's isp
agrees with me.

>
> If the copyrighted property was used in a manner that satisfies the
> criteria of fair use, you have no legal standing. I don't know how the
> picture was used, and since you come up well short of a useful
> description of the infraction I am unable to imagine accurately what it
> is that's put you in such high dudgeon.
>

It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I made
this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow this fully
I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the two face poster
used 3 different nyms to post their message, and the fact that this
poster stole my pic.

> I could better understand your indignation if you labored as an artist
> and found a prized work of yours deliberately attributed to someone
> else. I could understand it if you were a commercial food photographer
> and some poser was stealing your reputation and potential income. I have
> a hard time understanding *your* motivation. But I can say that the
> mental picture of Joe or Jane Sixpack cruising web pages and suddenly
> pulling up short and exclaiming "That's MY pizza!" has kept me in
> stitches all day!

The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.
>
> Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your could
> support your argument. If you are intent on following this through to
> the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position. It will be up
> to you to bring the proof.

No, the pic was mine and I have legal copyright. It was used as a means
of intimidation on this ng. I have proof of when the pic was taken to
when it was finally uploaded to tinypics. See tinypics TOS. I have
supported my argument as well as providing a link to the DMCA of 1998.
I have provided times, dates, full headers, etc to google, tinypic and
the two faced poster's isp. Funny how they are taking this seriously.
Google has already acted.

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ wrote:
> Pennyaline wrote:
>
>> ~patches~ wrote:
>>
>> Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
>> depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision
>> for fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could
>> apply in this situation.
>
> No the pic is mine and I maintain copyright. It was posted as a form of
> harassment to try to get me from posting. It was posted after another
> heated discussion. Google, tinypics, and the two faced poster's isp
> agrees with me.

You're not paying attention. I may maintain copyright, but fair use can
still apply and make the infringement argument moot.


>> If the copyrighted property was used in a manner that satisfies the
>> criteria of fair use, you have no legal standing. I don't know how the
>> picture was used, and since you come up well short of a useful
>> description of the infraction I am unable to imagine accurately what
>> it is that's put you in such high dudgeon.
>>
>
> It was not used under the fair use criteria. It was posted as *I made
> this pizza, here's the pic* type of thing. If you follow this fully
> I've posted the thread it first appeared, the fact the two face poster
> used 3 different nyms to post their message, and the fact that this
> poster stole my pic.

But THAT does not successfully refute the possibility of fair use.



>> I could better understand your indignation if you labored as an artist
>> and found a prized work of yours deliberately attributed to someone
>> else. I could understand it if you were a commercial food photographer
>> and some poser was stealing your reputation and potential income. I
>> have a hard time understanding *your* motivation. But I can say that
>> the mental picture of Joe or Jane Sixpack cruising web pages and
>> suddenly pulling up short and exclaiming "That's MY pizza!" has kept
>> me in stitches all day!
>
> The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

Tell me again, what is the principle you're trying to defend?


>> Your object lesson in plagiarism would be more meaningful if your
>> could support your argument. If you are intent on following this
>> through to the end, you'll need to defend yourself and your position.
>> It will be up to you to bring the proof.
>
> No, the pic was mine and I have legal copyright. It was used as a means
> of intimidation on this ng. I have proof of when the pic was taken to
> when it was finally uploaded to tinypics. See tinypics TOS. I have
> supported my argument as well as providing a link to the DMCA of 1998. I
> have provided times, dates, full headers, etc to google, tinypic and the
> two faced poster's isp. Funny how they are taking this seriously.
> Google has already acted.

Your statements in your own defense are leaving you with more and more
to defend. Again, if you wish to take this to the bitter end, you must
prove that you are the creator of the picture and have not shared or
given license to use the picture to anyone else. And now, you would also
have to prove how and why the offender was attempting to intimidate you.

<in short, don't throw accusations around>




>

~patches~ wrote:

> The direct link to my pic by someone else claiming it as their own has
> been posted several times. It is now a principal thing. The offending
> two faced poster *will* loose their account over this.

That's the WORST thing that can happen? Oh how DREADFUL! That person might
have to open an account with a different ISP! Maybe it will result in a
substantial SAVINGS of money or increase in bandwidth! Boy, you sure know
how to mete out a punishment.

Bob

In article >,
Pennyaline > wrote:


> Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
> depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
> fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
> in this situation.


Here's a little blurb on fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Doesn't look real clear to me either way.

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> Pennyaline > wrote:
>
>
>> Well, now wait a minute. It may or may not be copyright infringement,
>> depending on how the picture was used. Copyright law has a provision for
>> fair use built in, and whether you like it or not fair use could apply
>> in this situation.
>
>
> Here's a little blurb on fair use:
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> Doesn't look real clear to me either way.


Yeah, I know. Fair use is tough to decide, which is why a STRONG case
for infringement is a very good idea.

jmcquown wrote:
> ~patches~ wrote:
> > Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
> > stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
>
> You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
> all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
> you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
> Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
> pictures of food. Who cares?!
>
> And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
> Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
> tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
> something.
>
> Jill

Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
truly is...

Shit, she's making r.p.c.h+b look positively sane...

-L.

-L. wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> ~patches~ wrote:
>>> Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
>>> stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
>>
>> You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to
>> think we all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really,
>> honey, you said you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted
>> author with the Library of Congress, I fail to see what you are so
>> worried about. You're talking about pictures of food. Who cares?!
>>
>> And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a
>> law! Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm
>> really getting tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can
>> something, or cook something.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
> passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
> truly is...
>
> Shit, she's making r.p.c.h+b look positively sane...
>
> -L.

That's saying a LOT!!

-L. wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
.... Who cares?!
>
> Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
> passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
> truly is...

I wouldn't mind that so much if she had any taste, but the recipes she
posts are crap.

Too bad she wasn't capable of carrying out her whine about not posting.
-aem

aem wrote:


> I wouldn't mind that so much if she had any taste, but the recipes she
> posts are crap.

I have posted recipes that I have tried and are trusted. I will not
post a recipe otherwise. I'm sorry you don't care for my recipes but no
one is forcing you to try them. If there is something specific that you
are looking for and I have a tried and true recipe, I will post it for
you.

>
> Too bad she wasn't capable of carrying out her whine about not posting.

I'm replying to those who are kind enough to reply to my initial post.
If you don't see the wrong in theft, that's your problem. You can
always kf the thread

> -aem
>


--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

aem wrote:
> -L. wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote:
> .... Who cares?!
> >
> > Add to that the fact that she plagerizes recipes from the net and
> > passes them off as her own and you get a real pic of what a nutter she
> > truly is...
>
> I wouldn't mind that so much if she had any taste, but the recipes she
> posts are crap.
>
> Too bad she wasn't capable of carrying out her whine about not posting.
> -aem

Agreed.
-L.

jmcquown wrote:
> ~patches~ wrote:
> > Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
> > stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
>
> You must be very, very new to usenet and the internet in general to think we
> all need a tutorial about copyright infringement. Really, honey, you said
> you are so busy with real life. As a copyrighted author with the Library of
> Congress, I fail to see what you are so worried about. You're talking about
> pictures of food. Who cares?!
>
> And if you don't like tiny pics, don't use it! Hello! It's not a law!
> Most of us know how to click a link that isn't "tiny". I'm really getting
> tired of your histrionics. Maybe you should go can something, or cook
> something.
>

Better yet, if she doesn't want her photos stolen and used by someone
else, she shouldn't post them on the Internet. She can always sell
her photos of food on any number of online microstock photography sites
where she will be paid for their use by others. Problem solved.

SD

In article . com>,
wrote:


> Better yet, if she doesn't want her photos stolen and used by someone
> else, she shouldn't post them on the Internet. She can always sell
> her photos of food on any number of online microstock photography sites
> where she will be paid for their use by others. Problem solved.


I take it that means you didn't see the picture in question that patches
posted?

:-(

--
Dan Abel

Petaluma, California, USA

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
> > Better yet, if she doesn't want her photos stolen and used by someone
> > else, she shouldn't post them on the Internet. She can always sell
> > her photos of food on any number of online microstock photography sites
> > where she will be paid for their use by others. Problem solved.
>
>
> I take it that means you didn't see the picture in question that patches
> posted?
>
> :-(
>


No...We had no internet or phone for about a week....during the time
this whole thing blew up. That bad huh?

SD

~patches~ wrote:
> Here is the TOS for tinypics. If you have a problem with anyone
> stealing your copyright protected pics as per DMCA
> http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf contact both the
> offender's isp and tinypics through photobucket.com. Their email is biz
> at photobucket dot com. From http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm
> "Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users'
> web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement." Both will
> take your complaints seriously. Upon further investigation there are
> several other routes for complaining as well some that will result in
> legal charges. Theft of intellectual property is not to be taken
> lightly as I'm sure our little thief is going to find out.
>


You're going to find out that the theft of IP that has little or no
value doesn't warrant any legal charges. You will be successful in
getting the pix removed from the website, and you *may* (unlikely) get
the thief's account canceled. But that's all. No criminal charges, and
you won't receive any monetary damages.

This whole topic is quickly getting boring. <yawn>

Bob
--
"Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly." -Kehlog Albran

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:
>
> This whole topic is quickly getting boring. <yawn>
>
> Bob

Getting?

{ Exported from MasterCook Mac }

Danish Puff

Recipe By: Betty Crocker, posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller
4-3-2006
Serving Size: 12
Preparation Time: 0:00
Categories: Coffee Cakes, Treats, etc.

Amount Measure Ingredient Preparation Method
1/2 cup margarine or butter softened
1 cup all-purpose flour
2 tablespoons water
1/2 cup margarine or butter
1 cup water
1 teaspoon almond extract
1 cup all-purpose flour
3 eggs

Powdered Sugar Glaze

1 1/2 cups powdered sugar
2 tablespoons margarine or butter softened
1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla
1 water 1 -2 tablespoons

Heat oven to 350 degrees. Cut 1/2 cup margarine into 1 cup flour until
particles are size of small peas. Sprinkle 2 tablespoons water over
flour mixture; mix. Gather pastry into a ball; divide into halves. Pat
each half into rectangle, 12x3 inches, on ungreased cooking sheet.
Rectangles should be about 3 inches apart.

Heat 1/2 cup margarine and 1 cup water to rolling boil; remove from
heat. Quickly stir in almond extract and 1 cup flour. Stir vigorously
over low heat until mixture forms a ball, about 1 minute; remove from
heat. Add eggs; beat until smooth and glossy. Spread half of the
topping over each rectangle. Bake until topping is crisp and brown,
about 1 hour; cool. (Topping will shrink and fall, forming the custardy
top. Spread with Powdered Sugar Glaze; sprinkle with nuts.

Powdered Sugar Glaze:
Mix first 3 ingredients; stir in water, 1 teaspoon at a time, until
glaze is of desired consistency.


--
-Barb
<http://jamlady.eboard.com> Updated 4-2-06, Church review #11

"If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all."

~patches~ wrote:
>
> A two faced, low-life, sorry excuse for a person, posting on
> rec.food.cooking steals other posters' pics posing them as their
> own. The same two faced piece of crap likes to harass other
> posters and is an internet stalker. This gutless wonder tries
> to use intimidation to harass other posters on rfc.

Good thing he didn't do a really serious crime,
like stealing a paperclip. :-)

Mark Thorson wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>>A two faced, low-life, sorry excuse for a person, posting on
>>rec.food.cooking steals other posters' pics posing them as their
>>own. The same two faced piece of crap likes to harass other
>>posters and is an internet stalker. This gutless wonder tries
>>to use intimidation to harass other posters on rfc.
>
>
> Good thing he didn't do a really serious crime,
> like stealing a paperclip. :-)

I'd have to threaten physical violence for that one. That's not a real
smart thing to do online either This way, google, tinypics, and the
two face's poster's isp meters out the punishment.

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > Good thing he didn't do a really serious crime,
> > like stealing a paperclip. :-)
>
> I'd have to threaten physical violence for that one.

You STOLE my words! I have copyright ownership over
those words. You had no right to include them in
your posting, even though you did attribute them
to me. I shall be making a complaint to the proper
authorities as well as contemplating legal action.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Good thing he didn't do a really serious crime,
>>>like stealing a paperclip. :-)
>>
>>I'd have to threaten physical violence for that one.
>
>
> You STOLE my words! I have copyright ownership over
> those words. You had no right to include them in
> your posting, even though you did attribute them
> to me. I shall be making a complaint to the proper
> authorities as well as contemplating legal action.

Nice try bubba. You're right up there with a couple of the others
defending that it's ok to steal someone's pics and pass them off as your
own. No cookie for you.

--
There is a thief amongst us who likes to steal other posters pics and
post them as their own. This constitutes copyright infringement and
theft of intellectual property. This is contrary to DMCA of 1998
punishable by law. The same thief likes to harass other posters and is
an internet stalker. This thief likes to use intimidation to harass
other posters on rfc.

~patches~ wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > ~patches~ wrote:
> >
> >>Mark Thorson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Good thing he didn't do a really serious crime,
> >>>like stealing a paperclip. :-)
> >>
> >>I'd have to threaten physical violence for that one.
> >
> > You STOLE my words! I have copyright ownership over
> > those words. You had no right to include them in
> > your posting, even though you did attribute them
> > to me. I shall be making a complaint to the proper
> > authorities as well as contemplating legal action.
>
> Nice try bubba. You're right up there with a couple of
> the others defending that it's ok to steal someone's pics
> and pass them off as your own. No cookie for you.

If it's war you want, it's war you'll get!

Nobody calls me "bubba" and gets away with it!

~patches~ > wrote in news:1233hgs8vi970c1
@corp.supernews.com:

> Nice try bubba. You're right up there with a couple of the others
> defending that it's ok to steal someone's pics and pass them off as your
> own. No cookie for you.

Granted I haven't read all of the responses to your little tirade, but the
ones I have, a good number, aren't defending what he did, but rather
telling you to get a life and worry about something that really matters.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> ~patches~ wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>> > Good thing he didn't do a really serious crime,
>> > like stealing a paperclip. :-)
>>
>> I'd have to threaten physical violence for that one.
>
> You STOLE my words! I have copyright ownership over
> those words. You had no right to include them in
> your posting, even though you did attribute them
> to me. I shall be making a complaint to the proper
> authorities as well as contemplating legal action.

I think a lot of you people need to *grow up*. It's a shame there isn't a
drug to treat immaturity and bullying.

Jen wrote:
>
> I think a lot of you people need to *grow up*. It's a shame
> there isn't a drug to treat immaturity and bullying.

So, you're siding with ~patches~, is that it?

You do realize what the consequences will be,
don't you? We're going to cut off your supply
of Prozac, that's what we'll do! :-)

In article >,
says...
> I think a lot of you people need to *grow up*. It's a shame there isn't a
> drug to treat immaturity and bullying.
>
>

But there is - sodium cyanide.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Jen" > writes:

>I think a lot of you people need to *grow up*. It's a shame there isn't a
>drug to treat immaturity and bullying.

There's two sides to this situation. Yes, I agree with you that some
people are bullying patches, and I've said so before. At least a few of
them recently have admitted as much, saying that they wouldn't treat
patches this way except she irritates them.
Now, admittedly patches is a spaz. (Yes, honey, you are a spaz.)
That doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it can be irritating. My
half-sister is a spaz and she's freakin' intolerable in real life. But
the mature thing isn't to egg her on and make fun of her, it's to just
let her go on and be a spaz to her heart's content because, hey, it is
what she is.
And I think RFC can be amazingly tolerant. They tolerate racists,
homophobes, kooks, tools, knobs, and weiners. So I wish they would
either avoid those who upset them or tolerate them, and stop picking on
them.

Stacia
tool, knob, and weiner - the trifecta