Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Tea (rec.drink.tea) Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant (C. sinensis or close relatives) in water. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:46:40 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>>> Kinko, for instance still requires written permission only if there is an >>> explicit copyright notice. Are Kinko lawyers good enough for you? You >>> decide. >> >> Did the lawyers decide that or was it management? How well informed >> were they? > > You have got to be kidding , my friend. If you think that Kinko's management > is so brave and bold as to take the responsibility for such a decision > without corporate lawyers beating this issue to death you live on a > different planet. A corporate VP who did that would have been put in an > asylum as soon as the ink of his signature dries. Considering some of the boneheaded and actually illegal polices that managements I have dealt with have implemented, you have a much higher opinion of management than I. >>Are you aware that you can walk into Kinkos with >> copyrighted work and make your own photocopy and they won't have a >> clue or even try to stop you? > > Absolutely, but then, they are not responsible - it is you who broke the > law. They have no more responsibility in this case as rental car agency if > you hit and kill someone driving the car you rented from them. But if you > want THEM to make the copies, its a different story. Yes, because Kinkos has been sued by publishers for making copies. How long until a publisher sues because they let people make copies? After all, they've also sued VCR manufactures, CD-burner manufactures, digital duplication software manufacturers,... >>> I am not interested in this issue and won't comment on it again. >> >> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... > > Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in > interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. > > Sasha. Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble. -- Derek SAM: Teal'c, how do Jaffa couples handle their problems? TEAL'C: On Chulak, a dispute between a man and a woman that cannot be resolved necessitates a pledge break. It must be requested by one and granted by the other. DANIEL: And if that doesn't work? TEAL'C: A weapon is required. (Stargate-SG1, "Affinity") |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:56:02 GMT, Michael Plant wrote:
> Alex igy.com11/22/04 > > >>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... >> >> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in >> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. >> >> Sasha. > > First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to > your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon, > I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . > As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good. > > Michael Yes, this would be right up Jim's alley. (Scary thing is, that the more I think about it, the more I agree with him!) -- Derek There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:56:02 GMT, Michael Plant wrote:
> Alex igy.com11/22/04 > > >>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... >> >> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in >> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. >> >> Sasha. > > First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to > your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon, > I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . > As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good. > > Michael Yes, this would be right up Jim's alley. (Scary thing is, that the more I think about it, the more I agree with him!) -- Derek There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:56:02 GMT, Michael Plant wrote:
> Alex igy.com11/22/04 > > >>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... >> >> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in >> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. >> >> Sasha. > > First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to > your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon, > I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . > As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good. > > Michael Yes, this would be right up Jim's alley. (Scary thing is, that the more I think about it, the more I agree with him!) -- Derek There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble. > > > -- > Derek > But you didn't and even if you did... if I would trust a legal opinion on copyright issues of a guy on the tea group on the net named "Derek" who calls me "dude", they would need to take me to the doctor, wouldn't they? Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble. > > > -- > Derek > But you didn't and even if you did... if I would trust a legal opinion on copyright issues of a guy on the tea group on the net named "Derek" who calls me "dude", they would need to take me to the doctor, wouldn't they? Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
> > Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble. > > > -- > Derek > But you didn't and even if you did... if I would trust a legal opinion on copyright issues of a guy on the tea group on the net named "Derek" who calls me "dude", they would need to take me to the doctor, wouldn't they? Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:09:39 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Michael Plant" > wrote in message > ... >> Alex igy.com11/22/04 >> >> >>>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... >>> >>> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in >>> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. >>> >>> Sasha. >> >> First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and >> to >> your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation >> soon, >> I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . >> As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good. >> >> Michael >> > > Michael, > > I expressed my lack of interest in the subject but I was implicitly accused > of leaving the field of battle. That I do not do. So, I am not interested in > commenting on the matter, but if directly asked or challenged, I will honor > my opponents with my answer. > > Sasha. Sasha, If I had wished to accuse you of leaving the field of battle I would have. You you claim was "implicit" is actually an assumption. Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for me. -- Derek Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then they beat you with experience. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:09:39 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Michael Plant" > wrote in message > ... >> Alex igy.com11/22/04 >> >> >>>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... >>> >>> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in >>> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. >>> >>> Sasha. >> >> First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and >> to >> your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation >> soon, >> I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . >> As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good. >> >> Michael >> > > Michael, > > I expressed my lack of interest in the subject but I was implicitly accused > of leaving the field of battle. That I do not do. So, I am not interested in > commenting on the matter, but if directly asked or challenged, I will honor > my opponents with my answer. > > Sasha. Sasha, If I had wished to accuse you of leaving the field of battle I would have. You you claim was "implicit" is actually an assumption. Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for me. -- Derek Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then they beat you with experience. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Sasha,
>................ > Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to > respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was > teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for > me. I did not say that you were accusing and I did not say it was an affront to my honor. I said you were challenging. > > -- > Derek > > Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then > they beat you with experience. You may also say that your sig (above) about "never argue with an idiot" is just a saying that has nothing to do with the subject since it is printed below your signature, etc. But in this context it is rude and it is camouflaged insult, regardless of where you put it and even if it has smileys or anything else attached (or not). Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Sasha,
>................ > Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to > respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was > teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for > me. I did not say that you were accusing and I did not say it was an affront to my honor. I said you were challenging. > > -- > Derek > > Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then > they beat you with experience. You may also say that your sig (above) about "never argue with an idiot" is just a saying that has nothing to do with the subject since it is printed below your signature, etc. But in this context it is rude and it is camouflaged insult, regardless of where you put it and even if it has smileys or anything else attached (or not). Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Sasha,
>................ > Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to > respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was > teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for > me. I did not say that you were accusing and I did not say it was an affront to my honor. I said you were challenging. > > -- > Derek > > Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then > they beat you with experience. You may also say that your sig (above) about "never argue with an idiot" is just a saying that has nothing to do with the subject since it is printed below your signature, etc. But in this context it is rude and it is camouflaged insult, regardless of where you put it and even if it has smileys or anything else attached (or not). Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> Sasha, >>................ >> Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to >> respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was >> teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for >> me. > > I did not say that you were accusing and I did not say it was an affront to > my honor. I said you were challenging. Since you've decided to make this a confrontation, Sasha... "I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle" Was someone else posting from your account? >> -- >> Derek >> >> Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then >> they beat you with experience. > > You may also say that your sig (above) about "never argue with an idiot" is > just a saying that has nothing to do with the subject since it is printed > below your signature, etc. But in this context it is rude and it is > camouflaged insult, regardless of where you put it and even if it has > smileys or anything else attached (or not). Actually, what I would say is that my .sig is randomly selected by my newsreader from a large text file of different comments and quotations. There was nothing intentional or personal about it. It's not a camouflaged insult. It's a random occurrence. You are assuming confrontation and insult where none exists. Since my ..sig may have contributed to that, I apologize. -- Derek "So.....I was having dinner with world chess champion Garry Kasporov and there was a checkered tablecloth. It took him two hours to pass me the salt." -- Peter Kay |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> Sasha, >>................ >> Nothing I wrote was an affront to your honor and required you to >> respond. And if the emoticon didn't clue you into the fact that I was >> teasing and not accusing, well, I guess there's a lesson in that for >> me. > > I did not say that you were accusing and I did not say it was an affront to > my honor. I said you were challenging. Since you've decided to make this a confrontation, Sasha... "I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle" Was someone else posting from your account? >> -- >> Derek >> >> Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level, and then >> they beat you with experience. > > You may also say that your sig (above) about "never argue with an idiot" is > just a saying that has nothing to do with the subject since it is printed > below your signature, etc. But in this context it is rude and it is > camouflaged insult, regardless of where you put it and even if it has > smileys or anything else attached (or not). Actually, what I would say is that my .sig is randomly selected by my newsreader from a large text file of different comments and quotations. There was nothing intentional or personal about it. It's not a camouflaged insult. It's a random occurrence. You are assuming confrontation and insult where none exists. Since my ..sig may have contributed to that, I apologize. -- Derek "So.....I was having dinner with world chess champion Garry Kasporov and there was a checkered tablecloth. It took him two hours to pass me the salt." -- Peter Kay |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:16:36 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> >> Dude, I could have told you that days ago and saved you the trouble. >> >> >> -- >> Derek >> > > But you didn't and even if you did... if I would trust a legal opinion on > copyright issues of a guy on the tea group on the net named "Derek" who > calls me "dude", they would need to take me to the doctor, wouldn't they? > > Sasha. One does not have to be a legal scholar to hold an informed position on the confused status of copyright law in the U.S. - particularly given the number of articles that have been written over the last 5 years regarding the DMCA. One need not hold a J.D. to be able to understand that there is a great deal of variability in how copyright laws are interpreted. Now, if you happen to have something against Gaelic first names, that's a different issue altogether, as is your elitist response to the use of the word "dude." -- Derek On the sixth day, God created the platypus. And God said, "Let's see the evolutionists try and figure this one out." |
|
|||
|
|||
> Now, if you happen to have something against Gaelic first names, > that's a different issue altogether, as is your elitist response to > the use of the word "dude." > > -- > Derek Definitely I have nothing against Gaelic names. Ok, Ok, I have nothing against Gaelic names, dude. Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Now, if you happen to have something against Gaelic first names, > that's a different issue altogether, as is your elitist response to > the use of the word "dude." > > -- > Derek Definitely I have nothing against Gaelic names. Ok, Ok, I have nothing against Gaelic names, dude. Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message news > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote: > > "I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle" > > Was someone else posting from your account? I was wrong, you were right. Sorry, my fault. Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message news > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote: > > "I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle" > > Was someone else posting from your account? I was wrong, you were right. Sorry, my fault. Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:53:57 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> Now, if you happen to have something against Gaelic first names, >> that's a different issue altogether, as is your elitist response to >> the use of the word "dude." >> >> -- >> Derek > > Definitely I have nothing against Gaelic names. > Ok, Ok, I have nothing against Gaelic names, dude. > > Sasha. "That's much better, thank you," he said while offering a cup of tea and a crumpet. -- Derek "In the beginning there was nothing. God said, "Let there be light!" And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better." -- Ellen DeGeneres |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:56:57 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message news >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote: > >> >> "I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle" >> >> Was someone else posting from your account? > > I was wrong, you were right. Sorry, my fault. > > Sasha. Now you just wait just a darned minute! How the heck are we supposed to get a good-old-fashioned, all-out flame war going if we start apologizing to one another? Dang it. Spoiled my afternoon. I had all sorts of frustrations I was going to let loose. Now, I suppose, I'll have to settle for another cup of tea. -- Derek "...we know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. My concern is that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side." -- Abraham Lincoln |
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:56:57 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message news >> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:32:04 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote: > >> >> "I was implicitly accused of leaving the field of battle" >> >> Was someone else posting from your account? > > I was wrong, you were right. Sorry, my fault. > > Sasha. Now you just wait just a darned minute! How the heck are we supposed to get a good-old-fashioned, all-out flame war going if we start apologizing to one another? Dang it. Spoiled my afternoon. I had all sorts of frustrations I was going to let loose. Now, I suppose, I'll have to settle for another cup of tea. -- Derek "...we know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. My concern is that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side." -- Abraham Lincoln |
|
|||
|
|||
Oh it's the guy claiming it is public domain when he rips off this
group for his website then copyright violation when somebody else does it. You got a discussion board for your website up and running yet? Jim Mike Petro > wrote in message >... > Dear RFDTers ....sink hole... |
|
|||
|
|||
Bait not taken.........
On 22 Nov 2004 11:04:03 -0800, (Space Cowboy) cast caution to the wind and posted: >Oh it's the guy claiming it is public domain when he rips off this >group for his website then copyright violation when somebody else does >it. You got a discussion board for your website up and running yet? > >Jim > >Mike Petro > wrote in message >... >> Dear RFDTers >...sink hole... Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net remove the "filter" in my email address to reply |
|
|||
|
|||
Don't anyone bite my head off here, but if the point of this thread
was to get it to appear prominently on the TeaTalk discussion board, or in Google for that matter, it's worked, and ... now it's cluttering up RFDT. Ian -- I will not weary you with descriptions of quiet, similar, uninteresting days,--days of sleep, and pipes, and coffee. (Sir R.F. Burton) http://www.bookstacks.org/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Don't anyone bite my head off here, but if the point of this thread
was to get it to appear prominently on the TeaTalk discussion board, or in Google for that matter, it's worked, and ... now it's cluttering up RFDT. Ian -- I will not weary you with descriptions of quiet, similar, uninteresting days,--days of sleep, and pipes, and coffee. (Sir R.F. Burton) http://www.bookstacks.org/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Diane L. Schirf wrote:
> In article > , > "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote: > > >>"Diane L. Schirf" > wrote in message hlink.net... >> >> >>>You asked if they're tangible. Once they become distributed and >>>printable, they are. (Your thoughts aren't printable. Your words on >>>screen, once printable by yourself or others, are. Quite a difference.) >>> >>>Again, you asked if they're "tangible." Simple question. I answered it. >>>They're as tangible as any other writing. >>> >> >>No, what you did - is you interpreted "tangible". You said that printABLE = >>tangible. And I said only printED may be tangible. >>And it will be up to courts to decide. >>Also note, that you added a new argument to your first one - before it was >>tangible because it was printable, now it becomes tangible "once they become >>DISTRIBUTED and printable". > > > Printable by you. > Distributed if you're talking about printed by others. > Tangible as any other words on paper. > > If a book is tangible, so are your words on screen. > > I'm not interpreting a thing. Merely stating the obvious. > Saved to a computer drive counts as tangible. You could have your lawyer check the case law, if you wanted to pay for his time. dmh |
|
|||
|
|||
Diane L. Schirf wrote:
> In article > , > "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote: > > >>"Diane L. Schirf" > wrote in message hlink.net... >> >> >>>You asked if they're tangible. Once they become distributed and >>>printable, they are. (Your thoughts aren't printable. Your words on >>>screen, once printable by yourself or others, are. Quite a difference.) >>> >>>Again, you asked if they're "tangible." Simple question. I answered it. >>>They're as tangible as any other writing. >>> >> >>No, what you did - is you interpreted "tangible". You said that printABLE = >>tangible. And I said only printED may be tangible. >>And it will be up to courts to decide. >>Also note, that you added a new argument to your first one - before it was >>tangible because it was printable, now it becomes tangible "once they become >>DISTRIBUTED and printable". > > > Printable by you. > Distributed if you're talking about printed by others. > Tangible as any other words on paper. > > If a book is tangible, so are your words on screen. > > I'm not interpreting a thing. Merely stating the obvious. > Saved to a computer drive counts as tangible. You could have your lawyer check the case law, if you wanted to pay for his time. dmh |
|
|||
|
|||
One thing good about a 24 hour Google Usenet rollup the flames are
smoldering embers by the time you see them. Considering who started this thread it is the pot calling the kettle black. I don't need too rehash, reguritate, reiterate, ripoff anyone ideas and then hide behind public domain. If I said it first it belongs to me and not some pathetic paraphrasing plagiarizer who claims it's just a matter of time before three monkeys at a typewriter would come up with it anyway and copyrights don't extend to simians which excludes the genus Gorilla so Koko can profit from learning sign language. I hope you get to read your ideas in print someday by some auteur who shares your ideas of intellectual property. Jim Derek > wrote in message >... > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:56:02 GMT, Michael Plant wrote: > > > Alex igy.com11/22/04 > > > > > >>> Oh, sure. NOW you're not interested... > >> > >> Yes, NOW, after I got a legal opinion that there is a huge difference in > >> interpretation of copyright laws, I am not interested. > >> > >> Sasha. > > > > First of all, Sasha, old fellow, what happened to your promise to us and to > > your patent lawyer? Second, if Jim doesn't dive into the conversation soon, > > I'm dropping my membership to this group. I suspect he has some opinions . > > As for me, I am really not interested. Boy, this tea is good. > > > > Michael > > Yes, this would be right up Jim's alley. > > (Scary thing is, that the more I think about it, the more I agree with > him!) |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Nov 2004 07:23:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote:
> One thing good about a 24 hour Google Usenet rollup the flames are > smoldering embers by the time you see them. Considering who started > this thread it is the pot calling the kettle black. I don't need too > rehash, reguritate, reiterate, ripoff anyone ideas and then hide > behind public domain. If I said it first it belongs to me and not > some pathetic paraphrasing plagiarizer who claims it's just a matter > of time before three monkeys at a typewriter would come up with it > anyway and copyrights don't extend to simians which excludes the genus > Gorilla so Koko can profit from learning sign language. I hope you > get to read your ideas in print someday by some auteur who shares your > ideas of intellectual property. Anyone who shares my ideas of intellectual property wouldn't take my ideas and call them their own. Neither would they try and claim copyright for an idea that is neither new nor unique. -- Derek Heffalumps to the left of me, woozles to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with Pooh. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Nov 2004 07:23:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote:
> One thing good about a 24 hour Google Usenet rollup the flames are > smoldering embers by the time you see them. Considering who started > this thread it is the pot calling the kettle black. I don't need too > rehash, reguritate, reiterate, ripoff anyone ideas and then hide > behind public domain. If I said it first it belongs to me and not > some pathetic paraphrasing plagiarizer who claims it's just a matter > of time before three monkeys at a typewriter would come up with it > anyway and copyrights don't extend to simians which excludes the genus > Gorilla so Koko can profit from learning sign language. I hope you > get to read your ideas in print someday by some auteur who shares your > ideas of intellectual property. Anyone who shares my ideas of intellectual property wouldn't take my ideas and call them their own. Neither would they try and claim copyright for an idea that is neither new nor unique. -- Derek Heffalumps to the left of me, woozles to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with Pooh. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On 23 Nov 2004 07:23:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote: > >> One thing good about a 24 hour Google Usenet rollup the flames are >> smoldering embers by the time you see them. Considering who started >> this thread it is the pot calling the kettle black. I don't need too >> rehash, reguritate, reiterate, ripoff anyone ideas and then hide >> behind public domain. If I said it first it belongs to me and not >> some pathetic paraphrasing plagiarizer who claims it's just a matter >> of time before three monkeys at a typewriter would come up with it >> anyway and copyrights don't extend to simians which excludes the genus >> Gorilla so Koko can profit from learning sign language. I hope you >> get to read your ideas in print someday by some auteur who shares your >> ideas of intellectual property. > > Anyone who shares my ideas of intellectual property wouldn't take my > ideas and call them their own. Neither would they try and claim > copyright for an idea that is neither new nor unique. > > -- > Derek > Jim, Derek - I have to disagree. Being a holder of about 12 US and international patents I can tell you - its a bitch. There are people who do nothing else in their lives than take a patent, add horns to it and repatent it or themsleves. Shame is not even in their vocabulary. Chinese completely disregard patents (they never got royalties on tea, gun-powder, etc - I sympathize with them) Israelis do that to prove that if they can wrap Viagra pill in a condom they have a useful combination and therefore smarter than both Phyzer and the condom inventor. Oh, well.. Sasha. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:06:11 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message ... >> On 23 Nov 2004 07:23:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote: >> >>> One thing good about a 24 hour Google Usenet rollup the flames are >>> smoldering embers by the time you see them. Considering who started >>> this thread it is the pot calling the kettle black. I don't need too >>> rehash, reguritate, reiterate, ripoff anyone ideas and then hide >>> behind public domain. If I said it first it belongs to me and not >>> some pathetic paraphrasing plagiarizer who claims it's just a matter >>> of time before three monkeys at a typewriter would come up with it >>> anyway and copyrights don't extend to simians which excludes the genus >>> Gorilla so Koko can profit from learning sign language. I hope you >>> get to read your ideas in print someday by some auteur who shares your >>> ideas of intellectual property. >> >> Anyone who shares my ideas of intellectual property wouldn't take my >> ideas and call them their own. Neither would they try and claim >> copyright for an idea that is neither new nor unique. >> >> -- >> Derek >> > > Jim, Derek - > > I have to disagree. Being a holder of about 12 US and international patents > I can tell you - its a bitch. There are people who do nothing else in their > lives than take a patent, add horns to it and repatent it or themsleves. > Shame is not even in their vocabulary. Chinese completely disregard patents > (they never got royalties on tea, gun-powder, etc - I sympathize with them) > Israelis do that to prove that if they can wrap Viagra pill in a condom they > have a useful combination and therefore smarter than both Phyzer and the > condom inventor. > > Oh, well.. > > Sasha. Sasha, I never said people don't do it. I said that anyone who shares my ideas of intellectual property wouldn't. -- Derek Sometimes the end doesn't justify the jeans. |
|
|||
|
|||
You have my permission. The three monkeys haven't got around too it
yet so you saw it here first and nowhere else on Usenet or even the WWW wasteland which probably means it was the first time it was ever uttered by man as it pertains to an individual running a website who let's his dog crap in your yard and if you don't like it makes you take him to court so the judge can tell him to fix his fence. You can hide behind obvious oblivious obfuscation but sometimes you do the right thing. Jim Michael Plant > wrote in message >... > Space 11/23/04 > >> ...paper shredder... > > Being a total moran, I have no intellectual property to share. Nonetheless, > I'd like your permission to repeat the phrase, "pathetic paraphrasing > plagiarizer," since I think it's one I could put to good use. I'll of course > credit you. > > Listening to music of a central African pigmy group. It doesn't get better. > Drinking a young green Pu'erh of old tree leaf, likewise lovely. > > Michael |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hey, I'm new to this board and don't know the board dynamics andpolitics | General Cooking | |||
Chopping board matters for discussion | General Cooking | |||
Discussion Board Invite | General Cooking | |||
block-board-wood oil discussion | General Cooking | |||
block-board-wood oil discussion | General Cooking |