"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>>Nobody needs you to police for them.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted
> >>>>works have been posted in public.
> >>>
> >>>You are policing.
> >>
> >>No, but perhaps you should have a word with "Fritz" if you insist
on stopping
> >>policing of this newsgroup. That is, if you're really concerned
about
> >>self-appointed newsgroup policing (I know you're not).
> >
> >
> > Oh, you read minds too?!
>
> I'm always amused by ths charge of "mind reading" by
> someone who has plainly revealed enough of what he
> believes for a reasonably intelligent person to make a
> correct inference about the first person's beliefs.
> Mr. Suspect has made a correct inference: you are NOT
> concerned about self-appointed netcops, because you
> don't criticize those who do it as long as the
> vigilantes are on your side.

"Vigilantes", that's funny. No, some policing actions are just more
objectionable than others. I didn't read closely, but I think Fritz
complained about crossposting messages to newsgroups in which they
would be off-topic. That's hardly the stuff of "vigilantes" and below
my threshold of objectionable. There's a big difference between
complaining about crossposting and reporting somebody to the
authorities for posting recipes.

It's very obvious that people like Fritz and Mr. Falafel are targeted
more because of their vegan beliefs and less because of other things
they have been accused of. If they were on "your side" a lot of those
things would be overlooked - exactly the same behavior that you are
accusing me of.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> No, my point was that it would be hypocritical of you to accuse Mr.
> Falafel if you participated in copyright violation yourself - not that
> I'm suggesting that two wrongs make a right. But since you're so
> squeeky clean (yeah right) then you can carry on as you will in good
> conscience.

Frankly, accusations of hypocrisy always seem pretty weak to me, because,
when it comes down to it, I've never met a single person who is not
hypocritical in some way. It's part of what makes human beings interesting,
that our actions sometimes conflict with our beliefs. An ideal doesn't
become any less 'ideal' just because we are unable to live up to all the
time.

Take veganism, for example (since it's on topic). There's no way to avoid
every single animal product in the world and yet people strive to anyway,
out of an ideological committment to something they see as ideal. Does the
fact that they don't or can't always live up to the ideal make them wrong to
believe in it in the first place and do what they *can* to live up to it?

I'm not vegan and I'm not saying it's neccessarily The One True Way, but I
think the analogy works anyway.

As for providing free advertising for cookbook authors, if you don't include
the name of the author or the book it doesn't do much good. It's about
respect and credit, as far as I'm concerned.

-Jay

"jay" > wrote in message
news:v94Ac.733773$Pk3.573023@pd7tw1no...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > C. James Strutz wrote:
> > No, my point was that it would be hypocritical of you to accuse Mr.
> > Falafel if you participated in copyright violation yourself - not that
> > I'm suggesting that two wrongs make a right. But since you're so
> > squeeky clean (yeah right) then you can carry on as you will in good
> > conscience.
>
> Frankly, accusations of hypocrisy always seem pretty weak to me, because,
> when it comes down to it, I've never met a single person who is not
> hypocritical in some way. It's part of what makes human beings
interesting,
> that our actions sometimes conflict with our beliefs. An ideal doesn't
> become any less 'ideal' just because we are unable to live up to all the
> time.
==================
The problem with vegans is that they never even try to live up to their
supposed ethics.


>
> Take veganism, for example (since it's on topic). There's no way to avoid
> every single animal product in the world and yet people strive to anyway,
====================
No, you don't. You do no such thing. All you(vegans) do is follow a simple
rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' The problem is that that does
not automatically mean no/fewer/less animals die for your food. In fact,
you don't even try to find out which of the foods you do eat cause more/less
death and suffering. All you do is focus entirely on what you think others
are doing, and then declare yourself 'moral'.


> out of an ideological committment to something they see as ideal. Does the
> fact that they don't or can't always live up to the ideal make them wrong
to
> believe in it in the first place and do what they *can* to live up to it?
====================
No, but the fact reamins that you don't even try to live up to this supposed
ideal, killer. that's the difference.

>
> I'm not vegan and I'm not saying it's neccessarily The One True Way, but I
> think the analogy works anyway.
===============
No, it doesn't.


>
> As for providing free advertising for cookbook authors, if you don't
include
> the name of the author or the book it doesn't do much good. It's about
> respect and credit, as far as I'm concerned.
=====================
It's abouit violating the law, period. Besides, he didn't even credit the
author, since he gave the wrong name.

>
> -Jay
>
>
>
>

C. James Strutz, a hopeless little weenie, wrote:

>>>>>Nobody needs you to police for them.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted
>>>>works have been posted in public.
>>>
>>>You are policing.
>>
>>No, but perhaps you should have a word with "Fritz" if you insist on
> stopping
>>policing of this newsgroup. That is, if you're really concerned about
>>self-appointed newsgroup policing (I know you're not).
>
> Oh, you read minds too?!

Why do you halfwits always fall back on such replies rather than addressing the
issues? Your double standards and inconsistencies have been pointed out before,
so I'm not surprised by the repeat performance of them now. *I* know the issue
isn't policing. So do you.

<...>
>>>You insist
>>>that "I've done the right thing" in reporting Mr. Falafel with such
>>>bizarre fervor, yet you lash out at everyone else calling them
>>>"hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies".
>>
>>There's no hysteria involved in this, James. There's no self-absorption,
>>except on the part of the vegans (Michael even suggested that I should leave it
>>bebecause Lindsay "is an avid vegan who is spreading the message-we are a
>>small family-we need to stick together" and so on -- as if veganism comes before
>>ethics and the law). The smarmiest self-righteousness came when Lindsay
>>claimed he's performing an advertising service with his repeated copyright
>>infringements.
>
> Look, I'm not definding anybody's position here.

Liar.

> You are being emphatically righteous

No, I'm pointing out a few facts.

> about this copyright infringement thing, and the irony is in your
> accusations of vegans being righteous.

Self-righteous.

> I'm trying to tell you that you're
> matching righteousness with righteousness, and even exceeding in most cases.

Liar, on both charges. Those of you who've defended copyright infringement
started with the shitty "youdoittoo" excuse, then someone dumbly interjected
with the Meredith decision, now you're claiming that I'm mind-reading. At no
point along the way have you supported any of your claims about the legality of
what Lindsay did. All you've done -- *YOU* PERSONALLY, C JAMES STRUTZ -- is try
to cast aspersions on me when I'm not the wrong-doer in this case. The person
who violates copyrights is.

> It's very annoying.

Thanks for letting me know of another of your buttons I can push in the future.
This issue, though, isn't about you and it's not about me. It stands on its own
as a matter of law.

>>>If you still
>>>don't get it let me be direct: YOU are being hysterical,
>>>self-absorbed, and self-righteous in your behavior.
>>
>>You're wrong. Very wrong.
>
> I'm right on the money,

You're as wrong as wrong can be.

<...>
> Well, I agree that there must be laws and enforcement for copyright
> infringement. Copyright authors, artists, etc. should have rights to protect
> their work and their livelihood.

That's the issue at hand, C James. Too bad it's taken you this long to admit it.

> I've developed enough electronic hardware
> and software over the years to know about putting your creative heart and
> soul into your work. And I've done lots of projects for personal use,
> friends, and the public domain. Most of those projects were done for fun and
> I never realized any money from it. None of it was ever copyrighted or
> patented because I never cared.

In the case of an author who copyrights his or her works, can you not agree that
their rights should be honored regardless of *your* personal motivations in your
own creative efforts?

> I am always happy to contribute a solution
> to somebody's problem and honored when somebody uses my work. The only thing
> I would be ****ed about is if somebody used my work for profit, particularly
> if I didn't even get credit for it. That sort of thing isn't happening here
> with posting recipes.

Bullshit. He even got the author's name wrong.

> IMO, you're making a problem where there isn't one.

I'm not the one who's making problems. That's your buddy Lindsay whom you keep
defending.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>>Oh, you read minds too?!
>>
>>I'm always amused by ths charge of "mind reading" by
>>someone who has plainly revealed enough of what he
>>believes for a reasonably intelligent person to make a
>>correct inference about the first person's beliefs.
>>Mr. Suspect has made a correct inference: you are NOT
>>concerned about self-appointed netcops, because you
>>don't criticize those who do it as long as the
>>vigilantes are on your side.
>
> "Vigilantes", that's funny. No, some policing actions are just more
> objectionable than others.

See what I mean about your lack of consistency?

> I didn't read closely,

Seems to be your problem, huh? (See below for explanation.)

> but I think Fritz
> complained about crossposting messages to newsgroups in which they
> would be off-topic.

No, she objected only to cross-posting despite the fact that the issues being
discussed were on-topic for all those groups. She even invoked ISP TOCs.

> That's hardly the stuff of "vigilantes" and below
> my threshold of objectionable. There's a big difference between
> complaining about crossposting and reporting somebody to the
> authorities for posting recipes.

Authorities? You mean *authors*, *publishers*. Perhaps you should re-read what I
actually wrote before exaggerating it. I said the copyright holders should have
the right to determine if they give someone permission. I also said they should
have the right to know if anything should be pursued. My rights were not
violated by Lindsay, theirs were; it's their choice to seek civil or criminal
complaints against him.

I didn't raise the issue to make things personal here. Your muddled objections,
though, have made it very personal. Stop exaggerating my position on this, you
stupid asshole.

> It's very obvious that people like Fritz and Mr. Falafel are targeted
> more because of their vegan beliefs and less because of other things
> they have been accused of.

Give me some grounds for such a claim. I could've made it very personal from the
start. I didn't. You did. So did Lindsay. I'm staying away from the personal
aspects of this because the issue is bigger than what you claim.

> If they were on "your side" a lot of those
> things would be overlooked - exactly the same behavior that you are
> accusing me of.

Of your being a dickhead? We're used to that.

jay wrote:
>>No, my point was that it would be hypocritical of you to accuse Mr.
>>Falafel if you participated in copyright violation yourself - not that
>>I'm suggesting that two wrongs make a right. But since you're so
>>squeeky clean (yeah right) then you can carry on as you will in good
>>conscience.
>
> Frankly, accusations of hypocrisy always seem pretty weak to me, because,
> when it comes down to it, I've never met a single person who is not
> hypocritical in some way. It's part of what makes human beings interesting,
> that our actions sometimes conflict with our beliefs. An ideal doesn't
> become any less 'ideal' just because we are unable to live up to all the
> time.

The problem comes when one group (e.g., vegans) claim to be more ethical than
another group (e.g., those who eat meat). It's not so much about ideals, it's
about claims of ethical superiority.

> Take veganism, for example (since it's on topic). There's no way to avoid
> every single animal product in the world and yet people strive to anyway,
> out of an ideological committment to something they see as ideal. Does the
> fact that they don't or can't always live up to the ideal make them wrong to
> believe in it in the first place and do what they *can* to live up to it?

It's flawed from its original thesis.

> I'm not vegan and I'm not saying it's neccessarily The One True Way, but I
> think the analogy works anyway.
>
> As for providing free advertising for cookbook authors, if you don't include
> the name of the author or the book it doesn't do much good. It's about
> respect and credit, as far as I'm concerned.

In the instance of the chili recipes which started this whole ordeal, the person
who violated copyrights AND got the author's name wrong. Then he had the
audacity to suggest he should be paid for violating the author's copyright and
giving her advertising.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz, a hopeless little weenie, wrote:

So now you've lowered yourself to petty name calling. You are pathetic.

> >>>>>Nobody needs you to police for them.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm not policing. I only notified authors that their copyrighted
> >>>>works have been posted in public.
> >>>
> >>>You are policing.
> >>
> >>No, but perhaps you should have a word with "Fritz" if you insist on
> > stopping
> >>policing of this newsgroup. That is, if you're really concerned about
> >>self-appointed newsgroup policing (I know you're not).
> >
> > Oh, you read minds too?!
>
> Why do you halfwits always fall back on such replies rather than
addressing the
> issues? Your double standards and inconsistencies have been pointed out
before,
> so I'm not surprised by the repeat performance of them now. *I* know the
issue
> isn't policing. So do you.

The "I know you're not" is what I was referring to when I wrote "you read
minds too?". You don't have a clue.

> >>>You insist
> >>>that "I've done the right thing" in reporting Mr. Falafel with such
> >>>bizarre fervor, yet you lash out at everyone else calling them
> >>>"hysterical, self-absorbed, self-righteous ninnies".
> >>
> >>There's no hysteria involved in this, James. There's no self-absorption,
> >>except on the part of the vegans (Michael even suggested that I should
leave it
> >>bebecause Lindsay "is an avid vegan who is spreading the message-we are
a
> >>small family-we need to stick together" and so on -- as if veganism
comes before
> >>ethics and the law). The smarmiest self-righteousness came when Lindsay
> >>claimed he's performing an advertising service with his repeated
copyright
> >>infringements.
> >
> > Look, I'm not definding anybody's position here.
>
> Liar.

Prove it.

> > You are being emphatically righteous
>
> No, I'm pointing out a few facts.

Only "facts" from your own little, weird world.

> > about this copyright infringement thing, and the irony is in your
> > accusations of vegans being righteous.
>
> Self-righteous.
>
> > I'm trying to tell you that you're
> > matching righteousness with righteousness, and even exceeding in most
cases.
>
> Liar, on both charges. Those of you who've defended copyright infringement
> started with the shitty "youdoittoo" excuse, then someone dumbly
interjected
> with the Meredith decision, now you're claiming that I'm mind-reading. At
no
> point along the way have you supported any of your claims about the
legality of
> what Lindsay did. All you've done -- *YOU* PERSONALLY, C JAMES STRUTZ --
is try
> to cast aspersions on me when I'm not the wrong-doer in this case. The
person
> who violates copyrights is.

You're the one who gets off on reporting recipe posters to the authorities.
You're pathetic on that count too.

> > It's very annoying.
>
> Thanks for letting me know of another of your buttons I can push in the
future.

Actually, I find it delightful when you get angry. :^)

> This issue, though, isn't about you and it's not about me. It stands on
its own
> as a matter of law.
>
> >>>If you still
> >>>don't get it let me be direct: YOU are being hysterical,
> >>>self-absorbed, and self-righteous in your behavior.
> >>
> >>You're wrong. Very wrong.
> >
> > I'm right on the money,
>
> You're as wrong as wrong can be.
>
> <...>
> > Well, I agree that there must be laws and enforcement for copyright
> > infringement. Copyright authors, artists, etc. should have rights to
protect
> > their work and their livelihood.
>
> That's the issue at hand, C James. Too bad it's taken you this long to
admit it.
>
> > I've developed enough electronic hardware
> > and software over the years to know about putting your creative heart
and
> > soul into your work. And I've done lots of projects for personal use,
> > friends, and the public domain. Most of those projects were done for fun
and
> > I never realized any money from it. None of it was ever copyrighted or
> > patented because I never cared.
>
> In the case of an author who copyrights his or her works, can you not
agree that
> their rights should be honored regardless of *your* personal motivations
in your
> own creative efforts?

Sure, I would care if my livelihood were being threatened by someone
illegally making money from my work. That's not what's happening here.

> > I am always happy to contribute a solution
> > to somebody's problem and honored when somebody uses my work. The only
thing
> > I would be ****ed about is if somebody used my work for profit,
particularly
> > if I didn't even get credit for it. That sort of thing isn't happening
here
> > with posting recipes.
>
> Bullshit. He even got the author's name wrong.
>
> > IMO, you're making a problem where there isn't one.
>
> I'm not the one who's making problems. That's your buddy Lindsay whom you
keep
> defending.

No, I'm not defending him. I'm trying to point out that you are making a
fool of yourself by reporting him. You probably would report little kids too
if their lemonade stand were in a residential zone....

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> >>>Oh, you read minds too?!
> >>
> >>I'm always amused by ths charge of "mind reading" by
> >>someone who has plainly revealed enough of what he
> >>believes for a reasonably intelligent person to make a
> >>correct inference about the first person's beliefs.
> >>Mr. Suspect has made a correct inference: you are NOT
> >>concerned about self-appointed netcops, because you
> >>don't criticize those who do it as long as the
> >>vigilantes are on your side.
> >
> > "Vigilantes", that's funny. No, some policing actions are just more
> > objectionable than others.
>
> See what I mean about your lack of consistency?

Your comment doesn't even follow, typical of you. Go back and read it
again - it has nothing to do with consistency.

> > I didn't read closely,
>
> Seems to be your problem, huh? (See below for explanation.)
>
> > but I think Fritz
> > complained about crossposting messages to newsgroups in which they
> > would be off-topic.
>
> No, she objected only to cross-posting despite the fact that the issues
being
> discussed were on-topic for all those groups. She even invoked ISP TOCs.
>
> > That's hardly the stuff of "vigilantes" and below
> > my threshold of objectionable. There's a big difference between
> > complaining about crossposting and reporting somebody to the
> > authorities for posting recipes.
>
> Authorities? You mean *authors*, *publishers*. Perhaps you should re-read
what I
> actually wrote before exaggerating it.

Not an exaggeration. Essentially it is reporting to the authorities if
lawyers become involved.

>I said the copyright holders should have
> the right to determine if they give someone permission. I also said they
should
> have the right to know if anything should be pursued. My rights were not
> violated by Lindsay, theirs were; it's their choice to seek civil or
criminal
> complaints against him.

Whatever happens will be on your conscience. Well, on second thought that
won't be much of a problem.

> I didn't raise the issue to make things personal here. Your muddled
objections,
> though, have made it very personal. Stop exaggerating my position on this,
you
> stupid asshole.

Now, now, don't get your blood pressure up. :^)

> > It's very obvious that people like Fritz and Mr. Falafel are targeted
> > more because of their vegan beliefs and less because of other things
> > they have been accused of.
>
> Give me some grounds for such a claim. I could've made it very personal
from the
> start. I didn't. You did. So did Lindsay. I'm staying away from the
personal
> aspects of this because the issue is bigger than what you claim.

No, it's very personal with you and it's obvious.

> > If they were on "your side" a lot of those
> > things would be overlooked - exactly the same behavior that you are
> > accusing me of.
>
> Of your being a dickhead? We're used to that.

More petty name calling. Get a life.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> The problem comes when one group (e.g., vegans) claim to be more ethical
than
> another group (e.g., those who eat meat). It's not so much about ideals,
it's
> about claims of ethical superiority.
>

I agree - and it sucks, is annoying etc ad nauseum. Surely. Claims of
moral/ethical superiority most always come from insecurity, no?

But one person's ideal need not be perfect or attainable or even desirable
to others to *seem* ideal to the original person. Then again, I have a
sneaking suspicion that I'm floating into a metatopic that's largely useless
for discussion.

> It's flawed from its original thesis.

I guess I used it as an example because lots of people don't believe it's
flawed and *do* see it as ideal. Perhaps that was unwise. Like I said,
metatopic...blah blah blah.

> In the instance of the chili recipes which started this whole ordeal, the
person
> who violated copyrights AND got the author's name wrong. Then he had the
> audacity to suggest he should be paid for violating the author's copyright
and
> giving her advertising.


Yeah, I know. I was agreeing. And it makes me kind of Right ****ed Off (tm).
And for the record, IMO, all the accusations directed towards you for
tattle-taling etc are completely unfounded. It's a classic bullying attempt
in order to silence dissenters within a mob and maintain a status quo.

And, completely off topic, a belated wish that everyone had a quality
Bloomsday. I read an excerpt of Dubliners to my cat in celebration (because
I couldn't find my copy of Ulysses).

-Jay

C. James Strutz wrote:
> So now you've lowered yourself to petty name calling. You are pathetic.

Consider your own shortcomings. I'm still several notches above you.

<...>
>>>Oh, you read minds too?!
>>
>>Why do you halfwits always fall back on such replies rather than
> addressing the
>>issues? Your double standards and inconsistencies have been pointed out
> before,
>>so I'm not surprised by the repeat performance of them now. *I* know the
> issue
>>isn't policing. So do you.
>
> The "I know you're not" is what I was referring to when I wrote "you read
> minds too?". You don't have a clue.

Yes, I do, especially as it relates to your duplicity and hypocrisy.

<...>
>>>Look, I'm not definding anybody's position here.
>>
>>Liar.
>
> Prove it.

WTF do you call what you've done ever since intervening with your "youtoo"-isms?

>>>You are being emphatically righteous
>>
>>No, I'm pointing out a few facts.
>
> Only "facts" from your own little, weird world.

You mean laws of our society. I know how off-putting they are to scoundrels and
scofflaws like you.

<...>
> You're the one who gets off on reporting recipe posters to the authorities.

Authors. Publishers. Copyright holders. Not authorities.

<...>
>>Thanks for letting me know of another of your buttons I can push in the
>>future.
>
> Actually, I find it delightful when you get angry. :^)

I'm not angry.

<...>
>>In the case of an author who copyrights his or her works, can you not
>>agree that their rights should be honored regardless of *your* personal
>>motivations in your own creative efforts?
>
> Sure, I would care if my livelihood were being threatened by someone
> illegally making money from my work. That's not what's happening here.

The issue isn't limited to making money (did you read the post I made about the
NET Act of 1997?). It's also one of devaluation. A writer of veg-n cookbooks
already has a limited audience. The value of a copyrighted book is diminished by
the unlicensed copying of it. That's especially true when it's done in
something as accessible to the public as USENET.

<...>
> No, I'm not defending him.

Yes, you are. You're also defending copyright infringement in general. You have
no sense of right or wrong.

> I'm trying to point out that you are making a
> fool of yourself by reporting him. You probably would report little kids too
> if their lemonade stand were in a residential zone....

Why would you say something stupid like that, you twit? I usually stop at and
buy their lemonade, especially when I'm out riding my bike. Lindsay isn't a kid
with a lemonade stand, he's a serial copyright infringer. The fact that he's not
profiting from his crimes doesn't mean that he's not committing crimes; the NET
Act of 1997 allows DoJ to pursue convictions "in cases involving large-scale
illegal reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers
act willfully but without a discernible profit motive."
http://www.cybercrime.gov/netsum.htm

jay wrote:
<...>
> I agree - and it sucks, is annoying etc ad nauseum. Surely. Claims of
> moral/ethical superiority most always come from insecurity, no?

Sure does seem that way.

<...>
> Yeah, I know. I was agreeing. And it makes me kind of Right ****ed Off (tm).
> And for the record, IMO, all the accusations directed towards you for
> tattle-taling etc are completely unfounded. It's a classic bullying attempt
> in order to silence dissenters within a mob and maintain a status quo.

I know, and if there's ever a group with bandwagon mentality it's vegans.

> And, completely off topic, a belated wish that everyone had a quality
> Bloomsday. I read an excerpt of Dubliners to my cat in celebration (because
> I couldn't find my copy of Ulysses).

Ironically, Ulysses is widely available online despite attempts by James Joyce's
grandson to enforce compliance with the copyrights of his grandfather's works
(the EU reinstated the copyright of Ulysses after it expired a few years ago).
Telegraph article: http://snipurl.com/76na