dead_man
2007-09-05 03:59:15 UTC
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:28:41 -0400, TheApostle likes-to-***@mailme.org
in <***@news.pearlgates.org> sidestepped, danced
and evaded ineffectually like so:
<snip old headers>
no surprise that you cowardly set "reply to" groups such as alt.morons
in a feeble and cowardly attempt to run and hide.
How's that working out for you, jackass?
"the rules of plagiarism"? Perhaps you are confused. Plagiarism is a
verb that aptly describes your behavior. It has no "rules".
Copyright, now that is a legal concept that has "rules", but this isn't
about copyright, fool.
Do try to keep up.
You just brought up the subject of what kind of group this is,
pretending to care how I respond. You are simply trying to do what you
always try to do, you are trying to control what other people do and how
and where they do it.
How's it feel to be such an ineffectual failure?
chose, after starting the thread, to try and criticize me for posting to
it with your weak cry of "what part of warez don't you understand".
unoriginal plagiarizer, Lezzy. I don't care if you attack Zeke, he's
not exactly my best pal and he can certainly handle your ineffectual
attacks. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that you are an
unoriginal plagiarizing fake, that's all.
Here's another version:
I objected to and stood up to the netkopps, the faq mommies, and the
asshole who posted as "e" in that group, yes. You came blustering in to
try and help an outed pedophile (surprise) when "e" and "ratfsck" begged
you for help...and stayed long enough to become despised for outing and
threatening people and then went on to become the laughingstock of the
whole mp3 hierarchy with your lame DJ|Strife posts of downloaded
streams, resampled mp3s, and poorly edited music sets.
Lezzie, you just keep acting the same way over and over.
Criticizing someone for acting in a particular manner while acting in
the same manner yourself and believing nobody notices is one hallmark of
a true kook, kook.
syntax to try and make it fit your weak attack, but you used enough of
the original words for me to find your source in less than two minutes.
Moron.
put them together and posted them as if they were your own little story,
and signed the post.
You misrepresented the whole thing.
Liar.
So that's the original idea you had? You had the original idea all by
yourself to use someone else's words, someone else's writing, someone
else's thoughts and ideas to attack a poster you don't like?
Nice admission, kook.
people's words and writing into your posts for years without ever giving
credit to the author, I think is what you are trying to say.
Search the text for "plagiarism" or "plagiarize". Get back to me when
your example stops letting you down...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=
11th&navby=docket&no=0112200opnv2
infringement, not plagiarism.
Nevertheless, on the cover it cited the original work and stated it was
an "Unauthorized Parody". On the copyright page of that book it says
this:
"This novel is the author's critique of and reaction to the world
described in Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With The Wind". It is not
authorized by the Stephens Mitchell Trusts, and no sponsorship or
endorsement by the Mitchell Trusts is implied."
You are a plagiarizer, Alice Randall is not.
jackass.
he releases any material.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774
"...He doesn't release his song parodies without the consent of the
artists being parodied,"
You are a plagiarizer, Al Yankovic is not.
label objected and the song never made it on to Yankovic's album,
although he has released it on his web site.
"I have a long-standing history of respecting artists' wishes,"
Yankovic writes. "So if James Blunt himself were objecting, I
wouldn't even offer my parody for free on my Web site. But since
it's a bunch of suits -- who are actually going against their own
artist's wishes -- I have absolutely no problem with it."
Al Yankovic
You are a plagiarist, Al Yankovic is not.
Actually, fair use law protects parody and satire to a certain extent.
It does not "exempt plagiarism" (whatever the fuck that might mean) nor
does it address plagiarism, it addresses copyright violation.
more talk about morals with you than I would talk about integrity with
you.
You have neither.
references I see to pirates here is in your silly overblown and childish
sig files.
I thought that the stated purpose of warez was to give the user an
extended trial period with no restrictions on the software so that he
might decide if he really wants to buy and use the software.
Do you mean to say you just steal everything you use, not just words?
No wonder you come across as morally bankrupt as well as a jackass.
little parody...you are just grasping at at straws as usual because they
are all you have, less.
in <***@news.pearlgates.org> sidestepped, danced
and evaded ineffectually like so:
<snip old headers>
|<snip>
Why does that not surprise me.....
It should be no surprise that I noted that I was snipping, just as it isWhy does that not surprise me.....
no surprise that you cowardly set "reply to" groups such as alt.morons
in a feeble and cowardly attempt to run and hide.
How's that working out for you, jackass?
|> BTW, what part of "WAREZ" group didn't you understand?
|
|Err, you started the thread, Lezzie, then I responded with a post
|showing how you had plagiarized the material you used to make an
|unoriginal and clumsy parody using others' work without giving them
|credit.
When you create a parody from other work, plagiarism is not valid.
Try again, that makes no sense.|
|Err, you started the thread, Lezzie, then I responded with a post
|showing how you had plagiarized the material you used to make an
|unoriginal and clumsy parody using others' work without giving them
|credit.
When you create a parody from other work, plagiarism is not valid.
Since the work is used as a parody, the rules of plagiarism fall
to the wayside.
Where exactly do you come by these silly concepts?to the wayside.
"the rules of plagiarism"? Perhaps you are confused. Plagiarism is a
verb that aptly describes your behavior. It has no "rules".
Copyright, now that is a legal concept that has "rules", but this isn't
about copyright, fool.
Do try to keep up.
If you had any brains at all you would already know this. Since
you are using this as your strawman argument and refusing to even
address what is commonly already known.
You are making it up, Lezzie, how could anyone possibly already know it?you are using this as your strawman argument and refusing to even
address what is commonly already known.
|You think it okay for you to use the group to attack Zeke, but it
|isn't okay for someone to respond in a way you don't like to your
|little fan-boi thread?
I don't care how you respond.
That's a silly backpedal.|isn't okay for someone to respond in a way you don't like to your
|little fan-boi thread?
I don't care how you respond.
You just brought up the subject of what kind of group this is,
pretending to care how I respond. You are simply trying to do what you
always try to do, you are trying to control what other people do and how
and where they do it.
How's it feel to be such an ineffectual failure?
Zeke, likes to use this, and other
groups to attack people, so I am in my full rights to return the
favor.
Yes, indeed you are, and I would have never said otherwise until yougroups to attack people, so I am in my full rights to return the
favor.
chose, after starting the thread, to try and criticize me for posting to
it with your weak cry of "what part of warez don't you understand".
It is _you_ who is objecting to it.
I'm objecting to what, exactly? I pointed out that you were anunoriginal plagiarizer, Lezzy. I don't care if you attack Zeke, he's
not exactly my best pal and he can certainly handle your ineffectual
attacks. I just like rubbing your nose in the fact that you are an
unoriginal plagiarizing fake, that's all.
It is _you_ once again trying
to enforce your ideals on a group
"Mommy, Mommy! The bad man is enforcing his ideals on me!"to enforce your ideals on a group
like you tried to in the mp3.d
group telling other people _how_ they should be acting and what they
should be doing according to you.
Re-writing history again, aren't you Lezzie?group telling other people _how_ they should be acting and what they
should be doing according to you.
Here's another version:
I objected to and stood up to the netkopps, the faq mommies, and the
asshole who posted as "e" in that group, yes. You came blustering in to
try and help an outed pedophile (surprise) when "e" and "ratfsck" begged
you for help...and stayed long enough to become despised for outing and
threatening people and then went on to become the laughingstock of the
whole mp3 hierarchy with your lame DJ|Strife posts of downloaded
streams, resampled mp3s, and poorly edited music sets.
You're just a little freak aren't
you, andyou!
So you say.you, andyou!
|That is a hallmark of a true kook, Lezzie.
You keep repeating this like it is something new. It appears every
time you call someone on something you disgree with it is the hall-
mark of a true k00k.
Actually, I've been using it repeatedly to describe one activity,You keep repeating this like it is something new. It appears every
time you call someone on something you disgree with it is the hall-
mark of a true k00k.
Lezzie, you just keep acting the same way over and over.
Criticizing someone for acting in a particular manner while acting in
the same manner yourself and believing nobody notices is one hallmark of
a true kook, kook.
|Plagiarizing is to use someone else's work without giving credit,
I didn't use his work. I created my own story.
You used his work. You created nothing.I didn't use his work. I created my own story.
In other words I
used his story as a _basis_ to create my own.
You used his words. You changed a few, tortured the story-line and theused his story as a _basis_ to create my own.
syntax to try and make it fit your weak attack, but you used enough of
the original words for me to find your source in less than two minutes.
Moron.
I did not use his
story to claim it was mine,
Err, what was that? Did someone speak in Engrish?story to claim it was mine,
and nothing was misrepresented.
Sure it was. You plagiarized a news story and a second quoted dialogue,put them together and posted them as if they were your own little story,
and signed the post.
You misrepresented the whole thing.
Liar.
The
idea to use the story as a parody was mine and mine alone.
Oh fookin' 'ell, you are too much.idea to use the story as a parody was mine and mine alone.
So that's the original idea you had? You had the original idea all by
yourself to use someone else's words, someone else's writing, someone
else's thoughts and ideas to attack a poster you don't like?
Nice admission, kook.
I adapted his true life story and changed the context, and contents
of the story to something else. Almost none of his original story
had remained.
That's why it was so damn hard to find, eh?of the story to something else. Almost none of his original story
had remained.
The very same way "Scary Movie 1/2/3/4" was done.
The very same way you have been plagiarizing and copy-pasting otherpeople's words and writing into your posts for years without ever giving
credit to the author, I think is what you are trying to say.
|whether you use the work for parody or for a term paper or for a usenet
|post.
This is your understanding of it, and a piss poor one at that.
So you say.|post.
This is your understanding of it, and a piss poor one at that.
|It doesn't matter if you change the wording around a little to
|make it fit the attack you are making. Nor does it matter if
|you do not explicitly state that the work is your own original
|work.
|
|As long as it is someone else's writing, words, thoughts, ideas, humor,
|or work and you don't give them the credit for it, it is plagiarized.
Wrong. I'll cite example(s) to prove how wrong you are.
The case you cite is about copyright infringement, not plagiarism.|make it fit the attack you are making. Nor does it matter if
|you do not explicitly state that the work is your own original
|work.
|
|As long as it is someone else's writing, words, thoughts, ideas, humor,
|or work and you don't give them the credit for it, it is plagiarized.
Wrong. I'll cite example(s) to prove how wrong you are.
Search the text for "plagiarism" or "plagiarize". Get back to me when
your example stops letting you down...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=
11th&navby=docket&no=0112200opnv2
The publication "The Wind Done Gone"
reused situations and characters from "Gone with the Wind" in it's
publication. It was not deemed Plagiarism but a Protected Parody.
Moron. I'll say it again, the case you cite is about copyrightreused situations and characters from "Gone with the Wind" in it's
publication. It was not deemed Plagiarism but a Protected Parody.
infringement, not plagiarism.
Nevertheless, on the cover it cited the original work and stated it was
an "Unauthorized Parody". On the copyright page of that book it says
this:
"This novel is the author's critique of and reaction to the world
described in Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With The Wind". It is not
authorized by the Stephens Mitchell Trusts, and no sponsorship or
endorsement by the Mitchell Trusts is implied."
You are a plagiarizer, Alice Randall is not.
You can check Wikipedia for more information, idiot.
I'd rather use your own cites and watch you shoot yourself in the feets,jackass.
And how about Weird al Yankovic's many many songs derived from the
originals such as Micheal Jackson's "Billy Jean",
Weird Al Yankovic secures permission from those he is parodying beforeoriginals such as Micheal Jackson's "Billy Jean",
he releases any material.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774
"...He doesn't release his song parodies without the consent of the
artists being parodied,"
You are a plagiarizer, Al Yankovic is not.
and recently the
one from James Blunt and named it "YOU'RE PITIFUL!"
James Blunt gave him permission to parody the song. Blunt's recordone from James Blunt and named it "YOU'RE PITIFUL!"
label objected and the song never made it on to Yankovic's album,
although he has released it on his web site.
"I have a long-standing history of respecting artists' wishes,"
Yankovic writes. "So if James Blunt himself were objecting, I
wouldn't even offer my parody for free on my Web site. But since
it's a bunch of suits -- who are actually going against their own
artist's wishes -- I have absolutely no problem with it."
Al Yankovic
You are a plagiarist, Al Yankovic is not.
Satire and Paraodies exempt plagiarism. These people are living
proof of that.
No, not at all.proof of that.
Actually, fair use law protects parody and satire to a certain extent.
It does not "exempt plagiarism" (whatever the fuck that might mean) nor
does it address plagiarism, it addresses copyright violation.
|I wouldn't expect a morally bankrupt fool to understand that, but I
|figured I'd spell it out for you anyway.
You're talking about morals
No, I mentioned your own lack of any, purely in passing. I would no|figured I'd spell it out for you anyway.
You're talking about morals
more talk about morals with you than I would talk about integrity with
you.
You have neither.
in a Piracy group?
Here I thought this was a warez group. I'm fairly sure the onlyreferences I see to pirates here is in your silly overblown and childish
sig files.
I thought that the stated purpose of warez was to give the user an
extended trial period with no restrictions on the software so that he
might decide if he really wants to buy and use the software.
Do you mean to say you just steal everything you use, not just words?
No wonder you come across as morally bankrupt as well as a jackass.
I would have believed
you were more educated than this but I suppose with all your spelling
and grammar laming is the extent of your intelligence.
There are no no spelling or grammar lames here, just a ayou were more educated than this but I suppose with all your spelling
and grammar laming is the extent of your intelligence.
little parody...you are just grasping at at straws as usual because they
are all you have, less.
--
dead_man
dead_man