Yea, and what was so original about any of your posts to begin with?
Iv 'e seen a lot of trolls before but you take the cake. Get a
life.....

Lamar

>There's nothing new here that's been said about copyright that isn't
>covered in 3.5 million posts on the subject according to Google.
>However if you ever come up with an original idea and someone pilfers
>it you can start your own thread about copyright protection.
>
>Jim
>
>Jeremy > wrote in message >...
>> <snip> whine
>>
>> Please supply proof of copyright under international law, validated in
>> all countries recognizing copyright. Even then this is usenet, a global
>> service with a global community and your stinking copyright laws do not
>> apply. As part of due diligence you will have to prove that the term has
>> been in acceptable use within a limited sphere of your influence and
>> that you will suffer loss from the use elsewhere, but you have little
>> hope.
>>
>> JJ

"Tea" > wrote in
:

> The term 'Rosetta' was not invented by SC, not unless he was in Egypt
> with Napoleon's armies. If he wasn't- and I suspect he was not,
> despite behavior that is reminiscent of senility- he was not one of
> those who translated the Rosetta Stone. The idea of translating one
> language into another while providing a symbol key is not
> copyrightable- that's public domain, and has been done for languages
> as diverse as ancient Egyptian and Mayan. The only thing that could be
> copyrighted would be the actual translation and definition text, and
> the title of the page. Nobody can keep anyone from using the concept
> of making a translation.

K. You might not be familiar with the SCO reference, but suffice it to say
it wouldn't make much sense if I was buying what SC is selling.

--
fD

(Space Cowboy) writes:

> Hey webmaster you got that message board up and running yet to capture
> the comments of your website visitors? I didn't think so. You still
> got that detour sign pointing to this ng.

As far as I can see the link to the newsgroup is *not* misrepresented
as a forum for website feedback, and is more appropriate on that links
page than many of your posts have been here.

Cheers,

- Joel

Someone give this guy a hat he's driving around with the top down on
the convertable again.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > There's nothing new here that's been said about copyright that
> > isn't covered in 3.5 million posts on the subject according to
> > Google. However if you ever come up with an original idea and
> > someone pilfers it you can start your own thread about copyright
> > protection.
>
> Of course, that requires first coming up with an original idea,
> not merely being the first to post it to the small population that
> reads this newsgroup.

No the court ruled on a claim of copyright infringement by Fox for the
phrase "Fair and Balanced". The court ruled at the minimum it needed
a qualifier so "The Rosetta Stone Fair and Balance" would pass the
test.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > Quips, quotes, catch phrases can be copyright in titles. The
> > judge through out the Fox complaint about the Franklin title use
> > of "Fair and Balanced" because it met the copyright test "common
> > use". Titles become part of the public domain after they exceed
> > copyright protection. The Potter franchise has sucessfully sued
> > several people using their titles in knockoff publications.
>
> By your own definition, then, "rosetta stone" is public domain.

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> Someone give this guy a hat he's driving around with the top
> down on the convertable again.

Why? You're the one with the halfbaked belief that you can copyright
unoriginal ideas.


--
Derek

While good fortune often eludes you, misfortune never misses.

You can't infer an individual Ad Hominem accusation from a group
reference. Look up the definition and use "argument directed at the
man". This was the very argument that the Catholic church used to
exonerate the Jewish culture from the death of Christ. You can only
blame the individual. If I took the historical reference to Rosetta
Stone and used it to describe my cheatsheet of Chinese English tea
terms used first in 95 then this is an illustration or new description
"similar but not the same as" which is protected by copyright.
Speeches are copyright protected perse even if it is nothing more than
reading from a dictionary. You'd still have to quote the speaker no
matter what. I get the feeling you think I'm objecting to the
specific use of Chinese English tea terms perse. I'm simply asking
for the copycat website to remove the direct reference to rosetta
(webpage name) or any inferences to the same name suggesting the same
illustration.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > An Ad Hominem accusation cannot apply to institutions or in this
> > case a generational reference only a person. The common
> > accepted use of troll is someone looking for an argument for any
> > reason. I'm just protecting my intellectual property illegally
> > usurped by a website. Private coversations cannot be copyright
> > unless published. Even if you published something in 98 I first
> > posted about my cheatsheet of Chinese and English tea terms here
> > in 95. Copyright law has the Doctrine of Antecedent where I
> > could have a ruling to apply my rosetta characterization in 2004
> > to all my previous posts about the subject starting in 95. The
> > John Kerry reference has already morphed into the colloquial
> > "I'm not at liberty to say who" similar to wardrobe malfunction
> > "for any unplanned contingency".
>
> Actually, Ad Hominem is attempting to discredit my position based
> on a irrelevant personal characteristic. The generation in which I
> was born is an irrelevant personal characteristic that neither
> supports your assertion that I support plagiarism nor invalidates
> my assertion that you're acting like a troll - since much of your
> behavior fits the definition of "troll" you provided.
>
> The point about the private conversation is not that the
> conversation was copyrighted. The point is that the idea of
> translating between languages using a cheatsheet is not new, and
> was not originated by you. It is a public domain behavior that
> millions of people have engaged in - particularly in language
> classes.
>
>
> While copyright law as a Doctrine of Antecedent, it also does not
> allow you to copyright "ideas, procedures, methods, systems,
> processes, concepts, principles, discoveries or devices" except in
> the actual "description, explanation or illustration."
>
> Nor can you copyright works "Works consisting entirely of
> information that is common property and containing no original
> authorship". Both Chinese and English are common property.
>
> (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp)
>
>
> The concept you claim is yours has been around for at least a
> hundred years. You can't copyright the process, and you can't
> copyright the languages. What you can copyright is the description
> you gave of the process.
>
> So until Mike starts quoting you without citation, you've got
> nothing.

In a sense more because there are vested forces that really want to
get rid of anyone complaining about pilfering, infomercial websites,
embedded authors but I don't fib and they do because no such
newsreader exists so keep what you got and beware of people sending
you to their favorite website to buy tea because it's only temporary
till somebody else sends them to their favorite website but your
current web browser can handle that without an upgrade if you follow
the rules to prohibit your kids from browsing pornographic sites so
you won't be bouncing all over the web chasing leads on who is buying
from who. Just stay here and don't worry about the websites that
don't know the difference between pu·rée vintage oolong and tomatoes.

Jim

rown (Tom) wrote in message >...
> So you think that the fact that other people have better filtering programs
> than I do you makes you less of a rude asshole?
>
> >Subject: The Puerh Rosetta Page
> >From: (Space Cowboy)
> >Date: 3/18/2004 9:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Others claim to have superduper heuristic newsgroup readers that can
> >sniff out my faintess echos and killfile me.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> (Tom) wrote in message
> >...
> >> If you feel that someone has violated your copyright, go hire a lawyer.
> >>
> >> If you would like to continuing being an asshole on some subject other than
> >> tea, please ad "OT" to your reference line so my anti-spam filters can do
> their
> >> job and keep your stupid, inane chatter out of my in box.

"fLameDogg" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Tea" > wrote in
> :
>
> > The term 'Rosetta' was not invented by SC, not unless he was in Egypt
> > with Napoleon's armies. If he wasn't- and I suspect he was not,
> > despite behavior that is reminiscent of senility- he was not one of
> > those who translated the Rosetta Stone. The idea of translating one
> > language into another while providing a symbol key is not
> > copyrightable- that's public domain, and has been done for languages
> > as diverse as ancient Egyptian and Mayan. The only thing that could be
> > copyrighted would be the actual translation and definition text, and
> > the title of the page. Nobody can keep anyone from using the concept
> > of making a translation.
>
> K. You might not be familiar with the SCO reference, but suffice it to
say
> it wouldn't make much sense if I was buying what SC is selling.
>
> --
> fD

I'm not familiar with the term, but I agree that Space Cowboy's position is
ridiculous on many levels. He's not the first person to come up with the
idea of using 'rosetta' to indicate translation, not even in reference to
tea.
>

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> You can't infer an individual Ad Hominem accusation from a group
> reference. Look up the definition and use "argument directed at
> the man". This was the very argument that the Catholic church
> used to exonerate the Jewish culture from the death of Christ.
> You can only blame the individual. If I took the historical
> reference to Rosetta Stone and used it to describe my cheatsheet
> of Chinese English tea terms used first in 95 then this is an
> illustration or new description "similar but not the same as"
> which is protected by copyright. Speeches are copyright
> protected perse even if it is nothing more than reading from a
> dictionary. You'd still have to quote the speaker no matter
> what. I get the feeling you think I'm objecting to the specific
> use of Chinese English tea terms perse. I'm simply asking for
> the copycat website to remove the direct reference to rosetta
> (webpage name) or any inferences to the same name suggesting the
> same illustration.

Absolutely, I can infer an Ad Hominem. The generational comment was
intended to make me look like I don't understand the concepts of
originality and plagiarism because of when I was born. You weren't
attempting to criticize the generation, you were attempting to
discredit me based on that criticism.

The term rosetta stone is a public domain phrase for a method of
tranlsation (as well as the actual stone). It has already been used
to describe methods of translating between languages, including
cheatsheets. You cannot claim that the idea is original or even
"new" simply because you limit your cheatsheet only to the names of
teas. Well, you can "claim" it, but you have no legal basis because
people were using the term in long before 1995.

And here's the big news for you, Jim. You cannot copyright ideas
anyway. You can copyright an article. You can copyright a speech. You
can copyright the content of a post to a newsgroup. But you cannot
copyright the factual information contained within. If that were the
case, every school termpaper would be plagiarism by default since
someone else already wrote the information contained within.


Since you're in VCBC (apparently), I did a little digging about
Canadian copyright law and when copyright does not apply.

"Copyright is restricted to the expression in a fixed manner (text,
recording, drawing) of an idea; it does not extend to the idea
itself."

"Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain,
that is, they are everyone's property."

"Note too, that you cannot hold a copyright for a work that is in the
public domain. "

strategis.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#section04

You've got copyright on your rambling, presentation of the idea, Jim.
But you can't copyright the idea (which isn't actually "new"), nor
can you copyright the title - especially since the phrase is in the
public domain.

"Titles, names and short word combinations are usually not protected
by copyright. A "work" or other "subject-matter" for copyright
purposes must be something more substantial. However, ifa title is
original and distinctive, it is protected as part of the work it
relates to."

Guess what, Jim? "Rosetta stone" isn't original or distinctive,
either.

You want legal protection to keep others from using the term "rosetta
stone" in describing their translation pages? Then register the
trademark.

And let us know if CIPO approves it or laughs you out of their
office.

--
Derek

Until you spread your wings, you'll have no idea how far you can
walk.

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Tea rolled
initiative and posted the following:

>
> "fLameDogg" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Tea" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > The term 'Rosetta' was not invented by SC, not unless he was
>> > in Egypt with Napoleon's armies. If he wasn't- and I suspect
>> > he was not, despite behavior that is reminiscent of senility-
>> > he was not one of those who translated the Rosetta Stone.
>> > The idea of translating one language into another while
>> > providing a symbol key is not copyrightable- that's public
>> > domain, and has been done for languages as diverse as ancient
>> > Egyptian and Mayan. The only thing that could be copyrighted
>> > would be the actual translation and definition text, and
>> > the title of the page. Nobody can keep anyone from using the
>> > concept of making a translation.
>>
>> K. You might not be familiar with the SCO reference, but
>> suffice it to
> say
>> it wouldn't make much sense if I was buying what SC is selling.
>>
>> --
>> fD
>
> I'm not familiar with the term, but I agree that Space Cowboy's
> position is ridiculous on many levels. He's not the first person
> to come up with the idea of using 'rosetta' to indicate
> translation, not even in reference to tea.

You can't copyright ideas, anyway. You can only copyright a
specific presentation of those ideas.

--
Derek

Until you spread your wings, you'll have no idea how far you can
walk.

On March 18, 2004, Space Cowboy wrote the following:

> Others claim to have superduper heuristic newsgroup readers that
> can sniff out my faintess echos and killfile me.

Then, on March 19, Space Cowboy wrote the following:

> In a sense more because there are vested forces that really want
> to get rid of anyone complaining about pilfering, infomercial
> websites, embedded authors but I don't fib and they do because
> no such newsreader exists so keep what you got and beware of
> people sending you to their favorite website to buy tea because
> it's only temporary till somebody else sends them to their
> favorite website but your current web browser can handle that
> without an upgrade if you follow the rules to prohibit your kids
> from browsing pornographic sites so you won't be bouncing all
> over the web chasing leads on who is buying from who. Just stay
> here and don't worry about the websites that don't know the
> difference between pu·rée vintage oolong and tomatoes.

Your ignorance of computer software does not make such a
newsreader non-existant, Jim. In fact, it doesn't even need to be
a "superduper heuristic newsgroup reader". Any newsreader that
lets you set a score file for specific message header information
will accomplish the task.

Every post you make through Google has "24a3776d" at the beginning
of the Message-ID header. Every response to you contains
"24a3776d" in the References header.

A simple score file setting to exclude any messages with
"24a3776d" in the Message-ID and References header, and you no
longer exist - unless you morph your identity by changing NNTP
services or software.

The fact that I choose not to use such filter does not mean that
it cannot be accomplished. The evidence of the process is
available he

http://www.gwinn.us/evidence.html

--
Derek

It's amazing how much easier it is for a team to work together
when no one has any idea where they're going.

This hardly addresses the issues of your arrogance and rudeness in your
consistent failure to add "OT" to your subject line.

You see, the people in this group are members because we are interested in TEA
not the stupid, boring, senile ranting of some idiot who is clearly not
qualified to render a legal opinion in a proper forum (such as a courtroom).
Because of this, it is common curtesy to add "OT" to your subject line when you
want to publicly air your dimwitted, unintelligent raving on any subject other
than TEA. Then, only those persons interested in the subject will have your
boorish inanities inflicted upon them.

The rule is simple: When you want to be an asshole on the subject of TEA (e.g.,
when you want to badmouth a member who has put a lot of time into creating a
noncommercial website about our hobby and kindly decides to share the results
with us) you simply post your ill-considered, badly chosen words. When you
want to be an asshole on some other subject, add "OT" to the subject line.

I hope that I have simplified my position so that even someone of your
obviously limited intelligence and lack of social grace can avoid being
ill-mannered while insisting upon being a schmuck.


>Subject: The Puerh Rosetta Page
>From: (Space Cowboy)
>Date: 3/19/2004 9:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In a sense more because there are vested forces that really want to
>get rid of anyone complaining about pilfering, infomercial websites,
>embedded authors but I don't fib and they do because no such
>newsreader exists so keep what you got and beware of people sending
>you to their favorite website to buy tea because it's only temporary
>till somebody else sends them to their favorite website but your
>current web browser can handle that without an upgrade if you follow
>the rules to prohibit your kids from browsing pornographic sites so
>you won't be bouncing all over the web chasing leads on who is buying
>from who. Just stay here and don't worry about the websites that
>don't know the difference between pu·rée vintage oolong and tomatoes.
>
>Jim
>
(Tom) wrote in message
>...
>> So you think that the fact that other people have better filtering programs
>> than I do you makes you less of a rude asshole?
>>
>> >Subject: The Puerh Rosetta Page
>> >From: (Space Cowboy)
>> >Date: 3/18/2004 9:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Others claim to have superduper heuristic newsgroup readers that can
>> >sniff out my faintess echos and killfile me.
>> >
>> >Jim
>> >
>> (Tom) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> If you feel that someone has violated your copyright, go hire a lawyer.
>> >>
>> >> If you would like to continuing being an asshole on some subject other
>than
>> >> tea, please ad "OT" to your reference line so my anti-spam filters can
>do
>> their
>> >> job and keep your stupid, inane chatter out of my in box.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--Tom
-oo-
""\o~
------------------------------------
"Homo sum, humani nil a me alienum puto."
Terrance

All OT references removed and wash your mouth out with soap. I don't
censure myself. This is USENET so why don't you take your web browser
and your favorite proselytizing panhandling URLS and go wondering in
the WWW wilderness where the only attention you'll get is from a
shopping cart.

Jim

rown (Tom) wrote in message >...
> This hardly addresses the issues of your arrogance and rudeness in your
> consistent failure to add "OT" to your subject line.

> The rule is simple: When you want to be an asshole on the subject of TEA (e.g.,
> when you want to badmouth a member who has put a lot of time into creating a
> noncommercial website about our hobby and kindly decides to share the results
> with us) you simply post your ill-considered, badly chosen words.

You're the guy sitting behind me in the theater at the matinee talking
about the next scene he saw in the sneak preview the night before.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > Someone give this guy a hat he's driving around with the top
> > down on the convertable again.
>
> Why? You're the one with the halfbaked belief that you can copyright
> unoriginal ideas.

What kind of geewiz wunderkin newsreader are you using? Any generic
newsreader can killfile me using my email address. I don't disguise
that.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> On March 18, 2004, Space Cowboy wrote the following:
>
> > Others claim to have superduper heuristic newsgroup readers that
> > can sniff out my faintess echos and killfile me.

> Your ignorance of computer software does not make such a
> newsreader non-existant, Jim. In fact, it doesn't even need to be
> a "superduper heuristic newsgroup reader". Any newsreader that
> lets you set a score file for specific message header information
> will accomplish the task.

More troll banter.... All you seem to do is argue with people under
the guise of "creative ranting" or "somebody hurt my feelings because
they used the same vocabulary as me". If you put half as much energy
into talking about tea you might be worth listening to.

Lamar

On 20 Mar 2004 06:08:24 -0800, (Space Cowboy)
posted:

>All OT references removed and wash your mouth out with soap. I don't
>censure myself. This is USENET so why don't you take your web browser
>and your favorite proselytizing panhandling URLS and go wondering in
>the WWW wilderness where the only attention you'll get is from a
>shopping cart.
>
>Jim
>
(Tom) wrote in message >...
>> This hardly addresses the issues of your arrogance and rudeness in your
>> consistent failure to add "OT" to your subject line.
>
>> The rule is simple: When you want to be an asshole on the subject of TEA (e.g.,
>> when you want to badmouth a member who has put a lot of time into creating a
>> noncommercial website about our hobby and kindly decides to share the results
>> with us) you simply post your ill-considered, badly chosen words.

What does that comment have to do with the price of tea in China?
Rambling irrelevant insults are one of the true marks of a troll.....
What are you trying to do, alienate everybody who has the audacity to
have a different opinion than you? It's guys like you that make the
USENET a freeforall, after all we are supposed to be concentrating on
a topic here, not a damn mud slinging political debate.

Lamar


On 20 Mar 2004 06:29:21 -0800, (Space Cowboy)
posted:

>You're the guy sitting behind me in the theater at the matinee talking
>about the next scene he saw in the sneak preview the night before.
>
>Jim
>
>Derek > wrote in message >...
>> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
>> initiative and posted the following:
>>
>> > Someone give this guy a hat he's driving around with the top
>> > down on the convertable again.
>>
>> Why? You're the one with the halfbaked belief that you can copyright
>> unoriginal ideas.

It just struck me the Ad Hominem accusation is being used as a grammar
or spell check flame because anyone can use syntactic isolation to
attach "U talkin bout me". So back to my generalizations you'll never
find the MTV generation in copyright court. It'll become an obsolete
institution when us old fogies with inspiration and imagination pass
on. Since my web browser treats any urls in the ng as a source of the
virus "plagiaristic copyrightus" does anyone have any other copyright
violations to report from the indigenous urls bantered about so
freely. You'll recognize them because they'll be lifted verbatim from
posts not found anywhere else under the guise of public domain but
nothing more than absconding by the lazy to come up with something
different.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > You can't infer an individual Ad Hominem accusation from a group
> > reference.

> Absolutely, I can infer an Ad Hominem.

Wait a minute! You were the one who insinuated that people couldn't
successfully filter you or reply's to you. He just proved you wrong.
So now you are contradicting yourself saying that it really is easy
after all. Once again arguing both sides of the same point is the mark
of a troll....

Lamar


On 20 Mar 2004 06:40:22 -0800, (Space Cowboy)
posted:

>What kind of geewiz wunderkin newsreader are you using? Any generic
>newsreader can killfile me using my email address. I don't disguise
>that.
>
>Jim
>
>Derek > wrote in message >...
>> On March 18, 2004, Space Cowboy wrote the following:
>>
>> > Others claim to have superduper heuristic newsgroup readers that
>> > can sniff out my faintess echos and killfile me.
>
>> Your ignorance of computer software does not make such a
>> newsreader non-existant, Jim. In fact, it doesn't even need to be
>> a "superduper heuristic newsgroup reader". Any newsreader that
>> lets you set a score file for specific message header information
>> will accomplish the task.

More troll bullshit. Now you are attacking whole generations, next
thing you'll be saying is that blacks and Latinos cant properly taste
Chinese tea because their tastebuds are different? Oh and some guy who
makes a website has to be copying because everything about tea has
already been said by somebody else. Oh and my browser filters better
than yours because I don't go to any websites, why do you even need a
browser then? For that matter why don't you set your newsreader to
filter out any discussion about tea, you don't seem to be interested
in it.

Lamar


On 20 Mar 2004 07:39:13 -0800, (Space Cowboy)
posted:

>It just struck me the Ad Hominem accusation is being used as a grammar
>or spell check flame because anyone can use syntactic isolation to
>attach "U talkin bout me". So back to my generalizations you'll never
>find the MTV generation in copyright court. It'll become an obsolete
>institution when us old fogies with inspiration and imagination pass
>on. Since my web browser treats any urls in the ng as a source of the
>virus "plagiaristic copyrightus" does anyone have any other copyright
>violations to report from the indigenous urls bantered about so
>freely. You'll recognize them because they'll be lifted verbatim from
>posts not found anywhere else under the guise of public domain but
>nothing more than absconding by the lazy to come up with something
>different.
>
>Jim
>
>Derek > wrote in message >...
>> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
>> initiative and posted the following:
>>
>> > You can't infer an individual Ad Hominem accusation from a group
>> > reference.
>
>> Absolutely, I can infer an Ad Hominem.

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> You're the guy sitting behind me in the theater at the matinee
> talking about the next scene he saw in the sneak preview the
> night before.

You're the guy sitting infront of me complaining that Spielberg
stole your idea.

--
Derek

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or
the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to peXXXion the
government for a redress of grievances."
--but your ISP might.

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> What kind of geewiz wunderkin newsreader are you using? Any
> generic newsreader can killfile me using my email address. I
> don't disguise that.

Apparently you missed the point of the exercise.

The point was not simply to killfile you and eliminate your posts.
The point was to completely remove your "faintess echos" and
eliminate any evidence of your posting at all - including replies.

--
Derek

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or
the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to peXXXion the
government for a redress of grievances."
--but your ISP might.

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Lamar Neil rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> Wait a minute! You were the one who insinuated that people
> couldn't successfully filter you or reply's to you. He just
> proved you wrong. So now you are contradicting yourself saying
> that it really is easy after all. Once again arguing both sides
> of the same point is the mark of a troll....

Another mark of a troll is indifference to public censure. A
number of people have told Jim that his accusation and
confrontational manner are not welcome or appreciated. This has
little to do with the disagreement about copyright and everything
to do with the lack of consideration for others.

If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll...

--
Derek

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or
the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to peXXXion the
government for a redress of grievances."
--but your ISP might.

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> It just struck me the Ad Hominem accusation is being used as a
> grammar or spell check flame because anyone can use syntactic
> isolation to attach "U talkin bout me". So back to my
> generalizations you'll never find the MTV generation in
> copyright court. It'll become an obsolete institution when us
> old fogies with inspiration and imagination pass on. Since my
> web browser treats any urls in the ng as a source of the virus
> "plagiaristic copyrightus" does anyone have any other copyright
> violations to report from the indigenous urls bantered about so
> freely. You'll recognize them because they'll be lifted
> verbatim from posts not found anywhere else under the guise of
> public domain but nothing more than absconding by the lazy to
> come up with something different.

It's not "syntactic isolation". You were specifically suggesting that
I support plagiarism and justifying it because of my generation. So
not only do you use Ad Hominem while denying it, but you apparently
have a fondness for Red Herrings as well.

And apparently you'd rather live in selective ignorance than actually
see that I was citing information with reference, not plagiarizing.
You do not even address the fact that copyright cannot be extended to
ideas, or factual information. You just state that you ignored the
URLs, and thus ignore the information that contradicts your opinion.

Sorry, Jim. But ignorance of the law doesn't excuse you from your
continued erroneous and confrontational behavior. And being
dismissive doesn't make you right. It just makes you look like a
troll.

As for inspiration and imagination, prove to us that you've got it
and maybe we'll agree with you. Taking a common practice, applying a
common phrase to it and claiming copyright and originality isn't it.
The only thing you get credit for is being the first to mention it
here.

"Copyright is restricted to the expression in a fixed manner (text,
recording, drawing) of an idea; it does not extend to the idea
itself."
- Canadian Intellectual Property Office

"Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain,
that is, they are everyone's property."
- Canadian Intellectual Property Office

--
Derek

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of sXXXch, or the
right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to peXXXion the
government for a redress of grievances."
--but your ISP might.

Derek > writes:

>
> If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll...

.....don't feed it unless you like trolls.

--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Rebecca Ore rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> Derek > writes:
>
>>
>> If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll...
>
> ....don't feed it unless you like trolls.

Good point.


--
Derek

It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but it doesn't take any
to just sit there with a dumb look on your face.

Rebecca lid3/20/04


> Derek > writes:
>
>>
>> If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll...
>
> ....don't feed it unless you like trolls.

Concur.

When I inhale cannabis I'm chased by cannibals looking for trolls. If
nothing else inhaling does make you hungry.

Jim

Rebecca Ore > wrote in message >...
> Derek > writes:
>
> >
> > If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll...
>
> ....don't feed it unless you like trolls.

Nothing new in this post to report because nobody bores me than faster
than me repeating myself like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. As
someone once said if you have to say it twice then you have to buy
lunch. However I've never been to Canada, hey. In summary this is a
ng for discussing tea so if you can't say it here, create your own
website and go get lost in the WWW wilderness but don't fall because
no one gives a FCCk (for my fans another Usenet first). Ten years
from now the decendent of Google will be archiving this ng so you can
hear what was said nine years ago next month long after your website
becomes dust in the WWW boneyard pulverized by nano copyright
violation web sledgehammers. So to the future time travelers on a
nostalgic tour if your personal favorite website isn't interested in
what you have to say then we aren't interested now. I don't whimper
behind Ad Hominem when others date me so for the time being I'll cease
a particular generational reference out of courtesy not because anyone
can claim to be something they're not but someone tell the MTV
generation at NASA we've been to the moon and it wasn't fictional
reality tv to save the space program but only a movie.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > It just struck me the Ad Hominem accusation is being used as a
> > snip...
> It's not "syntactic isolation". You were specifically suggesting that
> snip...

While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
initiative and posted the following:

> Nothing new in this post to report because nobody bores me than
> faster than me repeating myself like Bill Murray in Groundhog
> Day. As someone once said if you have to say it twice then you
> have to buy lunch. However I've never been to Canada, hey. In
> summary this is a ng for discussing tea so if you can't say it
> here, create your own website and go get lost in the WWW
> wilderness but don't fall because no one gives a FCCk (for my
> fans another Usenet first). Ten years from now the decendent of
> Google will be archiving this ng so you can hear what was said
> nine years ago next month long after your website becomes dust
> in the WWW boneyard pulverized by nano copyright violation web
> sledgehammers. So to the future time travelers on a nostalgic
> tour if your personal favorite website isn't interested in what
> you have to say then we aren't interested now. I don't whimper
> behind Ad Hominem when others date me so for the time being I'll
> cease a particular generational reference out of courtesy not
> because anyone can claim to be something they're not but someone
> tell the MTV generation at NASA we've been to the moon and it
> wasn't fictional reality tv to save the space program but only a
> movie.

You've never been to Canada? For some reason I thought you lived
in Vancouver. My mistake, but not a big one since I also posted
roughly the same information as provided from the U.S. Copyright
Office, which you also conveniently ignored.

The fact is, you cannot copyright an idea, facts, or public domain
items. It's plainly expplained by the Copyright Office. And that
is ALL that is on the web site against which you've directed your
venom.

And, obviously, you don't get the point about the Ad Hominem.
Complaining about the faults of Generation X, Y, or Z is one
thing. Using those faults to support an accusation that I support
plagiarism is another - especially seeing as you don't know to
what "generation" I belong.

I've challenged your assertions with facts from two different
copyright offices. All you've done is ignore those facts and
continue to play victim. And if you insist on playing the victim
here, Jim, you're more like the MTV generation than I am.

--
Derek

Then there was the guy who loved his wife so much, he almost told
her.

Me thinks you don't inhale enough! From what I remember it has a
tendency to make one mellloooowwww......

If that's what it takes I'll pass the peace pipe to you my friend!

Mike


On 22 Mar 2004 06:01:54 -0800, (Space Cowboy)
cast caution to the wind and posted:

>When I inhale cannabis I'm chased by cannibals looking for trolls. If
>nothing else inhaling does make you hungry.
>
>Jim

I'm the minority where it causes paranoia. If I ever need chemo I'm
sol. From my days working on an Indian reservation I've smoked the
peace pipe. I can't object if you use your website url in your
signature. That's USENET convention. I request you drop the literal
"rosetta" anywhere in your website and call your webpage of Chinese
English tea terms anything you like but that reference. I'll take
your word you're website isn't a commercial venture. But there is the
WWW modus operandi of these are my favorities and where you can buy
them run by financial interests. It is also normal WWW design to have
a message board for all website feedback.


Mike Petro > wrote in message >. ..
> Me thinks you don't inhale enough! From what I remember it has a
> tendency to make one mellloooowwww......
>
> If that's what it takes I'll pass the peace pipe to you my friend!
>
> Mike
>
>
> On 22 Mar 2004 06:01:54 -0800, (Space Cowboy)
> cast caution to the wind and posted:
>
> >When I inhale cannabis I'm chased by cannibals looking for trolls. If
> >nothing else inhaling does make you hungry.
> >
> >Jim

Sorry that last post got away and some grammar and syntax wasn't
corrected so I'll add:

I'll assume it is a matter of time before you implement a message
board. In the interim if you're website requests email feedback and
it ends up here you can't be responsible for that.

Jim

"Space Cowboy" > wrote in message:
> snip
> It is also normal WWW design to have a message board for all website feedback.

Mike Petro > wrote in message >. ..
snip