Text 41560, 87 rader
Skriven 2006-10-19 12:39:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 41547 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
Hello Jeff!

On Thursday October 19 2006 03:48, you wrote to me:

 >>>> ST> As I mentioned to Joe, my website "IS" my BBS.

 >>>> Your saying so does not make it so.

 ST>>> Visit Santronics: http://www.santronics.com  they own and sell
 ST>>> the BBS package....

 MV>> Santronix saying a website is a BBS does not make it so.

 JS>      So who would you need to tell you before you believe it, God?

I am not in the believing business, I deal with facts. it does not matter how
many people hold an opinion. Opinions do not make facts.

It does not really matter if a website is called a BBS or not. Point is that
courts have ruled that putting an article on a webiste is a seperate, renewed
publication that requires the renewed permission of the copyright holder.

That may or may not mean anything in the US.

Whatever, one can not BOTH ignore it and put it on the website AND accuse me of
obstructing the distribution of the snooze. Not wihtout applying double
standards.


 JS> Opps, sorry I forgot that you don't believe in a God.

I do not believe. Period.

 JS>      Point is that you are unable to hold a discussion where someone
 JS> has a different or opposing viewpoint.

This is not a discussion, this is a fight where a group - of which you have now
made yourself part - is trying to impose their will, their laws and their moral
values on others.

 JS> If someone says anything that goes against what you think is right.
 JS> You refuse to listen or in any way entertain the idea that someone
 JS> else might be right.

This is not about right or wrong, this is about one side imposing their ways on
others.

I can indeed be very adamant when I get the feeling I am being pushed in a
corner I do not want to be.

 JS> Or else you will deny responsibility for your actions and try to pass
 JS> the blame for your actions to someone else. They are responsible for
 JS> what they do just as YOU are responsible for what YOU do.

I did no more than add a copyright notice to an article that was copyrighted
all along. Shooting the messenger will not make the message go away.

And yes, I take full responsibility for adding those three line to my article.

And yes, when in future I write articles for FidoNews, I will continue to
excercise my freedom of expression as long as I can.

 JS>   I haven't seen you once own up to your own actions. It's always
 JS> someone else's fault. I stopped acting like that when I was five
 JS> years old. If there was a serious and valid point that you were
 JS> trying to make Michiel with this copyright thing. Your childish
 JS> behavior

Ah, there we go. I knew it was just a matter of time before you would stoop to
that well known American way of responding when out of arguments: kicking the
player instead of the ball.

(Sorry Canadians, I did not mean to include you, but many residents of the USA
appear to be insulted when I address them as USAians, they insist they are
addressed as Americans...)

 JS>     I can't speak for others but your posts have reached the point
 JS> of not being worth the effort to bother replying. Rant away.

Yours already had when you wrote my children would have been better of when
raised by you...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)