copyright image theft (re. spuriousmonkey)

[Mr Anonymous]

Doubt Ron'll be back somehow. If he does he'll be ruining straight back into the others and patently, getting a 2 weeker, he must be on someones last nerve in order to warrant it, as far as they remain concerned. Not much of an enticement really...

 

[Mystech]

Look Everyone Just Shut Up And Call The Internet Police Imediately! This Is Serious Business!

 

[Athelwulf]

Wow.

I won't point you out — you know who you are — but quite a few of you are pathetically immature.

I pass no judgement on perplexity's alleged "cry-baby" personality. I barely know him, and I know little of the details concerning his other alleged wrong-doings. Therefore, I have no right to judge — not to mention the topic is so emotionally charged and driven by drama reminiscent of high school that I fear my judgement would be corrupted by someone's bias.

But I will say that, in general, he is facing the constant, brutal assault with calm words. This, if nothing else, is worthy of respect. Sure, he slips here and there, but such are humans. It's hard to jump on the bandwagon in full conscience when the bandwagon is debasing itself so thoroughly that, to an objective observer, they are more childish, malicious, and loathesome than he is.

Those of you on the bandwagon — you know who you are — are only making perplexity look comparatively better than you with your behavior. You are despicable for this, as bullies always are, and my respect for you diminishes every time I come across another barrage of cruelty aimed at perplexity.

For rhetorical purposes, let's pretend that your allegations are dead-on and perplexity really is the scum you make him out to be. What do you gain by assaulting him every chance you get? Should the allegations not stand by themselves? Will harassing perplexity make what's already true any more true? Is he really worth the honor of being rubbed between your ass cheeks?

If what is said about perplexity is true (again, I make no judgement one way or the other), then he is already burdened with the guilt. Every time he comes here, he has to interact with people who know of his past actions. If you have much maturity at all in you, that should be enough for you. If you believe perplexity is scum, then heed my advice: Don't rub salt in the wound. Don't add insult to injury. Be better than him.

Bullies deserve no respect, no matter how true their accusations might be.

Let your accusations stand by themselves. Leave perplexity alone.

 

[Athelwulf]

They've all been banned m'dear. There's no one left....

We could, I suppose, loot the place and create our own a dark, dystopian future in everyones abscence....? It's just a thought.

Count me in.

 

[leopold]

But I will say that, in general, he is facing the constant, brutal assault with calm words. This, if nothing else, is worthy of respect. Sure, he slips here and there, but such are humans. It's hard to jump on the bandwagon in full conscience when the bandwagon is debasing itself so thoroughly that, to an objective observer, they are more childish, malicious, and loathesome than he is.

i often wondered why a certain poster refered to ron as dangerous in PMs to me, now i realize what they meant.

 

[phlogistician]

The very person who took it and sent me the print, of course, who else?

How else would I have scanned it?

--- Ron.

Owning a copy does not mean you own the copyright Ron. I cannot go and buy a poster for instance, and then think I have the right to start producing my own copies of it, and distributing them. Unless the copyright was specifically handed over to you, you do not own the rights, and Water has a valid complaint. You need to diminish this after your rant, because it puts you in a precarious position, but you cannot.

In law silence denotes consent; that is how it works.

No it does not, Ron, that is absurd. I could name any number of situations, from theft, to rape, that would illustrate how false that statement is.

If you believe your work was covered by informal copyright (despite the server being in the USA) then Water's image is too. You are over barrel _you_ made here Ron.

On two tier systems also Ron, the law varies in Europe. In England, if I took a photo of someone, I own that photo, and am due all royalties from it's sale and distribution. In France however, the subject also has rights on any profits from the image. Copyright is such a minefield there are lawyers that do nothing else but Intellectual Property and Copyright Infringement cases, so fo you to start spitting out the legalese as if it were cut and dried was absurd. You could have just made a complaint to the mods stating you thought it was bad forum etiquette, and that might have had some grounding, but you flew off the handle and embarrassed yourself instead.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Well we can all learn the following from this Ron and water drama:

i often wondered why a certain poster refered to ron as dangerous in PMs to me, now i realize what they meant.

1) Ron and water are equally obsessed, Ron makes this clear publically, Water does so in pm, by slandering ron who cannot defend the allegations as he is unaware of their nature or that they are being made.

Do you consider you are the only one leo to be taken into waters 'confidence'.

The word you are looking for is 'manipulated'.

REGARDLESS

The first few points are for water and ron specifically

1) Ignore faciltiy is there if you genuinely do not like someones posting style, unless they are a moderator.

2) When someone is on ignore you cannot pm them thus anyone on 'ignore' quickly realises if they try to pm you, that you have no desire to hear from them.

3) People can become enamoured, obsessed, even fall in love with people they see in print on the screen. Thus unless you accept and enjoy the attention and WANT a friendship off the forum, do not invite it to pass beyond the virtual world, by handing out real name, telephone numbers, addresses and forwarding gifts etc.

Once things progress to that level, the relationship becomes 'real' not virtual and any problems arising are NOT for the forum where the aquantaince originated.

It is not for the forum to police your real time friendhsips and rescue you when you fall foul of your own judgement errors.

4) Giving personal information to people in pm should remain confidential, and NOT forwarded to as many 'regualars' as you can manage in the hope to rally support for your cause. It is counter productive as the lack of trust and deciet becomes very evident.

5)Invert- I am not close to ron, anymore than I am close to water or anyone else on this board. I don't like mob bullying. Simple.


I am so BORED of this ron and water sage. It was ended, ron was gradually reducing the number of 'references' and water had stopped posting in response to him and then for no reason at all up she pops with a link to his profile on another site. So who antagonised who this time?

Irrelavant I suppose

IGNORE facility folks. You do not have to obsessively read each others posts. You had a friendship off line , it failed for reasons personal to yourselves. It is not our business. Both of you are alike in your posting style hence your MUTUAL attraction.
It has ended. Stop airing your dirty washing. It is very self indulgent.

You both contributed nicely to topical debate, you can both continue to do so without any heed of each other. Ignore feature makes the person concerned cease to exist.

Now with regard to any fear you may have water, re a doorstep visit, I think this is NOT the business of this forum. The forum did not handout your personal address. Members are not going to camp out on your door step to alleviate your fear. Take responsibility for yourself and your actions.

Finally the lesson for all:

Do not give out personal details on the internet unless you are prepared for the consequences of doing so.

 

[leopold]

Do you consider you are the only one leo to be taken into waters 'confidence'.

who said anything about water?
don't presume shit when you have no idea what you are talking about, K?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Further more leo

You are not the first person here to quote someone in pm without naming them. No names are required when numerous people recieve the same pm. Copy and paste is undoubtably a very useful tool.

 

[cole grey]

TOR, you don't know what happened. You have your thoughts about the situation, keep them to yourself. You merely demonstrate your lack of knowledge by commenting on the situation.
You do make good points about internet etiquette, etc., so good work on that side of your post.

Athelwulf, when people talk bullshit they get attacked, and perplexity talked shit as much as anyone else around here ever did, so don't pretend the attacks were ex nihilo. Please, perplexity's macho posturing is up there with the best/worst, and you've seen it. Fact=Perplexity participated hand in hand creating the situations with the "bullies" you describe.
He is old enough and smart enough to know how to de-escalate and he made his bed.

 

[leopold]

your soruce is water.

you haven't the foggiest notion Tor.

 

[cole grey]

I have rec'd pms from water and ron regarding this matter, with their take on it all. And thus I do know what I am talking about.

You are basing your ideas on incomplete information that also may obviously be false so, no, you don't know what you are talking about.

Fact - you do not know what happened, and neither does anyone but those people who were personally involved - you were not involved, so your comments are not valid.

 

[leopold]

Further more leo

You are not the first person here to quote someone in pm without naming them.

no shit sherlock, just now figuring that out?

 

[cole grey]

I am sure if the facts you claim I stated as incorrect are incorrect, water will let us know.

I am certain based on both posters claims that they: mutually and consentually exchanged personal information such as telephone, address, names etc.

What else do you consider I am wrong about? The comments direct to them relate to their comments direct to me, so again no inaccuracy or 'lies' there.

You miss my point - you don't know what their situation is.

You know one or two things that they both agreed upon in messages and everything else is assumption.

Repeat - you do not know what happened or what did not happen, you do not know what they said to each other, therefore you are completely uninformed.
You know what you were told - do you really think that makes you informed?
You have one correlating statement and that fills in all the blanks for you?

"Transparent" assumes truthfulness, (which you cannot be sure of), and "devious" assumes lying (which you cannot prove). Your conclusions are flights of fancy, and I am actually surprised that you would think them otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[kebabomatic]

Little minds easily manipulated are not sufficiently convincing.

my grandmother had little mind. We know because her head was very little. We make fun of her little head. behind her back. not in front of her. she had small hands that could hit very hard. and she use stick. stick also hard. she had little mind but very convincing. we do what she said otherwise she hit us with little hands. or stick.

We try to trick her but she not believe us. she hit us.


she good woman with little mind. could not be manipulated. very convincing. we love her very a lot. she tell us stories.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

You miss my point - you don't know what their situation is.

You know one or two things that they both agreed upon in messages and everything else is assumption.

Repeat - you do not know what happened or what did not happen, you do not know what they said to each other, therefore you are completely uninformed.
You know what you were told - do you really think that makes you informed?
You have one correlating statement and that fills in all the blanks for you?

"Transparent" assumes truthfulness, (which you cannot be sure of), and "devious" assumes lying (which you cannot prove). Your conclusions are flights of fancy, and I am actually surprised that you would think them otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

cole, you have not said what it is you think I am wrong about, I stated so very little. Thus what of that very little do you consider is wrong? The exchange of addresses. That they had an offline friendship? What of that do you imagine is incorrect?


Meanwhile:
Transparent does not assume truthfulness it assumes transparency (perhaps you may find the dictionary helpful?) Basically ron says the same in pm as publically, hence transparent, in that nothing is hidden.

Devious again implies deviousness not lying.
Devious being to state facts about ron that he himself cannot contradict as they are not public.
Devious being to email members first with flattery to endear oneself and then to immediately launch into dialogue re ron, negative, potentially slanderous dialogue.
Devious by doing the same to numerous members to curry support and allegiance.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

my grandmother had little mind. We know because her head was very little. We make fun of her little head. behind her back. not in front of her. she had small hands that could hit very hard. and she use stick. stick also hard. she had little mind but very convincing. we do what she said otherwise she hit us with little hands. or stick.

We try to trick her but she not believe us. she hit us.


she good woman with little mind. could not be manipulated. very convincing. we love her very a lot. she tell us stories.

little minds do not manipulate they are manipulated, thus the little mind was not your grandmothers but yours.....natural enough, you were/are a child. Now do you get the reference?

 

[leopold]

it's you Tor that is blinkered.
water has had other relationships on this board and not once have i read anything like ron posted about water. but of course you wasn't here then neither was ron. so i ask you Tor who is blinkered?

 

[S.A.M.]

Doesn't anybody know the word "private" anymore?

Why all this bandying of personal relationships?

Keep private stuff private. This is a public forum.

 

[water]

I first met Ron at a Buddhism forum. I was a newbie then and was impressed by him, looked up to him.

However, as time progressed and I got to know him a bit better, I realized he is not a person I wish to spend time with. But by then, it was too late, he had my details, he knew my usernames, and things went from bad to worse with each day. If I ignored him, he would come after me in open forums. If I confronted him, he cried and became depressed, or put up a big fight. If I left the forums, he was still referencing to me, directly or indirectly. Or his wife tried to smoothen things up.


Eventually, to leave completely was the only option I had. I have been away for almost two months. But I find it absurd that I should stay away so that he can do whatever he wants to and I just have to swallow being slandered, or fear that he will go by 'silence denotes consent'.

I hate that this is being discussed in open forums. But private communication with him has so far proven to be futile.




I am not denying my responsibility for sharing my personal details or in what happened.
But I could not know in advance that things would turn so bad.

I have also not asked anyone to solve this problem for me, nor do I expect anyone to do so. A few people have expressed concern over what is going on, so I explained it to them.



* * *

I logged in after all this time because I received a notification of a private message from a member here.

* * *

I posted information on him breeching the copyright law because I wanted to show that he himself does not respect it -- while crying foul when others don't.
Like I said, I regret to have posted that, even though there was good reason to do so.