Images on this board

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note)Personal attack deleted., you are the sound of one mouth flapping...

So does that mean that you are not going to answer the question?

Shades, I will say, here and now, that if Joseph refuses to answer the question that you, I, and the majority of the board has asked, that you really don't have a choice but to ban him.

Joseph...the question on the table...

Will you honor your agreement with Shades, even when people on the board disagree with you?

Shades has been curiously silent on this issue.

So has Joseph.

[_Kishkumen]

Ban Joseph anyway.

Amen. Just because he's a douche bag.

[_moksha]

Dr. Shades is probably aware of the pathway connection between the usage of even occasional news and informational graphics and the eventual mainlining of Smilies.

How many times have we all been wandering about some city park after closing and seen some formerly successful business executive reduced to a quivering mass of jelly by the usage of a bouncing basketball at the end of his message board sentences, when only weeks before he had used a pie chart in one of his informative posts? "Nuff said.

[_Joseph]

Pay attention to and believe the chinaman if you want.

Non-commercial is not a free pass.

Even if you get a DMCA filing and the image owner goes through Federal Court, including all appellate avenues, you are years down the road. In the meantime the personal information of EVERY poster on this forum is in the court record and free for anyone to see. All posts on here are open to examination and those who state they will deliberately appropriate the intellectual property of the photographers will, most likely, have no defense to a pre-planned act that may well be considered illegal.

So, go ahead and push it.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Pay attention to and believe the chinaman if you want.

Non-commercial is not a free pass.

Even if you get a DMCA filing and the image owner goes through Federal Court, including all appellate avenues, you are years down the road. In the meantime the personal information of EVERY poster on this forum is in the court record and free for anyone to see. All posts on here are open to examination and those who state they will deliberately appropriate the intellectual property of the photographers will, most likely, have no defense to a pre-planned act that may well be considered illegal.

So, go ahead and push it.

Joseph, yet once again, your ignorance is right here for everyone to see.

Again, anyone stupid enough to attempt a lawsuit of mormondiscussions.com would find their lawsuit being summarily (immediately) dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP. Shades could then sue that party for bringing the action in bad faith.

Mormondiscussions.com has at least 3 complete defenses to a lawsuit (Section 107 of the ACT (1), (3) and (4)). Take your pick.

Joseph, nobody on this board would be in the court record. Where did you get this misinformation from? It's painful to watch you show your ignorance time and time again, Joseph.

Joseph, I don't think it's possible for someone to be more ignorant about the law than you. Incredible. I can't wait for your next post.

[_harmony]

Ummm... Joseph? You realize Everybody Wang Chung is a lawyer, right? As are multiple others on this board... you know this, right?