SGW - Was it worth it?

[_sock puppet]

You gonna pay the lawyers, Stak? If you're only here for the pictures, what's the point? Shades' butt is on the line. I'm not willing to sacrifice his butt just so people can satisfy their need to post irresponsibly.

It seems to me that the only person who was in danger of needing an attorney was the tool who complained to the host: SGW.

Piss anybody off enough, and you'll find yourself needing a lawyer.

[_sock puppet]

I don't read that in what Kish (who is, himself, a wordsmith) said. Not at all.

I took it personally, Morley, because I have almost 15,000 posts, none of which contain pictures. I have no avatar. So if posts that contain no pictures are useless simply because they contain no pictures, then I guess that means my 15,000 pictureless posts are useless.

We have people here who use pictures as weapons, intended to inflict pain. And look what that's gotten us... shut down, laughed at, and Shades' butt in a legal wringer.

What is your solution? To somehow assume the posters here who so love to use pictures as weapons will somehow grow up because of this? How likely is that, do you think?

Pictures are not the problem. Known violation of copyrighted and trademarked materials are. How would you know if someone's paragraph hasn't been lifted and pasted into a post, from an obscur but copyrighted source?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Pictures are the problem. Known violation of copyrighted and trademarked materials are. How would you know if someone's paragraph hasn't been lifted and pasted into a post, from an obscur but copyrighted source?

WikiWonka should have issued a DMCA against Simon!

[_Kishkumen]

Piss anybody off enough, and you'll find yourself needing a lawyer.

I'm listening. Give me the scenario by which Shades goes to court over this bogus claim of copyright infringement. I am all ears and serious.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Do not reveal personal or "in real life" information about any poster on this site that he or she has not explicitly revealed here. This includes avoiding mention of his/her actual first or last name, even if he or she has made it available on some other website.*

The rules were violated, no doubt. SGW could have simply complained to Shades or another mod and the offending material would have been removed.

SGW was not an MDB member at the time of CK's thread. No rules were violated in discussing SGW's in real life identity.

[_sock puppet]

You gonna pay the lawyers, Stak? If you're only here for the pictures, what's the point? Shades' butt is on the line. I'm not willing to sacrifice his butt just so people can satisfy their need to post irresponsibly.

< insert facepalm pic here >

No one's butt is on the line.

There are more than enough people here (including me) to pitch in where needed, if our current host isn't going to be in our corner.

Going to be in our corner? Are you serious? They shut us down, in case you missed it, without so much as a warning.

What is your solution, stak? Because the threat will now always be in the background... because of the actions of a few, everyone can be silenced. And the church didn't have to do anything at all.

You're right. The Church did not have anything to do with it. One of its zealot, oversensitive members did.

The question is do we live in fear, or boldly continue inspite of it?

What would Jesus do?

[_Kishkumen]

WikiWonka should have issued a DMCA against Simon!

Don't tease us like that, Stak.

[_harmony]

Well, harmony, I never came close to suggesting anything of the sort. I simply said that some prolific posters enjoy using them productively or at least harmlessly, and that they can be very effective, especially, as AS pointed out, in the Book of Abraham debate.

And some use them as weapons. So what? What do you suggest we do about them? Obviously expecting people to maintain enough maturity to host a debate like the Book of Abraham or the Jockers' study isn't working.

I am sorry you got the impression that I personally do not value you as a member of the community because of my comments. I really don't see how you can construe me as saying anything of the sort. My intention was not to attack you personally or hurt your feelings.

You implied you agreed with stak, that people who don't use pictures have nothing to contribute to the health of the board, and if those picture-posting people can't post pictures, then they'll leave. And since I don't post with pictures, I leapt to what seemed logical... that my 15,000 pictureless posts contributed nothing to this community or any discussion.

*Being shot down for a day is not the end of the world. The first thing we do is shop for a better host in a state that is less litigious.

And you are volunteering to head this task force, yes?

* Who the hell cares about being laughed at in this affair other than the little weasel who contacted the host?

Obviously not you.

*Shades butt was never in danger of being in a legal wringer because SeattleSmutWriter's brother-in-law or whoever his lawyer is was willing to send a frivolous warning to our host.

I'm sure that's a comfort to anyone who has ever been the target of a sue-happy fool and his frivolous lawsuit filing lawyer.

Maybe a no posting of family pictures of others would be a decent start. Situations like this occur because someone's feelings get really scorched. One way of guarding against this getting out of hand is managing, as minimally as possible, the degree to which that can happen. No solution is perfect, but I think no family is eminently reasonable as a standard.

[/quote]

See Rule #7. It's already in place. Obviously it didn't work.

[_sock puppet]

Ban Joseph.

Joining S. Belmont in that crusade?

What strange bedfellows.

[_sock puppet]

Piss anybody off enough, and you'll find yourself needing a lawyer.

I'm listening. Give me the scenario by which Shades goes to court over this bogus claim of copyright infringement. I am all ears and serious.

Is he going to go to court alone? Or hire a lawyer to defend himself?