DiscussMormonism.com

(Moderator Note) PM deleted.

Joseph-

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but Sven is right. The board rules state that no PM's are allowed to be posted on the public board. I have therefore removed your post.

However, I do have the copy of SGW's PM that you forwarded to me, and I have forwarded it to Shades.


*******************************
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tells you he did not formally register the published image he put the DMCA out on, doesn't it?

Isn't posting PMs taboo? Hello?

Did he add the F you b@#ch or did you? If he did, this is not very good behavior for an up and coming mike ash.


(Moderator Note) Quote of PM deleted.

What I posted is what HE wrote.

As for posting PM's, his response needs to be seen by those on here.

I requested a registration number for the formal copyright registration of the image he has published publicly and which he used as the basis for his DMCA takedown notice. What I posted is his response. I did not change it or add to it.

I would guess from his response that he did NOT register the copyright within the statutory 90 day period required by law and as a result his DMCA takedown notice was faulty. Just the kind of thing the Feds are often willing to investigate and possibly prosecute.

And I like the tag line about him being a 'gentleman'.

Joseph wrote:What I posted is what HE wrote.

As for posting PM's, his response needs to be seen by those on here.

I requested a registration number for the formal copyright registration of the image he has published publicly and which he used as the basis for his DMCA takedown notice.

I would guess from his response that he did NOT register the copyright within the statutory 90 day period required by law and as a result his DMCA takedown notice was faulty. Just the kind of thing the Feds are often willing to investigate and possibly prosecute.

And I like the tag line about him being a 'gentleman'.

I think if there is a rule it needs to be enforced evenly. Otherwise, we are no better than MAD.

So complain, spurvey.

Joseph wrote:So complain, spurvey.

Do you selectively give fair treatment? That seems pretty weak. In fact. that seems mildly bigoted. Simon, take note.

It is dreadful to think that Nemesis will now be able to add SGW's [sanitized quote from PM deleted] message to the list of MDB sins that will no doubt be on the Neighborhood Watch pages.

A perfectly normal message from an active LDS gentleman and artist in prose, and it is held up to ridicule by apostates and unbelievers. Shameful!

Edited to add: I see that the moderator has deleted the three-word phrase from SGW from other posts, but seems to have left my sanitized version untouched - I wrote the first letter of each word and put asterisks for the rest.

But I suspect she just missed what I wrote, so I have deleted it anyway. For the record, the message consisted of the imperative form of an obscene verb, a personal pronoun, and another word literally designating a non-human female animal, but usually taken to be an offensive epithet for women.

Nice language for a gentleman!

Joseph wrote:So complain, spurvey.

I agree with Spurven. You're a stickler for copyright laws, even though they are often somewhat ambiguous. This is a board rule, one that is starkly unambiguous. Yet, you violate it.

Sven?