I am sorry it had to go so far.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

SGW,

I do have a couple of question regarding a post you made on MD&D, describing your actions and reasons for them.

1. In your post you said that you contacted Dr. Shades, alerting him to the image in question.

Did you get a reply from Dr. Shades?

2. As Ms. Jack documented on the MD&D thread, the image in question was online and viewable for 18 minutes.

How did you manage to contact Dreamhost (?) and Dr. Shades, and an attorney, in 18 minutes?

He left his Facebook account wide open. I linked to his photos.

It is just like him leaving his blinds up and then getting upset that people were looking in at him playing with himself.

[_gramps]

Simon, go to church, calm down, partake of the sacrament, and hope, just hope, that there really is a redeemer.

You need all the help you can get at this point.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Simon, go to church, calm down, partake of the sacrament, and hope, just hope, that there really is a redeemer.

You need all the help you can get at this point.

OH Jesus H. Christ that is funny!

He best take a handful of bread at the sacrament and 10 sacrament cups of warm tap water.

[_schreech]

It seems tragic that force had to be used in this case. I feel strongly that I have been misrepresented in the worst fashion on this board and on others throughout the apostate cyber-world. But you all had it coming.

You see, in America we are a civil society wherein poor behavior is not condoned when it crosses into harassment, bullying, theft of ideas, and other vile behavior. I did not want to make the calls I did, but now I hope you vile people understand that it is not acceptable to break the law, involve my family, and threaten people with whom you disagree into silence. Since you pathetic worms cannot engage the ideas you attempt to drag others into your cesspool.

I did it once, quite easily, and I can do it again. Think about that the next time any of you low life losers attack me.

PS: You are all a laughing stock.

Hey guys...what did I miss? I am bummed that i seemed to have missed all the crazy...

[Anonymous]

I have a few comments that I hope SGW reads. Though he claims he is through with this place, I suspect his ego will bring him back to at least read the rest of this thread.

Things you should consider, SGW:

The DMCA is a terrible piece of legislation and is usually resorted to (and usually falsely) by the greedy and corporate. Many people are fighting it, including academics like myself for the stifling effect it has on fair use, learning and creativity. Resorting to it wins you no cyber-allies.

My Free Copyright is no protection. If you want to investigate a more progressive and artist-friendly form of copyright---one which upholds the democratic notion of the public commons---investigate Creative Commons licensing.

Please think and look before you spout off. I can not emphasize this more.

Ms. Jack and Kimberly Ann (not "Katherine the Cupcake Queen" another tell that you didn't really read the thread before you blew your stack) complained about the posting of any real life pictures so quickly that they were gone before I clicked back on the thread. Also, the discussion of the use of your avatar (was this snapshot the copyrighted photo in question? An avatar you have plastered all over the internet and If I recall correctly used at the previous MAD board?) started by questioning your use of such in relation to "At the Beach." Whether you intended to model the protagonist of that story after yourself, the avatar strongly suggested that.

This was the point at which I entered the thread. After remarking on some sorry phrasing (the sagging flesh of a woman her age?) I pointed out that having the avatar there gave the impression of the author/protagonist watching one read the story, an effect I found ooky. Spurven Ten Sing teased me by reposting the avatar to me with a "come on line." I thought that slightly crossed a line and so responded to Spurven via .gif: the much touted ouija board gif. Anyone with as much writing and technical savvy as you claim could see that my .gif was a response to the block quote from Spurven. To describe such as some kind of death threat against you is an example of poor reading and infamiliarity with message board discussion (including the use of block quotes), not to mention utter narcissism.

I'm only taking time to explain this at length because of my shock at the hyperbole you spewed yesterday. Anyone who describe that thread---again a thread in which several people made clear their discomfort with the use of your photos---as "Reminds [me] of those groups of kids who stood around and watched a young woman get raped, laughing, and celebrating, all the while ridiculing anyone who attempted to stop it from happening. They are truly depraved souls that are mentally unstable," is clearly out to lunch.

Your skills as a writer were criticized and mocked. In your over-the-top reaction you have now made clear they are matched by your skills as a reader.

You have no idea about what happens on this board, a board like any other message board, including MDD. While I have read plenty uncharitable, uninformed, ignorant and mean spirited things there, I have also perused MDD long enough to know that there are posters whose insights are intelligent, measured and worth learning from. In other words, I have a sense of the board dynamics and if I were to start posting there, or god forbid, take some action again posters there, my action would be mediated by the overall sense of the place, a sense I have taken the time to develop.

Above all, if something personally offended me at MDD, I would contact the poster in question first. It probably would not need to go any further. Your actions on the other hand remind me a poor student who, angered by his teacher, does not discuss the problem with her first but goes straight to the President of the College to complain. After that the student is pretty well assured of never being taken seriously again.

Good luck on your writing efforts Tim. It's too bad you didn't pm me or others here, because there are a number of academics, writers and teachers of writing on this board who would have been all too happy to share resources with you. You could have turned your initial embarrassment into a learning experience. A learning experience we all could have benefited from.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Lastly, the Devilish Rogue meme on memegenerator.net is absolutely priceless.

The newer and lesser known "Mad Juliann" meme is also delivering the lulz quite generously at the moment, and I'd hate for it to go unnoticed...

[_Kevin Graham]

This guy would be a perfect "third stooge" to join in the wade/droopy duo.

I hope no one deletes his stuff. It needs to stand as a testament to just how unhinged some apologists really are.

[_MsJack]

And, was your photo POSTED or LINKED? If it was only linked you may well be in trouble for filing a false DMCA complaint. Linking is no problem as folks are pointed to where YOU have the image up. If posted, your complaint is valid. You can't control thieves.

All photos and pictures at MDB are linked. The only photos that are hosted are avatars.

However, in order for a DMCA to be valid, the complainant must be the holder of a valid copyright or an agent of the copyright holder. SeattleSmutWriter claimed that it was his brother who held the copyright because the image was registered at My Free Copyright. But My Free Copyright is not an agent of the U. S. Copyright office, nor does it claim to be. Registering your work there does not make you a valid copyright holder.

On top of that, the use of the image in question has to go beyond Fair Use law. Fair Use law allows for an image to be used for the purposes of parody or critique, which was how Spurven Ten Sing and TrashcanMan79 used it in the thread in question. So even if SeattleSmutWriter and his brother had been valid copyright holders (which they weren't), arguably the use of the image in question here at MDB was legal.

Finally, even if you are a valid copyright holder and you're complaining against someone whose use of an image goes beyond Fair Use law, your DMCA take-down needs to be filed with the Web server that is hosting the image, not a Web server that is merely linking to it. In this case, the hosts of the images that SeattleSmutWriter was complaining about were Gravatar and ImageShack. Yet SeattleSmutWriter targeted Dreamhost and left Gravatar and ImageShack alone, which is why the images still appear in the Google cache of the thread in question.

You want to talk about illegal activity? Filing a false DMCA is illegal and those who do so may be subject to criminal charges.

Fortunately for SeattleSmutWriter, I have a feeling that Dr. Shades is a lot more forgiving of these types of indiscretions than he was.

[_rich kelsey]

SeattleGhostWriter,

Well, I took a chance with my former post suggesting that we, you and I, could turn this situation around and make it smell as sweet as a rose:

At this point, I could say [I want nothing to do with you]. Yet, I won't. I am not going to end on a sour note.

Let's see if we can take this thing and make it smell as sweet as a rose?

I will say, there are a lot of good people here. And, I am proud to be counted among them.

I took a chance because I wanted to try applying grace.

I lost friends here because of this. I was reaching out to you, hoping you would see the good in at least some of the people here.

What did I/we get in return:

I have said all I wanted to say, and far more than any of you deserve....You people are despicable to smear my private doing and family for the sake of scoring points towards you feeling better about throwing your blessings away... I promise and swear that from this moment forward I will deny ever having set foot in this wretched vomit pool lest the stink follow me home.

I learned something today. Maybe I won't reach out to the next person in an effort to make peace; because it sure didn't work this time.

[_Kishkumen]

You want to talk about illegal activity? Filing a false DMCA is illegal and those who do so may be subject to criminal charges.

Fortunately for SeattleSmutWriter, I have a feeling that Dr. Shades is a lot more forgiving of these types of indiscretions than he was.

You're right. This time I almost wish you were not, but you are.