"Alienjones" <Alienjones@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0lmi4$dto$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jeff R. wrote:
>>
>> A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing
to
>> do.
>
> Here's the flash Nero...
> While Rome burns and you engage in your pedantic antics
How is it "pedantry" to ask if you have received my address?
>..and attempts to thwart the system... The law doesn't recognize a post
>office address as a valid address for service.
Thank you Doug, for *finally* acknowledging that you are in receipt of my
mailing address.
You asked for my mailing address - I gave it to you, without delay.
If you think I'm going to give you my home address, then at least half of
what the others say about you must be true.
Not likely, after the threats you've made.
>
> Like I've said a handful of times in the past few days...
> No I haven't received your address and your published phone number
appears
> to be a fake.
What published phone number?
Cites please.
>
> The fact you list a 10 mile long road as your address has not gone un
> noticed either. Not having an RMB or RSD in Telegraph road appears to
be
> a a ploy to avoid discovery of where you are.
Oh I see.
I don't recall saying anywhere that I am the registrant of mendosus.com.
You must have assumed that.
Dangerous business, making assumptions.
>
> Proper rural mailing addresses Use RMB or RSD numbers rather than rural
> property names. Rooty Hill is hardly a rural area. When I was in
Ebenezer
> a few years ago all the area from Rooty Hill to Penrith was under
housing
> development.
That's nice.
Echidnas have spines and marshmellows are soft. (Well - *you* get to post
irrelevancies, why can't I?)
>
> Don't fret mate... My lawyers are on the case. You'll get served with
the
> court papers just as soon as they establish who you really are and where
> you really live.
Don't call me "mate", Doug. If we were having a beer together,
face-to-face, then that term may be appropriate. As it is, you haven't
earned to right to address me as "mate". I feel dirty at the very idea.
>
> According to my lawyer, "it is not good practice to rely of the
> perpetrator being honest enough to tell you his real identity. Better to
> spend the effort (at $250 an hour for me) to obtain it legally". I'll
get
> it all back as costs from you anyway... Unless you are a dole bludger
and
> then I'll just write it off as a business expense.
Your insults and accusations are going to make any notion of a defamation
suit interesting, to say the least.
>
> Basically they are saying if you are crooked enough to steal my work and
> plagiarize it, the chances of you being a liar too, are pretty high.
>
> Clear enough?
As mud.
Let me spell out some things to you, Doug.
If you had indeed spoken to your lawyer, then he would (should!) have
advised you of correct terminology. You accuse me of plagiarism, which is
an attempt to dishonestly gain credit for someone else's work. The sort
of
thing a student or a journalist would do. I am neither. Here is the
page
at issue:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
(I haven't altered anything since I first posted it.)
You will note that, not only do I *not* attempt to claim credit for your
photos, but I even went to the trouble of putting your name on them.
(That
*is* your name isn't it, Mr "AlienJones"?)
Your words are reproduced verbatim, and I make it very clear that *I* did
not write them, for I then proceed to pick fault with many of the silly
and
rude things you said on your page - before you pulled it down.
"...steal my work" (sic)
To steal is to take without authority.
The copy that I took was taken and used with the authority of NSW
legislation. (see next para)
Now - breach of copyright. That is a different issue, and for a
successful
suit you will need to demonstrate that I sought to seek some sort of
commercial benefit. Not so. Also, as indicated on the site (from day 1) I
have exploited the provision of "fair use for the purpose of parody or
satire", a provision which applies universally (and identically) in all
Australian state jurisdictions.
I would not very much trouble at all proving the parody and satire aspects
of my use of your images, n'est-ce pas?
Now - on to defamation.
In the interests of universality, I'm happy to say that all Australian
states agree on the following: that truth is indeed a defence in any case
of
defamation, and there is no longer any need to provide (additionally)
evidence of public benefit. Huh! Even if there was such a need, I could
easily argue that too.
Point out *one* error of fact in my satirical treatment of your page,
Doug.
Just one.
While you're at it, point out one gratuitous insult, incidence of
name-calling or obscenity. No - not *from* you... *to* you. If you read
carefully you'll note that I don't indulge in name-calling. The same can
hardly be said for you.
So, there's:
* Plagiarism - wrong word.
* Copyright - protected by fair use.
* Defamation - truth is a defence.
So. What's left?
Embarrassing an elderly gentleman?
Cruel maybe, but hardly illegal. Besides, kitchens, heat, and all that.
Doug, I immediately provided you with my postal address, just as you
asked.
Now will you please use that address (or this forum) to provide me with
the
name of your legal representative. I will be delighted to furnish him
with
all the details or other information required for any suit(s) (but
*you're*
not getting them. I'm not having you paying me uninvited visits.)
Additionally:
You could, of course, very simply gain a full retraction and apology from
me. All you have to do is produce and post a "walking pano" by the
methods
you described, of the vista you showed us. We'd need to see the
constituent
images, too.
If you can't do that, then you should immediately apologise to AC for the
rude names you called him, and to readers of this NG for the lies you
perpetrate.
We await your considered response.
--
Jeff R.
|
