Posted on 07/03/2008 7:42:55 PM PDT by Grig
[I have found that the Tanners are liars and their stuff cannot stand either fair criticism or parody so they have to sue people in government courts to try to stop parody and comic relief.]
Well, just to be fair, a lot of us think you are a liar whose stuff cannot stand either fair criticism or parody. Come to think of it, you were the guy who threatened to sue too.
If one had to choose who to believe (OMM or the Tanners) I think I’m sticking with the Tanners, who quote directly from the BOM and source material to prove their points while you rarely if ever quote from anyone but yourself. I guess you got your planet a little early and don’t need source material.
[Not anywhere near as well as you Baptists do? Are you going with your church to picket at Tony Snow’s funeral?]
You are one nasty piece of work. But of course that’s exactly what I’ve told people to watch out for, you prove my point daily.
Calling the REAL "DO NOT POST TO ME AGAIN"...,OMM....!!
Calling the REAL "DO NOT POST TO ME AGAIN"...,OMM....!!
Someone has stolen your FReeper name and is posting, "crazy talk".
Sir, you have just posted another lie. I have never threatened to sue anyone here and I defy you to produce one posting where I uttered a threat to sue.
Does that make you the biggest liar here?
At least I don’t have to make up fairy tales about you. You provide significant amounts of ammunition on your own.
Oh...here's the REAL OMM......
HE'S BACKKKKK...!!!
I was worried there for a second.........
ROFLOL!!
Do you have any principles or do you just do what your preacher tells you to do?
To: Elsie; Admin Moderator
This comment as well as most of your comments annoy me. I am now formally requesting that you cease posting to me in any manner that would tend to annoy me.
“Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications. ..shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking. “ It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”
335 posted on Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:57:25 AM by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
Then you must not have been paying attention to the news in 1999, either. This story was widely reported at the time, mainly because of the implications of how it would affect the internet and sites like this one.
Out of curiosity, did you vote for Bush in 2000?
For more details, see my post #151
There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.
Well, then. It appears Bush disagrees with you because that's exactly what he tried to do --limit another's free speech. When his campaign's cease-and-desist letters failed, his campaign (read: Karen Hughes) tried lying to the press. That failed, too. He then tried to get the FEC to do his dirty work. That failed, too.
OMM, did you really post this to another FReeper?
Seems a little hypocritical in light of what you just posted to me:
There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.
Too bad that isn't applied more often. That would curb the abuse button mashing if more people took it to heart.
Yes, he did. I supplied the relevant link at #169.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Well, without even going to the website, let’s start with the decision on the lawsuit, shall we?
1. “There has been no showing here that Plaintiff has been harmed commercially or that Defendants’ intended to do Plaintiff any harm in the future.”
2. “In this case, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s marks actually hindered any prospective user’s ability to find Plaintiff’s webpage or caused any confusion once locating it.”
3. “The court believes the Wyatt Website was a noninfringing parody of Plaintiff’s site.”
4. “The marks Plaintiff claims Defendants infringed were not registered trademarks at the time the Wyatt Website was created.” Now that’s interesting, isn’t it?
As to their claim of “cybersquatting” “Plaintiff admits that Wyatt would have given the domain names to Plaintiff had they asked.”
Well, there you are. If you wish, I will be happy to go to their website and tear them a new one. But you just asked for four lies from Sandra Tanner and I gave you five.
Thanks. I'd like to see OMM reconcile those two opposing statements.
No, I will not be joining you “to picket at Tony Snow’s funeral”...
Thanks for the invite...
But no thanks...
You go though ...
Have yourself a “good” time..
Are you now saying that I cannot make a request of someone? Heck, I DID NOT FILE A SLAP SUIT AGAINST ANYBODY. SANDRA TANNER DID.
No, I'm asking you to reconcile the two opposing statements you made regarding freedom of speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.