Re: Greg Hanson says "Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most slowly kill the patient."

[Greegor]

You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
Was that smart?


Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Reposted from another website.
>
> Greg Hanson wrote,
>
> Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:14 am Post subject:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most
> slowly kill the patient. They should be used as
> a last resort, not a first resort.
>
> Ritalen has been abused as a chemical straight jacket.
>
> Fosters and older parents less willing to keep up
> with a healthy high energy kid often resort to
> ritalen too quickly. Over decades, teachers and
> schools started to direct that kids need Ritalen.
> Many states passed laws specifically against this.
>
> That Comptroller Strayhorn in TX found that large
> numbers of Foster kids were prescribed Ritalen
> by doctors who never even examined the kids.
> This is very wrong.
>
> Many psychotropics actually kill the patient slowly.
>
> In general, they shorten life expectancy dramatically.
>
> The slow death from the psychotropics should
> be weighed against the danger of the disorder
> it is to treat.
>
> A great deal of caution is in order.



You were married to a Bipolar woman and you didn't know this??

Google has like 90,000 hits on Psychotropics and Life Expectancy!
"Results 1 - 10 of about 90,700 for psychotropic medications and life
expectancy"

I cited one right off the top copyrighted by the APA, probably a
CONSERVATIVE estimate considering the APA financial interests.
http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/8/1036

Life Expectancy and Causes of Death in a Population Treated for Serious
Mental Illness
Bruce P. Dembling, Ph.D., Donna T. Chen, M.D., M.P.H. and Louis Vachon,
M.D.
....On average, decedents who had been served by the department of
mental health lost 8.8 more years of potential life than decedents in
the general population-a mean of 14.1 years for men and 5.7 for
women. The differential was consistent across most causes of death.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings in this study are consistent with previous
findings identifying excess mortality in a population with serious
mental illness. The high rate of injury deaths, especially those due to
psychotropic and other medications, should concern providers.

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?

I didn't violate anything, Greg.

Or steal anything either.

> Was that smart?
>
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Reposted from another website.
> >
> > Greg Hanson wrote,
> >
> > Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:14 am Post subject:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most
> > slowly kill the patient. They should be used as
> > a last resort, not a first resort.
> >
> > Ritalen has been abused as a chemical straight jacket.
> >
> > Fosters and older parents less willing to keep up
> > with a healthy high energy kid often resort to
> > ritalen too quickly. Over decades, teachers and
> > schools started to direct that kids need Ritalen.
> > Many states passed laws specifically against this.
> >
> > That Comptroller Strayhorn in TX found that large
> > numbers of Foster kids were prescribed Ritalen
> > by doctors who never even examined the kids.
> > This is very wrong.
> >
> > Many psychotropics actually kill the patient slowly.
> >
> > In general, they shorten life expectancy dramatically.
> >
> > The slow death from the psychotropics should
> > be weighed against the danger of the disorder
> > it is to treat.
> >
> > A great deal of caution is in order.
>
>
>
> You were married to a Bipolar woman and you didn't know this??

Why would I know this?

And you could at least spell ritalin correctly... being the expert and
all.

> Google has like 90,000 hits on Psychotropics and Life Expectancy!
> "Results 1 - 10 of about 90,700 for psychotropic medications and life
> expectancy"
>
> I cited one right off the top copyrighted by the APA, probably a
> CONSERVATIVE estimate considering the APA financial interests.
> http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/8/1036
>
> Life Expectancy and Causes of Death in a Population Treated for Serious
> Mental Illness
> Bruce P. Dembling, Ph.D., Donna T. Chen, M.D., M.P.H. and Louis Vachon,
> M.D.
> ...On average, decedents who had been served by the department of
> mental health lost 8.8 more years of potential life than decedents in
> the general population-a mean of 14.1 years for men and 5.7 for
> women. The differential was consistent across most causes of death.
> CONCLUSIONS: Findings in this study are consistent with previous
> findings identifying excess mortality in a population with serious
> mental illness. The high rate of injury deaths, especially those due to
> psychotropic and other medications, should concern providers.

Yeah, but the kids in foster care aren't seriously mentally ill.

What is the loss in potential life for children who're given
psychotropic drugs while they were in foster care?

Get THAT figure and you might have something.

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?

Dan Sullivan wrote
> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
> Or steal anything either.

Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?

Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!

Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!

I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.

Faking the IP, bogus name, returning to a site that EJECTED him
and "outing" Confidential text from a private support group
probably won't sit well with Ron.

Those new computer crime laws can be harsh.

I'm guessing Ron has a few more misgivings about DanKane...

[Ron]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Greegor wrote:
>> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
>> Or steal anything either.
>
> Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?
>
> Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
> private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!
>
> Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!
>
> I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.
>
> Faking the IP, bogus name, returning to a site that EJECTED him
> and "outing" Confidential text from a private support group
> probably won't sit well with Ron.

The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
"private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not part of
a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong. Once
something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of privacy,
period.

Ron


> Those new computer crime laws can be harsh.
>
> I'm guessing Ron has a few more misgivings about DanKane...
>

[Dan Sullivan]

Ron wrote:
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Greegor wrote:
> >> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
> >
> > Dan Sullivan wrote
> >> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
> >> Or steal anything either.
> >
> > Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?
> >
> > Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
> > private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!
> >
> > Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!
> >
> > I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.
> >
> > Faking the IP, bogus name, returning to a site that EJECTED him
> > and "outing" Confidential text from a private support group
> > probably won't sit well with Ron.
>
> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not part of
> a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong. Once
> something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of privacy,
> period.
>
> Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

[Ron]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ron wrote:
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Greegor wrote:
>> >> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
>> >
>> > Dan Sullivan wrote
>> >> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
>> >> Or steal anything either.
>> >
>> > Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?
>> >
>> > Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
>> > private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!
>> >
>> > Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!
>> >
>> > I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.
>> >
>> > Faking the IP, bogus name, returning to a site that EJECTED him
>> > and "outing" Confidential text from a private support group
>> > probably won't sit well with Ron.
>>
>> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
>> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
>> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not part
>> of
>> a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong. Once
>> something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of privacy,
>> period.
>>
>> Ron
>
> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>
> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>
> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Somehow I don't think so Dan. gregg has shown that his grasp of the laws of
the land are a bit "tenuous" at best. Anyone who takes his legal advice
deserves what they get. Lord know, we have shown him to be an idiot more
times than I can count.

Ron

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
> >>
> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
> >> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
> >> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
> >> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>
> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
> written permission.
>
> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
> >> privacy, period.
>
> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
> >
> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
> >
> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
>
> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
> authored them.
>
> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
> makes that very clear.

Court cases please, for newsgroup and other casual conversation
exchanges on The Web.

Thanks in advance. 0:->




>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
> >>
> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
> >> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
> >> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
> >> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>
> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
> written permission.
>
> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
> >> privacy, period.
>
> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
> >
> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
> >
> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
>
> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
> authored them.
>
> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
> makes that very clear.

Michael, stop displaying your stupidity. The post I now write, because
it is fully attributed with other people's commentary would constitute
copyright infringement by me. Do YOU wish to charge with such?

You are making noise and little sense...something you do a lot of.

Kane

> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
> Was that smart?

Which group, Greg. I'd like to go there and see for myself how private
it is.




>
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Reposted from another website.
>>
>> Greg Hanson wrote,
>>
>> Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:14 am Post subject:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most
>> slowly kill the patient. They should be used as
>> a last resort, not a first resort.
>>
>> Ritalen has been abused as a chemical straight jacket.
>>
>> Fosters and older parents less willing to keep up
>> with a healthy high energy kid often resort to
>> ritalen too quickly. Over decades, teachers and
>> schools started to direct that kids need Ritalen.
>> Many states passed laws specifically against this.
>>
>> That Comptroller Strayhorn in TX found that large
>> numbers of Foster kids were prescribed Ritalen
>> by doctors who never even examined the kids.
>> This is very wrong.
>>
>> Many psychotropics actually kill the patient slowly.
>>
>> In general, they shorten life expectancy dramatically.
>>
>> The slow death from the psychotropics should
>> be weighed against the danger of the disorder
>> it is to treat.
>>
>> A great deal of caution is in order.
>
>
>
> You were married to a Bipolar woman and you didn't know this??

What did he say that would suggest he didn't know this?

> Google has like 90,000 hits on Psychotropics and Life Expectancy!
> "Results 1 - 10 of about 90,700 for psychotropic medications and life
> expectancy"
>
> I cited one right off the top copyrighted by the APA, probably a
> CONSERVATIVE estimate considering the APA financial interests.
> http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/8/1036
>
> Life Expectancy and Causes of Death in a Population Treated for Serious
> Mental Illness
> Bruce P. Dembling, Ph.D., Donna T. Chen, M.D., M.P.H. and Louis Vachon,
> M.D.
> ....On average, decedents who had been served by the department of
> mental health lost 8.8 more years of potential life than decedents in
> the general population-a mean of 14.1 years for men and 5.7 for
> women. The differential was consistent across most causes of death.
> CONCLUSIONS: Findings in this study are consistent with previous
> findings identifying excess mortality in a population with serious
> mental illness. The high rate of injury deaths, especially those due to
> psychotropic and other medications, should concern providers.

The drugs may or may not have that direct chemical effect, Greg, or it
may be that people ON drugs tend to do things that are life threatening.

Most CMIs I worked with, and there were many from 1979 through 84,
tended to self medicate along with their prescriptions. By that I mean
they drank or took illegal street drugs in addition.

They also, because the state I was in had joined the happy band of "shut
down the central mental health facilities" and disperse everyone back to
their communities, tended to have a great many people on the streets,
many NOT taking their meds, though listed as being ON meds, walking into
traffic, buses, off docks and piers, and generally living the life of
the homeless, though they were all afforded a place to live, meals, and
even dispensing staff.

Problem was they didn't want to stay and no law could make them.

It's still going on and they "revolve" in and out of jail, instead of
live in a closed hospital setting as before. It's a very dangerous life.

Notice the mention in that last sentence....it's saying what I'm
describing to you, that: there is a "high rate of injury deaths,
especially those due to psychotropic and other medications, should
concern providers."

In other words, people taking the drugs are more prone to injury. It
does NOT say the drugs are the chemical source of injury.

No I happen to know this field, and I DO know that some psychotropics
are hard on human organs. I also know that beer and aspirin are.

Most have little to NO dangerous side effects.

That went out many years ago with some of the stranger "tranquillizers."

And where there are serious side effects, THOSE are not dispensed as
maintenance meds without close controls. In home, dispensing staff,
Greg. Trained.

The biggest problem is people NOT taking their meds. And then when they
do they are not in good control.

Learn to read and comprehend what you post, child.

Or did you do that deliberately?

Use "high rate of injury deaths, especially those due to psychotropic
and other medications, should concern providers" as a basis to claim
that the drugs themselves shorten lives?

Chronically Mentally Ill (CMI) folks left untreated tend to suicide, by
the way. Mental illness is NOT fun, despite your beliefs.

It's frightening, tiring, and most want OUT. If meds are working they
will find a way OUT.

I lost a few myself. When your patient doesn't show and you have no way
of finding them that happens.

Adult mentally ill people, unless adjudicated into confinement care, are
free to come and go as they please. It is extremely hard to have them so
adjudicated.

As the husband of a wife who is "disturbed" you should know that. In
fact that was YOUR excuse in your domestic abuse conviction, was it not?
She was unmanageable and you put your hand on her to control her or
block her move, or some such?

Want to talk about it? Happy to help though I might have to do some
review of the literature being out of touch professionally for some
time. At least in the treatment area.

Best wishes. Stop dodging that you gave dangerous advice to someone,
Greg. Your writhing and slimy evasions are too obvious and silly.

0:->

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
>> Or steal anything either.
>
> Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?
>
> Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
> private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!
>
> Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!
>
> I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.
>
> Faking the IP,

There is no such thing as a fake IP. It's called a "proxy." It's legal.

> bogus name,

Do you really think all those people that have posted to these
newsgroups using made up nyms are breaking the law?

> returning to a site that EJECTED him
> and "outing" Confidential text from a private support group
> probably won't sit well with Ron.

Nice try, but Ron knows the skinny on your bs and that you are dumber
than a stump when it comes to the law.

I usually don't take legal advice from a cop, but an ex cop with Ron's
rep here, yes, I'd take his on certain issues. And he wouldn't speak on
the ones he doesn't know.

> Those new computer crime laws can be harsh.

First you have to commit one. I recall one poster here from way back
that used his computer skills to commit a crime and admitted it here,
and also mentioned he could invade others actual work stations at will,
and place incriminating evidence without the owners knowledge, and,
Greg, used his computer to encourage, right here in these newsgroups,
the murder of not only CPS workers and staff, but any innocent PARENTS
there as clients at CPS offices as well.

He even bragged about having the knowledge for the means to do it.

You were terrible silent at the time, remember?

Now you claim Dan has taken some narrative text, and cut and pasted it,
and has committed a 'felony?'

Such selective criticism, Greg. Tsk tsk tsk.

So, Greg, YOU might get to be the lab rat that gets those harsh computer
crime laws tried out on him if you continue to make threats, and accuse
people criminal felonies without proof or facts.

Where are the statutes that you would cite to prove that anyone cutting
and pasting in this highly public conversational medium would be
committing a felony?

And since I FULLY attributed you, I just, according to another brilliant
legal scholar like you here, would have violated your copyright to your
printed word. Gonna sue me?

Yer just jivin' away as fast as your little feet can tap, aintcha now.

R R R R R R
>
> I'm guessing Ron has a few more misgivings about DanKane...

Interestingly I consider Ron, and Dan, kind of rivals, both with each
other, and with me. We aren't afraid to disagree, nor to learn from each
other. We don't patronize each other like you allow others to do to you.

If we disagree we say so. Always have done so.

Yet, there is a level of respect because we know the basic honesty,
intent, and motives to be respectable.

We just have different views.

In your case, Greg, you are despicable because you act despicably. As
you are doing now.

You were caught doing something basically evil...entrapping or
attempting to entrap someone into an illegal act. Using an illegally
obtained tape recording to challenge the courts, in the middle of a
child protection case....something highly likely to prejudice her case.

And you won't apologize or correct your error because you are a coward.

Nothing more. Just a coward.

It's hard to admit a mistake, Greg, but men do that. As do women. Little
weasels, on the other hand, think their ego is more important than the
safety of others. And the dodge dodge dodge.

You've demonstrated that repeatedly, and for five years and more.

Enjoy being the little piece of chicken **** you really are, Greg.

0:->

[Michael©]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:47:33 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" >
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

>
> Michael© wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
>> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
>> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>>
>> >>
>> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
>> >> considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
>> >> protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
>> >> he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
>> >> then he did nothing wrong.
>>
>> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
>> written permission.
>>
>> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>> >> privacy, period.
>>
>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>> >
>> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>> >
>> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>> >
>> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
>> copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
>> because YOU authored them.
>>
>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
>> DMCA makes that very clear.
>
> Michael, stop displaying your stupidity. The post I now write, because
> it is fully attributed with other people's commentary would constitute
> copyright infringement by me. Do YOU wish to charge with such?

I wish not to do so, nor do I believe it would constitute a violation of
DMCA since this is the way this medium (Usenet) functions i.e. I expect to
be quoted here and receive answers for ease of reading the thread.

Copying your writings from here and publishing elsewhere, since I am not
the author, would be copyright infringement according to the DMCA. Read
up on copyright and the DMCA. Someone authors something, it is their
copyrighted material. No need for a copyright symbol which is just a
reminder/notice.

All one has to do is claim something as theirs and it is copyright if they
created the thing.

The author has five (5) years from unauthorized publishing to claim
copyright infringement.

You want papers on your writings? $30 USD will get them from the US
Copyright office. It isn't required though to make your work officially
copyrighted.

Now, stupid, educate yourself if you want to argue something. I didn't
create copyright nor have a hand in writing the DMCA, but the fact is, if
something is your work, it is protected.

>
> You are making noise and little sense...something you do a lot of.

Sorry to inform you Kane, but the SNR of my post is very high.


>
> Kane
>
>> --
>> Michael©
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>
>



--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

[Michael©]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:21:16 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" >
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

>
> Michael© wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
>> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
>> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>>
>> >>
>> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
>> >> considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
>> >> protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
>> >> he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
>> >> then he did nothing wrong.
>>
>> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
>> written permission.
>>
>> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>> >> privacy, period.
>>
>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>> >
>> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>> >
>> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>> >
>> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
>> copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
>> because YOU authored them.
>>
>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
>> DMCA makes that very clear.
>
> Court cases please, for newsgroup and other casual conversation
> exchanges on The Web.
>
> Thanks in advance. 0:->
>

I wasn't discussing Usenet or exchanges such as e-mail which stays in that
medium. I was discussing Dan's cut and paste of others writings from one
place to another. They are not his and the author may not be very happy
with his work being published elsewhere.

Stealing something from one site to place on another if you lack
permission or you are not the author of the work is no different than
copying an article from a book or magazine and republishing it. It is a
violation of the owners copyright. You should heed the little notices next
time you copy entire news articles here instead of linking to them.

>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Michael©
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>



--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

[Michael©]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:21:14 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" > put
the following graffiti on the walls of alt.support.child-protective-
services:

> Greegor wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
>>
>> Dan Sullivan wrote
>>> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
>>> Or steal anything either.
>>
>> Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?
>>
>> Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
>> private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!
>>
>> Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!
>>
>> I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.
>>
>> Faking the IP,
>
> There is no such thing as a fake IP. It's called a "proxy." It's legal.

Accuracy, Kane. It is legal if it is an open public proxy or a private
proxy that you have permission to use.

....


--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
......' I'm the guy that "copyrights" my name with a symbol that is not
in universal use known to actually indicate copyright. I'm also the guy
that doesn't even know you don't "copyrigth" names, you register them.
'

In other words, to be technically correct one would write their name,
if they wished to register it, as "Michael®"

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
.... Titles, NAMES, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or
designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents ...
(emphasis mine on NAMES).

You could register "Michael®" as a trademark, or business name, if you
wished. But copyrighting a single word is simply not done.

Now as to this bull**** of yours about two things. My use of news
articles.

One, you may use such articles if you are going to comment, criticize
or otherwise use it for literary use including satire.

What you may NOT do is use the work in a form that makes it appear as
YOUR product.

In fact, Dan did exactly as I've said above. He identified the source
clearly. He made various comments and observations about the
content...as have I.

One of the best minds I know on this issue is Brad Templeton, at:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

His clarification is as follows, and note that I ATTRIBUTE THIS TO HIM
AND LINK TO IT, 0:->

What you will find is that Fair Use is not that simple a concept:

....The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to
allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to
express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other
people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New
York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of
the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own
story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York
Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably
aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
(One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the
commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in
the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another
reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously,
copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a
magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very
newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he
pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for
commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original
posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair
use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to
comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case.
There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above,
but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair
use. ...

If Dan had NOT identified source and author and why would he do THAT,
for **** sake, given the stupidity of the material content, he would be
in violation of copyright. He posted it explicitly to critique the
content and source, just as if it had been printed in the NY Times.

You once again manage to step on your dick.

I have avoided ever going this far into this issue as in another
newsgroup there was a wonder running ongoing exchange over this very
issue, and I had delighted in watching the idiots there make it up as
they go.

But now I'm willing to end their suffering. One of them did indeed
attempt to prints someone else's material as their own product, with no
clear identification of the author. SHE had to intervene with the twit,
as he had done it twice and was insisting it wasn't enfringement,
though had NOT met any of the criteria mentioned by Templeton above, in
one of them, and obscured the author's name by posting it below a blank
page under the original posting of her work. Very sly. Few of us think
to bring up anything past a blank page.

Talk about deliberate deception.

Dan in no way attempted to usurp the work, but in fact fully accredited
the author, and the website the limited extraction came from...a clear
fair use compliance.

It IS fair use to quote for the purpose of criticism.

Show in the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" where it says otherwise.
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
[[ Now I offer a few choice quotes ]]

....This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have
the continued
ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work
may be a fair use
under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act
of circumventing
a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the
fair use
doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to
a work, the act of
circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is
prohibited. ...

[[[ And note, unless it's shown otherwise ... and I've been to the
site, there was NO technological device blocking copying -- it's an
open site to the public as well. ]]]

And the DMCA does NOT define "Fair Use" but simply mentions it in
deferral to the already existing fair use doctrine of various
countries...and this one.

If you know of any such mention, please point us directly to it in the
document on line that I have provided (and you didn't you clever little
imp you) above.

So, you were blowing hard yet AGAIN, Michael...whatever your silly mark
is.

And demonstrate for us how Dan violated fair use. Please.

And demonstrate how I do reprinting single articles from the media with
full attribution and a link to the site...something I always do
deliberately.

If I was to criticize Dan I'd have to admonish him for lazily NOT
providing a link every time...but he certainly identified the source by
name.

He did NOT attempt to pass a damn thing off as his own, except where
they WERE his own words.

Have a really wonderful evening, you legal expert you.

R R R R R R


> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:47:33 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" >
> put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
> >
> > Michael© wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
> >> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> >> alt.support.child-protective-services:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
> >> >> considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
> >> >> protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
> >> >> he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
> >> >> then he did nothing wrong.
> >>
> >> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
> >> written permission.
> >>
> >> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
> >> >> privacy, period.
> >>
> >> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Ron
> >> >
> >> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
> >> >
> >> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
> >> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
> >> copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
> >> because YOU authored them.
> >>
> >> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
> >> DMCA makes that very clear.
> >
> > Michael, stop displaying your stupidity. The post I now write, because
> > it is fully attributed with other people's commentary would constitute
> > copyright infringement by me. Do YOU wish to charge with such?
>
> I wish not to do so, nor do I believe it would constitute a violation of
> DMCA since this is the way this medium (Usenet) functions i.e. I expect to
> be quoted here and receive answers for ease of reading the thread.
>
> Copying your writings from here and publishing elsewhere, since I am not
> the author, would be copyright infringement according to the DMCA. Read
> up on copyright and the DMCA. Someone authors something, it is their
> copyrighted material. No need for a copyright symbol which is just a
> reminder/notice.
>
> All one has to do is claim something as theirs and it is copyright if they
> created the thing.
>
> The author has five (5) years from unauthorized publishing to claim
> copyright infringement.
>
> You want papers on your writings? $30 USD will get them from the US
> Copyright office. It isn't required though to make your work officially
> copyrighted.
>
> Now, stupid, educate yourself if you want to argue something. I didn't
> create copyright nor have a hand in writing the DMCA, but the fact is, if
> something is your work, it is protected.
>
> >
> > You are making noise and little sense...something you do a lot of.
>
> Sorry to inform you Kane, but the SNR of my post is very high.
>
>
> >
> > Kane
> >
> >> --
> >> Michael©
> >>
> >> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> >> Freiheit für Deutschland !
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:21:14 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" > put
> the following graffiti on the walls of alt.support.child-protective-
> services:
>
> > Greegor wrote:
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >>> You violated a private support group to steal THIS, Dan?
> >>
> >> Dan Sullivan wrote
> >>> I didn't violate anything, Greg.
> >>> Or steal anything either.
> >>
> >> Firemonkey ready to be an accesory to your Felony now?
> >>
> >> Publicly POSTING Confidential information lifted from a
> >> private support group you were kicked out of is really smart!
> >>
> >> Bring in Kane as an accessory, make it a perfect Trifecta!
> >>
> >> I doubt Ron would cross this line into computer FELONY.
> >>
> >> Faking the IP,
> >
> > There is no such thing as a fake IP. It's called a "proxy." It's legal.
>
> Accuracy, Kane. It is legal if it is an open public proxy or a private
> proxy that you have permission to use.

Mere expansion on what I said. There was no reason to go into legal or
not. The question was this...."Faking the IP."

The claim of the other nitwit.

So, I might point out, Michael with the ridiculous copyright mark
behind his name...or is it a fake one....R R R R R .... THAT YES,
"accuracy, Kane."

Mine was, yours was not.

0:->


>
> ...
>
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
> >>
> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
> >> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
> >> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
> >> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>
> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
> written permission.

Wrong. It's "fair use" to copy and print and use for certain purposes,
which Dan did. He was well within Fair Use guidelines. He was
critiquing.

You are talking to a published author, oh brilliant legal scholar, who
has sued for copyright enfringement and won settlement.

I KNOW what fair use is and is not. Concealing the source constitutes
one type of violation.

Did Dan conceal the source?

Those that stole my work changed bits and pieces (but not the code word
scattered about that I periodically search) of my work, and did NOT
mention source, and printed under their own authorship. Nailed them.

I KNOW copyright. YOU KNOW ****.

What covers us in this medium is NOT expectation, bright boy. It's that
we attribute clearly without concealing source, and we republish each
others commentary to critique and otherwise FAIRLY USE the other's
work.

When you post something I wrote, Michael of silly name addition, and
DON'T acknowledge me, expect a visit from my attorney. I'm very very
strict on this.

And don't bother to ask for proof of publishing. None of you idiots
will ever know the name I published under.

You think you know who I am, and I let you for my own purposes.

You know ****.

> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
> >> privacy, period.
>
> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.

If they steal the work, reprint it as their own, it's a violation.

If the reprint with citations cleary and use the work to critique it it
is fair use.

Wake up.

Go actually read your referrence. It does NOT address "copyright"
direction by defers to the US copyright office and laws of other
countries.

Nor does it address fair use in any but that way as well.

Then go to the copy right office page I provided you in another post on
this subject, and look up "fair use" and you'll find that Templeton has
it right, and the copyright office certainly does.

There is no "felony" involved in Dan's reprinting. That's total Greg
the Weasel trying to get out from under his vicious attack on a poster
to the support group by encouraging her to break the law in the middle
of a CPS case.

And you are abbetting him by coming to his rescue with this bull****.

0:->

>
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
> >
> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
> >
> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
>
> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
> authored them.
>
> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
> makes that very clear.
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[Greegor]

Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

You have as yet to prove he did so.

> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
> Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail was broken into?

> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

They were broken into?

>
> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>

Show how this is so.

> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
> pretty deliberate.

You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
had.

Provide proof please.

I could have given him the information. For all you know I'm a regular
poster there. Think about it.

> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.

Nope. If you post to publicly accessible forum and it has no devices to
conceal copying it is not a violation of anything but your vivid
imagination.

> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Is there?

Then it's been encouraged by bogus means and insinuation.

No such privacy exists at the website under discussion.

If you wish it to be, then request it.

> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
> involves HTTPS or not.

None occurred.

> Pfishing for private information on the internet
> is not OK.

Then who do YOU do it, and post it here both explicitly and by
innuendo, "BEND"ing the rule you are trying to make for yourself.

> It's a FELONY.

You may scream that all you wish, and you may wish that all you scream
is true, but sadly for you, little boy, it is not a felony and you are
wrong.

Or you may post the proof of your claim...which I've asked for many
times now.

There is no such thing as a "felony" without a statute to establish it.


Provide the statute.

Hop to it, kid.

Chop chop.

Pronto.

No delay.

GO!

Or continue to attempt to take the heat off of you and divert folks
from the single most important fact Dan revealed here, obviously with
someone's help (must be at least one person at that website that knows
you are dickhead): that is that you told someone it might be a good
idea to take an illegal tape she made and present it as challenge in
court to the authority of the state to prohibit single party
recordings.

You put her at great risk if she was foolish enough to trust your
judgement, Greg.

It's just that simple.

And you cannot seem to make youself correct that error in the real
world, and continually try to justify it on moral grounds that do not
actually exist.

Grow up, child. Grow up.

> Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
> enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

What crime has he committed and were is the statute covering it?

I thought you were claiming he went under a nym, using a "fake IP"
(which is a total joke, since you cannot move across the Internet
without an actual working IP number).

Now suddenly he's no longer a suspected intruder, but rather got
someone else to do it for him.

Show where anything you say he has done is "criminal enterprise."

Statute, laws, criminal laws. Get with it, kiddo.

Stop your dancing about the real issue...your dangerous advice.

0:->

[Greegor]

Why are people surprised that psychotropics actually shorten life
expectancy?

Dan of all people, having had a Bipolar Manic Depressive wife once,
should have known this.

Too busy griping about Greg Hanson, or diverting from
actual issues?

[J.D.Wentworth]

"0:->" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Greegor wrote:
>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>
> You have as yet to prove he did so.

This is not the arena for Greg to offer his proof.

>
>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>
> Hotmail was broken into?
>
>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>
> They were broken into?

No - Danno broke into other sites- Google is just an example of your stupid
https remark.

>
>>
>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>>
>
> Show how this is so.
>
>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>> pretty deliberate.
>
> You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
> had.
>
> Provide proof please.

Not here stupid - the proof gets presented to the Court.

>
> I could have given him the information. For all you know I'm a regular
> poster there. Think about it.
>
>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>
> Nope. If you post to publicly accessible forum and it has no devices to
> conceal copying it is not a violation of anything but your vivid
> imagination.

Sounds like a plausable defense.

Good luck with that. lol.

>
>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>
> Is there?
>
> Then it's been encouraged by bogus means and insinuation.
>
> No such privacy exists at the website under discussion.
>
> If you wish it to be, then request it.
>
>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>> involves HTTPS or not.
>
> None occurred.
>
>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>> is not OK.
>
> Then who do YOU do it, and post it here both explicitly and by
> innuendo, "BEND"ing the rule you are trying to make for yourself.
>
>> It's a FELONY.
>
> You may scream that all you wish, and you may wish that all you scream
> is true, but sadly for you, little boy, it is not a felony and you are
> wrong.
>
> Or you may post the proof of your claim...which I've asked for many
> times now.
>
> There is no such thing as a "felony" without a statute to establish it.
>
>
> Provide the statute.
>
> Hop to it, kid.
>
> Chop chop.
>
> Pronto.
>
> No delay.
>
> GO!
>
> Or continue to attempt to take the heat off of you and divert folks
> from the single most important fact Dan revealed here, obviously with
> someone's help (must be at least one person at that website that knows
> you are dickhead): that is that you told someone it might be a good
> idea to take an illegal tape she made and present it as challenge in
> court to the authority of the state to prohibit single party
> recordings.
>
> You put her at great risk if she was foolish enough to trust your
> judgement, Greg.
>
> It's just that simple.
>
> And you cannot seem to make youself correct that error in the real
> world, and continually try to justify it on moral grounds that do not
> actually exist.
>
> Grow up, child. Grow up.
>
>> Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
>> enlarges the criminal "enterprise".
>
> What crime has he committed and were is the statute covering it?
>
> I thought you were claiming he went under a nym, using a "fake IP"
> (which is a total joke, since you cannot move across the Internet
> without an actual working IP number).
>
> Now suddenly he's no longer a suspected intruder, but rather got
> someone else to do it for him.
>
> Show where anything you say he has done is "criminal enterprise."
>
> Statute, laws, criminal laws. Get with it, kiddo.
>
> Stop your dancing about the real issue...your dangerous advice.
>
> 0:->
>

[Ron]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking about.
Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is placed
into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure) that
reports back to the web site certain information. Without that cookie on
his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and the password.

> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
> Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an HTTPS
page.

> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

Yes they are gregg, both of them.

> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
> pretty deliberate.
>
> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>
> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
> involves HTTPS or not.
>
> Pfishing for private information on the internet
> is not OK.
>
> It's a FELONY.

No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained is
used illegally.

Ron

> Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
> enlarges the criminal "enterprise".
>

[Ron]

"Michael©" > wrote in message
. 97.140...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
>>>
>>> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
>>> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
>>> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
>>> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>
> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
> written permission.
>
>>> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>> privacy, period.
>
> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>
>> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>
>> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>
>> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>
>
> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
> authored them.

Copyright is a complicated process, one that cannot be applied to internet
postings in public news groups mike. You claim copyright protections, but
they are not available to you. You might want to look up the copyright
process before you break out the lawyers.

Ron


> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
> makes that very clear.
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[Dan Sullivan]

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Greegor wrote:
> >> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
> >> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
> >
> > You have as yet to prove he did so.
>
> This is not the arena for Greg to offer his proof.

Arena?

Greg got a job at a circus?

> >> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
> >> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
> >
> > Hotmail was broken into?
> >
> >> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
> >
> > They were broken into?
>
> No - Danno broke into other sites- Google is just an example of your stupid
> https remark.

"Other sites???"

Such as?

> >> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
> >>
> >
> > Show how this is so.
> >
> >> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
> >> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
> >> pretty deliberate.
> >
> > You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
> > had.
> >
> > Provide proof please.
>
> Not here stupid - the proof gets presented to the Court.

Which court?

Where?

In LaLa Land where Greg lives?

[J.D.Wentworth]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>
> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add up.
>
> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is
> placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure)
> that reports back to the web site certain information. Without that
> cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and the
> password.
>
>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>
> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an HTTPS
> page.
>
>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>
> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
>
>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>
> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
>
>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>> pretty deliberate.
>>
>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>
>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>> involves HTTPS or not.
>>
>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>> is not OK.
>>
>> It's a FELONY.
>
> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
> is used illegally.

Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime until
he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury would
buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

>
> Ron
>
>> Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
>> enlarges the criminal "enterprise".
>>
>
>

[J.D.Wentworth]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael©" > wrote in message
> . 97.140...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
>> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
>> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
>>>> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
>>>> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
>>>> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>>
>> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
>> written permission.
>>
>>>> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>>> privacy, period.
>>
>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>
>>> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>>
>>> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>>
>>> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
>> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
>> authored them.
>
> Copyright is a complicated process, one that cannot be applied to internet
> postings in public news groups mike. You claim copyright protections, but
> they are not available to you. You might want to look up the copyright
> process before you break out the lawyers.

Yes - stalking and harassment is what happened - not 'copyright
infringement" duh.


>
> Ron
>
>
>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
>> DMCA
>> makes that very clear.
>>
>> --
>> Michael©
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>
>

[Ron]

"J.D.Wentworth" > wrote in message
news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>>
>> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
>> up.
>>
>> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
>> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is
>> placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure)
>> that reports back to the web site certain information. Without that
>> cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and
>> the password.
>>
>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>>
>> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
>> HTTPS page.
>>
>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>>
>> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
>>
>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>>
>> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
>>
>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>>> pretty deliberate.
>>>
>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>
>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>>> involves HTTPS or not.
>>>
>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>>> is not OK.
>>>
>>> It's a FELONY.
>>
>> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
>> is used illegally.
>
> Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
> until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.
>
> While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
> would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
expansion of technology for the last decade or so.

Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
that is the state that gregg lives in.

Ron

[J.D.Wentworth]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>
> "J.D.Wentworth" > wrote in message
> news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
>>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>>>
>>> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
>>> up.
>>>
>>> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
>>> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
>>> is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
>>> non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
>>> Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
>>> user ID and the password.
>>>
>>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>>>
>>> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
>>> HTTPS page.
>>>
>>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>>>
>>> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
>>>
>>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>>>
>>> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
>>>
>>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>>>> pretty deliberate.
>>>>
>>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>>
>>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>>>> involves HTTPS or not.
>>>>
>>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>>>> is not OK.
>>>>
>>>> It's a FELONY.
>>>
>>> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
>>> is used illegally.
>>
>> Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
>> until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.
>>
>> While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
>> would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].
>
> An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
> the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
> evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
> expansion of technology for the last decade or so.
>
> Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
> stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
> Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
> that is the state that gregg lives in.

Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
Amendment free speech rights. They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.

>
> Ron
>
>

[dragonsgirl]

"Michael©" > wrote in message
. 97.140...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
>>>
>>> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
>>> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
>>> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
>>> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>
> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
> written permission.
>
>>> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>> privacy, period.
>
> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.

You forget, you can get away with almost anything so long as you credit the
original author.

>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>
>> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>
>> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>
>> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>
>
> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
> authored them.
>
> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
> makes that very clear.
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[dragonsgirl]

"Michael©" > wrote in message
7.140...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:21:16 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" >
> put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
>>
>> Michael© wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
>>> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
>>> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
>>> >> considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
>>> >> protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
>>> >> he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
>>> >> then he did nothing wrong.
>>>
>>> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
>>> written permission.
>>>
>>> >> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>> >> privacy, period.
>>>
>>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Ron
>>> >
>>> > But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>> >
>>> > Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>> >
>>> > BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
>>> copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
>>> because YOU authored them.
>>>
>>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
>>> DMCA makes that very clear.
>>
>> Court cases please, for newsgroup and other casual conversation
>> exchanges on The Web.
>>
>> Thanks in advance. 0:->
>>
>
> I wasn't discussing Usenet or exchanges such as e-mail which stays in that
> medium. I was discussing Dan's cut and paste of others writings from one
> place to another. They are not his and the author may not be very happy
> with his work being published elsewhere.
>
> Stealing something from one site to place on another if you lack
> permission or you are not the author of the work is no different than
> copying an article from a book or magazine and republishing it. It is a
> violation of the owners copyright. You should heed the little notices next
> time you copy entire news articles here instead of linking to them.

But it is legal as long as you credit the copyright holder...as Dan did with
'Greg wrote'

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael©
>>>
>>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael©
>
> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
> Freiheit für Deutschland !

[Michael©]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:43:01 GMT (Zulu), "dragonsgirl"
> put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

....

>>>> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>>> privacy, period.
>>
>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>
> You forget, you can get away with almost anything so long as you credit
> the original author.

I'll remember that when I'm ready to make unauthorized copies of the Harry
Potter books and sell them. I'll be sure to give credit to JK Rowling so
my ass is covered! LMAO!

>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>
>>> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>>
>>> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>>
>>> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
>> copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
>> because YOU authored them.
>>
>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
>> DMCA makes that very clear.
>>
>> --
>> Michael©
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>
>
>



--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Why are people surprised that psychotropics actually shorten life
> expectancy?

What people? How did they express "surprise?"

> Dan of all people, having had a Bipolar Manic Depressive wife once,
> should have known this.

Why would it be an issue?

All medications have some side effects, unwanted effects, stupid. That's
why so many require doctor supervised use.

> Too busy griping about Greg Hanson, or diverting from
> actual issues?

R R R R ... nice twist, weasel.

No Greg, the issue here IS Greg Hanson and his vicious attack on parents
and relatives that have won but refuse to buy his stupidity and
malicious advice.

The issue is you having systematically gone after parents who came here
for help, given them advice that in fact endangers them and their
children by way of subverting good sensible tactics in winning against CPS.

The issue for me is you having systematically attacked and lied about
Dan Sullivan (let alone myself) for four or more years, Greg and
attempted to discredit Dan who is the ONLY person to have the steady
rate of success over the years in defeating CPS.

YOU are the issue, Greg. And you are one sick little puppy.

0:->

[0:->]

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>> You have as yet to prove he did so.
>
> This is not the arena for Greg to offer his proof.

The arena should be somewhere he didn't make the claim?

Interesting new trolling method.

>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>> Hotmail was broken into?
>>
>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>> They were broken into?
>
> No - Danno broke into other sites- Google is just an example of your stupid
> https remark.

You cannot "break into" a public website. That site invites the public.

>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>>>
>> Show how this is so.
>>
>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>>> pretty deliberate.
>> You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
>> had.
>>
>> Provide proof please.
>
> Not here stupid - the proof gets presented to the Court.

Oh, sure. Let's wait, while the goober makes more and more accusations
that are flat out lies, and will not provide support for his claim.

Let's forget what this is about...his trying to avoid owning up to
having given extremely dangerous legal advice to a women to use evidence
illegally obtained to openly challenge the pertinent laws in a court
where she is at risk of losing her children.

This is the kind of stupid advice that has costed others their children
in the past.

>> I could have given him the information. For all you know I'm a regular
>> poster there. Think about it.
>>
>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>> Nope. If you post to publicly accessible forum and it has no devices to
>> conceal copying it is not a violation of anything but your vivid
>> imagination.
>
> Sounds like a plausable defense.
>
> Good luck with that. lol.

It wouldn't even go to court. No judge would accept a filing other than
a civil court setting. There is no criminal actions taking place.

>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>> Is there?
>>
>> Then it's been encouraged by bogus means and insinuation.
>>
>> No such privacy exists at the website under discussion.
>>
>> If you wish it to be, then request it.
>>
>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>>> involves HTTPS or not.
>> None occurred.
>>
>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>>> is not OK.
>> Then who do YOU do it, and post it here both explicitly and by
>> innuendo, "BEND"ing the rule you are trying to make for yourself.
>>
>>> It's a FELONY.
>> You may scream that all you wish, and you may wish that all you scream
>> is true, but sadly for you, little boy, it is not a felony and you are
>> wrong.
>>
>> Or you may post the proof of your claim...which I've asked for many
>> times now.
>>
>> There is no such thing as a "felony" without a statute to establish it.
>>
>>
>> Provide the statute.
>>
>> Hop to it, kid.
>>
>> Chop chop.
>>
>> Pronto.
>>
>> No delay.
>>
>> GO!
>>
>> Or continue to attempt to take the heat off of you and divert folks
>> from the single most important fact Dan revealed here, obviously with
>> someone's help (must be at least one person at that website that knows
>> you are dickhead): that is that you told someone it might be a good
>> idea to take an illegal tape she made and present it as challenge in
>> court to the authority of the state to prohibit single party
>> recordings.
>>
>> You put her at great risk if she was foolish enough to trust your
>> judgement, Greg.
>>
>> It's just that simple.
>>
>> And you cannot seem to make youself correct that error in the real
>> world, and continually try to justify it on moral grounds that do not
>> actually exist.
>>
>> Grow up, child. Grow up.
>>
>>> Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
>>> enlarges the criminal "enterprise".
>> What crime has he committed and were is the statute covering it?
>>
>> I thought you were claiming he went under a nym, using a "fake IP"
>> (which is a total joke, since you cannot move across the Internet
>> without an actual working IP number).
>>
>> Now suddenly he's no longer a suspected intruder, but rather got
>> someone else to do it for him.
>>
>> Show where anything you say he has done is "criminal enterprise."
>>
>> Statute, laws, criminal laws. Get with it, kiddo.
>>
>> Stop your dancing about the real issue...your dangerous advice.
>>
>> 0:->
>>
>
>

[0:->]

Ron wrote:
> "Michael©" > wrote in message
> . 97.140...
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
>> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
>> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>>
>>>> The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
>>>> "private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
>>>> pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
>>>> part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.
>> Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
>> written permission.
>>
>>>> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>>> privacy, period.
>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>>
>>>> Ron
>>> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>>
>>> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>>
>>> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
>> and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
>> authored them.
>
> Copyright is a complicated process, one that cannot be applied to internet
> postings in public news groups mike. You claim copyright protections, but
> they are not available to you. You might want to look up the copyright
> process before you break out the lawyers.
>
> Ron

It is obvious that all this cut and paste, if done properly and it has
been done by Dan, fails under the "fair use" copyright guidelines.

One can even FULLY quote (Dan did not) and still be making fair use of
the document.

Copyright violation is the TAKING of someone's work product and using it
either as falsely claiming it is your own, or failing to use it
according to fair use guidelines.

I've posted considerable recently on this.

It's obvious that the news media could not exist in its present form
without "fair use." Nor could critics, or satirists (and other
comedians), nor those evaluating others works in any capacity.

The rules are clear. Dan stayed inside those rules.

It had been established in the thread WHO the author was. What the
source was. Dan even linked a time or two to the website.

Dan reposted the material precisely to critique it's content. THAT IS
FAIR USE.

>
>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
>> makes that very clear.

This is a bogus claim. DMCA makes NO such distinction and expressly
defers to the US Copyright guidelines and similar offices in foreign
countries.

Their ONLY mention of "copyright infringement" goes to fair use as
defined by other source.

The DMCA concerns revolved around METHODS OF copying and overcoming copy
protection methods.

It's NOT about "copyright infringement" though of course the methods
would presume such MIGHT be happening.

Damn bunch of know it all know nothings.

As you pointed out, Ron, "You might want to look up the copyright
process before you break out the lawyers."

But here we have a lot of dimwit losers that think they know it all.

Hell, I'm still waiting for those statutes on "felony cut and paste,"
from Greegor.

Think I'll get them? R R R R R R RR RR


0:->


>
>> --
>> Michael©
>>
>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>
>

[0:->]

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add up.
>>
>> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
>> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is
>> placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure)
>> that reports back to the web site certain information. Without that
>> cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and the
>> password.
>>
>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an HTTPS
>> page.
>>
>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
>>
>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
>>
>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>>> pretty deliberate.
>>>
>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>
>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>>> involves HTTPS or not.
>>>
>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>>> is not OK.
>>>
>>> It's a FELONY.
>> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
>> is used illegally.
>
> Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime until
> he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

Nor did they then, but if you are right, Boy! am I going to go after a
lot of reporters and journalists. R R R R R R

> While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury would
> buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

Because they'd be so busy laughing their asses off at Greg for even
going to court.

Everyone KNOWS you are talking out your ass, troll.

You make a public statement, stupid, and it's fair game.

And you cannot harass someone on line in most instances, and certainly
not this one. If so, Greg would be up the creek. He's "harassed,"
laughingly, Dan here for years. And done so with with lies, failing to
fully quote Dan in context often, and just flat out falsehoods as well.

You are speaking about the wrong person, Troll.

0:->


>> Ron
>>
>>> Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
>>> enlarges the criminal "enterprise".
>>>
>>
>
>

[0:->]

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "J.D.Wentworth" > wrote in message
>> news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
>>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>>>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>>>> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
>>>> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
>>>> is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
>>>> non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
>>>> Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
>>>> user ID and the password.
>>>>
>>>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>>>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>>>> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
>>>> HTTPS page.
>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>>>> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
>>>>
>>>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>>>> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
>>>>
>>>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>>>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>>>>> pretty deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>>>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>>>>> involves HTTPS or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>>>>> is not OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a FELONY.
>>>> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
>>>> is used illegally.
>>> Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
>>> until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.
>>>
>>> While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
>>> would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].
>> An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
>> the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
>> evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
>> expansion of technology for the last decade or so.
>>
>> Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
>> stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
>> Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
>> that is the state that gregg lives in.
>
> Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
> harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
> Amendment free speech rights. They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
> free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
> ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

Bogus argument. Illogical, and thinking error flawed.

We have not tried to do the impossible. One cannot deprive someone of
their 1st amendment rights here unless they attempted to wrongly
suppress by legal action or threat the statements of others in this medium.

I cannot be so accused if I simply disagree and expose that persons
logic as faulty, and facts as false, and give my opinion that their
speech is dangerous.

> Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.

Goody. Post them.

0:->


>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>
>

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:39:31 GMT (Zulu), "0:->" >
> put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
>> Michael© wrote:
>> .....' I'm the guy that "copyrights" my name with a symbol that is not
>> in universal use known to actually indicate copyright. I'm also the guy
>> that doesn't even know you don't "copyrigth" names, you register them.
>> '
>>
>> In other words, to be technically correct one would write their name,
>> if they wished to register it, as "Michael®"
>>
>> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
>> What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
>> ... Titles, NAMES, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or
>> designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or
>> coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents ...
>> (emphasis mine on NAMES).
>>
>> You could register "Michael®" as a trademark, or business name, if you
>> wished. But copyrighting a single word is simply not done.
>>
>> Now as to this bull**** of yours about two things. My use of news
>> articles.
>>
>> One, you may use such articles if you are going to comment, criticize
>> or otherwise use it for literary use including satire.
>>
>> What you may NOT do is use the work in a form that makes it appear as
>> YOUR product.
>
> That would be plagiarism, not copyright infringement!

Explain to the nice readers how plagiarism is not copyright infringement.

>> In fact, Dan did exactly as I've said above. He identified the source
>> clearly. He made various comments and observations about the
>> content...as have I.
>>
>> One of the best minds I know on this issue is Brad Templeton, at:
>
> You mean the guy who is a publisher of an online newspaper and is biased,
> as he states he is! Best mind alright! LMAO!

Do you think he would try to lie about copyright?

>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>
>> His clarification is as follows, and note that I ATTRIBUTE THIS TO HIM
>> AND LINK TO IT, 0:->
>
> One of the best sources would be the LAW as found at the copyright
> website.

Of course, that's why I referred to and linked to it as well...which,
YOU did not. Interesting, eh?

>> What you will find is that Fair Use is not that simple a concept:
>>
>> ...The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to
>> allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and
>> education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author.
>> That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to
>> express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other
>> people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
>> important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New
>> York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of
>> the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own
>> story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York
>> Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably
>> aren't.
>>
>> Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
>
> Exactly. A short excerpt. Not the whole damn post, idiot.

No, one can print and entire document if they stick to fair use
standards. Think about the word "use," and possibly it will come to you.

>> (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the
>> commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in
>> the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another
>> reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously,
>> copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a
>> magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very
>> newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he
>> pardoned Nixon.
>>
>> Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for
>> commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original
>> posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair
>> use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to
>> comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case.
>> There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above,
>> but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair
>> use. ...
>>
>> If Dan had NOT identified source and author and why would he do THAT,
>> for **** sake, given the stupidity of the material content, he would be
>> in violation of copyright. He posted it explicitly to critique the
>> content and source, just as if it had been printed in the NY Times.
>>
>> You once again manage to step on your dick.
>>
>> I have avoided ever going this far into this issue as in another
>> newsgroup there was a wonder running ongoing exchange over this very
>> issue, and I had delighted in watching the idiots there make it up as
>> they go.
>>
>> But now I'm willing to end their suffering. One of them did indeed
>> attempt to prints someone else's material as their own product, with no
>> clear identification of the author. SHE had to intervene with the twit,
>> as he had done it twice and was insisting it wasn't enfringement,
>> though had NOT met any of the criteria mentioned by Templeton above, in
>> one of them, and obscured the author's name by posting it below a blank
>> page under the original posting of her work. Very sly. Few of us think
>> to bring up anything past a blank page.
>>
>> Talk about deliberate deception.
>
> Yes, you are being deliberately deceptive.

Nope.

> You cite Templeton as being
> some god-like source on something and yet you cherry pick only what you
> want people to see.

Well, I presume you read on but were too lazy to come back and remove
the above bull****.

> Something from your own source you posted:
> All the E-mail you write is copyrighted.
>
> Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One
> should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the
> commentary.)

Which would include the entire work if it is needed to make the point in
"use." Such as critique of the content.

What did Dan do?

> "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."

Are you quoting me? I rarely use that phrase, as I know better. Must
have slipped or you produced it yourself. Do you have copyright on it then?

Notice I had to re-quote it to comment on and critique it? That's a
perfect example of fair use, in miniature.

> False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless
> the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*)

Who are you quoting in "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public
domain?"

> These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written,
> and no copyright notice is required.

Yep. And subject to the laws under copyright including Fair Use.

Look it up.

Without fair use the media could not exist. No commentator could take
another's words and use them to comment upon.

It could not be reported that someone claimed to have seen a robbery, as
that person's words would be "copyright" protected.

Speak up, I can't hear you.

0:->

[0:->]

Michael© wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:43:01 GMT (Zulu), "dragonsgirl"
> > put the following graffiti on the walls of
> alt.support.child-protective-services:
>
> ....
>
>>>>> Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
>>>>> privacy, period.
>>> Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.
>> You forget, you can get away with almost anything so long as you credit
>> the original author.
>
> I'll remember that when I'm ready to make unauthorized copies of the Harry
> Potter books and sell them. I'll be sure to give credit to JK Rowling so
> my ass is covered! LMAO!

She forgot the Fair Use of those publications. If you critique every
paragraph you might actually prevail in court. But of course, no one has
said you can SELL what you quote, stupid.

You could sell your literary critique though.

But who would buy? They can always buy the book and read it without what
would surely be asinine remarks from you.

R R R R R

You seem to get dumber every time you post here. Is that possible?

0:->


>
>>>>> Ron
>>>> But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???
>>>>
>>>> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
>>> public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
>>> copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
>>> because YOU authored them.
>>>
>>> A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
>>> DMCA makes that very clear.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael©
>>>
>>> Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
>>> Freiheit für Deutschland !
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Dan Sullivan]

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "J.D.Wentworth" > wrote in message
> > news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
> >>
> >> "Ron" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
> >>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
> >>>
> >>> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
> >>> up.
> >>>
> >>> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
> >>> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
> >>> is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
> >>> non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
> >>> Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
> >>> user ID and the password.
> >>>
> >>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
> >>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
> >>>
> >>> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
> >>> HTTPS page.
> >>>
> >>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
> >>>
> >>> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
> >>>
> >>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
> >>>
> >>> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
> >>>
> >>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
> >>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
> >>>> pretty deliberate.
> >>>>
> >>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
> >>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
> >>>>
> >>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
> >>>> involves HTTPS or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
> >>>> is not OK.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a FELONY.
> >>>
> >>> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
> >>> is used illegally.
> >>
> >> Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
> >> until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.
> >>
> >> While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
> >> would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].
> >
> > An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
> > the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
> > evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
> > expansion of technology for the last decade or so.
> >
> > Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
> > stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
> > Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
> > that is the state that gregg lives in.
>
> Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
> harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
> Amendment free speech rights.

Greg can write whatever he wants.

I'm not depriving him of that.

> They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
> free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
> ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

When did I do that?

Citations, please.

> Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.

Then post the statutes that you're referring to..

[0:->]

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> J.D.Wentworth wrote:
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "J.D.Wentworth" > wrote in message
>>> news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...
>>>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>> Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
>>>>>> that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?
>>>>> I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
>>>>> about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
>>>>> is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
>>>>> non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
>>>>> Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
>>>>> user ID and the password.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
>>>>>> Do you think breaking into it is legal?
>>>>> Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
>>>>> HTTPS page.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.
>>>>> Yes they are gregg, both of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The HTTPS argument is a red herring.
>>>>> Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
>>>>>> fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
>>>>>> pretty deliberate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
>>>>>> There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
>>>>>> involves HTTPS or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pfishing for private information on the internet
>>>>>> is not OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a FELONY.
>>>>> No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
>>>>> is used illegally.
>>>> Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
>>>> until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.
>>>>
>>>> While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
>>>> would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].
>>> An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
>>> the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
>>> evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
>>> expansion of technology for the last decade or so.
>>>
>>> Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
>>> stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
>>> Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
>>> that is the state that gregg lives in.
>> Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
>> harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
>> Amendment free speech rights.
>
> Greg can write whatever he wants.
>
> I'm not depriving him of that.
>
>> They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
>> free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
>> ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!
>
> When did I do that?
>
> Citations, please.
>
>> Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.
>
> Then post the statutes that you're referring to..

Odd this fellow fails to note the actual barring of people from support
group websites would better fit his definition of 'denial of 1st
Amendment Rights,' eh?

And that we have taken no action to bar access to this ng and cannot.

Well, I suppose we could try. Then I'd have me arrested, and charged
with Felony Anti-Gregorianism.

R R R R R R R



>

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> He's "harassed," laughingly, Dan here for years.
> And done so with with lies, failing to fully quote
> Dan in context often, and just flat out falsehoods as well.

Where's the criminal statute about incomplete quoting?? ROFL!