Click here to return to the list of messages.

ETS Throws Down Gauntlet on Bart (3119 hits)

Category: None
Labels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary

Rating: -0.34 on 209 reviews (Rate this item) (V)

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-09-05 12:33:57 EDT

Bart, I have always thought you were an intelligent guy. I have always appreciated what you've put up here with this little website, and I have always had a good deal of faith in your judgement, but your reviews on my last post call that into serious question. I'm trying real hard here to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if my eyes aren't deceiving me, I'd say you're slowly becoming one of these ignorant assholes (see: Wardy, Indoninja, jgreening, DCWoody, iddqd, etc.) who thinks he can never be wrong and thinks I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about when evidence usually vindicates my argument.

For the record, I don't appreciate being brushed off and called an idiot, especially by people I respect. I don't appreciate being marginalized as a 'conspiracy theorist', nor do I appreciate the insinuation that I'm uneducated. So for future reference, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using such insinuations and stick to the fucking issue.

That being said, here are the fallacies in your argument:

1: You called my argument "ill-informed", "nonsensical", and "idiotic", yet you offered the following bullshit argument yourself... [My comments are in brackets]

"You clearly don't know this and obviously didn't research it before criticizing me [I wasn't "criticizing you" in my post. I was giving you friendly advice.], but satire, parody, and derivative works are all different things. [If that's what you gathered from the content of my post, then you obviously didn't read it thoroughly.] Of these three categories, only parody is allowed without permission from the original copyright holder." [This is just plain wrong. Satire is protected speech, and under fair use law, a non-parody work can contain elements of previously copyrighted work if it meets certain criteria. More on this below.]

2: You assume in one scenario about the Ansel Adams book that the person using the material is using it for commerical reasons, Method was not using it for such reasons. Actually you lump both scenarios (for profit and not-for-profit) together as if it doesn't affect the outcome of a case, which is completely wrong.

3: You never mention that fair use claims are good if they can show that the market value of the underlying work has not been compromised. (I don't think growingfamilies users are suddenly going to flock to ubersite in droves for their baby viewing needs.)

4: You never account for the fact that, of the total number of baby pictures and materials on that site, Method used but a tiny portion in a not-for-profit manner.

5: In your link you provided to Stanford's legal website it reads: "Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody." You then went on to explain to me how satire wasn't mentioned because it wasn't protected under fair use unless it was parody. This is flatly incorrect. The very definition of satire insists that it is criticism. In Method's case, it was satirical criticism that was VERY ARGUABLY protected by fair use law. If analysis of precedent serves, what he did was not only perfectly legal under fair use law, but is protected by the first amendment.

6: You linked to Stanford's website, but you COMPLETELY IGNORED the case law section of that SAME WEBSITE which supports my argument entirely: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

Allow me to quote from that page so that you may be enlightened... (Note: the following quote is fair use in case you're wondering.)

""Artwork and Audiovisual Cases

* Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin's death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the "heart" of the film. (Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
* Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. (Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc., 935 F. Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y. 1996).)
* Not a fair use. A television station's news broadcast used 30 seconds from a fourminute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work and affected the copyright owner's ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
* Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the "Kojak" television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were "time-shifting" (taping in order to watch later) and not "library-building" (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the "delayed" system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)
* Not a fair use. A poster of a "church quilt" was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. (Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
* Fair Use. A search engine's practice of creating small reproductions ("thumbnails") of images and placing them on its own website (known as "inlining") did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important Factors. The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to index the images and help the public access them. (Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).)""

Notice how the consideration of profit and market play a strong role in determining copyright infringement vs. fair use. You see how that works? If you're using 1% (which is not set in stone) of a work for informational or satirical purposes and it does not "undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of [the] images", then it's fair use!

That's not enough? Ok, how about this. Here is the actual law regarding fair use:

1 Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such
finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Notice where it says "CRITICISM" and does not attempt to make distinctions or characterize the nature of accepted criticism? This means that satire is included in that. This also means that, pending a court review and application of the other criteria listed above, Method's post could easily be regarded as fair use, even more so if it could be regarded as not-for-profit, which, if I'm not mistaken, the use of ads on the site might preclude.

For more reading on precedents and case law: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/ipsc/papers2/Beebe.pdf#search=%22copyright%20captions%20satire%20fair%20use%22

Why am I bringing this up? Because much of the content on your website is dependent upon this fair use doctrine to exist legally. This includes about 90% of all the picture posts, including those on B@W. If you're going to remove Method's post, you might as well remove every Photoshop post I've ever created, because most of them used copyrighted material in the construction of critical or satirical works.

Starting a trend of removing material based on a SUPPOSED infringement detailed in a cease and desist order is setting a dangerous precedent in my view. In my previous post I suggested you get legal advice in the matter and not jump to conclusions. I further suggested you join the ACLU because they can sometimes offer advice or council in such free speech matters.

But what did you do? You slapped me in the face and called me an idiot.

Thanks. That's the last time I try to help you out.

As for the rest of you, I suggest you take these matters seriously if you enjoy having a place such as ubersite to express yourself.

User Reviews

Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2007-01-19 17:23:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2

No Comment

Submitted by WingedFoote (user info) at 2006-09-10 03:26:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

BORING!

Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-09 14:04:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

http://www.ubersite.com/m/91788#2103536

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-09 01:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

This isn't meant to be diskish in any way Rob, but welcome to the other side.
That's what he does to everyone who ever disagrees with him.

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-09 01:16:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.ubersite.com/m/92799#2135198

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-08 20:27:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

DC seems to be hitting your arguments pretty hard, and you've yet to face him.

That's WHY we rip you, dipshit. Any time we attack your views, you clam up on them and start the personal attacks yourself.

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-08 20:06:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-08 19:04:01 (#)
Ranking: 0

Some of you people are complete morons. You're all very good at criticising ME, but you can't even touch my argument itself.

---

You do tend to make it hard to seperate the two at times Mr. Tooth.

But I agree. There are some serioulsy dumb fuckers mouth-breathing their way through life and this site seems to attract some rather vocal ones.

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-08 20:00:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-08 19:04:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Some of you people are complete morons. You're all very good at criticising ME, but you can't even touch my argument itself.

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-08 16:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-07 03:26:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-09-06 21:02:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

Amazing!

Not only are you an expert on science, politics, and music, but you're a lawyer as well!

--------------------

A bit of literacy and common sense can go a long long way.

--------------------

It can also lead to a false sense of intellegence.

Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2006-09-08 16:28:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

"The very definition of satire insists that it is criticism. In Method's case, it was satirical criticism"

At the risk of sounding even more redundant... You clearly thought about this for a long time and carefully planned out what you said, maybe if you put as much effort in researching your own points instead of arguing about them on an internet forum you would produce results that would MAKE people believe instead of saying in essence "Please believe me! Look at how long I spent on this post!"

At least you are passionately delusional.

Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-08 07:50:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:16:45 (#)
Ranking: 0

"No, I said find me pictures of bodies."

Absolute lie right there. You asked for pictures of fuselage or airplane parts. Don't make me dig up the post, please.

======================

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-05-02 18:56:53 (#)
Ranking: 0

Then I need you to help me email them challenging them to produce ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH of a piece of a plane or a dead body from the field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

ONE PICTURE....and I'll shut up about 9/11 forever.

You guys will never have to hear about it again.

Likewise, if one of you would care to find me just ONE PICTURE from where Flight 93 allegedly crashed that shows me a piece of fuselage, a piece of luggage, an engine, a wing, or a body, I'll forever hold my peace on this issue.

In fact, I will gladly leave ubersite and never come back again...so help me god.

=================

Sorry if this was done before.

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-07 18:06:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES!!!!

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-07 16:51:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

I see you are going to have to cancel your subscription to Popular Mechanics for next month's breakdown of 9/11. (Hint: They do not support the nutty conspiracy theorists.)

I guess they are part of the corporate/goverment machine and were probably paid to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

But hey, you can keep on ignoring evidence that is contrary to what nutty stuff you believe! That's cool, man. Keep on keepin' on.

Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-09-07 12:33:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Common sense doesn't apply where law is concerned, polesmoker.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-07 03:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-09-06 21:02:00 (#)
Ranking: 0

Amazing!

Not only are you an expert on science, politics, and music, but you're a lawyer as well!

--------------------

A bit of literacy and common sense can go a long long way.

Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-07 01:22:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"For the record," which record exactly?
"I don't appreciate being brushed off" what if misc person doesn't want to talk to you?
"and called an idiot, especially by people I respect." don't be an idiot
"I don't appreciate being marginalized as a 'conspiracy theorist'," Stop supporting theories about conspiracies.
"nor do I appreciate the insinuation that I'm uneducated." Stop being ignorant.
"So for future reference, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from using such insinuations and stick to the fucking issue." You being a douchebag is part of the fucking issue.

I like to appear all reasonable and calm until I break out that one last FUCKING for some FUCKING shock value.

Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-07 01:20:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

I'll get right on 'getting lost' again, what with my being here just for you so you can judge my overall persona by rating posts I made a week ago.

Submitted by maiorano84 (user info) at 2006-09-06 21:02:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Amazing!

Not only are you an expert on science, politics, and music, but you're a lawyer as well!

Perhaps I should follow suit and get my degree from google as well......

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-06 20:04:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 19:56:46 (#)
Ranking: 0

boredom is a bitch

http://www.electrictoothsyndrome.com/media/mocrack.gif

ahahahahaha

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:17:25 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:09:45 (#)
Ranking: 2

just a coincidence that means nothing.

On that bored at ETS page you have on your website, the review you have me saying that the world is a better place because of you is dated on my 26th birthday, within an hour of my time of birth.

Not that that means anything.

---------------

If that's what you have to convince yourself to feel 'safe'...
--

hahahahaha

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:17:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:09:45 (#)
Ranking: 2

just a coincidence that means nothing.

On that bored at ETS page you have on your website, the review you have me saying that the world is a better place because of you is dated on my 26th birthday, within an hour of my time of birth.

Not that that means anything.

---------------

If that's what you have to convince yourself to feel 'safe'...

Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-06 18:09:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

just a coincidence that means nothing.

On that bored at ETS page you have on your website, the review you have me saying that the world is a better place because of you is dated on my 26th birthday, within an hour of my time of birth.

Not that that means anything.

Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-09-06 17:52:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

YOU ARE A WAYYYYYYY BETTER AUTHOR THAN I

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 16:54:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:39:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.electrictoothsyndrome.com/media/hahahahahahaha.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay... this is pretty funny.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-06 16:30:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:21 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:31:08 (#)
Ranking: 0

shit. I remember now - It was about the bombings on July 7th wasn't it? how they were all orchestrated by GWB and Big Tone in order to control us.

If I remember correctly, rather than come up with an intelligent arguemnet, your answer to all of the points that I raised was to simply tell me that I was wrong and had been hoodwinked by the media.

happy days.

--------------------

That's what you WOULD remember if you didn't want to believe what I just fucking told you. You people and your cognitive dissonance never cease to amaze me.

----

the only thing more blissful than ignorance, is when it's coupled with watching the misery caused by 'enlightenment'.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 16:21:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Got it and responded.

Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-09-06 15:22:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

1) I live near the Palisades down in the Meadowlands valley. I could see 9/11 as it happened, just noting that, no political intentions therein.

2) The uberboard link's comments are a hell of a lot meaner than mine.

3) Did you get my email ETS?

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-06 14:34:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 14:07:56 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:21:41 (#)
Ranking: 2

You're the one who can't make peace with the atrocities you perceive your god allowing to happening on this planet.

----------------------

The only 'atrocities' I see are those perpetrated by a creature with free will upon himself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural disasters?

Actually interested to hear your response, or have you stopped paying attention for me for good?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Get it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-06 13:39:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:08:58 (#)
Ranking: 2

How can you be a "giant fan" of ETS and then tell him to "pick his battles"? Dude, have you read any of his stuff? Just click on his User ID. There have to be about 50 different battles in there. The funny thing is that there are probably comments similar to that one on EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM. Your opinion that any given argument is not the single most important thing in the world does not invalidate either view point of the argument. It's a simple minded response that does nothing for either side of a debate and could be used universally. That is unless we all agree that whatever the issue at hand is happens to be the single most important thing in the world. Good luck finding that issue.

Sorry...it's a pet peeve of mine ever since my 3 month "Under God" debate on a separate forum.

+2 for ETS to cancel out the "pick your battles" thing in general, because I'm guessing you hate it as much as I do.

On a related side note, why does posting, writing, or mentioning something automatically make people assume that it's the only thing you've ever thought about in your entire life? The people who think like that, please explain yourselves? Is it a lack of skill in the debating area, so you feel like by belittling the topic you've removed any need to try, futily, to argue your point (or lack thereof)? Or are you all just so single minded yourselves that you can't possibly fathom anyone who can concentrate on more than one issue at a time during any given period of their lives?

---

Wow.

You DO like to argue.

Not particularly all that effectively... but I definitely appreciate the spirit.

You want to know why I dig this kid?

First of all - he's brilliant. I mean scary smart. Ever since my arrival on this site I have been absolutely fascinated with his passion for conspiracy and spectacular ability to argue tirelessly on many different fronts with many different people. All sorts of petty retards get all twisted up about his "heat whoring" ways... clearly they seem to be oblivious to the fact that he's tediously passionate about his opinions and defends each and every one of them with a rabid tenacity. The fact that his arguments often lack tact or anything approaching diplomacy is frustrating... but it makes for glorious cinema.

Ok. Moving on:

---
"Your opinion that any given argument is not the single most important thing in the world does not invalidate either view point of the argument."
---

Despite the fact that is not my opinion - who said anything about invalidation?

My actual opinion is that calling the proprietor of this site out for removing questionable material and trumping it up to be some wonderful crusade for the 'rights' of 'we the people' is a waste of his time - time which can be better spent turning that wonderful brain of his onto any number of more important, relevant arguments and conspiracies.

My particular viewpoint is that this battle was relatively pointless - not invalid.

---
"That is unless we all agree that whatever the issue at hand is happens to be the single most important thing in the world."
---

What an absurd piece of logic Mr. Galt.

In this polarized society teeming with contentious issues, irrationality, willful ignorance and apathy aplenty - I am under no illusions that 'we' will ever ALL agree that any one specific issue is the most important.

I mean no fucking shit. Who do you actually think you are arguing with on that one fella? You have the gall(t) call my response simple - yet proceed to hanker down and plop out that simplistic little turd?

You know what my pet peeve is? Stupidity.

Luckily you are not stupid, in fact you seem quite far from it - but you are rather presumptive and look itchin' for some sort of scrap. Problem is - you have manufactured my opposition and base most of your argument on what you ASSume are my opinions.

I give you full points for enthusiasm, though.

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:30:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1

Such as knowing I can't spell!!!

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:26:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 12:25:03 (#)
Ranking: 0

Just so everyone knows...

I'll be doing a post on all of my faults tomorrow beacuse ETS says I'm blind to mine and he says he ackwoldges his.

I've dared him to do the same.

Submitted by goferforhire (user info) at 2006-09-06 11:57:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:43:11 (#)
Ranking: -2

You're as cold as ice!
------------------------
You're willing to sacrifice our love

Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-09-06 11:50:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.ubersite.com/m/92676

You looking to get banned as well?

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:40:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

greek below

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:32:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

JAYPIG EATS 12 BOXES OF STOVE TOP STUFFING FOR A MIDNIGHT SNACK?

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:30:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:38:52 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:39 (#)
Ranking: -2

Amazing how Bradley pipes down when you hit him with the blatantly obvious.

---------------

No, Bradley pipes down when he goes home and gets away from the computer.

---------------

BRADLEY GETS AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER???

Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2006-09-06 10:08:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

How can you be a "giant fan" of ETS and then tell him to "pick his battles"? Dude, have you read any of his stuff? Just click on his User ID. There have to be about 50 different battles in there. The funny thing is that there are probably comments similar to that one on EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM. Your opinion that any given argument is not the single most important thing in the world does not invalidate either view point of the argument. It's a simple minded response that does nothing for either side of a debate and could be used universally. That is unless we all agree that whatever the issue at hand is happens to be the single most important thing in the world. Good luck finding that issue.

Sorry...it's a pet peeve of mine ever since my 3 month "Under God" debate on a separate forum.

+2 for ETS to cancel out the "pick your battles" thing in general, because I'm guessing you hate it as much as I do.

On a related side note, why does posting, writing, or mentioning something automatically make people assume that it's the only thing you've ever thought about in your entire life? The people who think like that, please explain yourselves? Is it a lack of skill in the debating area, so you feel like by belittling the topic you've removed any need to try, futily, to argue your point (or lack thereof)? Or are you all just so single minded yourselves that you can't possibly fathom anyone who can concentrate on more than one issue at a time during any given period of their lives?

Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-06 06:01:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

"Freedom of expression"?

I mean it is certainly something very precious that we all enjoy here in western civilization and quite frankly people SHOULD get worked up into a healthy froth when they feel that constitutionalized/assumed right is being encroached upon.

But really, who gives a flying fuck about over protecting this particular act of juvenile stupidity?

You need to realize that no matter how you try and polish up this turd - the specific content you want to defend contains the vivid descriptions of some pretty vile, demeaning and graphically disturbing acts of moral depravity - including the gleefully raping of the little babies.

Sure some of that shit was funny, but the post itself was little more than a rally point for uber-assholes to commit what amounts to internet vandalism.

Any free thinking society I want to be a part of has the good sense to leave this exact particular 'freedom of expression' only tenuously protected. I mean I applaud the creation of the environment that enables this sort of filth to flourish... but the removal of that same content given the specifics in this particular case is perfectly legitimate and equally impressive.

And don't give me some song and dance about needing to stand up for 'our rights'.

Jesus fuck. 'Our rights'?

What about Free speech zones? Phone Tapping? Poll tampering allegations? Extended tours of duty in an unjust war?

All of those things are much more compelling and far more damaging than this relative foolishness you are grandstanding over here.

I certainly have no-doubt you can argue about this kinda shit until yer fingers fall off - but sometimes you really gotta just pick better battles and focus on some bigger pictures.

Don't you?

Either way, I am still a giant fan and thoroughly enjoyed this post and the chaos it stirred up. This world DOES need people like you... it just needs you to be a little more relevant is all.

Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2006-09-06 03:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1

The relevant parts, but if anyone really wants to read the whole thing go here:

http://www.copyright.gov/

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

.
.
.

§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —
.
.
.
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right —

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

Note: Section 113(d) is not relevant in this case, as are the parts where I put dots. The end where it says ", and", then stops, is not a copy/paste error. It leads to (B) which is not relevant either.

----------

I'm no lawyer by any means, but it looks to me like what we have in this case is an unauthorized derivative work or reproduction which is clearly modified in a way that is prejudicial to the honor and reputation of it's original copyright holder, GrowingFamily.com.

Now, let's take a look at some of the clauses from section 107, which determine if it's protected under Fair Use:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Purpose AND character, not just purpose. I'd say advocating the rape of children ruins any chance of defending this one, but I've got a backup below, just in case.

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Anyone who sees Ubersite would be less likely to ever use the GrowingFamily.com website. End of story.

You said: "As for you argument about growingfamilies business being hurt, it would not be difficult to argue that since they left their forum entirely open and unmoderated, they are at fault for any losses, and their recourse should not extend beyond moderating the offending material on their site and disallowing any futher offenders from registering and posting comments.

This is THEIR responsibility, not the general public's."

True, that is relevant, and it's why no one could possibly be charged for anything related to the actual comments that were left (unless they could be construed as real threats, but they can't). Also, the post and all the information within it is still fine, and also still on Uber...except the picture. That's because the picture is a graphical representation of the unauthorized derivative work which hurts GrowingFamily.com's business by using it's own copyrighted materials on a website they can't remove it from themselves. Thus the letter to Bart.

I love arguing.

Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-09-06 02:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

The amount that I don't care about any of this is astounding...

Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2006-09-06 02:30:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

P.S. - I can't wait for my retaliatory -2 on that puppy. Get to work!

Submitted by strwbryfanatic (user info) at 2006-09-06 02:28:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Hey ETS!

I have a wonderful idea! Why don't you drag an issue from your last post into a new one, thereby creating more hits for yourself. It would also help if you added Bart's name to the title.

What? You've already done that?

On a separate note, here's an early Christmas gift for you. And there's no need to thank me. :)
http://www.ubersite.com/m/92504

Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:43:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

You're as cold as ice!

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:38:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:39 (#)
Ranking: -2

Amazing how Bradley pipes down when you hit him with the blatantly obvious.

---------------

No, Bradley pipes down when he goes home and gets away from the computer.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Funny how you didn't respond, Bart, to my actual post AT ALL.

You didn't, for instance, explain to these people HOW it wasn't satire. In fact, you made no compelling argument whatsoever in this matter. The fact is, you jerked off and posed your chest for a minute to assert your 'dominance'.

What a fucking pussy.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-06 00:16:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:34:45 (#)
Ranking: -2

You certainly get the "I don't get it but I'm not going to stop arguing my incorrect view point" award of the year.

None of the clauses you copied from the stanford website say anything about "satire". Get it through your head - satire is not exempt from copyright law through the Fair Use clause.

Yes, you can criticize copyrighted things. Yes, you can comment on copyrighted things. In various contexts, you can reproduce clips, excerpts, and other portions of copyrighted things when supplying your own commentary.

You CANNOT reproduce an entire book with your commentary and claim it as satire, no matter what the tone of that commentary is. Similarly, you cannot reproduce full copyrighted photographs, add captions, and claim it as "satire" that is protected under Fair Use.

This was someone taking a handful of copyrighted photos, adding captions, and then reposting them on Ubersite. This is not political speech, satire, parody, time shifting, excerpting, referencing, criticizing, or reviewing. This is very clearly a pure derivative work that is not exempt from copyright law as Fair Use.

To say that you aren't criticizing me is total bullshit as well because you're arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I've clearly done more research on this than you have.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You're completely misinformed on the basic definitions of key legal principles and refuse to educate yourself on the matter.

Don't respond to me because I won't read anything else you say on this topic. You have no idea what you're talking about and you are almost intentionally confusing the issue by bringing in unrelated quotes for things that do not apply to this situation. """

PWNED.

Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Amazing how Bradley pipes down when you hit him with the blatantly obvious.

Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:50:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1

passed any bar exams lately?

i didn't think so

Submitted by Slighty_Obnoxious (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:41:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

-2 for being a complete fucktard.

Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-09-05 23:34:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

You certainly get the "I don't get it but I'm not going to stop arguing my incorrect view point" award of the year.

None of the clauses you copied from the stanford website say anything about "satire". Get it through your head - satire is not exempt from copyright law through the Fair Use clause.

Yes, you can criticize copyrighted things. Yes, you can comment on copyrighted things. In various contexts, you can reproduce clips, excerpts, and other portions of copyrighted things when supplying your own commentary.

You CANNOT reproduce an entire book with your commentary and claim it as satire, no matter what the tone of that commentary is. Similarly, you cannot reproduce full copyrighted photographs, add captions, and claim it as "satire" that is protected under Fair Use.

This was someone taking a handful of copyrighted photos, adding captions, and then reposting them on Ubersite. This is not political speech, satire, parody, time shifting, excerpting, referencing, criticizing, or reviewing. This is very clearly a pure derivative work that is not exempt from copyright law as Fair Use.

To say that you aren't criticizing me is total bullshit as well because you're arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I've clearly done more research on this than you have.

I'm done arguing with you about this. You're completely misinformed on the basic definitions of key legal principles and refuse to educate yourself on the matter.

Don't respond to me because I won't read anything else you say on this topic. You have no idea what you're talking about and you are almost intentionally confusing the issue by bringing in unrelated quotes for things that do not apply to this situation.

Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:51:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1

The Man (Bart) will run HIS website as HE sees fit.

Freedom of speech is a great responsibility, and should be handled with a modicum
of intelligence. Saying/doing anything you wish, without regard for the feelings of others,
is worse than anarchy.

You can walk down the street calling women ugly, but sooner or later one of their
menfolk will whup yer ass.

Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, and others founded this country
through revolution, but they didn't call the King an asswipe or a fucktard, nor
did they post shit that said the King's babies should be sodomized.

A bit of breeding and education are necessary components when attempting to sway
the opinions of the masses, and the founding fathers I mentioned above had those
traits. You do not seem to have them.

Fight the good fight, but fight the right fight.

Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:45:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

It wasn't vandalism if it was an open internet forum.

And, no I will not shut up. You people need to wake the fuck up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merriam-Webster defines vandalism as "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property"

If your excuse that it wasn't vandalism is that it was a public domain, you're shit out of luck here. By virtue of purposefully posting messages that the creators of the website (or the families for that matter), those uberers willfully defaced a public domain (property). Granted, real internet vandalism is more along the lines of DoS attacks and whatnot.

I reiterate that a few of the more inspired messages left on GF.com were pretty damn funny, but the owner of that website has every right to pursue action. If you honestly think what you did was just "free speech," you're just warping age-old arguments to suit whatever the fuck you feel like doing. (Those arguments are "you can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" and "my freedoms/liberties/rights begin where yours end").

Now, I have a more serious question. What exactly is it that we need to wake up to? Your impossibly broad definition of free speech borders very close to people doing whatever the fuck they want. WhatEVER they fucking want. Anarchy in the truest sense. I have news for you, buddy. THAT SHIT DOESN'T WORK IN A WORLD WITH 6 BILLION+ PEOPLE IN IT. YEAH, THERE'S WARS AND PEOPLE STARVING AND FUCKED UP SHIT IN GENERAL BUT I GUARANTEE YOUR METHODS WOULD PROVE WORSE. Or, at the very least, perhaps the human race is doomed to inevitably destroy itself no matter what. In that case maybe you're right. Let's just do what we want. Fuck it. I give up on you. I'm going to sleep.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:22:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

hahahah bob.

Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-09-05 22:18:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Wow. Who'da thunk that calling out the administrator of a website would get hits?

Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:46:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

totally...i'm such a bajiner.

Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

well, if you're going to be totlly grammar crazy, it requires a preposition and a relative pronoun.

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:33:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

uh...ok (?)

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:19:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:16:40 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:08:53 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

=============
The above sentence is missing a preposition.
===
I know, it's a typo. Are you gonna be a grammar nazi with an ESL?

======

I don't think so. You seem quite prepared to fly off the handle about it so I'll quit.

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:16:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:08:53 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

=============
The above sentence is missing a preposition.
===
I know, it's a typo. Are you gonna be a grammar nazi with an ESL?

Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:15:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

No Comment

Submitted by mockidol (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:13:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

yeah. you have way too much free time

Submitted by IntangibleHands (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:10:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

You all really need something better to do with your time.

Submitted by UnderOathMeal (user info) at 2006-09-05 21:08:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

=============

The above sentence is missing a preposition.

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 20:26:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS is the only person JayPeg can feel superior so he hangs on to his posts like they're ice cream.

there's nothing funny and yet he's laughing like it's the best day of his life: "BAHAHAHAH, THIS IS TOO FUNNY!"

stfu you fat reject and get back into your fucking hole.

Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-09-05 19:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

No Comment

Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-05 18:59:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

why should anyone give a shit what you think

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:41:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

As for the rest of the post, it can be summed up as this, You think Methods post was fine under fair use.

You also said that fair-use cases work where it can be shown that no loss to the copyright owner has been caused. I think this cannot be shown, the childs parents found there way to Ubersite and did not like the post. It is exceptionally likely that prospective customers would be put off using growingfamily.com after viewing the post. We know for a fact that at least one customer saw the post. Anyone googling growingfamily would be likely to find it. Therefore I don't think a fair use case could possibly succeed. That is my opinion, I am not an expert in US copyright law but this is my logical chain of thoughts following statements in your post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Que?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:39:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Oh, I missed that part...

I can be wrong, I've actually SAID "My bad, I was wrong" on this site on numerous occasions.

But not to you.

Why?
When it comes to your arguments, you've yet to be RIGHT, so how can opposing you be WRONG?

Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:35:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

I love watching these fucking train wrecks.

That is all. Have some more heat, messiah.

Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:34:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"(see: Wardy, Indoninja, jgreening, DCWoody, iddqd, etc.) who thinks he can never be wrong and thinks I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about when evidence usually vindicates my argument."

First statement incorrect; I can be wrong, just not very often.

First part of second statement correct.

Last part of second statement wrong;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-11 16:23:04 (#)
Ranking: 0

Vibrations would take just under 5 seconds to reach pallisides from the WTC.

Vibrations do not arrive in pallasides until just after the 7 second mark.

Which means the vibrations began two seconds after the start of collapse.

Due to the fact that time move FORWARDS in this universe, this means that the collapse was not caused by explosives.

5 seconds < 7 seconds

QED.

Que?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:34:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

while I do think the argument is semantics, because this website is bartbart's and he can do whatever he wants without explanation, I do appreciate your zeal for the 1st amendment and the fact that you're one of the few who will actually research an argument.

Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:13:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Man, it's his website. If you don't like the fact that he'd rather not be known for graciously hosting (for FREE, you dirty bum) a website full of rampaging baby haters, that's his business, not yours.

Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:07:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

fags everywhere

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:06:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:03:59 (#)
Ranking: 0

I, Eric D. Rice of West Virginia, vow to post said material in the name of free speech.

electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com ""

well i never.

bravo.

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

fag above

fag below

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:03:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

She had to turn around.
And she couldn't hold on, no.
She folded.
A dissonance...a dissonance is here.

Wait....those aren't the words.

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 17:01:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Tom, double tall mochachino latte, 2% milk please

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:59:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Cognitive dissonance?

ZOUNDS!!

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

http://www.ubersite.com/m/92684

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:31:08 (#)
Ranking: 0

shit. I remember now - It was about the bombings on July 7th wasn't it? how they were all orchestrated by GWB and Big Tone in order to control us.

If I remember correctly, rather than come up with an intelligent arguemnet, your answer to all of the points that I raised was to simply tell me that I was wrong and had been hoodwinked by the media.

happy days.

--------------------

That's what you WOULD remember if you didn't want to believe what I just fucking told you. You people and your cognitive dissonance never cease to amaze me.

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS, it's like Homer on the skateboard with you, man. YOu go over the edge, fall a bit more into the shitty abyss of idiotic lunacy, and once we think you've hit the bottom, we find out it's just another ledge on the cliff wall, and you have further to fall.

I'm just waiting for you to go off and say the NRA and the ACLU are Nazi-based Christian organizations now..

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:56:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:51:33 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:20:33 (#)
Ranking: -2

ETS FINALLY JUMPS OFF THE DEEP END!

------------------

You've been saying that for months.
----------------

And it's been valid EVERY. FUCKING. TIME, you psychotic wildabeest.

The lunatic...is on the web.
The lunatic...is on the web.
He rants and raves all night.
Only wants to fight.
We've got to keep the loonies off the web.
</Pink Floyd>

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:51:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:20:33 (#)
Ranking: -2

AND WITH THIS ETS FINALLY JUMPS OFF THE DEEP END!

------------------

You've been saying that for months. Get over it.

Submitted by BuckeyesTHEGAME (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:50:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

"For the record, I don't appreciate being brushed off and called an idiot, especially by people I respect....."

So I'm going to type out 6,000 words on why I think you're an idiot.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

"If Chewbacca is from Endor you must acquit."

Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:49:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

the funniest thing is that you actually care so much.

oh, and +2 for

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:27:24 (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:21:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

Piggy, shut the fuck up, no one passed you the conch
=======================================================
AAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*dies*

Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Ooooo! All you fucks!

120 reviews?!

I swear, everytime Jpeg, ETS, or Loki posts, it turns into a bitchfest.

The rest of us don't stand a chance.

:'(

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:44:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

What, I'm not allowed to revel in ETS' self-destruction?

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:41:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

"I have herpes on my head"

"You have WHAT on your head?"

"HER-PEEES"

"How the fuck do you get herpes on your head?"

"NO NO NO, I HAVE HAIR-PEEES"

"Ooooooooooooh, HAIR PIECE"

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:39:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

FUCK MAN, I NEVER THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THIS, BUT IM GOING TO HAVE TO FIREWALL UBERSITE OFF OF MY OWN FUCKING NETWORK JUST SO I DONT HAVE TO LISTEN TO JAYPEG BLUBBER INCESSANTLY

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:38:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I SAID SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU GODDAMM WALRUS, WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:33:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

OH man, Meth, I just can't do that. This is too fucking funny.

ETS can't stand when anyone says ANYTHING bad about him, even if that guy defends him 99 times out of 100.

It's CLASSIC. I'm just waiting for the time when Filthy says "You know, Brad, maybe we shouldn't go out to dinner tonight, I'm a little tired" and watch him write a 45-page dissertation about why women are evil and he can't believe she wouldn't want anything from Hardee's even though there is written proof that she like Hardee's.

Oh gawd, I actually laughed so hard reading this, I think I shat out 3-4 pounds of fat.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:31:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

shit. I remember now - It was about the bombings on July 7th wasn't it? how they were all orchestrated by GWB and Big Tone in order to control us.

If I remember correctly, rather than come up with an intelligent arguemnet, your answer to all of the points that I raised was to simply tell me that I was wrong and had been hoodwinked by the media.

happy days.

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:27:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

I think you're getting a little confused my friend, being a skeptic doesn't mean instantly believing every theory ever conceived just because it goes against the official explanation - That's just gullibility.

I'd also like to see where I spent an entire post arguing with you, I 'm not saying that it didn't happen, I just can't remember it.

Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:27:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:21:38 (#)
Ranking: 0

Piggy, shut the fuck up, no one passed you the conch
=======================================================
AAAAAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*dies*

Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:21:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Piggy, shut the fuck up, no one passed you the conch

Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:20:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

AND WITH THIS ETS FINALLY JUMPS OFF THE DEEP END!

Dude, Bart and Rob Berg have been your two main supporters.

And now you alienate Bart?

So all you have left is Rob Berg?

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just waiting on the -2 No Comment retaliations on Bart's posts now...

Should be coming soon, I'd imagine.

And the FUNNIEST thing to me, is that this is the same damn way ETS thought I "turned" on him.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:19:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:15 (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:00:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't make you a free mind, it makes you a sucker.

----------------------

And being in the Army makes you a fucking dumbass.

----------------------

wow. talk about somebody with very little appreciation for what they have.

Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:14:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

WTF?? I'm not reading all that!

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:10:14 (#)
Ranking: 0

you through down the gauntlet to somebody not on them.

-------------------

I can throw it where I like.

Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:07:19 (#)
Ranking: 0

It wasn't vandalism if it was an open internet forum.

And, no I will not shut up. You people need to wake the fuck up.

---------------------

You need to grow some goddamn balls, sack the fuck up and post the growingfamily shit on your website you fucking chickenhawk.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:11:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:00:58 (#)
Ranking: 0

Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't make you a free mind, it makes you a sucker.

----------------------

And being in the Army makes you a fucking dumbass.

Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:10:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

you through down the gauntlet to somebody not on them.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:08:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:03:09 (#)
Ranking: 0

Dunno... Seemed to do a preetty good job to me and I'm a skeptic. Anyway, I was just wondering is all, now I'll be on my merry way.

-------------------

You're not a fucking skeptic. You spent an entire post bashing me once for my "crazy theories".

Now you're a fucking liar too.

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 16:07:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0

Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:28:01 (#)
Ranking: -2

Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-05 15:05:33 (#)
Ranking: 0

I'm just some conspiracy theorist nutcase who couldn't possibly know what the fuck he's talking about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, he admits it!

Buddy, take a step back, breathe, close your eyes and then think about it. You're actually defending the whole GrowingFamily thing? Dude, it was an attack on a company. I mean, it would have been one thing if Method just randomly made a collage of baby pictures from their website and made obscene comments. Fine. You laugh. I laugh. I laugh again. I laugh one more time.

But then people start logging onto the other site and vandalizing it. Yes, "vandalizing" it. Was it funny? Yeah, of course, but if I were the owner of that company I'd do exactly what they did. What, do you expect to be allowed to walk into your local pizza shop and start spraypainting