Board Logo
« Drone Discussion #10 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 19th, 2017, 8:55pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: Drone Discussion #10  (Read 55383 times)
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #510 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:36am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 05:26am, Radi wrote:
Its a freaking gear or as some will say a cog....
No wonder you come up with the BS you do...Its all misinterpretation....Mistakes will cost you in any court room........But you should know that already..



IMHO...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantRunes

Would definately be IMO a separate creation similar to but singular enough to be copyrightable in its own right.

I appreciate you telling me someone is going to sue me, but... anyone stupid enough not to ask a lawyer, ain't gonna sue me.. and it is the last thing I would worry about. I can describe copyright litigation from my perspective and experience. I have nothing to worry about explaining what someone else can then go ask an IPR lawyer about.
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:52am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #511 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:40am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:32am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Do you understand that T Palmer was making no comparisons, that the FC logo was not being discussed, that your imagination ran away with you?

Your own credibility has somewhat diminished after this incredibile fiasco.


You know what Jeddiyh? I'm not going to argue this anymore, for starters.. If I look at that description myself and see a similiarity and nobody else does... so what?? Hang me for it ok?

Next.........
User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #512 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:52am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:36am, tomi01uk wrote:
How pedantic can you get..... btw.. that:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantRunes

Would definately be IMO a separate creation similar to but singular enough to be copyrightable in its own right.

And stop telling me someone is going to sue me, anyone stupid enough not to ask a lawyer, ain't gonna sue me.. lol... And you think my reasoning is flawed??


OK lets examine this misinterpretation....Where in my post did I say anything about anyone suing you?......Was it this line....."Mistakes will cost you in any court room........But you should know that already.."

This means.......SINCE YOU SAID BEFORE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COURTS AND LAWYERS DURING YOUR COPYRIGHTS CASES..SO YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW COURTS WORK RIGHT....SO THUS BY DEFAULT YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT MISTAKES IN ANY COURTROOM ARE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE OPPOSING COUNSEL........OR AT LEAST ONE WOULD LOSE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE JUDGE AND THE JURY......
This is what was meant by this..........Talk about misinterpretation of anything.............You are starting to sound like LMH and her fantastic research abilities..... tongue
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:59am by Radi » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #513 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:57am »

Radi, as I said in this kind of copyright case, no company will go to court in this providing the claimants are willing to settle. The product line would die (in the meantime) at too great a cost to not settle. JMO
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 06:59am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #514 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:01am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:57am, tomi01uk wrote:
Radi, as I said in this kind of copyright case, no company will go to court in this providing the claimants are willing to settle. The product line would die (in the meantime) at too great a cost to not settle. JMO

Where did I bring this up...? I was talking about something different in my recent post...PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS POSTED TOMI AND YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING...I THINK THAT OLD AGE IS KICKING IN......... grin
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #515 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:11am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:01am, Radi wrote:
I THINK THAT OLD AGE IS KICKING IN......... grin

grrrr,, I'm not going there.. you shouldn't either smiley

want to talk mosquitos??
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:18am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #516 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:21am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 06:40am, tomi01uk wrote:
You know what Jeddiyh? I'm not going to argue this anymore, for starters.. If I look at that description myself and see a similiarity and nobody else does... so what?? Hang me for it ok?

Next.........


Nobody wants to argue...there is nothing to argue about. How about just admitting you mistakenly thought the default FC logo was the topic of T Palmer's post though it was actually pg120 he was talking about and he couldn't successfully link the image. Admit that T Palmer didn't make any comparison between the logo and the LAP, that that is simply how you misunderstood it.

Man, oh man....I admit to mistakes quite easily and attempt to learn from them.....deflecting mistakes makes one look more like a fool.
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:21am by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #517 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:25am »

Jeddyhi,
It is of such little consequence to the big picture that I see in this subject of copyrights that I really haven't even taken the time to go and verify what you say.

But you are not usually one to let smaller details pass, and for that I'm always (when you aren't attacking me) grateful to have your opinions on things..

So... yes, without even verifying I'm willing to accept fully your opinion. And yes, I'm sure I gave it too scance a look with my mind focusing on a different aspect, as I said, I was researching the Lib of Congress records and happened to cross this in a flurry of web pages coming up..
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:26am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #518 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:35am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:25am, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddyhi,
It is of such little consequence to the big picture that I see in this subject of copyrights that I really haven't even taken the time to go and verify what you say.


Tomis 101...The big picture....gezz you need some new material Tomi........The big picture in the drones laugh
If you were really that advanced on computers there would be nothing to verify...You would already know what is up with that logo being there.... rolleyes
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:37am by Radi » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #519 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:37am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:25am, tomi01uk wrote:
Jeddiyh,
It is of such little consequence to the big picture that I see in this subject of copyrights that I really haven't even taken the time to go and verify what you say.

But you are not usually one to let smaller details pass, and for that I'm always (when you aren't attacking me) grateful to have your opinions on things..

So... yes, without even verifying I'm willing to accept fully your opinion. And yes, I'm sure I gave it too scance a look with my mind focusing on a different aspect, as I said, I was researching the Lib of Congress records and happened to cross this in a flurry of web pages coming up..


Verify what I say? Then you still don't understand your mistake?

Try this......go to Isaac's fortune city site, click on page 120 of the primer (the three node junction T Plamer was discussing, not the cog and three circle FC logo), when the image pops up, the entire address of the image will be available in the address bar. Copy and paste that into a post here on casebook. Add image brackets and watch what happens.

Pg 120 will not display....the default FC logo appears. You, for some reason, thought T Palmer was finding a similarity between the logo and pg120 but that was not the case at all. He didn't even have that idea or make such an assumption. You fully created a false scenario based out of misinterpretation of a post with a default FC logo in place of the image that was actually being linked....pg120 of the primer.

If you can't comprehend where you went wrong, then you need a vacation. You are like a source of disinfo that doesn't even know it is a source of disinfo lol. grin
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:39am by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #520 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:45am »

Jeddyhi
I really don't care! I accept your explaination and if I had paid enough attn to detail before I posted that fleeting little thought and image I came across, I suppose 10 posts later we wouldn't still be talking about it would wehuh
User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #521 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:48am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:35am, Radi wrote:
Tomis 101...The big picture....gezz you need some new material Tomi........The big picture in the drones laugh
If you were really that advanced on computers there would be nothing to verify...You would already know what is up with that logo being there.... rolleyes


Radi, I'm not a minute detail person with something as "fleeting" as my HUGE MISTAKE at posting that logo in a moment of unchecked exuberance..
But I'm glad you are. rolleyes
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 07:52am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #522 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 08:07am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 07:48am, tomi01uk wrote:
Radi, I'm not a minute detail person with something as "fleeting" as my HUGE MISTAKE at posting that logo in a moment of unchecked exuberance..
But I'm glad you are. rolleyes


Your only mistake was in thinking that the default logo was meant to be there and was the topic of T Palmer's post. He was trying to post pg120 of the LAP but fortune city does not allow that and the FC logo pops up instead as a default image.

So no, Fortune city did not "pick up on the act"......you simply twisted a post to fit your reasoning......a bit of innocent disinfo perhaps? Or a coy attempt to prove your copyright knowledge as being not only correct but far superior to any one else's?
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 08:08am by Jeddyhi » User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #523 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 08:18am »

Neither.....
I can only relate what I know from real experience.
User IP Logged

Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: Drone Discussion #10
« Reply #524 on: Oct 5th, 2009, 08:28am »

on Oct 5th, 2009, 08:18am, tomi01uk wrote:
Neither.....
I can only relate what I know from real experience.

Guess its not the web then..Did you log on to the internet for the first time ever when the drones came out..?
Since real experience would have shown you from the beginning what that logo represents..... laugh
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2009, 08:30am by Radi » User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37  ...  100 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls