 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astrology Forum » Admins that will be served subpoenas... |
|
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| The Chief Instigator... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:27 -0700 (PDT), EHWollmann <arcturianone at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote:6b8c8ca59f]On Oct 13, 10:05?pm, The Chief Instigator <patr... at (no spam) io.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:48:00 -0700, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Very strange
What's really strange here is that he only happened to think of this
strategy nearly 11 years after the DMCA was passed by the Senate. ?As
laughable as his tactic is, it's incredibly late.
Its never too late to claim copyright infringement, especially when the
damages mount and can be used for further legal action for that. ?Nobody
ever paid attention to the idiot's page, but some people took it as
authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website
recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
My theory is that he's been talking to a lawyer. ?Just a very, very
incomptent one.
That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually try
to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
Unlike you, he's got a brain, Pantyhead. ?That's why you're destined to lose
every time. ?Too bad for you I've got two P.F. Chang's within a short drive
of this part of the town...and are you *ever* going to actually write a book
that gets an Amazon rating of _fewer_ than seven digits?
You mean like Ken Kizer?
[/quote:6b8c8ca59f]
Quit ripping off the taxpayers of your state and county, Failed
"Astrologer". (And get a license. Sheesh.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick at (no spam) io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Texas 1 (SO, October 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 16 vs. San Antonio, 7:35 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris Krolczyk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote:45d4bd06dd]Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
[/quote:45d4bd06dd]
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
I really don't think most ISPs are capable of being intimidated
into censoring websites merely because some pompous dumbass
with a proven track record of engaging in similar nonsense
*tells* them to. If they did, they're as gutless as you are
stupid.
[quote:45d4bd06dd]Very strange
What's really strange here is that he
only happened to think of this strategy
nearly 11 years after the DMCA was passed
by the Senate. As laughable as his tactic
is, it's incredibly late.
Its never too late to claim copyright infringement, especially when the
damages mount and can be used for further legal action for that.
[/quote:45d4bd06dd]
What "damages"? Has anybody actually attempted
to pirate any of your garbage in the hopes of
actually making a profit off of some rube who
happens to read it?
Equally interesting is the fact that you've used
Usenet in particular and the internet in general
as a method of disseminating your screed, and as
soon as someone refuses to lick your ass for it
you start crying about *claiming* copyright
and not trying to *prove* it in a court of law.
You do realize how that paragraph makes you look,
don't you? How about your other actions during
this escapade of yours? By the time you're done,
there won't be a single damn ISP that *won't*
be mirroring the smbtech material in order to
bait you.
[quote:45d4bd06dd]Nobody
ever paid attention to the idiot's page, but some people took it as
authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website
recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
[/quote:45d4bd06dd]
You're a fool beyond compare, Wollmann. Tons of
people have read the smbtech page and post the URL
because of little things, like, oh, your *current
attempts to censor it*.
Oh, and just for posterity's sake:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
[quote:45d4bd06dd]My theory is that he's been talking to
a lawyer. Just a very, very incomptent one.
That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually
try to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
[/quote:45d4bd06dd]
Translation: "waaaaaaaaah! Chris doesn't play fair! He actually
punches
you *back* when you bully other kids in the sandbox! MOOOOOMMY!"
FOAD, Wollkook.
-Chris Krolczyk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris Krolczyk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote:53f9318190]Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
[/quote:53f9318190]
Big deal. You don't think they're talking to lawyers
about whether you actually have a case or not?
What if those pages you *claim* are coming down
go back up? What happens to your B1G W1N then?
[quote:53f9318190]Very strange
What's really strange here is that he
only happened to think of this strategy
nearly 11 years after the DMCA was passed
by the Senate. As laughable as his tactic
is, it's incredibly late.
Its never too late to claim copyright infringement,
[/quote:53f9318190]
My, but that's a telling way of phrasing it;
why, it almost seems as if you intend to
threaten to *claim* copyright infringement
instead of actually bothering to try to
*prove* it in court!
Out of the mouth of overgrown fetuses...
[quote:53f9318190]especially when the
damages mount and can be used for further legal action for that.
[/quote:53f9318190]
What "damages"? Has anybody actually attempted
to pirate any of your garbage in the hopes of
actually making a profit off of some rube who
happens to read it?
I dare you to name one work of yours
that was actually pirated, jackass.
And BTW, posts or web site material
that you *chose* to make public
doesn't meet that standard.
[quote:53f9318190]Nobody
ever paid attention to the idiot's page,
[/quote:53f9318190]
Wrong again. The first time I
looked at it was to see whether
or not you really were as much
of a raving control freak as
your then-current posts made
you out to be.
You were, and are.
You've been like this for a
very long time, Edmo. Some people
might get tired of being seen as
a total sack of shit by practically
everyone he interacts with, but
not you.
[quote:53f9318190]but some people took it as
authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website
recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
[/quote:53f9318190]
Steve Burnett quotes you quite directly, you dolt.
You don't get much more authoritative than that.
[quote:53f9318190]My theory is that he's been talking to
a lawyer. Just a very, very incomptent one.
That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually
try to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
[/quote:53f9318190]
I can't wait for the whining to start when
you wet the bed on this, Wollkook. It'll be
just as much fun as reading your pathetic
attempts to intimidate Scott Doty back in
the day.
http://www.sonic.net/scott/sheesh/ed.txt
Oh, and just for posterity's sake:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
-Chris Krolczyk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cujo DeSockpuppet... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2009 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in
news:d39976e0-13a5-464a-874c-a4281a229212 at (no spam) c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
[quote:f3f12719bd]On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka
Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if
he i
s
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I
can find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a
pair of panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Big deal. You don't think they're talking to lawyers
about whether you actually have a case or not?
What if those pages you *claim* are coming down
go back up? What happens to your B1G W1N then?
[/quote:f3f12719bd]
You misspelled "whine".
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"...I COUNSEL PHDS I CAN READ PEOPLE SHE KNOWS NOTHING AND IS ONLY
THERE TO STIR SHIT UP!!!!" - Edmo the calm. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chris Krolczyk" <arfiend2009 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58969433-cae6-422c-9ba5-579ff62d37d8 at (no spam) j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
[quote:95cc9ee94b]On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he
is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
[/quote:95cc9ee94b]
A very wise precaution on their part.
[quote:95cc9ee94b]
I really don't think most ISPs are capable of being intimidated
into censoring websites merely because some pompous dumbass
with a proven track record of engaging in similar nonsense
*tells* them to. If they did, they're as gutless as you are
stupid.
[/quote:95cc9ee94b]
After looking at sites such as Google archives and
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/ , they then reinstate. After they have stopped
laughing, that is.
[quote:95cc9ee94b]
snip
Equally interesting is the fact that you've used
Usenet in particular and the internet in general
as a method of disseminating your screed, and as
soon as someone refuses to lick your ass for it
you start crying about *claiming* copyright
and not trying to *prove* it in a court of law.
[/quote:95cc9ee94b]
Perhaps Mr. Woolyman should get an office with a consulting room. I was
mildly suprised to see that they actually have existed.
See this picture taken in Washington DC in 1921.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/6994?size=_original. A large image, but look at
the last door on the right.
If you have a spare hour or day, the pictures are of stunning quality given
their ages.
[quote:95cc9ee94b]
You do realize how that paragraph makes you look,
don't you? How about your other actions during
this escapade of yours? By the time you're done,
there won't be a single damn ISP that *won't*
be mirroring the smbtech material in order to
bait you.
[/quote:95cc9ee94b]
Me wonders how many already have company notice boards with a comic
cartooney corner.
[quote:95cc9ee94b]
Nobody
ever paid attention to the idiot's page, but some people took it as
authoritative rather than just a vindictive assholes vengence website
recently, so now I will make it part of my legal case.
You're a fool beyond compare, Wollmann. Tons of
people have read the smbtech page and post the URL
because of little things, like, oh, your *current
attempts to censor it*.
Oh, and just for posterity's sake:
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
[/quote:95cc9ee94b]
I approve of this poasting
[quote:95cc9ee94b]
My theory is that he's been talking to
a lawyer. Just a very, very incomptent one.
That's why you should consult someone with a brain before you actually
try to theorize anything so far above your capacity and hurt yourself.
Translation: "waaaaaaaaah! Chris doesn't play fair! He actually
punches
you *back* when you bully other kids in the sandbox! MOOOOOMMY!"
At last someone recognises my true worth.  [/quote:95cc9ee94b]
[quote:95cc9ee94b]FOAD, Wollkook.
[/quote:95cc9ee94b]
Now, now Chris, a much better reply would be "I refer you to the reply given
in Arkell vs. Pressdram"
Third para at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye#Litigation
Case law can be amusing occasionally.
Not Chris |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Edmond Wollmann... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
[quote]
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
[/quote]
[quote]Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
[/quote]
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA,
they are in real trouble.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2009 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Officer... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:04 -0700, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann
<arcturianone at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA,
they are in real trouble.
[/quote]
No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is
valid.
They will find in the end, It isn't.
--
Ak'toh'di |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris Krolczyk... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 6:20 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
If their DMCA lawyers have to reSLAP!
[/quote]
Mind your manners, fucktard. I don't
believe I gave you permission to speak
on subjects you know nothing about, such
as what they're doing with your "DMCAs".
And just for the sake of being accurate,
Edmo, you're making a *complaint* to
those ISPS about the DMCA, *not*
producing a "DMCA" itself. That's the
name of the law, not the actual legal
document required to file a complaint
under it. Your screed would be much more
entertaining if it actually could be read
by who's actually graduated from grammar school.
Anyway, back to the original quote:
[quote]If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA,
they are in real trouble.
[/quote]
Steve Burnett's lawyer did exactly that, Edmo. The
fact that other lawyers for ISPs may be researching
local and international legal precedents concerning
copyright law and may have had their clients take
down their links to your crap as a *precaution*
doesn't take away from the fact that *any other ISP*
can do the same thing and just might not give a
shit about your flaccid little threats.
Oh, and have fun with xs4all with particular. Other
than the fact that they're not in the US, I believe
they've tanged with the Cult of Sc**nt*l*g* and won.
That being the case, have a nice life.
-Chris Krolczyk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martijn Lievaart... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:50:52 -0700, Chris Krolczyk wrote:
[quote]Oh, and have fun with xs4all with particular. Other than the fact that
they're not in the US, I believe they've tanged with the Cult of
Sc**nt*l*g* and won. That being the case, have a nice life.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Xs4all will only take doen a page/site when it is either in
clear violation of *dutch* law, or when ordered by a judge.
M4 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Frank Slootweg... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Martijn Lievaart <m at (no spam) rtij.nl.invlalid> wrote:
Martijn, you may want to fix that! After all, 'this' *is* a group
about abuse of the net! :-)
If you don't fix it, we (TINW) will get a court order and take you
down! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martijn Lievaart... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:29:20 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[quote]Martijn Lievaart <m at (no spam) rtij.nl.invlalid> wrote:
Martijn, you may want to fix that! After all, 'this' *is* a group
about abuse of the net! :-)
If you don't fix it, we (TINW) will get a court order and take you
down!
[/quote]
Sue me!
( I admit there is a remote change that some fetish group will register
this TLD. )
M4 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris Krolczyk... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 6:45 am, Martijn Lievaart <m... at (no spam) rtij.nl.invlalid> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:50:52 -0700, Chris Krolczyk wrote:
Oh, and have fun with xs4all with particular. Other than the fact that
they're not in the US, I believe they've tanged with the Cult of
Sc**nt*l*g* and won. That being the case, have a nice life.
Absolutely. Xs4all will only take doen a page/site when it is either in
clear violation of *dutch* law, or when ordered by a judge.
[/quote]
The problem is that you're dealing with a
narcissistic asshat who doesn't comprehend
the meaning of the words "jurisdiction" or "court".
Teh Pantyhead doesn't believe in annoying
little things like national borders, court
rulings or even the ability to file a valid
complaint in court; if he did, he wouldn't
be sending those limp "DMCAs" (_sic_) to
ISPs without getting a lawyer's advice first.
So, yeah, he's screwed. By himself. Odd how
that seems to fit his online persona to a
tee, isn't it?
-Chris Krolczyk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The True Edmond Wollmann... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Bob Officer <boboffic... at (no spam) 127.0.0.7> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:04 -0700, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann
arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka Spamtard.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue to
ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in court and
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to jurisdictional
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I wonder if he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be about
images, yet his links are always text only. The only reference I can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a pair of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA,
they are in real trouble.
[/quote]
[quote]No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is
valid.
They will find in the end, It isn't.
[/quote]
In the end, they took it down. Spinic. How many more years must I
prove you frauds wrong, specious, disingenuos and just plain liars?
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2009 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Cujo DeSockpuppet... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The True Edmond Wollmann <EHWollmann at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in
news:386ad5d0-b1aa-4caf-a77c-0ed98a2c219f at (no spam) z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
[quote]On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Bob Officer <boboffic... at (no spam) 127.0.0.7> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:04 -0700, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann
arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka
Spamtar
d.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue
to ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in
court an
d
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to
jurisdictiona
l
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I
wonder if
he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be
abou
t
images, yet his links are always text only. The only
reference I
can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a
pair
of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA,
they are in real trouble.
No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is
valid.
They will find in the end, It isn't.
In the end, they took it down. Spinic. How many more years must I
prove you frauds wrong, specious, disingenuos and just plain liars?
[/quote]
When do you intend to start, Pantyhead?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"I haven't done anything, and if I ever did, there was no
intention to do so!" - Wollkook confirms what everyone knew. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Cujo DeSockpuppet wrote:
[quote]The True Edmond Wollmann <EHWollmann at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in
news:386ad5d0-b1aa-4caf-a77c-0ed98a2c219f at (no spam) z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
On Oct 20, 5:28 am, Bob Officer <boboffic... at (no spam) 127.0.0.7> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:20:04 -0700, in alt.astrology, Edmond Wollmann
arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:48 pm, Edmond Wollmann <arcturian... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, chris <chrishask... at (no spam) myguide.net> wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:50, Chris Krolczyk <arfiend2... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
As dumb as Spamford was, he's not that dumb.
Spamford was before my time, I'm talking about Jamie aka
Spamtar
d.
Meh. Like kooks, sometimes you can't tell the spammers
without a scorecard.
Wollkook won't even figure it out when those ISPs continue
to ignore him. Shit, he won't even get it if he files in
court an
d
a judge doesn't even allow him to proceed due to
jurisdictiona
l
issues, much less the legal validity of the case.
The more I look at Mr. Wolfmans DMCA posts, the more I
wonder if
he is
on *any* planet at all. Most of his complaints appear to be
abou
t
images, yet his links are always text only. The only
reference I
can
find to a picture mentioned anywhere of a head covered by a
pair
of
panties.
Text or pictures, many have come down already, nitwits.
Only because those ISPs may have talked to lawyers who told
them to *temporarily* take them down because they were
researching case law concerning the DMCA.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
If their DMCA lawyers have to research what to do with a valid DMCA,
they are in real trouble.
No Edmond, They have to research to make sure the DMCA notice is
valid.
They will find in the end, It isn't.
In the end, they took it down. Spinic. How many more years must I
prove you frauds wrong, specious, disingenuos and just plain liars?
When do you intend to start, Pantyhead?
When he creates a reality in which he actually has control over he[/quote]
reputation, career, and book sales? Because he's just admitted he's
given up that control to Steve Burnette...for 12 years! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:54 am
|
|