not logged in
| re: supplemental reply | |
Posted by:  |
fallingtofly 01:34 am UTC 06/06/07 |
| In reply to: | re: supplemental reply - pidunk 01:01 am UTC 06/06/07 |
| Dead wrong- would you like to argue with my publisher's lawyers about it? Fair use would have been to link to it- but when specific details such as "express written permission" are outlined, there is no fair use. Which, by the way, only applies to quoted material- not copying without permission. Jacqueline is looking into this now. I'm sure she'll have it resolved within a 24 hour window from when I was contacted this morning- and if not, I still have other options. > > Fair use in settlement of a dispute. Sorry Charlie. > > > > And THAT constitutes copyright infringement. If you had > > half the intelligence of a goldfish, you would have read > > the disclaimer that was on that blog- > > > > "All writings in this blog are copyrighted by the author, > > Renee Blaine, and may not be reproduced without her > > express written permission." > > > > You dumb bitch, it's on all of my sites, especially ANY of > > them that are related to my writing, even temporarily as > > that one was. > > > > Strike three. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though the file is large, I shall post the image I > > > lifted of the Xanga blog which fallingtofly stopped > > > linking to the Rockman Record in her effort to cover it up > > > after my statement. She took out her erotic avatar soon > > > afterwards. It is not a fault of any reader to have a > > > reaction to what they read. What she has written gave to > > > me many questions, which I felt justified in wondering. I > > > made no insults, statements and implications which she did > > > not herself make, and which I did not read into what she > > > had written based on universally accepted definitions of > > > words, prevalent trends of popular culture, and the caring > > > for the welfare of children. A question is a question, a > > > statement is a statement. When it becomes illegal to ask a > > > question, then the complete end of free speech is arrived. > > > Needless to say, that circumspection of such is > > > appropriate, which is exactly why I stated what I did. The > > > most circumspect form of inquiry is exactly what I > > > provided. Any other phrasing would have been inflammatory. > > > The phrasing I made was not. She could have replied, in a > > > flame to me, saying anything, without blowing up in > > > defensive diatribes about her fitness as a mother or the > > > environment of her family. How many other posts are so > > > belittling to what I say here? How many are simply phrases > > > that tell me I'm a nutter, or tell me that I am a bitch. > > > How many other phrases tell me that I have no purpose for > > > breathing? In all the reactions that fallingtofly could > > > have chosen, she also could have chosen to ask, what > > > investigations, and shut me up, because clearly, I could > > > not say anything more. But her path was something entirely > > > else. I did not intend to begin an entire thing here. I > > > merely wanted to focus the feelings that I had at the > > > readings I did, of her writing. > > > > > > In anticipating she would change her blog, I made a photo > > > capture of it. I was very much affected by it. If it is a > > > crime to feel emotion, what can I say. I felt emotion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Susan you mad bitch. Who the HELL do you thiunk you are. > > > > > Making remarks about posters members of family. > > > > > > > > I made no remarks about members of her family: read > > > > carefully, those remarks are hers. I simply responded. > > > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: supplemental reply - pidunk 01:01 am UTC 06/06/07 |
| Next: | re: supplemental reply - pidunk 05:08 am UTC 06/06/07 |
| Thread: |
|