Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese (page 10)

larc

Suzi,

What was the physics stuff you did? I'm curious.

AlanF

Oh, Suzi! You've made me a happy WAMoFo! If I have 'em we'll be rich! Bonsai monsters! Think of the possibilities!

As a gift and a show of good faith, I've created an original pic, as you can see. You can copy it or do what you like with it!

May Jehovah be with us!

AlanF

At least you get it, whereas I think six is still waiting for his nine.
I'm not even going to bother arguing with whatever guru-ism 69 is claiming. Suffice it to say, it's settled, and the pic is changed. Thank you. I don't think I'll be using it any time soon, however, thanks anyway. :) As to the Bonsai kids, drop it, Alan. I got yer hint, don't make me start hypothesizing on what the F stands for again.. :)

Larc, I didn't bring this thread up to revisit what my theory was in any way. I used this to prove a point that "fun" is constantly being poked at folks on the bored. Apparently Tina and RoamingFeline had some issue with me and Chuck, trying to say we were trolls or some craziness like that, so I brought this back to the top to prove to them that it's not just one or two people who get made fun of here, it's A LOT of people that get made fun of here.
And no, I'm not a troll (what the hell is that term sposed to MEAN anyway???), I'm not trying to dredge up the past, I'm proving a point.
Inevitably my words will be dissected and completely misconstrued by the proletariate. I understand this eventuality, and can prolly even predict who will be the one to start their post with

Suzis Ghost

You SAid:

blah blah blah...

I feel that you completely have no grasp on blah blah blah and therefore I think that I'm right and here's why... nevermind the facts. I subscribe largely to heresay.

SWEET DREAMS, Y'ALL.

Suzi who is not the ignorant bitch that SixofNine would like to be.

SixofNine

Wow, lol again. Alan, nice work on the picture. No more or less parody and comment than before, but definitely funnier. If you did it because of Suzies protest (and I'm sure you didn't), you wasted your time however.

Suzie, could you be any stupider?

x

Suzis Ghost

Sick,

Why exactly do you count yourself amongst the human race? Do explain that one to me, you lil maggot. Could it possibly be that maybe --JUST MAYBE, Alan and I aren't trying to kill one another and we can have fun with it? Could it be that hmmm.. I really don't remember asking for your opinion in the first place?
As to the copyright infringement issue, SIGH. I have a masters degree in interactive technology and instructional design. As part of the curriculum, we had to become VERY fluent in copyright and fair use laws. I think Alan could see that indeed, copying my pic and putting it to his site is copyright infringement, especially without my permission. Or are you one of those "special" people that still believes me and chuck are the same person.
Paranoid little pissant, aren't you?
Now run along and fetch some ice, I can see some bruising on your over-inflated ego. How bout instead of trying to start a fight you shut up when no one spoke to you in the first place?
Or is this playground mentality all over again? You gonna pull my pigtails and try to make me cry, too?
Here, wait... Boo hoo.. I am so very injured.. wah.
Happy now?

I'm going to bed, because quite frankly your attempt at inciting a needless argument has honestly bored me with its lack of depth, substance, and conviction.

Nighty-night, Six. :)

Suzi

Roamingfeline

I have to jump in and say, Six, Suzi's right on this one. You DON'T know what you're talking about. Maybe it would be a wise decision to stop while you're behind. Btw, there's no such word as "stupider". Better go look it up in your english manual.

RCat

mommy

SIX!
I love your humour...LIQ? Oh man I think you should trademark that, then if anyone uses it, you can sue them and stuff.

Suzi,
I appreciate you being upset about this thread. With that said I will now tell you my thoughts.... I read the entrance to the board you made, and have to say I was not at all impressed with your "idea" You talked of an all night drinking binge and spur of the moment ideas that you viewed as brilliant. Not me, I thought it was laughable, perhaps I would have viewed different if you presented in a different way. You came in swinging, but are upset when people were swinging back. Come on Suzi...it is your attitude that brought this thread on. You essentially asked for it.

Since the first moment you came here I was impressed with the willingness to express yourself, and not lie down. But now you are bringing up the past as if it bothers you. This does not ring with your character, being so upset over a little thread. I thought you were the Mistress of Mayhem? I took your old man's advice and looked up dictionary.com for a clear definition of Mayhem and here is what I found......
may·hem (mhm, mm)
n.
Law. The offense of willfully maiming or crippling a person.
Infliction of violent injury on a person or thing; wanton destruction: children committing mayhem in the flower beds.
A state of violent disorder or riotous confusion; havoc.

Maim \Maim\, n. [Written in law language maihem, and mayhem.] [OF. mehaing. See Maim, v.] 1. The privation of the use of a limb or member of the body, by which one is rendered less able to defend himself or to annoy his adversary.

2. The privation of any necessary part; a crippling; mutilation; injury; deprivation of something essential. See Mayhem.

mayhem \May"hem\, n. [The same as maim. See Maim.] (Law) The maiming of a person by depriving him of the use of any of his members which are necessary for defense or protection. See Maim.

mayhem n 1: the willful and unlawful crippling or mutilation of another person 2: violent and needless disturbance [syn: havoc]

So Mistress, what say you? You can give but cannot take? Hmmmm sounds like you are crying in your Cheerios here.
wendy

Roamingfeline

Well, here we go, I'll jump in again. Suzi, although you're LEGALLY correct in your position on Copyright, and Six should just shut up and admit it, I still totally agree with Mommy's assessment of your actions since you joined the forum. That was what I was TRYING to get across to you in the other thread in the announcements section. Think about it. I think your reaction is totally outsized to the actual injury.

RCat

larc

Suzi,

Are you an xJW?

Are you here to help yourself grow and help others do the same?

Do you love most of the people here?

If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to forget about your injury six weeks ago and just enjoy life here?

Life is too short to "keep account of the injury."

SixofNine

Actually Wolflady, she is wrong on this one. Not surprising, as I wouldn't be lol'ing here if I was wrong. And as I said, a quick tutorial, absent of what she wants to believe, or was led to believe in her way cool curriculum, will show her that she is, as usual, spitting in the wind.

Here is a good start, the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/501.html

And here is an interesting commentary on the law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.notes.html

I suggest you pay particular attention to this passage when feeling infringed:

Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities.

And what is the bulk of that criteria?

. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107: ''(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.''

More specifically:

''Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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, purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT an infringement of copyright."

{italics and bolding mine}

A quick take on the above "criteria":
1) the purpose and character of the use. Seems to be parody, ( http://www.publaw.com/parody.html) with a bit of education and comment and critisism thrown in. Not to mention parody and comment in a discussion forum wherein the pic is linked by the complainer itself. Huge fair use points to Alan.

2) The nature of the work. no comment

3 the amount and substantiality of the portion used... Gotta admit, he used the whole pic, but then, that is what one does when commenting on a picture, as opposed to a written work. Just the nature of the medium. Draw.

4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[/b] Now you see why I was laughing out loud?

Lets just say that none of the above mattered, that there was none of the above criteria; do you really think a court would find infringement in a use such as this, when you have already said that using it is fine, so long as it is served from your server/website? What is the logic for a court to chew on there?

Also, given the "handshake" nature of businesses run by kiddies eager to make a buck on the lack-of-bravery-in-choosing-colors idiom of their gothic friends network, one has to wonder if our mistress of mayhem actually has rightful ownership to the picture in question herself?

Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

Share this