On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 05:24:05 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <083ejvoccca3m8llt2chcovs2ef5s2tosn@4ax.com>,
> Shomuni <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Spare me your sympathies for big corporations.
>
>Sympathy? hardly. Recognition of their trade mark? Absolutely.
>
>There's a difference, although in your world where everthing is either
>black or white, apparently there isnt'.

This from the auto groups biggest troll. How interesting that you
should side with the fat cat corporations over fan websites.
No one said their trademark should not be recognized. But they are too
agressive in stopping fan websites who are not making a profit doing
this but offer information to other enthusiasts. Eventually the
Supreme Court will have to rule on this and I believe it will come out
that they are preventing Freedom of Speech.
You are the one whop is black and white here. Not I.
They are allowed their trademark but Trade Mark laws and Copyright
laws are different.

 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:02:58 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:

>Shomuni <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Spare me your sympathies for big corporations.
>
>Yes, absolutely, once a corporation becomes big, it no longer has
>rights to its own property. Uh huh.

To the point where it prohibits Freedom of Speech. No these
corporations are setting dangerous precedents. Their is a fair use
clause which these companies abuse by not allowing anything at all.

>>I bet they love suckups
>>like you. You obviously do not know the difference between Copyright
>>and Trademark.
>
>I obviously do because I explicitly pointed out the fact that they are
>different. Are you paying any attention at all or are you just here
>for the rant and the attention?

It would see that your mind is made up and that you prefer to not have
Freedom of Speech. That is what is really being attacked here.
You have unbalanced this entire concept along with the companies who
endorse the ****-istic style of shutting down websites.
Many times the site do not even have to have anything even pertaining
to their product to be shut down.
I suggest you research the history of what these companies like
Porsche and VW are doing because it's fairly obvious that you haven't
a clue.

 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:02:58 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:

>Shomuni <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Spare me your sympathies for big corporations.
>
>Yes, absolutely, once a corporation becomes big, it no longer has
>rights to its own property. Uh huh.

To the point where it prohibits Freedom of Speech. No these
corporations are setting dangerous precedents. Their is a fair use
clause which these companies abuse by not allowing anything at all.

>>I bet they love suckups
>>like you. You obviously do not know the difference between Copyright
>>and Trademark.
>
>I obviously do because I explicitly pointed out the fact that they are
>different. Are you paying any attention at all or are you just here
>for the rant and the attention?

It would see that your mind is made up and that you prefer to not have
Freedom of Speech. That is what is really being attacked here.
You have unbalanced this entire concept along with the companies who
endorse the ****-istic style of shutting down websites.
Many times the site do not even have to have anything even pertaining
to their product to be shut down.
I suggest you research the history of what these companies like
Porsche and VW are doing because it's fairly obvious that you haven't
a clue.

 

If you have a case to make, make it, but try to avoid loose language. For
many of us Hitler and Nazism have very specific meanings -- nothing to do
with being PC or non-PC -- and, with the best will in the world, if you have
to resort to using this type of language you are doing yourself a
disservice.

I wouldn't draw too many comparisons with Nazism, of course, but will you
draw attention to the murder of Native Americans and their deprivation of
their lands when you get angry at any American corporation that was around
at the time?

Like I said, you're on weak ground if you have to resort to such language
and thinking.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Shomuni" <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76dfjv88s46345hisoqjb7ti9g31rq1abb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:20:23 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >What is it about people like you who, when they get agitated about
somebody
> >or something which has German connections they have to introduce Mr
Hitler
> >or his party?
>
> Maybe if they stopped acting that way then they would not be compared
> but sending out cease and desist orders to people who have websites
> that have nothing to do with their product but because it uses a
> similar name is out and out wrong. Most people cannot afford to fight
> the huge corporations. Volkswagen Automotive Group is among the worst
> of these.
>
> >It's a bit like swearing; it suggests you are on weak ground.
>
> People are so afraid of using Non-PC terms but in this case the shoe
> fits and they most certainly are not afraid to ab-use their power on
> the Internet
>
> I have seen no one talking about the tactics these companies have used
> to shut sites down that were clearly not commercial.
>
> Car Company Fans to the utter exclusion of the truth is a bad thing.
>

 

If you have a case to make, make it, but try to avoid loose language. For
many of us Hitler and Nazism have very specific meanings -- nothing to do
with being PC or non-PC -- and, with the best will in the world, if you have
to resort to using this type of language you are doing yourself a
disservice.

I wouldn't draw too many comparisons with Nazism, of course, but will you
draw attention to the murder of Native Americans and their deprivation of
their lands when you get angry at any American corporation that was around
at the time?

Like I said, you're on weak ground if you have to resort to such language
and thinking.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Shomuni" <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76dfjv88s46345hisoqjb7ti9g31rq1abb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:20:23 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >What is it about people like you who, when they get agitated about
somebody
> >or something which has German connections they have to introduce Mr
Hitler
> >or his party?
>
> Maybe if they stopped acting that way then they would not be compared
> but sending out cease and desist orders to people who have websites
> that have nothing to do with their product but because it uses a
> similar name is out and out wrong. Most people cannot afford to fight
> the huge corporations. Volkswagen Automotive Group is among the worst
> of these.
>
> >It's a bit like swearing; it suggests you are on weak ground.
>
> People are so afraid of using Non-PC terms but in this case the shoe
> fits and they most certainly are not afraid to ab-use their power on
> the Internet
>
> I have seen no one talking about the tactics these companies have used
> to shut sites down that were clearly not commercial.
>
> Car Company Fans to the utter exclusion of the truth is a bad thing.
>

 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:23:11 +0100, "Paul Duffin"
<paul.duffin@dial.pipex.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>Here in the UK, Ferrari have told some of it's own (official) owner's club
>sites to cease using it's logo.

I think it was at the Tweeks FunFest that someone for Porsche NA
asked some Porsche owners to change t-shirts, as the ones they wore
had non-approved Porsche logos on them. Didn't go over well...
Emanuel
--
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg

 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:23:11 +0100, "Paul Duffin"
<paul.duffin@dial.pipex.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>Here in the UK, Ferrari have told some of it's own (official) owner's club
>sites to cease using it's logo.

I think it was at the Tweeks FunFest that someone for Porsche NA
asked some Porsche owners to change t-shirts, as the ones they wore
had non-approved Porsche logos on them. Didn't go over well...
Emanuel
--
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1966-rolls.jpg
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/1983-porsche.jpg

 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:48:38 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>You err, sir. I clearly stated that I did not wish to draw many comparisons
>between treatment of native Americans and of Europeans, but I did wish to
>point out that bringing the ***** into a debate about defending copyright
>and trademarks suggests you have to resort to extreme language/imagery as
>you have no strong case. Furthermore, I think it's in bad taste.

But you clearly Did draw comparisons by bringing up the American
Indians in the first place. I'd also debate the fact that the tactics
currently used by mostly German companies to defend their tyrademark
is extreme in much the same way Naziism was extreme. Whether of not
you think it's in bad taste is unimportant. I happen to feel the
tactics used by these companies goes far beyond bad taste and they
seruiously offend me as well as attacking directly the Freedom od
Speech we have in the United States.

>Like I said, if you have a case make it, but stick to the matter at hand. I
>don't agree that "**** tactics is a very well established term with a well
>defined meaning" in the sense that, I think, you mean it. In fact, I am not

Then you are ignorant of American terms and definitions.

>sure I see any connection at all. Are you suggesting that VW and the other
>defenders of their trademarks are occupying vast tracts of Europe, even if
>only the fan sites? Are they deporting and murdering their members on
>grounds of some racial or ethnic origin?

You do not want to see a connection. You are on the side of these
companies bulldozing their way through the Internet. Didn't you learn
anything from WW2?!
Or like so many Germans of the day do you prefer to close your eyes to
the truth until it's too late. They are in effect killing off websites
thatare harmless and in fact beneficial to them out of their greed. Or
does you knowledge of WW2 extend only to 1940 and not back to say
1933?
The tactics are similar the methods are different.

>You may consider the tactics of VW et al heavy-handed, and you are perfectly
>entitled to do so, but to compare them to Nazism is, to put it politely, a
>failure to grasp what happened in Germany/Europe in the last century.

Heavy handed yes, but to the extent that they are restricting freedom
of speech I'd say that now they have crossed that line. It will
eventually go to court when someone who has money to fight it gets
attacked. The name of this game is money, most fans don't have enough
to fight VAG or BMW. So they March in and make unreasonable demands.
backed by ultra lienient courts they are winning, but once it becomes
a free speech issue then they are screwed thats why they want to keep
it as a trademark issue. To divert attention from what their real
objective is which is silencing anyone who potentially might disagree
with them.

>Furthermore, I think that your easy use of this term in this context
>devalues what happened and is an insult to the memory of the 12 million
>civilians who were murdered by the Germans and their Fascist allies.

No, I think it is quite appropriate. If the tactics are the same it
still applies. Just because these companies use similar tactics
although now through the courts is closer to 1933 rather than 1942.
You are adding the fact that no deaths have occured as to be the
overriding factor. There is more to it than just deaths.

So what youa er saying is it's ok as long as no one dies?
That is such an utter fallacy.

>This is not a digression from the topic but a call to you and YOUR ilk to
>reconsider your use of language.

No Ilk here it's just myself fighting this battle.

 

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:48:38 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
<ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>You err, sir. I clearly stated that I did not wish to draw many comparisons
>between treatment of native Americans and of Europeans, but I did wish to
>point out that bringing the ***** into a debate about defending copyright
>and trademarks suggests you have to resort to extreme language/imagery as
>you have no strong case. Furthermore, I think it's in bad taste.

But you clearly Did draw comparisons by bringing up the American
Indians in the first place. I'd also debate the fact that the tactics
currently used by mostly German companies to defend their tyrademark
is extreme in much the same way Naziism was extreme. Whether of not
you think it's in bad taste is unimportant. I happen to feel the
tactics used by these companies goes far beyond bad taste and they
seruiously offend me as well as attacking directly the Freedom od
Speech we have in the United States.

>Like I said, if you have a case make it, but stick to the matter at hand. I
>don't agree that "**** tactics is a very well established term with a well
>defined meaning" in the sense that, I think, you mean it. In fact, I am not

Then you are ignorant of American terms and definitions.

>sure I see any connection at all. Are you suggesting that VW and the other
>defenders of their trademarks are occupying vast tracts of Europe, even if
>only the fan sites? Are they deporting and murdering their members on
>grounds of some racial or ethnic origin?

You do not want to see a connection. You are on the side of these
companies bulldozing their way through the Internet. Didn't you learn
anything from WW2?!
Or like so many Germans of the day do you prefer to close your eyes to
the truth until it's too late. They are in effect killing off websites
thatare harmless and in fact beneficial to them out of their greed. Or
does you knowledge of WW2 extend only to 1940 and not back to say
1933?
The tactics are similar the methods are different.

>You may consider the tactics of VW et al heavy-handed, and you are perfectly
>entitled to do so, but to compare them to Nazism is, to put it politely, a
>failure to grasp what happened in Germany/Europe in the last century.

Heavy handed yes, but to the extent that they are restricting freedom
of speech I'd say that now they have crossed that line. It will
eventually go to court when someone who has money to fight it gets
attacked. The name of this game is money, most fans don't have enough
to fight VAG or BMW. So they March in and make unreasonable demands.
backed by ultra lienient courts they are winning, but once it becomes
a free speech issue then they are screwed thats why they want to keep
it as a trademark issue. To divert attention from what their real
objective is which is silencing anyone who potentially might disagree
with them.

>Furthermore, I think that your easy use of this term in this context
>devalues what happened and is an insult to the memory of the 12 million
>civilians who were murdered by the Germans and their Fascist allies.

No, I think it is quite appropriate. If the tactics are the same it
still applies. Just because these companies use similar tactics
although now through the courts is closer to 1933 rather than 1942.
You are adding the fact that no deaths have occured as to be the
overriding factor. There is more to it than just deaths.

So what youa er saying is it's ok as long as no one dies?
That is such an utter fallacy.

>This is not a digression from the topic but a call to you and YOUR ilk to
>reconsider your use of language.

No Ilk here it's just myself fighting this battle.

 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:42:47 GMT, Emanuel Brown <epbrown01@att.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:23:11 +0100, "Paul Duffin"
><paul.duffin@dial.pipex.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>>Here in the UK, Ferrari have told some of it's own (official) owner's club
>>sites to cease using it's logo.
>
> I think it was at the Tweeks FunFest that someone for Porsche NA
>asked some Porsche owners to change t-shirts, as the ones they wore
>had non-approved Porsche logos on them. Didn't go over well...
> Emanuel

This is what happens when you put Colonel Klink in charge of Porsche.
I wonder if the Jack Boots have to be approved as well.
Seig Heil!

 

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:42:47 GMT, Emanuel Brown <epbrown01@att.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:23:11 +0100, "Paul Duffin"
><paul.duffin@dial.pipex.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>>Here in the UK, Ferrari have told some of it's own (official) owner's club
>>sites to cease using it's logo.
>
> I think it was at the Tweeks FunFest that someone for Porsche NA
>asked some Porsche owners to change t-shirts, as the ones they wore
>had non-approved Porsche logos on them. Didn't go over well...
> Emanuel

This is what happens when you put Colonel Klink in charge of Porsche.
I wonder if the Jack Boots have to be approved as well.
Seig Heil!

 

Shomuni wrote:

> Godwins law does not actually apply to ****'s tho and the arguement is
> not automatically over when Godwins laws in invoked. Look it up.
> I can provide a link if using Google is too complicated for you.
> These Germans in Germany are acting just like ****'s. Only know it's
> trademarks instead of Jews. But it always starts slowly, They'll build
> up to it over time.

Eh? And I thought they fought to preserve their trademarks, not exterminate
them?
How do you think holocaust survivors feel when their suffering is beeing
compared to someone not beeing allowed to run a website with the name he
prefers?

 

Shomuni wrote:

> Godwins law does not actually apply to ****'s tho and the arguement is
> not automatically over when Godwins laws in invoked. Look it up.
> I can provide a link if using Google is too complicated for you.
> These Germans in Germany are acting just like ****'s. Only know it's
> trademarks instead of Jews. But it always starts slowly, They'll build
> up to it over time.

Eh? And I thought they fought to preserve their trademarks, not exterminate
them?
How do you think holocaust survivors feel when their suffering is beeing
compared to someone not beeing allowed to run a website with the name he
prefers?

 

"Shomuni" <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cscfjv4glfb2ta1omea8i75tgt2ih1k3og@4ax.com...
> You have unbalanced this entire concept along with the companies who
> endorse the ****-istic style of shutting down websites.

I don't know whether you saw my previous posting that contained this
scenario:

"Suppose you learn that every day for years, a person has been letting
himself into your house, taking an afternoon nap on your couch, and
then leaving before you get home, without taking anything, eating any of the
food in your kitchen, or using any of your belongings (except the couch). No
harm done, right?"

If the person who finds out that this has been happening then calls the
police and has the fellow arrested the next time he walks in, as that
"****-istic"?

 

"Shomuni" <Thanks_for_killing_my_Account@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cscfjv4glfb2ta1omea8i75tgt2ih1k3og@4ax.com...
> You have unbalanced this entire concept along with the companies who
> endorse the ****-istic style of shutting down websites.

I don't know whether you saw my previous posting that contained this
scenario:

"Suppose you learn that every day for years, a person has been letting
himself into your house, taking an afternoon nap on your couch, and
then leaving before you get home, without taking anything, eating any of the
food in your kitchen, or using any of your belongings (except the couch). No
harm done, right?"

If the person who finds out that this has been happening then calls the
police and has the fellow arrested the next time he walks in, as that
"****-istic"?