Copy right rule.

[ConHog]

i think in cases where you are using a 'blip' or a known quote of an author, just giving credit to the author is fine or even stating that you are paraphrasing what the specific author had said or expressed, or deduced is ok...., but if you 'cut' and pasted this quote, then a link to that 'cut' should be posted.

care

Well, if I remember something from a book and use it I'm certainly not going to search on the internet for a link to it. That's just crazy.

Let's say me and Radio (since he is in the thread) are discussing baseball and he tell me about a story he once read about Babe Ruth, is he required to find a link to said story? Of course not.

Don't be stupid and argumentative. This really isn't a hard concept to understand. You know precisely what types of posts I'm referring to.

Or, you would if you actually took part in discussions other than those filled with whining about being picked on.

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

 

[del]

Well, if I remember something from a book and use it I'm certainly not going to search on the internet for a link to it. That's just crazy.

Let's say me and Radio (since he is in the thread) are discussing baseball and he tell me about a story he once read about Babe Ruth, is he required to find a link to said story? Of course not.

Don't be stupid and argumentative. This really isn't a hard concept to understand. You know precisely what types of posts I'm referring to.

Or, you would if you actually took part in discussions other than those filled with whining about being picked on.

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

put a sock in it, you whining cumstain on the sheet of life.*


*citation needed

 

[ConHog]

Don't be stupid and argumentative. This really isn't a hard concept to understand. You know precisely what types of posts I'm referring to.

Or, you would if you actually took part in discussions other than those filled with whining about being picked on.

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

put a sock in it, you whining cumstain on the sheet of life.*


*citation needed

Who's whining you fucking idiot? This is a discussion about what is and what isn't a copyright infringement is it not? Oh, it is? Then I think the fact that at least one mod was mistaken about what is a copyright infringement is relevant.

 

[del]

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

put a sock in it, you whining cumstain on the sheet of life.*


*citation needed

Who's whining you fucking idiot? This is a discussion about what is and what isn't a copyright infringement is it not? Oh, it is? Then I think the fact that at least one mod was mistaken about what is a copyright infringement is relevant.

did i stutter, fuckchop?

 

[rdean]

Copy right rule.

Right wingers rarely need to worry about this. They usually just speak weird opinion rarely backed up with any kind of "fact". Like "magical creation" or "global warming is a lie" or "FEMA camps" or "200 million dollar a day trips". Just nonsense repeated over and over again until they believe it's true, no matter how far fetched. If it's said enough, it must be true.

Then on the rare times they do post a link, it's to "Fox news" or the "Heritage foundation" or some other discredited source. Might as well stick with the lies.

 

[Meister]

Copy right rule.

Right wingers rarely need to worry about this. They usually just speak weird opinion rarely backed up with any kind of "fact". Like "magical creation" or "global warming is a lie" or "FEMA camps" or "200 million dollar a day trips". Just nonsense repeated over and over again until they believe it's true, no matter how far fetched. If it's said enough, it must be true.

Then on the rare times they do post a link, it's to "Fox news" or the "Heritage foundation" or some other discredited source. Might as well stick with the lies.

What a moron........

 

[xotoxi]

"The love of xbox is the root of all evil."

~A Bible, page 142, various authors, facing south east with a gentle westerly breeze.

"The path of a righteous RadiomanATL is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of those who deny XBox360's to RadiomanATL. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness with the purchase of a new XBox360. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children and giver of great joy and Halo games. And RadiomanATL will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers who give XBox360's. And you will know I am the RADIOMANATL when I lay my vengeance upon you for committing apostasy upon the XBox360."

-"The unabridged guide to Radiodam", collected works compiled 1634 CE, Chapter 25, verse 17-

"You shall not play with a[n] xbox as one plays with a Wii; it is an abomination."

The Book of Wii, chapter 1, verse 1

"I played with my Wii last night."

- The Adventures of Xotoxi, Volume 17, Part 8, Chapter 94

 

[xotoxi]

"This thread is awesome!"

- USMB, Post #3053508

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People confuse plagerism and copyright infringement all the time.
Plagerism is copying without sourcing and/or not clearly distinguishing it from other material.

Copyright infringment is copying material (even if it is sourced) for commercial use thereby directly or indirectly receiving any form of compensation.
There are other types of infringement that include missquoting, gross mischaracterization of material etc.

 

[xotoxi]

People confuse plagerism and copyright infringement all the time.
Plagerism is copying without sourcing and/or not clearly distinguishing it from other material.

Copyright infringment is copying material (even if it is sourced) for commercial use thereby directly or indirectly receiving any form of compensation.
There are other types of infringement that include missquoting, gross mischaracterization of material etc.

There is another type of infringement called misspelling.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People confuse plagerism and copyright infringement all the time.
Plagerism is copying without sourcing and/or not clearly distinguishing it from other material.

Copyright infringment is copying material (even if it is sourced) for commercial use thereby directly or indirectly receiving any form of compensation.
There are other types of infringement that include missquoting, gross mischaracterization of material etc.

There is another type of infringement called misspelling.

Hey...what the...why i sthe little squigly lines not appearing?!
I always type the whole message and then look for the misspells and fix..I gotta get this fixed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

what the heck..a dictionary is installed, options are set to auto check...dammit.

 

[xotoxi]

People confuse plagerism and copyright infringement all the time.
Plagerism is copying without sourcing and/or not clearly distinguishing it from other material.

Copyright infringment is copying material (even if it is sourced) for commercial use thereby directly or indirectly receiving any form of compensation.
There are other types of infringement that include missquoting, gross mischaracterization of material etc.

There is another type of infringement called misspelling.

Hey...what the...why i sthe little squigly lines not appearing?!
I always type the whole message and then look for the misspells and fix..I gotta get this fixed.

Normally, I could care less about misspellings.

But when one is going to be all high-falutin', then they MUST get all of their words spelled correctly.

 

[ConHog]

There is another type of infringement called misspelling.

Hey...what the...why i sthe little squigly lines not appearing?!
I always type the whole message and then look for the misspells and fix..I gotta get this fixed.

Normally, I could care less about misspellings.

But when one is going to be all high-falutin', then they MUST get all of their words spelled correctly.

That's not near as funny as when someone calls someone else an idiot while using improper grammar and spelling. Those are the best.

 

[xotoxi]

Hey...what the...why i sthe little squigly lines not appearing?!
I always type the whole message and then look for the misspells and fix..I gotta get this fixed.

Normally, I could care less about misspellings.

But when one is going to be all high-falutin', then they MUST get all of their words spelled correctly.

That's not near as funny as when someone calls someone else an idiot while using improper grammar and spelling. Those are the best.

I know. Whene'er I call someone out for that, I make sure that my spelling and grammar are impeccable...yet even I have failed at that.

Which is why I don't usually call out.

 

[Dis]

Well, if I remember something from a book and use it I'm certainly not going to search on the internet for a link to it. That's just crazy.

Let's say me and Radio (since he is in the thread) are discussing baseball and he tell me about a story he once read about Babe Ruth, is he required to find a link to said story? Of course not.

Don't be stupid and argumentative. This really isn't a hard concept to understand. You know precisely what types of posts I'm referring to.

Or, you would if you actually took part in discussions other than those filled with whining about being picked on.

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

You seem to be under the misconception that you get to deem what is infractable and what is not. Not so. The Mods get to decide that. And when that fails, I get to decide that. In either case, you do not.

And you'll notice Gunny stopped reversing your shit.

 

[Dis]

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

put a sock in it, you whining cumstain on the sheet of life.*


*citation needed

Who's whining you fucking idiot? This is a discussion about what is and what isn't a copyright infringement is it not? Oh, it is? Then I think the fact that at least one mod was mistaken about what is a copyright infringement is relevant.

Actually, no it's not. You'll cite your sources for what you copy/paste/quote from books, and that's that.

 

[California Girl]

Copy right rule.

Right wingers rarely need to worry about this. They usually just speak weird opinion rarely backed up with any kind of "fact". Like "magical creation" or "global warming is a lie" or "FEMA camps" or "200 million dollar a day trips". Just nonsense repeated over and over again until they believe it's true, no matter how far fetched. If it's said enough, it must be true.

Then on the rare times they do post a link, it's to "Fox news" or the "Heritage foundation" or some other discredited source. Might as well stick with the lies.

Is it painful to be as stupid as you?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Well, if I remember something from a book and use it I'm certainly not going to search on the internet for a link to it. That's just crazy.

Let's say me and Radio (since he is in the thread) are discussing baseball and he tell me about a story he once read about Babe Ruth, is he required to find a link to said story? Of course not.

Don't be stupid and argumentative. This really isn't a hard concept to understand. You know precisely what types of posts I'm referring to.

Or, you would if you actually took part in discussions other than those filled with whining about being picked on.

No one is being stupid nor argumentative, as I pointed out earlier, some time back I DID received an infraction for for posting something I read in a book without sourcing it. IMO that wasn't a copyright infraction and frankly Gunny must have agreed because because he reversed the infraction. But that is neither here nor there, I just thought I would mention it in case others have been told the same thing in the past or other moderators might think that something like that IS an infraction. It is not. Your claims that no one has ever been "gotten onto" by a moderator are not valid.

Sure sounds like it to me.

 

[Ravi]

"And lo, on the 5th day of Radiodam a star appeared in the east, and Ravi did purchase an XBox360 for RadiomanATL"

-"A Disciple's Guide to RadiomanATL", first appearing 200 BCE, canon 18 -

"The love of xbox is the root of all evil."

~A Bible, page 142, various authors, facing south east with a gentle westerly breeze.

Ravi is a lying ****
-The Annals of USM/B/, 145001:39

"moo, moo" Buttemia, his life under a microscope, edition one