From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 16/4/05 14:55, in article BE8604D6.12245%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE86A481.A068%wally@wally.world.net on 4/15/05 8:14 PM:   
   >   
   > Once again you start tossing attacks with no support... look at your first   
   > couple of sentences... about as far as I got in your drivel.   
      
   Now Snit! We both know that isn't true,,,,don't we?   
      
   > You are   
   > clearly trying to disagree, but nothing changes the facts:   
   >   
   > 1) Elizabot has admitted to multiple actions: taking an image from my site,   
   > editing it (including adding feminine hygiene products to the image), and   
   > reposting it.   
      
   I will agree to that, so we can agree that you no longer hold Elizabot   
   responsible for multiple images, merely multiple actions wrt 'one' image,   
   gee it occurs to me that a lot of time could have been saved if you had not   
   lied about the number of images involved in the first place, and simply   
   accepted Elizabot's version of events as she has clearly been telling the   
   truth all along, but I suppose that would have been in conflict with your   
   morals?  LOL   
      
   > 2) You do not deny that Elizabot has done this   
      
   I agreed the moment she admitted it,  did you miss that?   
      
   > (well, you even waffle on   
   > that - you refer to *one* action but will not say which one!),   
      
   If you have read down this far you will see that that has now been   
   clarified.   
      
   > but you have stated it is OK with you...   
      
   Correct!   
      
   > not because her actions in general are moral,   
      
   Where have I stated they are immoral? Would they not be one or the other?   
      
   > but because you think it is ok to do that to *me*...   
      
   Do you not see that both could be valid, moral (IMO), and because it is done   
   to you?   
      
   > even though the image   
   > in question was not mine (though it was *of* me).   
      
   That's correct!, but lets not forget that the fact that you didn't own the   
   image was not known at the time, if indeed that is the case.   
      
   ......Honestly! LOL   
      
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On 16/4/05 3:29, in article BE856419.1217F%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> This has gotten too silly   
   >>   
   >> Of course! *You* are participating!   
   >>   
   >>> and you have taken into too many side issues.  Let   
   >>> me just offer a quick recap:   
   >>>   
   >>> 1) Elizabot has admitted to multiple actions:taking an image from my site,   
   >>> editing it   
   >>   
   >> But not multiple images which is your unsubstantiated claim! Or should I say   
   >> ...your lie....yup far more accurate!   
   >   
   > You are claiming it is a lie - so prove she did not.   
      
   The fact that you accused her, and yet now agree that that she is innocent   
   of most of that which you accused her of proves your lie, what more proof is   
   needed to show that "she did not"? In this case the victim (you) turns out   
   to be the star witness for the defense..nicely done Snit. LOL   
      
   >  The most you can say,   
   > if you wish to be rational, is that I have not offered full support for more   
   > than one image.   
      
   No! If you want a rational argument it is that you have been unable, as   
   witnessed in the last few posts of yours, to offer *ANY* support wrt *Any*   
   images, had Elizabot not chosen to be honest, you had nothing but   
   allegations.............and perhaps a couple of images with an ip that   
   points back to Elizabot!  ROTFL   
      
   > You can not rationally conclude that there was not more than one image.   
      
   Not even when the victim agrees that only one image is involved....really?   
      
   >>   
   >>> (including adding feminine hygiene products to the image), and   
   >>> reposting it.   
   >>   
   >> All of which she has admitted!   
   >   
   > hence my phrase "Elizabot has admitted"   
   >>   
   >>> 2) You do not deny that Elizabot has done this (well, you even waffle on   
   >>> that - you refer to *one* action but will not say which one!), but you have   
   >>> stated it is OK with you...   
   >>   
   >> Correct , I have stated that I see no problem with it.   
   >   
   > No problem with her theft?  Her modification?  Her reposting?  Your   
   > waffling?  Please be clear...   
      
   Apart from mailing you a written in blood declaration how the fsck could I   
   make it any clearer to you?   
      
   >>> not because her actions in general are moral,   
   >>   
   >> I do not consider her actions immoral, when perpetrated against a person   
   >> such as yourself......that is correct.   
   >   
   > Again you show an irrational bias.   
      
   Again wrt you I have never denied my bias, but I maintain that it is a   
   rational one!, how do you manage to miss so much of the written   
   word?....practice I guess!   
      
   >>> but because you think it is ok to do that to *me*... even though the image   
   >>> in question was not mine (though it was *of* me).   
   >>   
   >> Yes to the first part, and the second part was unknown at the time so is of   
   >> no consequence, had you done the right thing and given credit to the owner   
   >> of the image...we would have had a different outcome IMO.   
   >   
   > Look at the page - the owner has full credit.  Nothing has changed on the   
   > page since her theft.   
      
   I have looked, the problem I have of course is knowing if that was indeed   
   where the original came from, and whether or not the site has changed in the   
   mean time.   
      
   >>>   
   >>> 3) In part of her "defense" Elizabot pointed to other images she though   
   were   
   >>> of me and by me, but she was not completely correct.   
   >>   
   >> I should take your word over hers? hahahhaahahhah   
   >   
   > You should look at facts - but you will not.   
   >>   
   >>> Even if she had been,   
   >>> of course, it would not have been related to her actions.   
   >>   
   >> Of course not as she did nothing to those images......well done.   
   >   
   > She brought them up as a side issue to obfuscate her actions...   
      
   Do you mean the actions that she agreed to? Why would she need to obfuscate   
   those? You make no sense, unless you are still referring to 'other' actions?   
      
   >>   
   >>>  You allowed   
   >>> yourself to get confused and side tracked by looking into the copyright   
   into   
   >>> in *those* images...   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps you should consider who started the copyright angle, it was I that   
   >> finished it!   
   >   
   > Finished it?  You asked questions unrelated to Elizabot's theft... and gave   
   > no reason to think I broke any copyright.   
      
   Not at all you stated that there were laws (as yet unspecified) against such   
   actions, I was merely trying to see if the idea of such laws were of any   
   relevance, for them to be considered relevant copyright would need to be   
   established IMO, and certain actions would prevent that, one of which   
   relates to what is contained on the images.   
      
   >>> something that has not even been in question and is not   
   >>> related to the image Elizabot admitted to stealing, editing, and reposting!   
   >>   
   >> You are confused, first Elizabot according to you stole your image, then she   
   >> stole an image not owned by you, when will you get your story straight?   
   >   
   > She stole an image from my site.  I do believe I worded this incorrectly in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)