JoeUser Forums
| I was telling you guys this a long time ago. Now that he is creeping up the rankings you take notice. You should be more concerned with the fact that you are helping keep his message in people's faces and not where he is on the blog list. Trolling is for trolling, not zinging people you don't like. Can you even troll your own blog? If he comes to your blog and you consider what he is doing trolling, fine, but jeez. ... I guess there is no C. This is just seems really petty, though. |
| Just be honest, and go back and look at the Col's average blog and see how many times you guys call names and sleight him without commenting on the meat of the article. I think you'll find that in terms of trolling, the righties dealing with him have no room to talk. |
So? I don't see him behaving any differently than how people treat Rombios and others on their blogs, and to him you are no different than Rombios. You draw a distinction because you know he is wrong and you are right. |
| The trolling thing is a bit abusive, though. The whole points whoring thing is pretty sad, imho, and to me, no offense, but you aren't concerned with anything here other than his name rising up the JU rankings. |
| "Actually, the better bet is just wait and see him busted for copyright infringement for blatantly copying and pasting whole articles in for his "proofs." |
| "Big difference!! You "ever" see rombios back up his BS with "any" facts, links, whatever? You know I do. When I state something I usually back it up with at least a link. Rombios "never" does." |
| Problem is that he doesn't have the courage to go on other peoples blogs. And just for my info...."you" don't consider the trash he spews as trolling? |
Actually he does. With the same tired old stuff too.
| Obviously you guys aren't using trolling points for trolling, you are just punishing your enemies with them. They ought to get rid of the system if they are going to be used that way. If he trolls your blogs, fine, but if you guys are going to play troll on his blogs you have no right to troll him. |
Something no one has mentioned, but needs to be. If you read his articles (click on them or whatever), you are giving him points. So doing a trolling is kind of self defeating on his own articles.
Sorry, you will find only one of his articles that I haev commented on in the last year. And that was to suit a fellow blogger.
| Like the whole article Drmiller just posted, adding only, what, a line, and no links back to the original article? The Col is not a troll. If you guys want to play points, fine, but it looks pretty sad to me |
[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] www.dailyprincetonian.com www.princeton.edu www.abcnews.go.com |
| Just goes to show what you know. First off that "was" the entire article. Second "if" you had read it rather than just running off at the mouth you would have caught this..... |
| Man Law. |
| I propose that from now on, all replies to the Col's articles be posted here in the "Please stop feeding the troll!!" thread. |
I do agree with you baker, in some ways. I rarely try to "troll" him. If he is wrong, then he is wrong. Now, that does not mean that I have not had a time where I've just been rude. It happens, and for that, I am ashamed.| You should check out your friendly copyright laws in the US. As an Australian citizen I could get sued for blatantly violating copyright like that. 20%'s the max in Oz and even then it can't be a block quote. |
[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: www.newsbusters.org ] |
| "Copyright laws are different here. I also made sure to say where it came from." |
| Actually they aren't. You can't post whole articles in the US either without permission, but no one seems to bother much with it in terms of blogs and such. If you check copyright law you'll find that 'fair use' isn't copy and pasting the whole thing. You can quote it, but not copy it all verbatim. |
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (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. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. |
| (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and " |
| "How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians." |
| " As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. " |
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.