Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US says has "inoculation" strategy to curb Chavez
Reuters ^ | February 17, 2006 | Saul Hudson

Posted on 02/17/2006 7:37:59 AM PST by MillerCreek

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: MillerCreek
My idea of inoculation.
41 posted on 02/17/2006 5:18:14 PM PST by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek

That's well and fine, but Reuters and everyone else knows what the Fair Use doctrine is, and they're well aware of what we do at Free Republic.

The enemies of this forum have tried every tactic to shut us down.

If you wish to adopt their position, I can't stop you. But I will point it out.


42 posted on 02/17/2006 5:27:38 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Yeegads, I try to do what is right and correct and you're trying to suggest that I'm some "enemy" of "the site"? How horrible IS that?

For heaven's sake...you are obviously influenced by some negative history that I have no desire to share. I sympathize if your sense of ownership of FR has been offended or threatened or whatever by whomever, and would not wish that on anyone, but trying to suck total do-gooders such as myself with best intentions and who has taken great time and sobriety to explain very obvious points to you, to try and frame that as posing some "enemy" status or affiliation to you and yours is just obscene.

Reuters has a copyright notice. I abided by that notice. Someone on the thread -- you/other -- was irritated that you had to access a link to read the full article (too much work involved, I guess).

I can't sympathize with your sense of being putupon by being required to access a link to a story but I see links all the time on FR and access them when and as interested and from the look of things, so do many others using FR who ARE NOT irritated by the one-click "work" involved of accessing content via links here.

Go ahead and "point out" a paranoid perception of me abiding by a proprietary copyright notice. It was done with the hopes that I was in respect of this site and in respect of the owner of that content. Any arguements and "lawsuits" and such is none of my business between this site and any other but if more users did what I just did, sites with user contributed cutnpasted content would not have to argue with one another.

How you can be so threatened and irritated by this very polite and considerate behavior by me is mind boggling.

Copyrights exist to claim ownership of original content. They notify anyone else how the material is to be regarded for use in all capacities. I respect them and I try to do what owners request of others to do in regards to their work.

I have no idea how you could even try to allege that that responsible behavior by me is in any way affiliated with 'trying to shut down' FR, or being "an enemy" of the site. Anything but. Your comments are incredibly problematic and quite inconsiderate.


43 posted on 02/18/2006 12:02:49 AM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek
...We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

George W. Bush - September 20, 2001


44 posted on 02/18/2006 12:09:11 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (http://www.wayoftears.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Please explain how me being responsible as to copyright protections and notices and the content related to those is in your frame of reference "adopt(ing) (the) position (of "enemies" of FR)"?

You have contributed nothing to the thread issue, by the way.


45 posted on 02/18/2006 12:10:36 AM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

Yep. I agreed with him then and I agree with him now and Chavez is certainly among terrorists of a variety of interests.


46 posted on 02/18/2006 12:12:02 AM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek
Below is the present required excerpt list. This may change as needed. Other than this you may excerpt whenever you wish.

Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints

47 posted on 02/18/2006 12:15:11 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!


48 posted on 02/18/2006 12:16:12 AM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek

:-)

The End.


49 posted on 02/18/2006 1:22:40 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek
You misunderstand my point. I hardly was accusing you of being an enemy of FR, only that your practice of excerpting is consistent with the legal posture of the two most notorious enemies of FR, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.

You may (and did) excerpt anything you like. FR management tells us which one we must. If you wish to excerpt more than FR requires, that's your business, but I don't have to like it. That's my business.

We've certainly succeeded in blowing our differences over posting practices completely out of proportion on this thread, although it was an interesting discussion.

50 posted on 02/18/2006 6:56:26 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread issue, the topics in this article?


51 posted on 02/19/2006 12:49:14 AM PST by MillerCreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek

bttt


52 posted on 02/19/2006 12:55:06 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MillerCreek
No. There wasn't enough contained within the excerpt of interest to entice me to click through to look for something of substance on which to comment.

The headline was interesting, which is why I clicked on it initially. And we know what happened after that.

53 posted on 02/19/2006 7:13:25 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson