"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <14inchcock (AT) splityourcrotch (DOT) [CENSORED]>

Methinks that you don't understand the concept of "copyright"

....you noticed he's a bald faced liar too eh? LOL :)

....you dumb asshole, it was "Ed" that fabricated
the post from LifeSite, and spammed it to 5 newsgroups which you
don't dare call spamming, you demented hypocrite, you where
conned by "Ed" . LOL :)

"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <14inchcock (AT) splityourcrotch (DOT) [CENSORED]>

Methinks that you don't understand the concept of "copyright"

If you are the editor of Lifesite, you've got a whacko choking regional Canadian groups with your editorials. I feel sad
for you, because of the ill will he's fostered. He's certainly damaged your cause.

I doubt you'll get him to stop... He appears to have mental problems.

Your ignorant [CENSORED]! No wonder you come to such stupid conclusions in life!
Wow! We both use Rogers - a major cable modem ISP in Toronto. You are a
genus, [CENSORED].










hfx.general:108884

Hey, "John Lauzon"

If you feel so strongly about abortion, why don't you?

a. *Adopt* a baby that's about to be "killed"?
b. Offer the birth mother and her family financial support so that the kid
can be raised properly?
c. Travel on the "high school speaking circuit" and warn teenagers about
the risks of becoming pregnant?

Options a. and b. you'll never do. It's not your "problem", right? Forget
option c.

By the way, you continue to duck my question. Since you've refused to
answer it, I can reasonably
conclude that you're all bag and no [CENSORED]. Here it is again:

Don't you mean, "fetus" (not unborn child) and "medical procedure"?


Don't you mean, "Doctor" or "M.D."?

Are the words "raving" and "perverted" necessarily adjectives for
"[CENSORED]". What about the "raving perverted" garden-variety hetros out there?


First, you didn't answer my original questions. I asked you: One - what if
a [CENSORED] couple
adopts a child? Two - what if children who were "saved" grow up to be
[CENSORED] and marry?

Your argument makes no sense, not only because it is filled with emotive
language (Example: "baby-killing"
"raving" and perverted".) but because you seem to think that women terminate
their pregnancies on
a whim. (In your example, the woman had a headache. This "headache" seemed
to account for
her lack of ability to reason correctly.)

Using a "headache" in your argument further shows that you don't know much
about women and is
disingenuous to the circumstances they find themselves in. For some, an
abortion (a perfectly legal medical procedure)
is the only option. Sometimes, to save the life of the birth-mother,
terminating the pregnancy is also the only option.
Having a "headache", the last time I checked, is not life threatening.

So, John, I'm still waiting for: what if a [CENSORED] couple adopts a
child? What if the children who were "saved"
grow up to be [CENSORED] and marry?

message news:...


John, I was not refering to the guy who was pretending to be the editor of
lifesite, I was refering to the fact that you are infringing copyrights. I
was also suggesting that Lifesite may also be infringing copyright.
See I don't know if they get premission to use other people's copyrighted
work or not. But I know that they can't give you permission to use
someonelse work. And since they don't create the news articles, they don't
own the copyrights. They may indeed obtain permission to fully quote
articles from newspapers, but likely they don't. And even if they do, that
permission doesn't extend to you.

Now I provided you with a link. Perhaps you don't think my source was
authoratative. Besides being an expert in Internet copyrights, and taking
the legal langauge, and putting it in one place in common langauge, so even
an idiot can grasp the concepts, I can see how you can say, so who the hell
is he! And dismiss him like you dismiss anything that goes against what you
currently think. It's a pattern. And I am going to test it right now.


[url]http://www.copyright.gov/[/url]


You will have to surf around that site to pull out the pertainant laws and
regulations, but this is the USA Copyright Office. This is the authority of
copyright. And it is clear that you consistently infringe upon copyrighted
material. Even if you have Lifesites permission, that is not okay, as they
are not the owners of the copyrighted material that you distribute for mass
consumption. Nor can you stand behind fair use, because your use does not
come within the terms defined as "fair use".


Now you can argue that gee DEM, this is the USA copyright Office, and I live
in Canada, go [CENSORED] them!-
Which would be in keeping with your attitude. Okay so beit. Check this link
out too!

[url]http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/[/url]

Seems the discussion group just found your achilles heel there bubba!
You piss a lot of people off John, and as many pro-life people have told
you, it's not the side of the issue that you are on, but your style, your
attitude and your prolification that outrages people.

Google has your copyright infringements fully documented. All it takes is
one disgruntled USENET reader to contact the legitmate owners of the
copyrighted material that you post, without permission, and Lifesite is not
the owners, so they can't give you permission, for them to take legal action
against you.

You know what would be ironic? You silencing yourself, after people warning
you, and you telling them to go [CENSORED] off, like you always do when you
disagree with people, even when they tell you the truth. Silenced by a court
order to cease and desist. Silenced by a law suit that impacts your
finances. Silenced by a law suit that bans you from going online.

See, if you were smart, you could keep going. You could take advantage of
"fair use", taking excepts to strengthen your own work. And you know John,
that is the biggest issue people have with you - you don't produce your own
work. And be it true or not, it shows you as a person that cannot think on
his own, cannot make any sensible arguement, without the assistance of a
real writer, even if you have to steal theiur work to make their points.
Yes, their points, not yours!

You know you are the first to mention "Thou shalt not kill", notice it's
kill, not murder.....but whatever happened to the other laws? I am most
interested to know what happened to "Thou shalt not steal"???
Tell me about that while you steal more copyrighted works?

You know every time I think you may have half a brain, you demonstrate that
I am wrong, and you are brain dead! Go ahead keep stealing copyrighted
material. It's bound to catch up to you eventually. But don't say the good
citizens of USENET didn't try to keep you on the straight and narrow! And
see, with all the hatred towards you, the good people of USENET still have
your best interests at heart, even if you are too dumb to hark the herrald!
Cuz it won't be angels singing, it will be the lawyers, singing, "And
another one bites the dust..."

I don't think he was refering to the fact that you both use Rogers Internet,
I think he was refering to the identical IP address, something you can only
hide with a forged header. As we all know that Rogers assigings a static IP,
not a dynamic one.

So don't pretend John is an asshole, when he is right for ONCE!

He might be that stupid, he might be that ignorant, but the rest of the
discussion group is not!

So look down the message and see the Canadian equivelant Pete!

Yes, but we are making an assumption that Lifesite obtained permission to
use copyrighted material,
I get the impression that they are just like John, and feel they have a
right - but nobody has established that they do. And John has stated that he
DOES have Lifesite's permission to use their work, so beleiving him is a
matter f his credibility :)


However if I make a website, and put the entire contents of Harry Potter on
it, and give you permission to reproduce it, that hardly nullifies that I
infringed copyrights to begin with. And even if I get permission so that
people can make a personal copy, it does not allow them to post it in USENET
so everyone can have it. Maybe I wanted to let the people that accessed the
website have it, but nobody else....and if I owned the copyright to Harry
Potter, I have a right to control my work, it's disribution, sale, etc.

So we need to establish what kind of permission LifeSite has to the
copyrighted material it publishes on the net and via e-mail, and if they can
even give John permission. Don't you agree?


Well if you know that the copyright holders are being quoted in their
entirety by Lifesite, and you don't know what kind of permission, if any
lifesite has, how can you say I am quite wrong about Lifesite and copyright,
with out having established these facts?

And I see you are replying to my posts before you finish reading them. That
way when you say:

And discover the link for Canada further down, you edit it out, to avoid
looking dense, but people can recall the previous few posts, so you fool
nobody.

That's good Pete, that's really good.

Just to let you know, many ISPs use a proxy, and that ends up being
the posting host.

What was the IP? Did anyone do a lookup to see Rogers was using a
proxy?

Your ignorant [CENSORED]! No wonder you come to such stupid conclusions in life!
Wow! We both use Rogers - a major cable modem ISP in Toronto. You are a
genus, [CENSORED].










hfx.general:108884

John! You really are a lameass! If people don't know who to believe, call
David (who is in Toronto) and ask!

Say what you will, it does not change a fact.

I did I search your "name" on Google Groups -
[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Lauzon&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=G[/url]
oogle+Search

16,500 posts! The ones not by you are mostly people telling you what a
piece of shit you are. I think you probably convinced many people to have
abortions! Trust me, you did not save one child, and made the pro-life
people look like massive idiots. You ruined your own "cause"

You are a sick, sick, sick demented person hated by thousands of people.
It's not for your views. I am pro-life all the way. It's that you are a
stupid ignorant jerk.

news:ZlDKa.18590$H9q1.13203 (AT) news04 (DOT) bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


creation

USENET


in

it.

message news:...


John, I was not refering to the guy who was pretending to be the editor of
lifesite, I was refering to the fact that you are infringing copyrights. I
was also suggesting that Lifesite may also be infringing copyright.
See I don't know if they get premission to use other people's copyrighted
work or not. But I know that they can't give you permission to use
someonelse work. And since they don't create the news articles, they don't
own the copyrights. They may indeed obtain permission to fully quote
articles from newspapers, but likely they don't. And even if they do, that
permission doesn't extend to you.

Now I provided you with a link. Perhaps you don't think my source was
authoratative. Besides being an expert in Internet copyrights, and taking
the legal langauge, and putting it in one place in common langauge, so even
an idiot can grasp the concepts, I can see how you can say, so who the hell
is he! And dismiss him like you dismiss anything that goes against what you
currently think. It's a pattern. And I am going to test it right now.


[url]http://www.copyright.gov/[/url]


You will have to surf around that site to pull out the pertainant laws and
regulations, but this is the USA Copyright Office. This is the authority of
copyright. And it is clear that you consistently infringe upon copyrighted
material. Even if you have Lifesites permission, that is not okay, as they
are not the owners of the copyrighted material that you distribute for mass
consumption. Nor can you stand behind fair use, because your use does not
come within the terms defined as "fair use".


Now you can argue that gee DEM, this is the USA copyright Office, and I live
in Canada, go [CENSORED] them!-
Which would be in keeping with your attitude. Okay so beit. Check this link
out too!

[url]http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/[/url]

Seems the discussion group just found your achilles heel there bubba!
You piss a lot of people off John, and as many pro-life people have told
you, it's not the side of the issue that you are on, but your style, your
attitude and your prolification that outrages people.

Google has your copyright infringements fully documented. All it takes is
one disgruntled USENET reader to contact the legitmate owners of the
copyrighted material that you post, without permission, and Lifesite is not
the owners, so they can't give you permission, for them to take legal action
against you.

You know what would be ironic? You silencing yourself, after people warning
you, and you telling them to go [CENSORED] off, like you always do when you
disagree with people, even when they tell you the truth. Silenced by a court
order to cease and desist. Silenced by a law suit that impacts your
finances. Silenced by a law suit that bans you from going online.

See, if you were smart, you could keep going. You could take advantage of
"fair use", taking excepts to strengthen your own work. And you know John,
that is the biggest issue people have with you - you don't produce your own
work. And be it true or not, it shows you as a person that cannot think on
his own, cannot make any sensible arguement, without the assistance of a
real writer, even if you have to steal theiur work to make their points.
Yes, their points, not yours!

You know you are the first to mention "Thou shalt not kill", notice it's
kill, not murder.....but whatever happened to the other laws? I am most
interested to know what happened to "Thou shalt not steal"???
Tell me about that while you steal more copyrighted works?

You know every time I think you may have half a brain, you demonstrate that
I am wrong, and you are brain dead! Go ahead keep stealing copyrighted
material. It's bound to catch up to you eventually. But don't say the good
citizens of USENET didn't try to keep you on the straight and narrow! And
see, with all the hatred towards you, the good people of USENET still have
your best interests at heart, even if you are too dumb to hark the herrald!
Cuz it won't be angels singing, it will be the lawyers, singing, "And
another one bites the dust..."

Your ignorant [CENSORED]! No wonder you come to such stupid conclusions in life!
Wow! We both use Rogers - a major cable modem ISP in Toronto. You are a
genus, [CENSORED].










hfx.general:108884

John! You really are a lameass! If people don't know who to believe, call
David (who is in Toronto) and ask!

Say what you will, it does not change a fact.

I did I search your "name" on Google Groups -
[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Lauzon&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=G[/url]
oogle+Search

16,500 posts! The ones not by you are mostly people telling you what a
piece of shit you are. I think you probably convinced many people to have
abortions! Trust me, you did not save one child, and made the pro-life
people look like massive idiots. You ruined your own "cause"

You are a sick, sick, sick demented person hated by thousands of people.
It's not for your views. I am pro-life all the way. It's that you are a
stupid ignorant jerk.

news:ZlDKa.18590$H9q1.13203 (AT) news04 (DOT) bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...


creation

USENET


in

it.

message news:...


John, I was not refering to the guy who was pretending to be the editor of
lifesite, I was refering to the fact that you are infringing copyrights. I
was also suggesting that Lifesite may also be infringing copyright.
See I don't know if they get premission to use other people's copyrighted
work or not. But I know that they can't give you permission to use
someonelse work. And since they don't create the news articles, they don't
own the copyrights. They may indeed obtain permission to fully quote
articles from newspapers, but likely they don't. And even if they do, that
permission doesn't extend to you.

Now I provided you with a link. Perhaps you don't think my source was
authoratative. Besides being an expert in Internet copyrights, and taking
the legal langauge, and putting it in one place in common langauge, so even
an idiot can grasp the concepts, I can see how you can say, so who the hell
is he! And dismiss him like you dismiss anything that goes against what you
currently think. It's a pattern. And I am going to test it right now.


[url]http://www.copyright.gov/[/url]


You will have to surf around that site to pull out the pertainant laws and
regulations, but this is the USA Copyright Office. This is the authority of
copyright. And it is clear that you consistently infringe upon copyrighted
material. Even if you have Lifesites permission, that is not okay, as they
are not the owners of the copyrighted material that you distribute for mass
consumption. Nor can you stand behind fair use, because your use does not
come within the terms defined as "fair use".


Now you can argue that gee DEM, this is the USA copyright Office, and I live
in Canada, go [CENSORED] them!-
Which would be in keeping with your attitude. Okay so beit. Check this link
out too!

[url]http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/[/url]

Seems the discussion group just found your achilles heel there bubba!
You piss a lot of people off John, and as many pro-life people have told
you, it's not the side of the issue that you are on, but your style, your
attitude and your prolification that outrages people.

Google has your copyright infringements fully documented. All it takes is
one disgruntled USENET reader to contact the legitmate owners of the
copyrighted material that you post, without permission, and Lifesite is not
the owners, so they can't give you permission, for them to take legal action
against you.

You know what would be ironic? You silencing yourself, after people warning
you, and you telling them to go [CENSORED] off, like you always do when you
disagree with people, even when they tell you the truth. Silenced by a court
order to cease and desist. Silenced by a law suit that impacts your
finances. Silenced by a law suit that bans you from going online.

See, if you were smart, you could keep going. You could take advantage of
"fair use", taking excepts to strengthen your own work. And you know John,
that is the biggest issue people have with you - you don't produce your own
work. And be it true or not, it shows you as a person that cannot think on
his own, cannot make any sensible arguement, without the assistance of a
real writer, even if you have to steal theiur work to make their points.
Yes, their points, not yours!

You know you are the first to mention "Thou shalt not kill", notice it's
kill, not murder.....but whatever happened to the other laws? I am most
interested to know what happened to "Thou shalt not steal"???
Tell me about that while you steal more copyrighted works?

You know every time I think you may have half a brain, you demonstrate that
I am wrong, and you are brain dead! Go ahead keep stealing copyrighted
material. It's bound to catch up to you eventually. But don't say the good
citizens of USENET didn't try to keep you on the straight and narrow! And
see, with all the hatred towards you, the good people of USENET still have
your best interests at heart, even if you are too dumb to hark the herrald!
Cuz it won't be angels singing, it will be the lawyers, singing, "And
another one bites the dust..."

I don't think he was refering to the fact that you both use Rogers Internet,
I think he was refering to the identical IP address, something you can only
hide with a forged header. As we all know that Rogers assigings a static IP,
not a dynamic one.

So don't pretend John is an asshole, when he is right for ONCE!

He might be that stupid, he might be that ignorant, but the rest of the
discussion group is not!

While I agree that this is a good source, it is only "the" authority on
copyright for the USA, not for Canada.

John is infringing on Lifesite's copytight by his actions, if they are
done without permission. Whether they will act to stop him is another
matter.

You are quite wrong in your judgement re Lifesite and copyright, but
feel free to contact the copyright holders of the material they quote
and check with them.

Hi, Ed
John has produced evidence (identical IP addresses) that support his
claim you and "Editor" are the same poster. There are other reasons to
conclude he is correct, but I'm not about to lift a finger to help him.

So, is it true? Did you post the message claiming to be from the
Lifesite Editor? If you didn't, a simple "no" is more than sufficient.
If you did, maybe you can end the charade and rescue whatever dwindling
credibility you have left.

Eager to here your straightforward response.