🚀 go-pugleaf

Stu why don't you get a life already.

In the other case, someone took a photograph that I took/owned off my
commercial webpage and put it onto their own webpage in an attempt to
intentionally harm my personal and business reputation and ability to make a
living.

Quite simple...a little like you Stubbs.

Now stubbs...go back to the sandbox and try to play by yourself for a while.

Sheesh'... sorry folks in can.general and can.legal...Stubs is a little...
well....lets just say hes "little".




<my_home@mts.net> wrote in message
news:lc83fugnkhgccphd9mcfhb6rd9ti4a34iv@4ax.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes  On Sun, 26 May 2002 23:47:50 GMT, "�-�� taylorchuk
> ��|I" <taylorchuk@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >Oh man..Stubbs.....
> >
> >Geez....one day I will have to learn you how to complain right.
> >
> >Its just that yer' so innocent and hamster like... i gotta' feel sorry
for
> >ya' man.
> >
> >Copyright of that pic.
> >
> >Yeah..okay Sparky.
>
>
> =========================================================
>
> Remember this post where you complained that someone took a picture off
> of your site and used it without your consent?
>
> ===========================================================
>
>
> From: " ||  taylorchuk??|I|\"" <taylorchuk@shaw.ca>
> Newsgroups: winnipeg.general,can.legal,wpg.politics
> References: <d3N48.2348$Qq1.11550@shaw-ty2> <3C53A612.7489FE55@aol.com>
> <s7b75uo4h3piv7fm1sdthsrt5ng0sus6rl@duff.ca> <3C53BA70.701299B9@aol.com>
> <dvh75uot5hlqr5rmrhoauhquk6g0tk4plk@duff.ca> <3C54713B.B65CA3C2@shaw.ca>
> <c8095usc2jngtdbdnf4tlrrjd6nhlno82e@duff.ca> <3C549C59.3CC37C7B@shaw.ca>
> <d9e95ugia8g2cb7s70pciclti78ptj4202@duff.ca>
> <i6558.2372$Qq1.11265@shaw-ty2>
> <NDk58.527$gb.39323@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: Newsgroup Picnic... (Vilolation of Privacy laws in Canada,
> cyberstalking etc)
> Lines: 262
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
> Message-ID: <9cl58.3009$7n.6550@shaw-ty1>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:32:21 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.82.219.63
> X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@shaw.ca
> X-Trace: shaw-ty1 1012260741 24.82.219.63 (Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:32:21
> MST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:32:21 MST
> Organization: Shaw Communications
>
>
> Oh Pete....my poor and simple minded little Pete.
>
> Let me explain a few things for you below.
>
> **
>
>
> "Peter D" <ple@se.ask> wrote in message
> news:NDk58.527$gb.39323@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > || taylorchuk��|I|" wrote in message ...
>
> > >YOU SAID: "It's one thing to whack away at someone because they're an
> > idiot,> >it's quite another to engage in antics that could fall into the
> > category of >a criminal offense.
> > > >The truthi is that NO...it is no less a serious matter to "whack away
> > at >someone" like you and others have done on this newsgroup (ME) than
it
> > is to> >make his comment about the homosexual guy.
> >
> > Do you realize that you, Don Bayomi, are stating you are offended
> > because you identified yourself as the person referred to as "an idiot"?
> > Do you see how funny that it? I do. I think others do as well. Thansk
> > for the laugh. <lol>
>
> **
> Pete I'm glad you can still laugh ... because I couldn't wake up and
> face a
> mirror each day if I was you,without either crying or busting out in a
> real
> rib ticker.
>
> We'll get serious below now
> **
>
>
> >
> > >What several users are doing here involving me could just as easily, in
> > fact> >more easily be made into a criminal matter if I wished to pursue
>  it.
> >
> > Then call the Winnipeg Police and make a complaint already. How many
> > times is this you've cried "wolf!", a coupla thousand? Piss or get off
> > the pot, Don.
>
> **
> I've made complaints in the past and that is probably why we haven't
> seen
> those two users on this newsgroup in about 8 months or more.
>
> It was much more difficult then, as the Police didn't have the issues of
> Post Sept 11 and child pornography and stalking on the net as they have
> now...thanks in part to the media.
>
> So now, yes..  issues such as these would be treated far more seriously
> now.
>
> Now, I don't just jump into matters as serious as these.
>
> **
>
> > >
> > >1. CYBER STALKING:
> > > The unwarranted and unrequested creation of an entire website set up
> > to> >mock and attempt character assasination of an innocent law abiding
> > citizen >of Canada. What else could you possibly call the actions of a
>  person/s
> > who >spends days (apparently he has had the page up for several months)
> > compiling> >stats on myself, photoshop touchups of copyrighten
>  photographs,
> > modifying >the site each hour)
>
> > While it might be considered a bit odd, it's perfectly legal activity.
> > In fact, your characterisation of him as being involved in criminal
> > activity may well be (to use your favourite whiny-ass word)
> > "actionable". Grow up, Don, and quitchabitchin. You don't like the heat,
> > get out of the kitchen!
>
> **
> No Pete...if I had DARED to do that about any of you, you know darned
> well
> that you would have been leading the charge to have my account
> cancelled.
>
> You are one of  the biggest to throw around that stalking term and in
> your
> case, you are completely and totally out of the loop and should really
> watch
> yourself with the way you use that term.
>
> Cyber stalking has become a much more serious activitity over the last
> year
> or so and a webpage like that is ample evidence of some form of strange
> behaviour by the creator of the site.
>
> It is a trigger point and certainly enough evidence to start compiling a
> charge of online stalking.
>
> It is only a bit "odd" to you because the page was about me.
>
> If anyone had made a page like this in your honor and perhaps topped it
> all
> off with some nice references to your family, I can guarantee everyone
> that
> you would be on here screaming/virtually and contacting whoever would
> listen.
>
> Illegal acts?
>
> Yes those are indeed illegal acts. Taking my copyrighten photos...
> marking
> them up and including pornographic imagery in them. Using my name in the
> domain and trying to intentionally cause harm to myself and my business.
>
> On and on.
>
> Its completely plain.
>
> Grow up?
>
> Yes, as I said Pete...if it was a page about you or even if someone had
> created a few posts about you where they falsely and maliciously started
> including references to child abuse or something with your own kids,
> then I
> know for a fact that you wouldn't be chanting this "grow up" theme.
>
> And you bloody well know it!
> **
> > >2. ILLEGAL VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT:
> > >The illegal and unauthorized use and misuse of copyrighten photographs
>  of a
> > >small business legally operating in Canada. There are also several
> > >photographs on the webpage which were taken in a private bar without
>  the
> > >consent ot the person depicted in the photograph, or the owner of the
> > >establishment.
> >
> > The copyright belongs solely to the photographer. The subject, even if
> > it was you, isn't copyrighted. The sole copyright holder has given
> > permission for the images to be used in any way and released them into
> > the Public Domain. People can do whatever they want with the image now.
> >
>
> **
> How many times do I have to tell you. Maybe I can type slower.
>
> I AM the photographer and the subject.
>
> I had the photos on my small business webpage and own all rights to the
> photos.
>
> He/she took these photos without permission and placed them on the site
> with
> the intenet to harm my business interests. He marked them up etc.
>
> I have not at any time given any one the permission to take my photos
> and/or
> use them in the public domain.
>
> **
>
>
> > >3. SLANDER:
> > >Slander and agressive attempts to harm the personal and business
>  interests
> > >of a law abiding citizen and small business owner in Canada. The
>  webpage was
> > >set up for no other reason than  as an attempt to intentionally harm
>  both
> > >the present income generating ability of a small business owner and any
> > >future income generating possibilities thru other businesses or
>  employment.
> > >It can easily be viewed as one of the most malicious and cold hearted
> > >misuses of ones Internet accounts as seen in the last 6 years.
> >
> > Nah. It's parody. Why you? Probably because you're an asshole. Life
> > suckz, eh? Get used to it! <rotflmao>
>
> **
> There you go with this ridiculous notion that as long as it isn't done
> against you, then its just parody.
>
> I am afraid you are totally off again.
>
> Lets see someone create one for you and your family Pete... some great
> pictures and false stories...I'd see you put up with it for about 5
> minutes
> before you went postal somewhere.
> **
>
>
> >
> > >5. PUBLIC POSTS MADE TO HARM POSTER
> >
> > This is the best of all. You, the one person who springs to mind re
> > malicious and harmful and derogatory posts? the only person I know who
> > has contacted a poster's employer. The only person I know who has
> > boasted about calling a private residence at 4am and scaring a poster's
> > family. The only person I know who gleefully talked about the suspected
> > death of a poster. The only person I know who calls another poster a
> > "murderer" in spite of the facts and investigation that cocluded the
> > opposite. The only person I know who publicly fondled another poster
> > (female). The only poerson I know who constantly ridicules another
> > poster for being a homosexual. You of all people complain!!! "GALL!"
> > doesn't really do it justice.
> >
> > BTW, regardign the suggestion of a potential child porn link between a
> > site you used to advertise, did you clarify the matter? Did you clear up
> > the quesiotn of whther or not you knew of any such connection or not?
> > Just to clear the air and make people aware of the truth. I'd hate even
> > for a scum of the earth like you to be falsely connected to child porn
> > or appear tolerant of those who abuse children in this fashion. That
> > would be quite an injustice.
> >
>
> **
> There you go again with the ridiculous innuendo. I already explained in
> about 3 threads the story there and why can't you simply learn to read.
>
> I never in my life knew that there was any porn on that site at all
> until
> someone mentioned it about 2 days ago.
>
> I had my business web ad on the site back around 1995 or so, for about 3
> months at a cost of about $10 a month US. It was called something like
> "Sparkys Net Mall".
>
> So of course, its a surprise to me that its now porn..but then again,
> like I
> said in my other thread dotcomes have come and gone and oftentimes the
> names
> are sold or else the owner puts the dot com domain name to another use.
>
> Also..no I have never made porn movies or videos or photographs or
> whatever
> it is you are trying to allude to.
>
> Even suggesting it on  a public forum is disgusting of you or the
> others.
>
> Then for you or the others to completely go off the deep end and not
> only
> just talk about pornography but then to talk about child pornography and
> try
> to make a link.
>
> There is just no excuse for that, and you know it. You know how serious
> those issues are and for you and the others to mention them in this
> forum
> again, are justifiable reasons for you to be warned by your isp and to
> lose
> your accounts if you continue in that vein.
>
> I am not going to address this ridiculous topic again for you in these
> newsgroups.
> **
>
> > >6. ATTEMPTED IMPERSONATION/IDENTIFY FRAUD
> > >It is a violation of an AUP of any ISP to attempt to intentionally and
> > >continually try to mislead people with a webpage domain using the full
>  name
> > >of a law abiding citizen
> >
> > Bollox, Don! Utter bollox! Show me the part of any AUP that says this,
> > you sad little troll.
>
> **
> No...if you look in the aups you can see it.
>
> Can I go and create a web domain in your name?
>
> Oh...if I recall, you already had registered it. Too bad.
>
> How about your wifes name?
>
> See...your blood pressure went up already by the mere suggestion of
> something involving you.
>
> We all have hot buttons Pete...and you know that.
>
> My hotbuttons are for the most part, only where the lines of the law
> cross.
>
> **
>
> > --
> > Peter D
> > >
>
> ===================================================================
> ==============================================================
>
> This website below is owned by you isn't it, of course it is as the dns
> searches below prove.
>
> http://www.shareviewsmm.com/general16.html
>
>
> Host name: shareviewsmm.com
> IP address: 66.51.109.48
> Alias(es): None
>
> -------------------------------
> Domain Parking by:
>
>
> Tera-byte Dot Com Inc. (NETBLK-TERA-BYTE-2)
>    Suite 900,
>
>    CN Tower, 10004-104 Ave
>
>    EDMONTON AB T5J0K1
>
>    CA
>    Netname: TERA-BYTE-2
>    Netblock: 66.51.96.0 - 66.51.127.255
>    Maintainer: TRBY
>    Coordinator:
>       Network Operations Centre  (NO58-ORG-ARIN)  noc@TERA-BYTE.COM
>       +1-780-413-1868
> Fax- +1-780-413-1869
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Owner of Domain at 66.51.109.48
>
>
> Registrant Contact
>    NA
>    ShareViews Multimedia   (NA)
>    NA
>    Box 20193, 3310 Portage Avenue
>    Winnipeg, Manitoba R3K 2E6
>    Winnipeg, MANITOBA R3K 2E6
>    CA
>
>
> Billing, Administrative Contact-
>    NA
>    ShareViews Multimedia   (NA)
>    NA
>    Box 20193, 3310 Portage Avenue
>    Winnipeg, Manitoba R3K 2E6
>    Winnipeg, MANITOBA R3K 2E6
>    CA
>
>
>
>
> Seems you've been caught with your pants down, and your hands dirty
> after you've complained long and hard about others doing just this same
> thing.
> Please dispute the facts presented as I'm waiting to see what type of
> lie you come up with.
>