Guest Llawgoch Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I suppose someone needs to ask the site about their copyright criteria to be sure. No, people here who understand something you do not are telling you the facts - if you do not want to accept them, you need to go away and check for yourself; everyone else knows the law. Posting a link to a URL is no more infringng copyright than telling people where to find a copy of a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Ketchum has her issues. But the copyright clearly states the obvious. A public statement does not give the right for anyone to repost or publish elsewhere, where it is stated: "Please do not print or distribute this notice; it is intended only for this website. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this notification, e-transmission, and information, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful." Pretty easy to understand. Since this thread isn't about copyright issues why not respond to the actual statement on that website. Or is that just a topic you would rather people just not discuss? And I wonder if the Ketchumites will respond to the OTLS article claiming the Scholastia site proves that the so called peer review posted by Scott C is fake. Edited November 6, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove personal discussion aimed at a member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Ketchum has her issues. But the copyright clearly states the obvious. A public statement does not give the right for anyone to repost or publish elsewhere, where it is stated: "Please do not print or distribute this notice; it is intended only for this website. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this notification, e-transmission, and information, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful." Pretty easy to understand. You are completely incorrect and reams of legal precedent prove that Edited November 2, 2013 by slappy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Thanks for all the corrections. They are much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Looks like you infringed a copyright. "Please do not print or distribute this notice; it is intended only for this website. If you chose to reference the information on this website- please provide a link with proper citation. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this notification, e-transmission, and information, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. This communication should not be kept in or with any archived record, except for the owners and operators of the website. We reserve the sole right to utilize this information, if necessary, in litigation." Looks like the way Bi-PC posted the link, conforms with the request, just as you quoted it T-Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted November 2, 2013 "JAMEZ was never sold, transferred or acquired". It has no connection to DeNovo. GAME SET MATCH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 "JAMEZ was never sold, transferred or acquired". It has no connection to DeNovo. GAME SET MATCH Pretty much. The spin on this should be amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 That's awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 "JAMEZ was never sold, transferred or acquired". It has no connection to DeNovo. GAME SET MATCH Is that quote from the website of unknown origin that doesn't allow any questions from anyone? That's not a very high standard for acceptable evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 THe Press release is legit. If you do some reseachiing and make some inquiries - as has been done - you will see that it's all legit. IF you do make inquiries and come back with somethng that shows that anything that is claimed here is not true, please share it with us. Otherewise, it seems like the same attempts to dodge the truth that every Melba supporter is hanging on to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Why is a person termed a Melba supporter if they don't castigate her? What journalist contacted this site? That's the only way to get an answer from them. The site doesn't speak to credibility. Some hints would help. Too often in this discussion when someone isn't able to back up what they say they say, " Do your own research. " Doesn't seem helpful to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 How comes when someone says "do your own research" they are accused of not being able to back up their claims. You would not need back up if you would do your own research. You would see for yourself. It doesn't take someone castigaging Melba to show that they are obviously supporting her. It shows by them refusing to read the evidence that is piling up against her and refusing to admit that it is legitimate even when it as been shown to be so.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 (edited) One ought to be able to support the contributor's, or even science, without taking on all of MKs other issues/arguments IMO. It should be that easy. Instead many involved are left dealing with, or responding to, tangential issues...and those outside in a difficult position to support some contributors, but not the resulting mess... Was it a lie, the whole Journal thing? Well, it wasn't Scott's lie if it was, or any of the other submitters..... and they IMO should step aside on these type issues....instead, stand up for their evidence, stand up for the results....and let MK stand up for her integrity? Sad, really sad....and the issue of who MK is as a person, or whether persecuted, should seperate from the goal...to prove? I dunno.. I feel for you all still entrenched.. but, unfortunately there is a long paper trail of stalled ambitions far in excess of simply a hired service lab to render results on samples...or even a lead scientist for a peer review paper.... there just is... Edited November 3, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Was it a lie, the whole Journal thing? Well, it wasn't Scott's lie if it was, When asked on her FB page to explain the recent accusations, she referres them to Scott's blog. Why not answer them herself? Seems to me she is using Scott as her mouthpiece. So she can say that she never said those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 (edited) My point exactly. Watching from afar these years, I really feel ..well, MK has some serious personality issues and is manipulative, sometimes threatening, and basically...not what anyone hoped for as "scientist'...and yet, must be persusive in close quarters..till she isn't? It's too bad though, b/c her role has been the most divisive I have seen and had so much potential...(arggg!), short of say Moneymaker or a few others (bullies as well) ...it seems to run in Bigfootery..this behavior....so...those of us that aren't so ambitious. should really take notes ! Choosing coat tails...to ride....as far as I can tell, is not a good plan in BFdom.. those spun out as collateral damage....over and over...orbiting these dreams...are legendary and keep BFE alive.. .it's our problem (ambitions) too IMO..and something each person should really think hard about...motives to prove, or befriend another Bfer...really....trecherous crowd of shifting opinions/allianses!!! ouch! I like it here!! Edited November 3, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts