Bertram Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 calmoriah,I will certainly "soften" my approach if that is the only way to receive the unexpurgated truth about this alleged suit.However, calmoriah, you have actually proved my case for me when your reply has falsely "quoted" me .If you misuse my words, by adding to them, how on earth can I accept anything that is put forth second hand(hearsay).We are sadly off,once again, on a concentric trail.If I cannot read the "actual" suit then so be it. I will then let it rest as unproven?
ave maria Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 calmoriah,I will certainly "soften" my approach if that is the only way to receive the unexpurgated truth about this alleged suit.However, calmoriah, you have actually proved my case for me when your reply has falsely "quoted" me .If you misuse my words, by adding to them, how on earth can I accept anything that is put forth second hand(hearsay).We are sadly off,once again, on a concentric trail.If I cannot read the "actual" suit then so be it. I will then let it rest as unproven? Bertram--I'm fairly certain a link to the copy of the actual complaint has been posted elsewhere.You might find it by doing a Google search, using the keywords:link to copy of the complaint tanners vs. FAIRand see if anything results.
Kevin Graham Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 == As I said previously, "I agree that what Allen did was a prank, even a funny one. However, I also think Allen should sell 'em the domain name if they want it. The Golden Rule and all that."And as I said back in December, "This one will hit FAIR's credibility tremendously. It will go along with the FARMS' 'Metcalfe is Butthead' ordeal."I never thought a lawsuit would become of this, but I knew this would eventually do far more damage to FAIR than good. I just hope it doesn't cause FAIR to go under.Whether or not he did anything that was technically "illegal" is beside the point as far as I'm concerned. What bothers me most is that too many Mormons are pretending "Allen did nothing wrong...This is Capitalism folks."Do we really need to run to the law books to know what is wrong here?
Confidential Informant Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 Do we really need to run to the law books to know what is wrong here?It's either that or adopt your ultra-hyper sense of morality.C.I.
Kevin Graham Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 == It's either that or adopt your ultra-hyper sense of morality.Oh really? Well I guess that means abortion isn't wrong.What I'd like to know is when exactly these 13 domain names were purchased. Does anyone know?
Confidential Informant Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 Oh really? Well I guess that means abortion isn't wrong.That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on this board. How, exactly, do you draw a moral equivalency between Allen purchasing some domain names and the murder of unborn children? If you honestly believe those two things have even a semblance of moral equivalence then you have some serious perspective issues.What I'd like to know is when exactly these 13 domain names were purchased. Does anyone know?Gee, maybe you should try reading the complaint in question also. C.I.
Bertram Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 ave maria, ( or should I call you " early bird ")Always helpful but unsuccessful this time.But boy what a weird site......according to them..(Quote)..I am not permitted by LDS to even view their site...c`mon now!!!By the way, you really don`t believe the g..b.ge on this site...do you?However, thanks.urroner,Success, and thanks....but was your little side-bar really necessary? Just a few seconds after an arduous search? Thanks to you both.
ave maria Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 ave maria, ( or should I call you " early bird ")Always helpful but unsuccessful this time.But boy what a weird site......according to them..(Quote)..I am not permitted by LDS to even view their site...c`mon now!!!By the way, you really don`t believe the g..b.ge on this site...do you?However, thanks. Bertram--You're welcome. However, all I did was put you in the direction of a Google search. I do not know which site you accessed as a result of that.I am aware that the link has been posted on more than one discussion board, including Zion's Lighthouse.I don't recall having referred you to any site specifically, nor should my help to you in finding the link be construed as an endorsement of any discussion board on which you'd find the link posted.I'm not sure I get the "early bird" part. I'm clearly in a different time zone than you are, but didn't get up extraordinarily early this morning.
urroner Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 Bertram, I tend to be a little overly dramatic on some of my posts. Sorry if I offended you.
Kevin Graham Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 == That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on this board. That's nice.== How, exactly, do you draw a moral equivalency between Allen purchasing some domain names and the murder of unborn children?I don't.== If you honestly believe those two things have even a semblance of moral equivalence then you have some serious perspective issues.You need to work on your comprehension. I asked why anyone would need to run to law books to discern from right or wrong. You responded that we should or adopt an "ultra-hyper sense of morality." You made it clear that the law gets to determine your morality for you.Well, where is the line drawn? When is the law right and wrong?Be careful now, you don't want to develop a personal "ultra-hyper sense of morality."
Bertram Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 ave maria,I am exactly 8 hours ahead of you...you came up as 05:41 AM...very early for me.I know that you never mean to offend that was why I entered into a little bit of "Oirish Blarney"Dunamis: I have edited this post as I feel this may be one that strayed.Apologies.
Bertram Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 urroner,D`OH....who gives a D..N!I was not offended in any way and am thankful for your assistance.
ave maria Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 ave maria,I am exactly 8 hours ahead of you...you came up as 05:41 AM...very early for me. If you are in Northern Ireland, it is a logistical impossibility for you to be 8 hours ahead of me. You might be looking at board time rather than the time zone that I am in (I believe that information is available by clicking on my screenname on this site).Your guide via Google came up as The Mormon Curtain, among other things.I am not a reader of that website. I know that you never mean to offend that was why I entered into a little bit of "Oirish Blarney"urroner`s lead came up as exmormon.orgAs I indicated above, I was aware that the link had been posted to multiple discussion boards, including Zion's Lighthouse and exmormon.org. Any assistance I gave you in performing a Google search was not meant to imply an endorsement to any particular site on which you'd find the link to the copy of the complaint.
Bertram Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 ave maria,Quick time check.....05:40 PM (1740 hours)!My daughter`s time zone in New York is exactly minus 5 hours!
ave maria Posted May 4, 2005 Posted May 4, 2005 ave maria,Quick time check.....05:40 PM (1740 hours)!My daughter`s time zone in New York is exactly minus 5 hours! 12:44 p.m. EDTA quick check of my profile reveals the information about my local time to be incorrect by three hours.
Dunamis Posted May 5, 2005 Posted May 5, 2005 Do not put information or links to information that contains personal information on this board.
rongo Posted May 8, 2005 Posted May 8, 2005 Got this from the German Ex-Mo board today:FAIR site being attacked!While this clearly falls under the parody and satire allowances in internet law, it looks pretty close, too close, to FAIR's actual look, design, and setup.Are the Tanners' lawyers busy? Maybe FAIR could sue for "trademark dillution" or something! (I'm kidding, of course. I actually thought this was kind of funny. Flattering, even).
Dale Posted June 2, 2005 Posted June 2, 2005 Hi,I hope FAIR can win this one. I got the Salt Lake City Messenger Today which got into it from there point of view. Hopefully this matter can be resolved without FAIR being tied up in court forever. It's impossible for FAIR to comment on existing court battles. But as soon as it can be released I kind of would like to know the date for FAIR's day in court. I would like encouraging news but only FAIR's attorney can decide what can or cannot be said by FAIR about this matter at this time. It would be nice if we could hear some kind of a simple we think we can win. Sincerely,Dale
Markk Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Hi,I believes this proves intent if there is any questions to the reason for buying the names. If I scanned it correctly, if not...O'well)markJohn 1:12
Neighbor Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 That is a F.A.I.R. link. My user name was there.Wow. All those missles and bombs hit, but the damage just dissappears:-) Amazing, isn't it?!
Vooduguru Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Cybersquatting means registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit to those businesses.Are the domain names for sale? Were they offered to the tanners to purchase for a sum of money?
Louis D. Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 The whole foundation of ethical behavior rests on treating others the way you would want to be treated. I am rather appalled that anyone here thinks that the Tanners are being treated in an ethical way. It would only require a little of decency to end this mess. This should bne settled fairly out of court.
smac97 Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Vooduguru,> Cybersquatting means registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark. ==Yep. Although the intent must be a "bad faith" intent.> Are the domain names for sale? ==Nope. Never have been. Never will be. They are, however, available to the Tanners for free. Always have been.> Were they offered to the tanners to purchase for a sum of money?==Nope. Never. Nary once.Louis D.> The whole foundation of ethical behavior rests on treating others the way you would want to be treated. ==Yes, but this has to be put in a proper context. If the way you want to be treated is unreasonable, unfair, wrong, or infringes upon the rights of others, then the Golden Rule does not, IMHO, govern. The Golden Rule presupposed that the person invoking it is engaging in correct conduct.> I am rather appalled that anyone here thinks that the Tanners are being treated in an ethical way. ==What do you think is unethical about parody and criticism?> It would only require a little of decency to end this mess. This should bne settled fairly out of court.==I hope that's what happens.-Smac
Calm Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 The whole foundation of ethical behavior rests on treating others the way you would want to be treated. I am rather appalled that anyone here thinks that the Tanners are being treated in an ethical way. It would only require a little of decency to end this mess. This should bne settled fairly out of court. You're right about a little decency--like the Tanners bothering to ask for the domain names before going to sue.Gee, I wonder just who is actually trying to profit unethically from this.
Scott Gordon Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Gee, I wonder just who is actually trying to profit unethically from this. I like the fund raising plea on the same page that they were discussing the lawsuit. I wonder if that was an accident. Scott
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.