Re: Webpage Responsibility.

"Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "K D B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > The ongoing dispute between Derek Nash and Kevin Brandon is a clear cut
> > > issue.
> >
> >   Yes it is, so why did you fuck it up?
> 
> The error is yours, not mine.
> > >
> > > The content of the text clearly states that the page is written by "Ward
> > > Clark" and "Kevin Brandon." Therefore both authors share equal
> > > responsibility for the content.
> >
> >   So, if I puy "Ray Slater" on a webpage, you would be responsible for
> > the contents?
> 
> Only if I had previously agreed for my name to be used.
> 
> 
>  You're an even bigger ifiot* than Dreck. If you had a
> > brain, you'd know Dreck is playing games and doesn't even believe his
> > own shit. He was just hoping for some fool to back him up. You're
> > taking orders from Dreck, albeit indirectly.
> 
> Totally incorrect my posting was not sent as support for Derek.

  nonsequitor.
> 
> If I had a brain and was "Trying" to make someone look a prat, I would check
> my own posting for 'typos'.(2)

   weak
> 
> Are you saying that Clark forged your name?

  No. Ward and I agreed that both of our names would be used on his
webpage. Dreck has claimed it is MY webpage. It's not and Dreck knows
it. I have no control over that website, I did not set up any part of
that website and I don't know anyone involved with that website other
than my online knowledge of Ward Clark. That website pre-existed my
knowledge there was even such a person as Ward Clark. Look at Dreck's
fuckwitted claim again. He's not claiming anything of "legal" stading,
he is claiming I am the OWNER of that webpage. That's a lie. As for
the contents, I have never denied making the comments attributed to
me, and Dreck lied again by claiming I never responded to this issue
when, in truth, I responded the first day he presented it, over a year
and a half ago. He;s been lying ever since saying I never "addressed"
it.
> 
> Not so, this particular webpage clearly states that it is written by
> Yourself and Ward Clark. That is clear for all to see.


  I never denied my involvement with that contest. Dreck's claim that
it is MY webpage, however, is a fabrication.
> > >
> > >  In law,
> >
> >   Which you know nothing about, even in your own country; much less in
> > the U.S.
>  I know a little, but in law, a little knowledge can be dangerous and
> expensive.
> 
> I am currently engaged in a legal dispute and in passing I ran this past my
> solicitor. She gave me the info. (FOC)
> >
> >
> >  both authors
> >
> >   That word does not accurately describe me.
>  I can think of one that does, but I am not here to insult you.

  Do you think I'd give a rat's ass?
> >
> >
> >  are responsible for the content. Therefore either
> > > author is responsible for 100% of the content.
> > >
> > > That is not my opinion
> >
> >   Yes it is, and you pulled it out of your ass.
> 
> No, leave my bottom alone!
> >
> >
> >  it is the Law.
> >
> >  Quit commrnting* on things you don't understand. That'll keep you
> > silent forever.
> 
> As previously stated the info came from a legal source.


   If there was anything illegal about the contents of that page, and
if Dreck were threatening legal action, you might have a point. Even
Dreck hasn't made such a dimwitted claim. His (almost equally
dimwitte) claimis that I am the owner, or a co-owner of that webpage.
I'm not.
> > >
> > > I refuse to post to either party
> >
> >   Because you're a fucking liar who has no intention of supporting his
> > bullshit.
> 
> My reasons for not posting to Derek are none of your concern

  But you lied. You said you "refuse to post to either party". Since
I'm one of those two parties, your statement is a lie.
> >
> >
> >
> >  and therefore my comment is strictly
> > > neutral.
> >
> >   Your comment is strictly shit.
> At least it's neutral shit
> But you confuse 'shit' with 'correct'.
> > >
> > > However, that does not stop me saying that the "Canned Gamehunter" and
>  self
> > > appointed  "Gulf War Hero",  Ward Clark, is a liar and shitbag of the
>  lowest
> > > order.
> >
> >   Then show where he appointed himself a "Gulf War Hero" so we can see
> > who is lying.
> 
> At the time he posted on these groups he was known as 'Gulf War Hero' by the
> many posters who hated the guy.

  Acknowledging that someone served his country is an insult?




> The 'self appointment' was, in this instace my mistake.

  You always make those kindsof mistakes. You're inept. Have a talk
with that "solicitor" friend of yours about where such erroneous
actions can lead.


 I withdraw the
> remark.
> 
> If we are to be strictly PC and you are still adamant that you are not
> co-author of this garbage, I suggest you contact Clark and ask him to remove
> your name from the webpage.

  No, my claims are :

   1) I am not the owner of that website and have no connection to it
whatsoever.

   2) Ward Clark was the author, I was the 'information organizer'
(for lack of a better title).

   3) I have no objection to the contents of that page.


Should you fail to undertake this action, or are
> unwilling - you remain co-author.

  Even if I was "co-author", Dreck's claim is that I OWN the webpage.
Why did you focus on the wrong fucking claim?
> 
> 
> No problem and certainly no need for abuse.

  You are deserving of abuse. You're a known liar and imbecile. Why
don't you respond concerning what Dreck actually claimed: that I own
the webpage?
> 
> The reason I have previously refused to post to you is that I feel uneasy
> with you attitude.

  Use your own spell-checker before questioning someone else's typos.
It's not my attitude that causes you to feel "uneasy".


 To quote a recent remark made by one of our MPs " There
> is something of the Night about you". I also find you a rather abusive and
> common person.

   I find you a liar of very low intelligence. If that makes me
abusive, I'll accept the charge.
> 
> You have done nothing to change my opinion

  I might be willing to do just that if you would learn to comprehend
what's been posted rather than going off on unrelated tangents. Let's
start with Dreck's claim that pathwai.org is MY website. Since that
was the actual claim being made, not the strawman 'author/co-author'
crap you introduced, what does your solicitor say about this. Do I OWN
a webpage merely for allowing those that do own it the use of my name?
Come on Ray, you want less abuse so show some honesty for once.
Provide an honest answer and there will be no abuse from me. You know
this, so your excuses are lies. I am not abusive toward anyone who is
honest in their presentations.



 - so that's your lot.

   Why did you introduce a strawman? But I'll tell you what, I
actually have no objection to the use of the word "author", so if it
means something to you, I will even concede that you might, nominally,
have a point in that respect. It's still a strawman so address the
real claim made by Dreck.  Does the presence of my name at the top of
that page mean I OWN the page?

   Kevin
> >