P3D Re: 3D-CD glitch

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> However the majority of people, out of laziness or lack of know-how, do not
> edit quotes, but include the messages they are referring to verbatim. So
> where is the different between including Mr. X's posts in an archive and
> including someone else's post that itself includes a post from Mr. X? Given
> the irrational behavior of Mr. X to begin with, this is certainly NOT an
> illogical extention. It's merely an illustration of how one lonely loose
> cannon can destroy immense amounts of good for many hundreds of people.

I think things are getting a bit farfetched.  I can just see going to
a judge or jury and claiming damages because their posting to the world
was quoted on a restricted distribution CDROM being read by a subset
of those who received an intentional copy by the plaintiff originally.

I think I'd have a better chance of suing because "you" breathed the
air I breath before I did and you decreased it's oxygen content and
increased the CO2 content (and other things) thereby causing me
physical harm and perhaps quoting some environmental law... and 
demanding that "you" stop breathing until "you" file a three year
environmental impact study statement.  :-)

I have no problem with someone wanting to be "removed", Orwell's
characters would be happy with the thought.  Revisionist history,
etc.  It's a matter of courtesy.  However I think there's also
a matter of going too far.  Has his/her email address been removed
from the listserver *and* all backups to make sure knowledge of
posting is completely removed?  Who owns the copyright to the
email address?  The "owner" or the ISP?  Are we allowed to use
email addresses that are defacto copyrighted by ISP's?

Maybe we are only allowed to post email that has no "To:" address
to avoid being sued by the ISP owner of the address that would
have been used?

How far should we go?  :-)

Mike K.




------------------------------