On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:07:16 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:11:05 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:11:39 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:09:24 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:38:05 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>><teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 10:44:42 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:49:57 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >dave b <7871077cd2e560a7...@example.com> writes:
>>>>>> >>Well it looks like the email poster thing doesn't work and I'm a bit reluctant to post anything like a email address or phone number since I've already been abused as being a troll. Anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Don't use the useless "home moaners hub" website, which just leaches off Usenet.
>>>>>> c/leaches/steals
>>>>>> copyrights are copyrights
>>>>>
>>>>>While usenet content is technically copyrighted, I've always considered
>>>>>that both the Fair Use and Implied License sections of the copyright act
>>>>>apply.
>>>>>
>>>>>"leaching" may not equate to "stealing" under the copyright act since (in most
>>>>>cases) none of us are harmed when HOH - or any other website that reposts
>>>>>usenet content - copies/presents said content.
>>>>
>>>>The fact is that it IS copyrighted.
>>>>
>>>>>(and by "harmed" I don't mean embarrassed/pissed off by having our nym/name
>>>>>show up on that POS forum. In that respect we are most certainly harmed.)
>>>>
>>>>>If not for fair use/implied license, any of us that ever copied a link or set of
>>>>>instructions or anything else from a usenet post would be guilty of copyright
>>>>>infringement.
>>>>
>>>>No, there is no "fair use". You can't copy something in it's entirety
>>>>and claim "fair use".
>>>>
>>>>I didn't give permission to use my post, or my name.
>>>
>>>Then do not post on usenet simple, one can fully copy your post of
>>>yours in a reply and have no concern about you claiming copyright
>>>infringment. If you could find a lawyer to take your case you would
>>>being conned out of your money.
>>
>>You're dead wrong. My copyright exists because I created something. It
>>is illegal to copy it without my permission. Just because I'm not
>>going to hire a lawyer doesn't change the facts one little bit.
>>Homemoaners club is still guilty of IP theft.
>
>Incorrect, so by your reasoning Google groups is also guilty.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

No, moron. They are a feed for the Usenet. They are not stealing
information without even attribution.

Good god, what an idiot.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:13:32 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:07:16 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:11:05 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:11:39 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:09:24 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:38:05 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>>>>><teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 10:44:42 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:49:57 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >dave b <7871077cd2e560a7...@example.com> writes:
>>>>>>> >>Well it looks like the email poster thing doesn't work and I'm a bit reluctant to post anything like a email address or phone number since I've already been abused as being a troll. Anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Don't use the useless "home moaners hub" website, which just leaches off Usenet.
>>>>>>> c/leaches/steals
>>>>>>> copyrights are copyrights
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While usenet content is technically copyrighted, I've always considered
>>>>>>that both the Fair Use and Implied License sections of the copyright act
>>>>>>apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"leaching" may not equate to "stealing" under the copyright act since (in most
>>>>>>cases) none of us are harmed when HOH - or any other website that reposts
>>>>>>usenet content - copies/presents said content.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fact is that it IS copyrighted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>(and by "harmed" I don't mean embarrassed/pissed off by having our nym/name
>>>>>>show up on that POS forum. In that respect we are most certainly harmed.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>If not for fair use/implied license, any of us that ever copied a link or set of
>>>>>>instructions or anything else from a usenet post would be guilty of copyright
>>>>>>infringement.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, there is no "fair use". You can't copy something in it's entirety
>>>>>and claim "fair use".
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't give permission to use my post, or my name.
>>>>
>>>>Then do not post on usenet simple, one can fully copy your post of
>>>>yours in a reply and have no concern about you claiming copyright
>>>>infringment. If you could find a lawyer to take your case you would
>>>>being conned out of your money.
>>>
>>>You're dead wrong. My copyright exists because I created something. It
>>>is illegal to copy it without my permission. Just because I'm not
>>>going to hire a lawyer doesn't change the facts one little bit.
>>>Homemoaners club is still guilty of IP theft.
>>
>>Incorrect, so by your reasoning Google groups is also guilty.
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
>No, moron. They are a feed for the Usenet. They are not stealing
>information without even attribution.
>
>Good god, what an idiot.
>
As is HOH, which does attribute that they repackage a few usenet
groups for content.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:11:36 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:08:07 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:11:24 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:13:57 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:10:37 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:42:42 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:44:37 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:49:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave b <7871077cd2e560a74ec0d7664acfba49@example.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>Well it looks like the email poster thing doesn't work and I'm a bit reluctant to post anything like a email address or phone number since I've already been abused as being a troll. Anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't use the useless "home moaners hub" website, which just leaches off Usenet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>c/leaches/steals
>>>>>>>copyrights are copyrights
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unless you post your own copyrighted material to usenet, then you just
>>>>>>put it in free use, voiding your own copyright. Posting something you
>>>>>>do not own copyrights to does not void the copyrights of the owner.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong. Just by the fact of creating something, you have a copyright to
>>>>>that work.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck on collecting any royalties.
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>>
>>Kettle.
>
>Maybe I should explain it in terms even idiot can understand (probably
>not).
>
>Homemoaners *IS* violating copyright, therefore thieves. which is what
>I claimed. I never claimed that I was going to sue them.
>
>Got it now, dummy!

Your ignorant intransigence does not prove your point that they are
stealing, all they are doing is providing access to a few usenet
groups, which they state on the site. There is no copyright issue
here.

Google has done the same, Dejanews until Google bought them.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:11:36 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 11:08:07 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:11:24 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 23:13:57 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:10:37 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:42:42 -0500, Markem618 <markrm618@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:44:37 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:49:57 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave b <7871077cd2e560a74ec0d7664acfba49@example.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>Well it looks like the email poster thing doesn't work and I'm a bit reluctant to post anything like a email address or phone number since I've already been abused as being a troll. Anyone have a better suggestion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't use the useless "home moaners hub" website, which just leaches off Usenet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>c/leaches/steals
>>>>>>>copyrights are copyrights
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unless you post your own copyrighted material to usenet, then you just
>>>>>>put it in free use, voiding your own copyright. Posting something you
>>>>>>do not own copyrights to does not void the copyrights of the owner.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong. Just by the fact of creating something, you have a copyright to
>>>>>that work.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck on collecting any royalties.
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>>
>>Kettle.
>
>Maybe I should explain it in terms even idiot can understand (probably
>not).
>
>Homemoaners *IS* violating copyright, therefore thieves. which is what
>I claimed. I never claimed that I was going to sue them.
>
>Got it now, dummy!

Okay so complain to abuse@newsgroupdirect.com which is HOH usenet
provider, I am sure to abuse department could use the entertainment.
If they are really infringing on copyrights HOH will disappear, but I
would not bet on it.

>>
>>No, moron. They are a feed for the Usenet. They are not stealing
>>information without even attribution.
>>Good god, what an idiot.
>>
>As is HOH, which does attribute that they repackage a few usenet
>groups for content.
>

I'm pretty sure that HomeOwnersHub owns the internet ..
..... at least the usenet part of it.
So they naturally have all the rights to everything.
Period.
John T.

>>
>>Homemoaners *IS* violating copyright, therefore thieves. which is what
>>I claimed. I never claimed that I was going to sue them.
>>Got it now, dummy!
>
>Okay so complain to abuse@newsgroupdirect.com which is HOH usenet
>provider, I am sure to abuse department could use the entertainment.
>If they are really infringing on copyrights HOH will disappear, but I
>would not bet on it.
>

I will bet on it - I'll give 8 to 3 odds - that
HomeOwnersHub will fail before these two idiots
complete their off-topic pissing contest here
on rec woodworking ..
John T.

On Sep 22, 2022, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote
(in article<u01qihd01gpc3nfgmqjbf187uss5h9aqct@4ax.com>):

> I will bet on it - I'll give 8 to 3 odds - that
> HomeOwnersHub will fail before these two idiots
> complete their off-topic pissing contest here
> on rec woodworking ..

I was once given the following advice:

Never get in a fight with a pig.
You’ll both end up getting dirty,
but the pig actually enjoys it!

Just sayin...

Joe

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:51:53 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:

>
>>>
>>>No, moron. They are a feed for the Usenet. They are not stealing
>>>information without even attribution.
>>>Good god, what an idiot.
>>>
>>As is HOH, which does attribute that they repackage a few usenet
>>groups for content.
>>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that HomeOwnersHub owns the internet ..
>.... at least the usenet part of it.
> So they naturally have all the rights to everything.
> Period.
> John T.

LOL!

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:03:27 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:

>
>>>
>>>Homemoaners *IS* violating copyright, therefore thieves. which is what
>>>I claimed. I never claimed that I was going to sue them.
>>>Got it now, dummy!
>>
>>Okay so complain to abuse@newsgroupdirect.com which is HOH usenet
>>provider, I am sure to abuse department could use the entertainment.
>>If they are really infringing on copyrights HOH will disappear, but I
>>would not bet on it.
>>
>
>I will bet on it - I'll give 8 to 3 odds - that
>HomeOwnersHub will fail before these two idiots
> complete their off-topic pissing contest here
>on rec woodworking ..
> John T.
It's been around stealing from others for twenty years. At least
we're getting questions from Homoaners club from that far back. It's
not likely to go away. It takes no work to steal. Just set up a bot
and suck whatever you want.

Donald Davenport <cf1573c4abb35a02e7a2ed4c4088bd00@example.com> wrote in
news:1717018f7d81be95$339$2952698$4656d803@news.newsgroupdirect.com:

> Dave, I don't know what else I can do without your email address. I
> can't get them to you if we can't communicate. Let me know if you
> figure out a way to email me.
>

My e-mail is real. Spam filters take care of most of the non-sense. If
you guys can't figure out a way to e-mail each other, e-mail me and put
rec.woodworking in the subject and I'll pass on your e-mail address to the
other guy after I get it.

Puckdropper

> 6150
Donald Davenport - It's been awhile - do you still have the 6150 M&S plans and can I get a copy?
Dave

--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/mason-and-sullivan-plans-search-449912-.htm

ok - I'm "replying without an account" whatever that means. But I'm logged in and it's filled in my email address correctly. If you respond to that email address and it has a reasonable address and you're still willing we can arrange to exchange the plans for the M&S 6150 clock plans. I have all the raw wood parts (I think) but not the plan on what goes where etc.
Dave B

--
For full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/mason-and-sullivan-plans-search-449912-.htm

dave b <7871077cd2e560a74ec0d7664acfba49@example.com> writes:
>ok - I'm "replying without an account" whatever that means.

It doesn't mean much.

Home Moaners hub steals content from Usenet, which is where
most people read this, i.e. the Usenet group 'rec.woodworking'.

> But I'm logged in and it's filled in my email address correctly.

Your email address doesn't show up in Usenet, so no one can
send you anything.