Should someone post an image without acquiring the sufficient authorisation (e.g. posting a photo from the Saints website in the 'Caption Competition' thread without asking for permission from the owner of the photo) then the owner would have the right to seek legal action against the not606.com website for allowing such practice.
It's easier to look up then for me to explain. It'll take me far to long to write, plus there are far more people that can explain it better then me.
Basically that in short form, could also lead to arrest and the individual being fined heavly or even jailed. Much more info on it around the web tho. It doesn't even have to a image tho could be something that somone has written, could be anything. The USA would have rights to close any .com or and other internet address it owns down.
big protests about it and wikipedia has shut down for the day - im well against it and most people I know are
It won't work, to many big companies are backing it. Disney, Universal and basically all the computer game firms etc.
Not guilty of your accusation, however they do say it takes one to find one, I seldom use the ignore function myself, I just mentioned it as you can use it if you are easily offended,
There are plenty of ways to browse Wikipedia today: 1) When the banner comes up, refresh the page and hold Esc 2) Disable Javascript 3) add "?banner=none" to the end of the URL. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_F.C.?banner=none
I'd quite like to hear from the mods about my earlier criticism. I'm not trying to cause trouble, and I think we all have the right to scrutinise the way we are governed on here. I'm just not a big fan of the way that last night's troublemaker was dealt with.
Give the mods a break. It not about what makes YOU happy, but what the mods deem right to do. Alternatively, apply to be a mod.
My guessing is that tomliluv or what ever bloke is the saints2win guy(think that was his name). The guy that was winding up the pompey board badly.
I'm not one of them but I think bannings and so on go to the admins ie above Beddy's pay grade. I guess Tolima/whatever has a previously banned IP address (probably not in Columbia).
Similarly in a dictatorship, it's not about what makes the people happy, it's about what the dictator deems right to do.
I believe the mods are aware that his IP is in Southampton. Though people like this can be annoying, and only exist to annoy, they are still exercising freedoms which I begrudgingly stand by their right to exercise. Much like the BNP or EDL in this country, they are stupid and sometimes intolerable, but they are still rightly allowed to exist and do what they do because it is a matter of precedence, and because the "powers that be" should not have the right to ban things they don't agree with, even if most would say that they're right not to agree with them.
Unfortunately you are not in possesion of all the facts. You are criticising without all the known facts about the poster. You have to remember we moderate on behalf of hundreds if not thousands of people. There is not a lot of moderation on our site at all or on the Forum as a whole. When you break the rules, not that there are that many, you will expect people to take action. We have tried many times to persuade him to conform to the rules of the Forum without success.
Firstly I would like to thank you for the sensible response, and reiterate that I am not trying to cause trouble, rather just bring to your attention some of my doubts. I also accept that I am not in possession of all the facts, but suggest that this is because the facts are not evident, and maybe they should be. What are those facts? And which rule(s) were broken?
