|
Posted by pcbutts1 on March 24, 2006, 9:11 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
been accused of stealing well over a year now. Nothing has come of it and it
never will. I am not a thief.
--
The best live web video on the internet http://www.seedsv.com/webdemo.htm
NEW Embedded system W/Linux. We now sell DVR cards.
See it all at http://www.seedsv.com/products.htm
Sharpvision simply the best http://www.seedsv.com
>> OMG for the last time THE LINK DOES NOT GO TO NICKS SOFTWARE IT NEVER HAS
>> IT NEVER WILL. Nick knows exactly where that link goes, he clicked on it
>> and so did numerous others.
>
> No one here is confused about where YOUR link goes (as you are in what
> everyone else is saying is the link that you are actually providing). As I
> already said, "Regarding pcbutts1 rebuttal, his link goes to an executable
> download, ...". Well, if you cannot under that statement, maybe you can
> understand, "pcbutts1's link points to HIS file, not to Nick's file".
>
>> Nick would rather have everyone think it is an illegal download of his
>> software rather then tell the truth about what that link does.
>
> Nick, I, nor anyone else is confused that YOUR link results in the
> download of an EXECUTABLE file! Not to a download page. Not to a link or
> redirect to Nick's software which you *claim* is the file that YOUR link
> will download directly. We don't have a problem understanding your link.
>
> Maybe what you mean to say but never do say is that your
> SuperAntispyware.exe file is different than Nick's (i.e., your software
> download is not Nick's program). If it is the same program, Nick's
> software is copyrighted. I can't tell about your file or program since
> you hide the download page behind a Javascripted open(window) command on
> your download web page. If your file is different than Nick's (i.e., you
> used the same filename as Nick's product name), you might want to check if
> Nick's product is trademarked. I did a search at http://www.uspto.gov/ on
> "superantispyware" and got no matches, so I cannot tell if Nick's product
> name is trademarked or not. If not, anyone can use the same name (for a
> different product which is no part of the copyrighted material for a
> similar-named product).
>
> Since you never bother to describe just WHAT is this *executable* file to
> which you provide a direct link, the assumption will be that the filename
> in the link infers the product name. Yeah, I know you are desparately
> trying to lure readers into clicking on your link by not explaining what
> IS your file and if it is the same or different than Nick's product.
> Spammers and phishers want that, too. "Just go click and find out for
> yourself." Uh huh.
>
>> He cannot contact his attorney because he has no case.
>
> You haven't ever been dragged to court, have you? Just recently in
> us.legal was a discussing by someone that file an Unlawful Detainer
> against someone who had never rented the apartment and was never specified
> on the lease. They helped someone once make their rent payment, the
> landlord had later problems with that tenant, so the landlord falsely
> filled out the UD form claiming evidence that the person that made the
> one-tim check was responsible regarding the lease for the apartment. It
> didn't matter if it was a frivilous suit. That didn't stop the landlord
> from filing it.
>
> In one state, a mother-in-law sued her son-in-law for alienation (from her
> daughter) and 3rd degree assault (because of his insults and verbal abuse
> when she was around). Considering the posts here, I don't see 3rd degree
> assault that far a stretch for someone to file a lawsuit. Filing a
> lawsuit doesn't mean the plantiff wins, but as the defendent your "win"
> still incurs a lot of hassle and some expense. Nick will trust his
> attorney's advice before he trusts yours (or mine).
>
>> Anyone who clicked on the link knows that, including the troll Leythos.
>
> Well, you've just dumped yourself out of the boat and into the drink with
> the rest of the trolls. Leythos wasn't even a party to THIS thread. He
> was party to your DISCONNECTED multi-posted copy of this one over in
> alt.privacy.spyware. Gee, now why to spammers and malcontents multi-post
> instead of cross-post? Because they want to disconnect their posts to
> minimize the number of negative replies that visitors may see if the
> message were cross-posted. I've seen Leythos' posts and yours. You lose.
> I'm not sure why you brought in another dissenter into your side of the
> discussion. It didn't help you.
>
>> You can believe him or me I really don't care. See for yourself
>> http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/SUPERAntiSpyware.exe Nick is blowing
>> smoke up your yinyang.
>
> You're not winning, pcbutts1. If you cannot afford an attorney for advice
> (to discover just how susceptible you may be), you could try using PrePaid
> Legal which only costs $16/mo (which you can pay monthly so you are not
> tied to a large cost). You can then call them to find an attorney
> specifically experienced with Internet harassment, fraud, and assault to
> determine your real exposure for liability.
>
> You could be digging yourself a bigger hole with every reply post and with
> continued unauthorized proliferation of someone else's software (if that
> is what you are contesting).
>
>
>
| 
XML site map