carole wrote:
"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
carole wrote:
"Bob Officer" wrote in message
news On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:26:54 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:03:43 +0100, in misc.health.alternative,
"john" wrote:

http://whale.to/vaccine/gsk78.html

Sweden opens inquiry into suspect flu vaccine
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...1-CeJ5s7RCnATA

(AFP) - 19 August 2008
snip of stolen copyright material

What john didn't cut and paste was the copyright notice.
cited from the above web site
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.
/cite

Cite
Copyright © 2010 AFP. AFP text, photos, graphics and logos shall not
be used for commercial purposes, reproduced, published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or
indirectly in any medium.
/cite

Notice of the theft and use of copyright material has been forwarded
to Google's abuse staff.
Hey boob,
That copyright notice, in case you haven't read it, says "shall not be
used
for COMMERCIAL purposes".
Hey Carole, thanks for showing everyone you are an IDIOT. Next time
read the entire Sentence from the beginning to the end.
Cite
Copyright © 2010 AFP. AFP text, photos, graphics and logos shall not
be used for commercial purposes, reproduced, published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or
indirectly in any medium.
/cite

Here is the sentence boob.
The first part describes what can't part of an article can't be used for
commercial purposes.
The second part describes in what form it can't be used.
Nowhere does it say that nobody can copy it, merely that it can't be used
FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
Are you that stupid?

Are you?

Cite
Copyright © 2010 AFP. AFP text, photos, graphics and logos shall not
be used for commercial purposes, reproduced, published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or
indirectly in any medium.
/cite

The first part of the copyright namaes the parts which shall not be
reproduced FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.

Wrong. It means the that parts shall not be used for commercial purposes
- this is different from reproduced for commercial purposed.

The second part describes the type of media that can't copy it.

Wrong - the second part lists the other things that the logos, text,
etc., shall not have done to them - reproduced, published, etc.

Why do you think the words 'FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES' are included?

It means that the logos, text, etc., may used for non-commercial
purposes, but that is different than copying the material - which you
can't do.

Commercial use means anywhere that it is used for financial gain.

If it didn't want people to copy it for ANY REASON it could say -

"Copyright © 2010 AFP. AFP text, photos, graphics and logos shall not
be used for ANY PURPOSE, reproduced, published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or
indirectly in any medium."

Wrong. Read it again.

It says it can't be used for commercial purposes, but also that it can't
be reproduced, published, etc.

If verbs "reproduced", "published", "broadcast", "rewritten" and "used"
do not go with "shall not", how come there are no words or punctuation
to go with that change?

I am not going to respond to you in this thread unless you actually show
some intelligence. You are about as useful as the waste in my large
intestine - except that can be used a fertilizer or even fuel. Your
words are a waste of electrons and magnetic fields.

Jeff

Carole
www.conspiracee.com