Poet wrote:It seems unlikel
Me too. But you have to admit my English has approved.
He admits it’s him on sucks.
Somey wrote:Hmm, you're right - I actually made my usual mistake of not noticing the date of the post (Nov. 2015), which may have been before we (or at least I) even knew he existed. I guess he hadn't quite "found his true voice" by that point.
Randy from Boise wrote:
Comedy gold with the handle and avatar, Mr. Stapler.
Giraffe Stapler wrote:
The credit goes to Vigilant. Too good a name not to steal.
The absolute best part is that I feel like I’m loading a player piano when we talk about this.
Wind it up and watch it go...
The DSM IV energizer bunny.
At the very least, I've never been involuntarily interviewed by a panel of psychiatrists...
Makes you wonder why someone would find themselves in that position...
Things that make you go, "Hmmm..."
A legal precedent that you can't host an image of someone who didn't give their consent to be photpgraphed?If one were to contact a reputable legal firm with a history of successful public class action lawsuits, I wonder if they could certify the class action using everyone who has a picture on commons but who didn't give explicit consent.
I seriously doubt a judge would ever be stupid enough make a ruling that would mean the news media couldn't have covered the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction properly.I seriously doubt that upskirt shots or closeups of women's chests will survive a fair use argument in court, especially for identifiable people.
CrowsNest wrote:The old Vigilant wouldn't have stood for any of that bullshit going unchallenged on a supposed critic forum. I guess he has different priorities now.