• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bad Guy Meg90 a THIEF

The biggest difference is she did not post that photo claiming it to be her own photo of an animal in her possession. In fact she posted it in reference to Guy's site as an example to make a point in the thread.
What she did falls FAR closer to "fair use" than what you claimed was "fair use" in Guy's use of stolen photos.
Is her posting of that picture fair use or is it technically copyright infringement? I'm not a copyright lawyer so I can't answer that, however you have made your total lack of knowledge about copyright law abundantly clear in the thread you linked to, so your opinions on the legality of her actions are pretty irrelevant.
 
Mister Internet said:
Like I said in the other thread, not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree.
Click to expand...

Iraqvet said:
Lol....No wonder why you had to get a job as a stay at homer worker skanndeloser...You wont get drug tested that way...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

We really don't need the petty personal digs in the thread guys. It'll just serve to side track things with endless posts of sideline bickering.
If you don't have anything constructive to add to the thread just use PM.
 
skanndelus said:
...she blatantly STOLE photo from guy's website which is a BLATANT VIOLATION of COPYRIGHT LAW (i should know, she explained it ALL to me)...
Click to expand...
Meg had nothing to gain financially from the use of the picture. Fair Use, she can use a photo, acknowledge the owner, if it supports her commentary. That's why Television, Newspapers and the like are able to use copyrighted work when doing their news report or commentary, sideshow, etc. Which in this situation is that the animal being represented was produced by a separate breeder however marketed as his own.

skanndelus said:
...she also HOTLINKED an image which is considered BANDWIDTH THEFT. stealing BANDWIDTH that costs money without permission by linking directly to an image hosting on a server which BELONGS to someone ELSE...
Click to expand...

HOTLINKED? Are we still in the 90s? It was only a concern when the internet hosting was the same as cell phone plans are today. To run a website back then you had to also pay for traffic which is still evident today for anyone that has access to cpanel.

To say that the traffic from her post is going to degrade the load time of Guy's website is outlandish at best. It's evident his load time is not a concern since the logo in his signature is HOTLINKED.

http://guycogecko.com/images/forum_sig.png

skanndelus said:
I WOULD RECONSIDER ANY AND ALL DEALINGS WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL AS SHE OBVIOUSLY OF FLAWED CHARACTER AND A THIEF! WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE SHE STEALS? MONEY? CARS? SOULS?????


BEWARE!:reddevil:
Click to expand...
Your inaccurate portrayal of Meg's past, present and future actions is what business law would consider defamation of character.
 
Hotlinking does not copy the image from one "host" and upload it to another "host" it is simply pointing a user to the image on someone elses "host". So in short. This isnt copyright infringement.

Here is a link that will help explain it to you.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100105/0109067611.shtml

For those that dont want to follow the link, here is the important part of the post.

"I understand that it's considered rude and generally frowned upon in internet circles (and, in some cases the hoster of the original file will "get back" at the hotlinker by changing the image to something different... and potentially nasty). But is it copyright infringement? Technically, a hotlinked image is no different than a link to an image. The difference in code is minimal. The image itself is never "copied" onto your server. All you are doing is telling a computer to go visit the original version of the image, which was put there on purpose."



When you simply TAKE an image from someone else, download it and use it as your own. That is copyright infringement. You can go to court and argue "Fair Use" but when the image is uploaded to a site that is selling the same thing as the picture you downloaded your chances of them ruling in your favor is slim to none.
 
gallerygeckos said:
LOL yes, 99% of people seem to be that way! If I didn't want them as customers, I wouldn't have very many at all. There is defiantly a type of customer that is a lot better to deal with than others.

Suing for false information posted is an option, but not a practical one by any means. It's almost always an empty threat simply because of the time and money involved for little gain. The original poster made plenty a fool of himself in the other thread. This one serves zero purpose and could potentially cause plenty of harm.

Gotta agree to disagree on this one I guess. :shrug01:
Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree with that statement. However, in this case, I see that there is the potential for a lot of gain here, if the case is against his business, and a lawyer can be found who can review the case, decide its merits and perhaps will work and bill defendant.:D

*just tossing out ideas here..I am getting tired of Skandelus coming and spouting garbage, it would be nice if someone actually did take him to court; doing so, may teach him a much needed lesson.
 
Clay Davenport said:
We really don't need the petty personal digs in the thread guys. It'll just serve to side track things with endless posts of sideline bickering.
If you don't have anything constructive to add to the thread just use PM.
Click to expand...

:iagree:

It irks me when threads fall off track and become insult wars. It makes me less likely to take anything valid a person has to say seriously. It's really hard to respect what a person says when sarcasm and insults are marring the wisdom.
 
Normally, I would agree with that statement. However, in this case, I see that there is the potential for a lot of gain here, if the case is against his business, and a lawyer can be found who can review the case, decide its merits and perhaps will work and bill defendant.:D
Click to expand...

I have a feeling most would consider it a waste of their time, unfortunately.

*just tossing out ideas here..I am getting tired of Skandelus coming and spouting garbage, it would be nice if someone actually did take him to court; doing so, may teach him a much needed lesson.
Click to expand...

THAT I agree with wholeheartedly!

I'm thankful for the thread on Guy. I almost purchased the baby in the photos in question. Had I paid him for the baby and found out it was actually bred by and from Vicki, whom I have purchased from before and love to pieces...I would have been extremely pissed. I wanted to purchase that baby from Guy under the assumption (I know I know...) that he produced it. That baby is very likely related to the other two babies I have that I intended to pair it with in the future. Gah.
 
And my checklist of people to not deal with gets longer..........................

The only thing that makes me feel better is knowing that the little flashes in the pan in this hobby like you two only last for a brief moment and then you are gone and forgotten forever. I am just glad you chose speed up that process by starting this thread and reconfirming why people should never deal with you or Guy.
 
gallerygeckos said:
I have a feeling most would consider it a waste of their time, unfortunately.

.
Click to expand...

I would be thankful if most considered something like that a waste of time. I wish more would look at frivolous lawsuits and consider them a waste of time.

As for this thread, I have a tendency to agree with Sarah. How many people will not take the time to read through a thread or link to another thread. How many will see the meg90 bad guy thread and not pursue it further.

I do agree with Deb in the sense that it has certainly served to show what kind of person erik truly is but I think that was done sufficiently in the original thread. If it were me I would not want this up here and I don't care how much the starter looks like a jerk.
 
I don't get it... What's the point of making fun of the kid for posting something obviously not BOI worthy... Three pages worth of implying someone is a little slow or immature over and over again is overkill.
 
Actually.. since scan couldn't tell if any of those stolen pictures were really Guy's or stolen, I don't take HIS word that the pic is Guy's picture.

Could you prove that? If you CAN prove that's Guy's pic taken by Guy, then can you please explain how you know it this time, but were totally ignorant of all the previous stolen pics?

Also, you did not explain how you editted a logo OUT of a picture with cropping yet still somehow thought that Guy took that pic. I believe you sidestepped rather badly by claiming since it was taken down, it was no big deal.. after all the claims that you understand people shouldn't steal pics to use.
 
This thread gave me a giggle. Thank you to all of my valiant defenders. I exposed a pair of cheats and a flipper, in a thread that went down in flames so its only life being life that I should end up with a burnt edge on my sleeve.

Yes I linked the photo. I acknowledged that it came from Guy's website. I didn't steal anything. I hate clicking on picture links in threads, so I posted it in a way where it would show up in the body of a reply, big and clear. Perhaps a screen cap would have been better ;).

I too, agree that it is laughable to post a "bad guy" thread on someone for linking a photo, but I will say it only served to further my purpose in exposing a PAIR of cheats and liars for the people they really were. It takes some real class to retaliate in such a childish manner. I would say that I am still waiting for Guy Brunke to "get me back" but his lapdog seems to have taken care of it. These two knuckleheads would be hard pressed to find anything legitimate on me so of course, the took the easy way out, as is their norm!
 
Ridiculous drama from the second party that got himself tangled up and outted. No worries here, at all, about Meg's business practices, morals, or humanity...

Ignore this guy so he'll go away! Please.

Pam
 
Back
Top