"Scirocco" > wrote in message
...
>
> I still don't understand how a warning could someone you any harm. Also,
> I had nothing to do with the situation going past a simple yellow warning
> for a week. Hell, I've had a yellow warning myself and never felt like I
> was harmed or a victim of "defamation of character".
>

Speaking of hard to understand, that first sentence is a doozy.

I, and many others, fail to understand the use of the warning. Some
clown said you were basically using it just because it's there in the
software - no need to follow in the footsteps of the fools who put it in
there!

What purpose does it serve exactly? It probably just makes that person
more interesting if anything - they'd have to be more likely to post
something good and juicy! I mean, what are other users supposed to do? Stay
away from them? Not read their posts? Oh, I'd better stay away from his
links else I might end up with some really good, free software?

You must be off your ****ing head!

>
> More BS, the following is a copy/paste of what I said:
> "Formula One Administrations Ltd should hold the copyrights on videos. If
> you can show where FOA or another division in the F1 empire such as
> Formula One Licensing BV has held and since then released the videos into
> the "public domain", I'll lift the warning. Otherwise, it'll only be a
> week and yellow isn't that bad a color, is it?"
>
> I have NEVER said the warning would stay for longer than 1 week or
> demanded, or even requested for that matter, a letter from the FIA or
> FOA....
>

Ok, so anyone posting a link to anything needs to get a supreme court
ruling that it is not copyrighted - no worries

RSC policy - never give members the benefit of the doubt and pass up an
opportunity to weild the big, yellow stick!