In "We'll all live online -"

Heh. Indeed.

That's odd, I typed in "clever Mofite" and all it rendered was a smallish bear.

In "The Kitten Has Two Faces"

How is this best of the web? Hehe, cheers Bernockle.

In "Presidential race ends in tie,"

No matter where the election takes place, of course.

Who's with me in pledging no sleep 'til the final recount is over? Nah, I thought so. :)

In "Fake Terrorism?"

I hear those beheading videos were done with Final Cut Pro. (i couldn't resist.)

In ""Occasionally, a homosexual tries to masturbate by lubricating the mouth of a suitable bottle.""

BTW, I'm having a hard time deciding if the original link is parody, paranoia, hate, bad taste or a combination thereof.

From the site tracicle linked: "In the old days, young people were told all sorts of crazy things about masturbation that weren't true." Go read the site, including its stern warnings, then decide whether things are so different from the old days.

In "Curious George: Put on your tinfoil hat before reading this."

Not just for a similar site of another enthusiast, mind you, but to illustrate his online campaign against these antennas because, as the author claims, they would cause cancer. And not just one picture, but twelve of them on one single page. The textual content would (in its wording and its anti-cell phone paranoia) be deemed 'tinfoil hat' by most people I know, but that is not the point here, as we would like to stick to the judicial aspects. Relevant details: -The author writes on his page, "see the photos that were sent to us by anonymous [cell phone antenna] spotters" - however, all the photos on his site are my brother's, and they never sent them to the author of the page. -The author links to my brother's page with the text "click here for the site of an amateur [cell phone antenna] spotter, who is unaware of the enormous dangers of radiation." Why he would want to link to someone else who not only supplied the photos for his own site (albeit without knowledge or consent), but also enables any visitor to view the obvious sources for his pictures, is beyond me. -Most pictures were cropped or otherwise altered, but all are still clearly recognisable when compared to my brother's originals. -Astonishingly, the author explicitly claims copyright for all of the pictures on the page as his own. All of them are my brother's. -My brother has repeatedly tried to contact the infringing site's host about the matter, but they plainly state that they do not wish to do anything about it. As one can expect, my brother is not amused by seeing his photograps published by a third party without his permission, let alone for this questiaonable cause. What judicial leg(s) does he have to stand on? Full disclosure: we are located within the Netherlands. Aforementioned quotes were translated by me from Dutch. IANA(C)L - the C stands for Copyright, of course :) - but maybe some of you might be able to shed some light. All help will be greatly appreciated.

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)