This is CurtisNeeley's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following CurtisNeeley's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
CurtisNeeley is now following Dory
Aug 14, 2012
I appreciate the appreciation of the mission to show the naked figure as pure art. I must now update my comments in this thread as the original creator and owner of the website I lost the first case and every possible appeal short of the Supreme Court and will not continue to the Supreme Court on the state outrage or federal copyrite claims. Google Inc alleged spending HUNDREDS-of-THOUSANDS already in Neeley v NameMedia Inc, (5:09-cv-05151) in their recent filing opposing Neeley v NameMedia Inc, (5:12-cv-05074) being allowed to proceed. There is no valid legal rational in the Google Inc opposition but the US Courts are overworked and have now been considering dismissal since 4/30/2012 along with the multitude of other cases before the same courts. I just checked with the court and there was no decision today. When there is a decision allowing me to proceed or prohibiting it, the beginning of the END to ALL display of nudity to the anonymous will officially start. United States television and radio were both always censored by the FCC and the conversion to cable generally bypassed this censorship except for the remaining "broadcast" stations. The remaining censorship of these "broadcast" stations is now pending before the Supreme Court in FCC v Fox, (10-1293). Many feel the old rational for censorship of "broadcast" was justified by FCC v Pacifica Foundation back in 1978 and now believe the Supreme Court will end all censorship of mass communications and let the "free market" dictate decency standards entirely. All the amici for FCC v Fox,(10-1293) misinterpreted the law remaining on the books when citing Pacifica. Not just one or two amici supporting the FCC or opposing the FCC but EVERY SINGLE ONE on either side! is now visible to the Supreme Court with paragraph VI 1 with footnote 8 that follows. VI.Federal Communications Commission Malfeasance 1. The display of nudity to minors and the anonymous by Defendant Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation is supported by the FCC refusing to perform the statutory mission for protecting the safety of the public on world-wide wire communications. The Pacifica[8] ruling from 1978 was substituted wholly for the 47 USC §151 statutory rational in error of law. ------------------------------------ (8) FCC v Pacifica The “landmark” First amendment holding from 1978 with the “pervasiveness theory,” held that broadcast speech was “uniquely pervasive” and an “intruder” in the home, and therefore demanded special, artificial content restrictions relying on the pervasiveness of radio waves and failed entirely to address the pervasiveness of wire communications when simultaneously available by radio as internet wire communications are though nonexistent in 1978. ------------------------------------ Nudity can be viewed without lust and can be photographed without lust. Creating and presenting the nude form as art, regardless of how carefully done, creates the potential that these naked figures may be looked upon with lust. Creating art with nude figures and presenting the nude human creates potential "stumbling blocks" and should be avoided by Christians. This obvious fact took me roughly twenty-one years to realize.
Toggle Commented May 24, 2012 on Good Naked vs. Bad Naked at Modestly Yours
Five hundred books might be be hard to sell and justify doing. $10 a book screams - JUNK. The review above is interesting but did not cover my favorite. My favorite is very expensive and might change as a result of reviewing above. My books are printed as purchased. I do not care if they are ever purchased. My book sales are retained in a trust fund to fund a guarantee that no book publisher will ever match and be profitable. I am very impressed with Mr Brooks use of the PDF and his philosophy. My books are online for free as a PDF that looks fairly good. It is a reduced resolution but high enough to preview very well. The binding was the most significant trouble that I encountered. Most POD books look better than commercial "publishers" will ever match. See my first two books including one I do at Blurb. I like their printing but the binding is a bit stiff.
Toggle Commented Apr 14, 2010 on 500 Books at Ask Brooks A parked page licensed to GOOG AdSense for Domains is deceptive advertising. is a Google advertiser. GOOG sponsors or license deceptive ad sites all around site. Try to find one on another site like aamazon? I filed a TM complaint and they ignored it. I was once a Google Inc advertiser. This site is blocked by parked page exclusions but it has at least an attempt at content? Game over guys.
A domain used in commerce establishes a valid claim as a trademark and its expiration date must be recorded in whois but it is a right of the registrar EXCLUSIVELY to advertise and publish the expiration date. A registrar who advertises an expiration date as if it were a lottery ticket violates the copyright of the business that failed to renew the domain. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ When no domain expiration date is EVER advertised the domain industry ceases to exist INSTANTLY. Is registered to Network Solutions and has always been a parked page? It expired Oct 17 and is still not available? Another cover-up? private expirationd dates instead of private whois? This is all they are trying to do with right now. THE SKY IS FALLING
Interesting to see you care so deeply about pets. I cared about my domain names very much like that. How much should loss of a pet to an angry group be worth? is where you can see how 5:09-cv-05151 was started to try to get a jury to price the two domains that were cybersquatted.
I filed for a summary judgment and asked my interrogatories be served in the alternative. They will end what is called an industry that makes absolutely nothing. i sued Google, Network Solutions, and NameMedia. Shill bidding in a shill industry.
The entire "industry" is on the ropes. I am glad Rick made out so well before it crashed. Every registry expiration date that is published by a registrar without written permission violates the copyrights or TM rights of the original owner. It is disclosing private data. They will say, and say to me now, that it is required by ICANN of all registrars and is disclosed in their registry agreement. They are so screwed. ICANN requires a registrar to allow free access to registry data. That is correct. This in no way excuses publishing and advertising domains with registrations about to expire. Registrars sell a registrar contact obfuscation but I think we are seeing the true nature of the fraud that the entire industry has always been.