Talk:Amalea

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

bravo! just like being there! SchmuckyTheCat 23:43, 9 Jan 2005 (GMT)

who is it be to who you are referring to regarding the skills of said who and employment of who you are referring to when you mention participation of them who are doctoring of the images as to whom you are referring when there are multiple who move to have you stfu and behoove you thus and therefore. MojoJojo 12:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
and, also, to sign your additions thusly ~~~~ so some kind of conversation can be formed. kthxbye.

Barney says:
There is no use in deleting your real name from the image caption, we have screenshots to prove our case. It is possible there are other individuals and/or organizations that may have an interest in your extra curricular activites. The owner of this site knows what I mean, everyone can mind their own business. All I ask is that you take down those images, you may keep the commentary and say whatever you want, just take down the identifiable images and we will leave you be.

"ust take down the identifiable images and we will leave you be" Is that like the royal "we"? --Ghettofinger 21:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I taunt you again. SchmuckyTheCat 20:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All information about this site is freely available - on this site. It is not my fault you don't know how to use a wiki. I am the domain owner and I don't know what you are talking about or who you are. Also, how is anything identifiable about anything? The only real name used is mine. Also, if anyone - this goes for you and everyone else - would like an image removed from the site they have to actually CONTACT THE SITE OWNER. We have had no contact WHATSOEVER in reference to this article other than talk pages here. We have no ability to verify the identity of "barney" as it's simply a username on a website, just as "amalea" is a username on a website. If the owner of the images would like them taken down they need to actually make formal contact - writing a little note here with no information IS NOT ENOUGH. This is typical of all websites all over the world. Please actually contact an authorized owner of the site through telephone or email. --girlvinyl 20:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Barred from editing

The nature of the Wiki is that everyone can add or edit freely. This ability was removed from me after I edited Amalea's entry and later the article called me a "puppet" who was "vandalizing". How pray tell, does one vandalize a Wiki when they are adding information that is not against its TOS or rules? I find that quite hypocritical. I am willing to testify if need be that the Edit function was removed from Amalea's page for close to a week and I was not able to edit her article. During this time, curiously, Girl Vinyl's real name showed up in Amalea's article. I wonder how it got there. It had to have been added by someone with administrative control over the site because Amalea's article was blocked from editing during that time. Whether or not girlvinyl is the culprit of this malicious attack, she is now associated with the admin of this site. With girlvinyl's extensive computer background and experience, I find it hard to believe she is completely innocent in all of this.

The article as penned is really about sitting in judgement of someone because they don't see things your way. Very much anti-freedom and anti-peace. In fact, the entire concept of this site is anti-peace. Don't bother protesting a war on foreign soil when you're doing all you can to start one on your own. -- Verbena

I am of the opinion that you are fucking nuts. This just cinches it for me. --Ghettofinger 21:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a public website. I speak as it's owner and sole administrator. The front page is ALWAYS protected. Any page that experiences vanalism is also protected for a period of time to allow those doing the editing to cool off. I saw an edit war, I stopped it. I don't care about the content of this article, or most of the others. I don't have time to. When people vandalize or cause trouble, I either ban the user or lock the page. Those are the options when people are doing rapid-fire edits that are conflicting. Have a better idea? Let me know.

Testify as to what? There are no real names used on any of this. We might as well change the article title to "ronald mcdonald". If you do not like the site, please - do not visit it. However, if you vandalize or engage in edit wars, the article will be locked and your IP address, netblock or username could be banned. Any of these are perfectly acceptable moderation techniques. You opinion of this site is just that - an opinion. Everyone has a right to one, and I certainly don't care to hear your's.

Not a single contact has been made by the person depicted in the image above to voice displeasure or demand removal. Not once. I find it hard to believe that the person pictured really minds. They've made no good faith effort to voice a request for removal. That can be done with the whois information in the domain info. If there are no objections by the actual person, why should your opinion matter more than their's? --girlvinyl 21:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My worthless opinion as I'm not the owner: This is a satire and humor site. Satire is funniest when it contains an element of truth. An unbiased article wouldn't be satire and would be unfunny. Editing of the Amalea article was removed from EVERYONE after several Amalea cronies vandalized and blanked it, vandalism and blanking is unfunny.

Specifically though, i think gv added her own name in response to generic internet lawsuit threats - your response here smacks of it too. Nobody cares about your "willing to testify." I've done quite a bit of editing of the article, because it's funny. I have no idea who this chick is, I just re-word sentences and make links, and the drama of watching the thing playout is entertaining. That's reason enough to keep doing it. SchmuckyTheCat 21:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as how we were barred from editing this page for about a week (meaning that the wiki idea is out the window + you can always re-edit it and add the image back, which is not acceptable), and your real name was right under the image (which we have screenshots of to prove our case, even though you removed it recently).

Not gonna take it down? Fine, but suffer the consequences. Consider this your last chance, take down the image, thats all we ask of you. We refuse to phone or email you (just another way for you to get personal information and use it against us, like you did here).

Keep in mind when refusing to remove the image that there are other individuals and/or organizations that may have an interest in your extra curricular activites....

As said before, you can keep the commentary and say what you will, just take down the images that identify amalea, you dont have to change the name, just take down the image and do not re-post any other images of Amalea.

You can go down the hard way or the easy way, your choice.

PS: ANYONE would mind if their picture was used and doctored in such ways, quit acting ignorant and do the right thing.

This is Barneys last post, thank you.

You are such a turd. Jesus Christ. --Ghettofinger 21:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right. So, if anyone no matter who they are asks to have a picture removed, I have to do it? You need to get the ACTUAL person identified in the photo to email stating they are the copyright holder. That is how the DMCA and copyrights work. There are even templates on the internet that you can fill out so you don't have to know anything. It's really easy. Also, I already have all of your information - it is freely available on the internet. Sigh. Ok. You know what... I'll take the pic down and lock the article. I hope that will please you :] YOU WIN!!!! :D :D :D :D --girlvinyl 21:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I already have all of your information"

If that is true then you know I am authorized to speak on behalf of amalea and you will take it down.

- I have information for the user named "amalea" I don't know who the fuck YOU are. Also, if you do not properly request removal, we are not obligated to do anything. Please google for DMCA notifcation and use it. Although... its pointless now, as the image has been removed. You will need to hit refresh on your browser about a hundered times because you are using IE 6. --girlvinyl 21:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, for the love of Christ SIGN YOUR POSTS. YOU ARE A TURD! Also, nice pics. --Ghettofinger 21:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"I speak as it's owner and sole administrator. The front page is ALWAYS protected." I was not talking about the "front page". I was talking about Amalea's article only.

"Any page that experiences vanalism is also protected for a period of time to allow those doing the editing to cool off. I saw an edit war, I stopped it." So you saw libel and harassment and did nothing at all, but when someone blanked the page, and someone added a new article, it was considered a "war" and "vandalism"? Vandalism is "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property." I was not maliciously destroying anything, and I can't see how simply removing something which consists of libel and copyright infringement constitutes "defacing/destroying" it, either. I replaced the article that was there with my own observations about Amalea which were subsequently removed by you. I obeyed the rules of the Wiki, and you arbitrarily decided to change what I wrote because it was not hateful enough. I am left with the conviction that the reason you took my article down was because it didn't include hate speech. Once the hate speech had been added back into it, you allowed it to stand as it has done for the past days. I do not see you making a move to remedy the situation, and in fact if you were worried about a "war" or vandalism, I might think you would NOT have put Amalea's article on the FRONT PAGE of your site. I'm sorry, Sir, but you're outright lying to me and everyone else, and possibly even yourself here. The facts do not support your claims. You claim to be the "owner and sole administrator", so if in fact it's true that you were concerned about a war or having your site vandalized, I can't see why you would antagonize people by putting Amalea's page on the front door. By your own admission, you are the only one who could have put her page in the spotlight.

"I don't care about the content of this article, or most of the others. I don't have time to." I have just proven to you that you do.

"When people vandalize or cause trouble, I either ban the user or lock the page." Or antagonize people by spotlighting the page to make sure it gets MORE exposure. Strangely enough, during the time her page was locked, the caption of her photo changed. That had to have been you, then. As sole admin and owner as you stated, of course. You're not fooling anyone.

"Testify as to what? There are no real names used on any of this." A picture is the most identifying piece of information you can display. A person in it can be identified, and because of this, you are willingly and knowingly putting a woman in possible danger. You seem to think that crimes perpatrated under a guise of anonymity are somehow not in fact criminal.

"your IP address, netblock or username could be banned." I would hope you'd explain why you suddenly left DreamHost when they were served with a Cease and Desist letter. It's very curious, the timing of it all, don't you think?

"Not a single contact has been made by the person depicted in the image above to voice displeasure or demand removal. Not once. I find it hard to believe that the person pictured really minds. They've made no good faith effort to voice a request for removal. That can be done with the whois information in the domain info. If there are no objections by the actual person, why should your opinion matter more than their's?" If you are not the owner (as you've stated), how would you know this for certain? Either you are the owner, or you are involved in some way with the owner and are therefore an accessory to the crime. Which one is it?

"Editing of the Amalea article was removed from EVERYONE after several Amalea cronies vandalized and blanked it, vandalism and blanking is unfunny. Specifically though, i think gv added her own name in response to generic internet lawsuit threats - your response here smacks of it too." Thank you for substantiating my claim that the continued libel and copyright infringement was indeed the work of the owner, because as you stated here, everyone was barred from editing Amalea's page, so he/she would be the ONLY person who could have changed the caption on the picture to read "Sherrod ". By your own admission, you said that you thought girlvinyl (aka Sherrod ) added her own name to the caption, and since this was done during a time when by your admission EVERYONE was unable to edit, then Sherrod is either the owner or associated with the owner and both people have been involved in criminal mischeif.

The truth shall set you free, people.

--by someone else

Hi. I don't know how many times I need to say it - I AM THE SOLE OWNER OF THE SITE. Christ. I can categorically say that I have NOT recieved an email, telephone call or otherwise asking that the picture be removed. Therefor, the owner of the site is telling you RIGHT NOW that no attempt has EVER been made by the individal pictured in the photo formerly on thsi site to have it removed. I am sorry this is difficult for you to understand. All of this is irrelevent as the picture HAS been removed at this point, so I don't know wtf your point is anymore.

wrt dreamhost - this site has never been hosted on dreamhost. They don't all installation of wikis and they never have. Also, you are required to contact the owner of the site before contacting the ISP. I currently have many sites in good standing with Dh. I'm one of their favourite customers. why do you think I advertise them all the time? Do you really think I'd cheerlead for a service that forced me to take my site down? --girlvinyl 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW I'm not out to hurt anyone or endanger anyone. I think that when "drama" becomes criminal, steps should be taken to make sure that all parties involved are not exposed to danger and the crime must be stopped. You may say that your site is harmless fun, but you have received complaints and have responded with antagonism -- what was it you put in the caption? "I don't give a fuck"? That is not the way to respond to this problem. The fact that you have not yet reprimanded any other person for what they have written about Amalea (besides myself and "Barney" who are clearly against libel and infringement et al. proves that you have a personal motive to harm or injure her. I hope you will seriously think about this because the facts and the evidence (all mocking and cussing aside) are not painting a picture that favors you. Someone once said that the only way evil will flourish is for good people to do nothing. It seems that by going out of your way to make sure Amalea's page is filled with libel, hate speech, personally identifying photos, copyright infringement and harassment, that you DO have the time and interest in this and are willfully disobeying the law. You can ban me if you think that what I have stated is somehow inciting a "war" or "vandalizing". I'm sorry that you think "drama" comes before being a human being or having a bit of understanding, empathy or compassion.

THERE IS NOTHING CRIMINAL HERE. STFU. SchmuckyTheCat 22:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

new headline

I was just recently made aware of this article, another user asked me to stop the edit war, so I froze the article, allowing people to talk it out in the comments. That is the BEST way to handle these issues. I do not like banning people and I don't like locking articles. If I did, I would just do it to people I didn't like whenever I wanted to. I have not broken ANY laws. Wheras, miss "amalea" actually has. :] But that will NOT be discussed on a fucking website comment page. That will be taken care of the proper, legal way. Posting shit on an internet website is NOT the way to get your voice heard. A million changes a day get made to this site, I don't have time to deal with them all. I think we've reached a good compromise on this article and the rest of the issues such as the threats and the posting of personal information of mine and the posting of SEVERAL copyrighted works will be dealt with properly. I have easily [within a matter of 3 days in fact] complied with the informal request of a stranger with no credentials or identifying information just to get them to shut up. Now we will see if "amalea" will do the same. I have made my formal requests in reference to infrigenment and publishing my personal information with the proper parties. I will do the right thing, despite her insistance that she does not have to. --girlvinyl 22:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"wrt dreamhost - this site has never been hosted on dreamhost."

http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=dnsrec&Netnic=whois.arin.net&host=encyclopediadramatica.com

Please stop lying.

-- someone

YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD THOSE ARE THE FUCKING NAME SERVERS THAT ARE AUTHORITATIVE FOR ED. MAN YOU ARE A L33T HAX0R.. DO YOU NEED A JOB?? --Ghettofinger 22:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sherrod is the sole owner of the site, OK. Got it. So you are responsible for stealing images that don't belong to you and posting them without the copyright holder's consent. You are also guilty of libel, since you have not proven that what is stated in the articles posted is true and as administrator you are responsible ultimately for what is posted on your site.

No matter how you try to defend yourself in this, you are very much suspect because of the power you have over the site and what is posted on it. I'm very disturbed that a person with your background is responsible for stuff like this. It seems terribly petty and such a waste of time, especially considering your achievements and current studies.

What is it with all this cursing? Can no one speak civilly anymore? Saying "STFU" is simply advocating censorship. -- someone else

Ummm. Look, I know you don't understand how the internet works, and that's ok. But let me tell you something about my beloved dreamhost. They do not allow installation of wikis. They never have. Even if they did - the traffic this site takes, a DH virtual hosting plan could NEVER handle. It would buckle under the weight. DH keeps a DNS record for us. That's completely different from hosting the content that you are reading right now. It's like how you go to godaddy.com to register a domain, but you don't actually HOST your content there. Dig? In fact, "amalea" HAS the IP address - as does everyone with ping capabilities, so she can see for herself that this website is not hosted at dreamhost. It's all pretty easy. Also, why are you still here? --girlvinyl 22:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cursing is fun. Also, before throwing legal terms around, please look them up. This helpful page is hosted right here. libel SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reference to article plz

Defamation

I love you. --Ghettofinger 22:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok whatever, look amaleas images have been taken down and in return we took down the images of you.

Thanks for taking down the image, we will be checking back to make sure the image is not re-added in the future. Good luck with your site, although I do agree that a person with as much education as you have and achievements and current studies, you could and should be doing something better with your time.

"I was just recently made aware of this article, another user asked me to stop the edit war, so I froze the article...That is the BEST way to handle these issues." A user complained about the article and you stopped the edit war within HOURS (I know because I was there at the time) but another person asks you to remove a photo and you not only don't remove it, but you add your name under it with the words "I don't give a fuck." Is this REALLY the BEST way to handle these issues?

"Wheras, miss "amalea" actually has." That is something you need to take up with her. But it does seem the pot is calling the kettle black.

"Posting shit on an internet website is NOT the way to get your voice heard." Especially when the owner of a site disagrees with what you have to say;)

"the posting of personal information of mine and the posting of SEVERAL copyrighted works will be dealt with properly." Of course this isn't right. And I'm sure if she is doing something wrong she will act to remedy it. But again, it does seem hypocritical that when her image is used you "don't give a fuck" but when YOUR images are used it's suddenly important.

"I have easily [within a matter of 3 days in fact] complied with the informal request of a stranger with no credentials or identifying information just to get them to shut up." Yet you didn't complain when you were notified of a "war" (a war consisting of two or three edits to the article in question when the edit ability was removed. You acted on that in record time!)

Nevada NRS 200.575 § 3 Stalking: Definitions and Penalties A person who commits the crime of stalking with the use of an Internet or network site or electronic mail or any other similar means of communication to publish, display or distribute information in a manner that substantially increases the risk of harm or violence to the victim shall be punished for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130

You may argue semantics, but you know what was written was unkind, unfair, criminal and potentially harmful to the victim.

well i guess since your linking to my host and still displaying images of me, its only fair that I mail what I had planned to mail to your employer. You asked for it, now you got it.

and just so you know that im serious

I will mail monday if you dont stop direct linking to my site right now, thus stealing my bandwidth which is also illegal. I have screenshots left and right proving everything you have done to me, and if you want to continue this, your out of luck cause im ending it now.

Amalea, you crazy stalker, you, get the fuck over it. Get back to your loveless marriage and stop following around people who are more popular than you on the internet. Or take some more pictures of your eyebrow-less face. *HUGGLEZ* -- Dancingdrew 01:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

iawtc --Ghettofinger 01:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought your last reponse was a while ago. Also, you do realize that if you contact my employer then YOU are the one harassing me? I mean, read the law carefully, it repeatedly says that it must illustrate a "pattern of behavior" my behavior has been running my site and even responding to requests by third parties, this is a parody site. "Amalea" is threatening me [I have screenshots of her doing that, as well as posting my personal information on livejournal, as well as posting a map to my home on the internet, as well as email from a photobucket administrator wrt to the images she posted.] All of these things combined make me very concerned for my safety. I haven't actually done anything other than what you or whomever asked - which was to take down the photo. As it stands now, you are currently threatening and blackmailing me anonymously over the internet. --girlvinyl 01:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

She can't even handle posting in this forum properly let alone understand the law. --Chemchick 17:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*waves at chemchick* Neurophyre 06:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OMG

OMG! What drama!

BTW, the image links are no good. --Jacknstock 00:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lollogasm -- Subbes

re: shitty tripod site never once did we post her address. she is, as we already knew, a fucking moron. "the state I live in does not have any kind of E-laws on harassment and/or terrorizing, so I can write this and still be within my rights." good job, actually harrassing someone as opposed to posting something on a humor website is a great idea. ALSO: dear cunt, please learn to understand humor. parody, satire, and sarcasm are all very entertaining and important in understanding this website. --kh

She lives in Wisconsin, which DOES have cybercrime laws related to harassment, and the federal government has its own. Expecting brilliance from someone who sells photos of her children on the internet is probably over the top, though. I've half a mind to actually contact her local authorities and let them know about her illegal activities. --Dancingdrew 09:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, she seems to think that posting links to information that is freely available (like a "whois" or whatever) is the same as posting private information. Hell, I can even find what looks like it might very well be her home phone number, based on information that she, herself, has available on the net for anyone to find, and I didn't even have to leave my desk. So I don't know what the hell she thinks is "private" when she allows the information to be posted all over the web in various places already. -eppi

Yeah. That's pretty much what the people here tell her. Oh well, I really don't like all this, but amalea has actually broken the law by posting harassing and defaming things about me. Her article is a single parody article amongst 603 others. It isn't special and it's not targetted. Sigh. Oh well. --girlvinyl 05:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LMFAO!!!! The Tripod site is gone, leaving only this message: The page you are attempting to access has been removed because it violated Tripod's Terms of Service. Please check out Tripod's Help system for more information. I know it's just a shitty Tripod site, but it's still kinda funny, given that she was trying to get this site taken down or something, and then her "revenge" site gets pulled for TOS. Just something ironic about that. -eppi

hahah..

This is hilarious...

This is better than any LJ Drama we've got going. This girl and her internet buddies just keep providing more and more laughs for all. Do they not get that they are the ones that are continuing to perpetuate this drama? Had they just shut the fuck up about this shit, everyone else on the internets would have forgetten about it by now. Fuckwits!

--Scarlet-sysop 17:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So how many times do you suppose she'll end up being featured on ljdrama.org? -eppi

Hopefully she's started another journal so she can make an ass out of herself again. You would think she would listen to people who have told her to shut up and just let it go, but she's just made it even worse. I guess she enjoys embarassing herself. -- brownie

Posting in funny ass Wiki Drama!--B_iGP_imp_in 01:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. That link you posted, girlvinyl? COMIC GOLD! --Joyce Jun'r 13:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but it sure looks exciting!! -Jameth 21:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey

New section. This one is about: pants. --Alex¯^jon 08:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Now it's about fair use laws and how they apply to satire/commentary! §a¡n† S¡†hney

A. Fair Use Defense for a Copyright Claim
The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is
not an infringement of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. The idea of fair use
reflects copyright law’s careful consideration of First Amendment principles, as
fair use permits later authors “to use a previous author’s copyright to introduce
new ideas or concepts to the public.” SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268
F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 107 of the Copyright Act delineates a
nonexclusive list of four factors to assist courts in determining whether a given
use of a copyrighted work is fair. The factors include:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. § 107.
2
Each factor should be explored and weighed on a case-by-case basis, and
depending on the facts of the case, some factors may weigh more heavily than
others. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577–78 (1994).
Moreover, the factors should not be analyzed in a vacuum; indeed, the factors are
interrelated. See id. at 579; see also Abilene Music, Inc. v. Sony Music Entm’t,
320 F. Supp. 2d 84, 89 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“Once a work is determined to be a
parody, the second, third, and fourth factors are unlikely to militate against a
finding of fair use.”).

OMG FUN!

amalea is purged. WHO WANTS TO BE AMALEA?--hardvice (talk) 19:26, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

technical shit

is there any way to not send referrers from this page? people who click the links without copy/pasting are getting a pretty lame 403 page. --kh/ what 22:05, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

What I like best is that she's screwed up her referrer redirects so that even links she posts on her forums get blocked (like this one. She really is an unbearably stupid whore. FIX YOUR WHITELIST, BITCH!--hardvice (talk) 16:42, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- i love .htaccess. it leads to so much funny. --kh/ what 17:24, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

ummm

I may know amalea irl. is this her?

Ha-Ha!!!

I found her!

Jesus

What the fuck is wrong with Americans. JDIRE 03:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a thing, my friend. Nah I'm just kidding, everything is fucking wrong with Americans. Might have something to do with she-male obsessions.

.

Talk:Amalea

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

Contents

Schlager

BALETED!

Vague threat

Barred from editing

new headline

Reference to article plz

OMG

hahah..

Hey

OMG FUN!

technical shit

ummm

Ha-Ha!!!

Jesus

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Link to this

Search

Toolbox