tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post6670727733109795452..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Pro se litigant's motion to quash denied in LaFace Records v. Does 1-5 in Michiganraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-45729937819146661952008-10-18T15:00:00.000-04:002008-10-18T15:00:00.000-04:00Whoops I meant here.Whoops I meant <A HREF="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/07/comment-policies-for-recording-industry.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-8877661044087967212008-10-18T14:12:00.000-04:002008-10-18T14:12:00.000-04:00Not to be vexatious here but each time I click on ...Not to be vexatious here but each time I click on your link above to your policies it leads me right back to this comment page.<BR/><BR/>XxXAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-92213297351466264242008-10-18T12:40:00.000-04:002008-10-18T12:40:00.000-04:00It's pretty hard to know what policy no. 7 and pos...It's pretty hard to know what policy no. 7 and possibly no. 10. are since there are no obvious links to any policies at all on this page that I can see (and I did so a search of the entire http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ page for the keyword "policy" without success).<BR/><BR/>XxXAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-2044040726807560532008-10-18T12:35:00.000-04:002008-10-18T12:35:00.000-04:00I rejected a post for violation of policy no. 7 an...I rejected a post for violation of policy no. 7 and possibly no. 10.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-20608476448865696232008-10-17T21:24:00.000-04:002008-10-17T21:24:00.000-04:00anonymous Chris P...Thanks for catching my error.anonymous Chris P...<BR/><BR/>Thanks for catching my error.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-46412116514067926292008-10-17T20:41:00.000-04:002008-10-17T20:41:00.000-04:00Actually, it was the John Doe #5 motion to quash t...Actually, it was the John Doe #5 motion to quash that was denied, not #4 which was just referenced in this order.<BR/><BR/>ChrisPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com