my understanding of these lists of 'traits' is that they do apply to all psychopaths, however everyone who has these qualities is not a danger.
Most who have these qualities never become murderers. . .
and thus such lists are discouraged for use other than like this, a kind of casual way.
Applying this kind of list to real people has resulted in some dangerous discrimination against people who have broken no laws.
So answer me this: did they site you as 'an anon' , and 'quote' you?
or did they use your words without sourcing them?
please provide (y o u) caps (though that doesn't really prove it.) and photos from the book of what they stole.
If you can show a post that was pilfered, and the text does not site the bread and post number and say it is from an anon, then you can prove that they need to do a rewrie and include aall the sauce. bread and post numbers.
So they might have to do a second edition.
Maybe they stated in a preface that it all comes from a mash up of anon's posts?
that would a fair use too, wouldn't it, considering we are all anon.
anon, whatever you do here is a 'give away', you need to understand that.
if you are looking for glory here, you are going to have cold water poured on your head (allegorically).
you should be proud that you were sensible enough in your posts to have them quoting you!
according to one of the lastest Ruth authored rulings, unless you already have your copyright certificate from the Commerce Dept, you can't sue them in The United States of America. First you must pay the deepstate trolls at Commerce.
sorry for you.
hey, get over it.
I agree.
One would expect them to provide sauce for all that they used.
Well, now we have accusations of someone feeling 'hurt'. anyone else can 'annotate' their book with bread and post numbers of attribution.
If they want to.
an annotated version of the book should be in the works, I suspect, that does include all of that. But when would that be released?
I agree that any anon who is quoted without attribution in that book ought to feel pride at being meaningful enough to get included.
I agree that all those traits are good reason to stay away from someone. My point is that the list is misused. Eveyone who has those traits should not be hunted and locked up.
can I give you a suggestion:
start your own bread and in there make a list of bread and post numbers that you feel were 'stolen' .
of course you realize all of this is public domain once you hit 'send' unless you didn't own it in the first place.
I think that the truth is that the book is useful for some, and that if there are issues with it you should suggest that the next edition include bread and post numbers, or that they provide an annotated version that does.
A first edition doesn't always include that.
so the first step is to make such a list.
and if you leave it here, they can use it.
but they won't pay you for it.
are they not giving proceeds to charity?