Mazzucco published an article on the home of his site where he complains that the second (actually, it is doubtful), Paul Attivissimo or whoever it would have made the light and would have informed YouTube that Mazzucco, through the account of LuogoComune, he published, in one of his documentary, 30 seconds of the Matrix.
We see, however his words:
probably burned from the video that reveals all the tricks from his booth, Paul Attivissimo - or someone on his behalf - has thought that the best solution was to make it disappear from circulation. Knowing that there is a dispute over copyright between Mediaset and Youtube, someone has literally "spied" on Mediaset, denouncing the misuse of an insert of the Matrix than 30 seconds, I had used in the video "The controlled demolition Paul Attivissimo ", for it removed from Youtube.
In the past, the account of Luogocomune on YouTube, had already undergone two removals because of two movies whose owner had put forward their respective rights, or the AEGIS and the BBC .
The recidivism caused the termination.
Unfortunately in the past the account of "luogocomune" had already undergone two removals (one for the movie "Shoot to Baghdad," made by the company to remove AEGIS contractors, one for the BBC film on the "Crimen Sollicitationis"), for which the third removal triggered the final closing of the account.
Sicuramente Paolo Attivissimo ha di meglio da fare che andare a vedere tutti i filmati che parlano male di lui e prodigarsi per farli cancellare.
Però al di la questa considerazione: ci sono centinaia di filmati su YouTube e centinaia di articoli che denigrano l'operato di Paolo Attivissimo. Ed è stato cancellato proprio il filmato che infrange le regole di YouTube sul copyright. Proprio strano.. chissà quale complotto c'è sotto...
Altra considerazione.
Sai che stai infrangedo una regola abbastanza chiara di youtube, quindi, cosa fai?
Crei un secondo account dove vai a mettere solo i filmati che potrebbero essere oggetto di censura per violazione delle regole sui diritti di autore, maybe?
No, instead Mazzucco what it does? let all the movies on the same account, which, among other things, had already been subjected to two cases of removal of movies, then most at risk of cancellation. Which certainly was known to Mazzucco, remember that the director was born, so it should be quite knowledgeable on the subject.
Reason?
I will only think that did it on purpose, almost hoping for deletion, so that, after the fact, could make the victim screaming and scandal.
addition.
We see a few sentences of his article.
probably burned from the video that reveals all the tricks from his booth, Paul Very active - or someone on his behalf ...
and
's really a shame that the king of Italian debunkers, instead of giving us this opportunity to finally clear that all expected to support the official story on 9 / 11, has been reduced to spy as a 10 year old child (again, he or whoever it) in an attempt to erase the traces of his inability to debate properly.
Not exactly kind words.
But then, in the same Mazzucco first comment to that article also says:
Please also avoid making offensive comments to anyone. To no avail, and can be used by the other party to shift attention from the real issue ...
And what you just said to you Attivissimo were compliments?
Bravo Mazzucco, other proof of your honesty.
Before you shoot up Attivissimo, but then warn others to avoid making offensive comments to anyone.
So much for equal treatment.
Let's read a passage from his article:
's really a shame that the king of Italian debunkers, rather than take this opportunity to finally give us the questions we all seek to support the official story on 9 / 11, has been reduced to spy as a child of 10 years (I repeat, he or "whoever it) in an attempt to erase the traces of his inability to debate properly.
would be interesting to see the evidence that leads Mazzucco to say with certainty that this was Attivissimo or his representative. But perhaps these tests are in addition to those who testify that Frances Oman has told the truth.
obvious that if, with that "those who for him," you mean any person who does not think like you, then you are surely right.
Another gem, just to see the content of the comments that follow: There is talk of
Julian Assange and his indictment for rape. Let's see what he says Jurij
:
But do you think there is a war where soldiers not dirty your hands with crimes?
The speech, if necessary, you may do so by pulling the hair, in the case of "the end justifies the means", but here, the publication of top secret documents and rape are two distinct things and running on two tracks that never intersect.
's like saying, but who cares about the rape, has published documents that would have been kept secret, we fly over.
Tell that, with the same ease, the person who was raped Assange, provided that the rape actually took place.
0 comments:
Post a Comment