We have noticed a reluctance of members of the Celebrity Worship Cult to report to the Disintegration Chambers when directed to do so for the good of the economy and humanity.This is unacceptable, as you moron losers are screwing and distorting life for rational people.
So this is our sure-fire plan: You will each wear the hat pictured above. This will make it easy to spot you from anywhere, even from airplanes and helicopters and maybe even on Google Earth. You will then get what’s coming to you.
Now you’re probably saying to yourself “That’s silly, now that we know your evil plan, we won’t wear the hat”.
Yes you will.
You will not resist in anyway. You will wear the hat, even as you struggle with the great anxiety of doing so. You are one of Pavlov’s dogs. Do not underestimate your simple mindedness.
By now you’re no doubt wondering how we will accomplish that, so here’s the rest of the plan:
We’re going to use Heidi Klum. She will wear the hat, you will follow.Klum came to our attention because she sued an unemployed man for $2800 because he made a handful of flyers announcing a Friday night dance in his small town, and made the huge mistake of using a photo of her from the internet. He doesn’t even know who she is. She won that suit, and thankfully, a socialite and actress, Jenny Elvers Elbertzhagen, stepped in to pay the money.
Now Klum’s annual income is estimated at $14 million ($14,002,800 this year). And where does this broken ego, sack-O-slut asshole get this money?
From you.
To give her proper credit, we know she can endure being photographed for nearly three hours straight, but she doesn’t do anything to really earn the truckloads of money you brain-dead cretins send her.
If she craps her pants, you pay to see the stain. If she blows her nose, you jerk-offs bid on it at Ebay. If she endorses a shit sandwich, you line up to buy ‘em and eat ‘em.
So now you’re thinking “Now that she knows your evil plan, she won’t hurt us, she won’t wear the hat”.
Yes she will.
She doesn’t care about you beyond separating you from your money and you stroking her dilapidated ego.
So we will offer her money and compliments in exchange for your demise. And she will wear the hat, despite the deep foreboding she feels about her own well-being. She is a Pavlov dog on steroids.
When her turn comes to enter the Chamber, we will tell her how awesome she is, and she will happily sign over her fortune to us. We will then use that to build more Chambers.
And the world will be a better place.
So it's okay to use someone's image without permission if you're ignorant and out of work? That's a new one on me.
ReplyDeleteI can see your enlightened approach to misappropriation and copyright infringement taking off. You could get the city's homeless to pirate copies of Metallica's back catalogue, paste a big photo of Rihanna being attacked by her fella-fella-fella on the cover and hire a community lawyer to get them all off the hook on the grounds that they don't know who Chris Brown OR Lars Ulrich are. Makes perfect sense.
Well, Berko, You're ignorant and TMR has never sued you, and now we find out you're also a ruthless asshole.
ReplyDeleteMost who had the need to pursue this crap in a small obscure town, and against an apologetic, non-combative infringer, for the innocuous reason he did it, would simply issue a cease and desist letter and drop it.
This happens millions of times on the internet, and the usual remedy is a request to the offender to remove the content. No big deal.
To send lawyers after some small potatoes like this (and with a lawyer he probably would have beat this) shows, in my opinion, that Klum is a mean-spirited, petty and insecure jerk-off, and you might be nothing more than a boil on her ass.
So yes, Berko, it is an enlightened approach and it does make perfect sense - that's why you don't get it.
You've only managed to prove that without the two of you, the world would indeed be a better place.
The "unearned income" line on Klum's tax return is getting pretty fat.
Oh, I almost forgot, Berko -
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your new hat.
But you see there is a difference between turning one's argument back on itself and outright abusing them. By telling me I am ruthless shit-hat wearer, your proposition is different to mine. It's a difference it style. But it's more than that.
ReplyDeleteSee, I don't anything about Heidi Klum, beyond that she's hot to look at and she seems to have her own vapid area of expertise. In this she is no different to celebrities of all stripes and I wouldn't know if she would piss on a burning Berko or not. Possibly only if I use her image for some unsanctioned purpose.
The way I look at, it's not the responsibility of the person whose image is being used for promotion that they have no awareness of, nor have been paid the courtesy of being asked whether they do endorse the cat haven in Newhaven.
It's not up to them to determine the income of the perp, whether they are a stalker or a hostile critic, whether they are as dumb as mud and just thought you looked purty.
You want to make up the rules as you go along: "oh she's a skank with too much money" "he's a New Age cretin" It's all one big dreary ad hominem argument where it depends whose doing the crime and whose having the crime done to them.
There's enough of that in the judiciary system as it is without adding to it.
I imagine that most stars have lawyers who go out looking for instances of someone - anyone - taking their name in vain or using their image for profit, or deceptive 'endorsement'. I'm pretty sure even the coolest on the block don't send their legals out with strict instructions to check the bank balance and intended usage of each offender. And neither should they have to.