I appreciate the links you posted. I'm sure when you did it you expected all of this controversy, didn't you?Scaramouche said:I had posted a link to the youtube poster's list the day before in another thread that asked where video could be found.
I appreciate the links you posted. I'm sure when you did it you expected all of this controversy, didn't you?Scaramouche said:I had posted a link to the youtube poster's list the day before in another thread that asked where video could be found.
MarknTorrance said:Grape jelly, Oh i mean John,
You played the match against jimbo, you lost. You tried in a desperate and pathetic way to not pay up. Every since then you have had a hard on for Jimbo and follow him everywhere. Get over it. Move on. Get a life.
MarknTorrance
Ktown D said:I just thought of something that seems to be very similar. A couple of months ago I saw some info on a female player named Shanelle Loraine and being the borderline perv that I am I made a post about it on IP since the pic and the info came from IP's mainpage. I had a few replies on that site and, low and behold, a post emerges on this site with very similar content.
This is practically the same situation but since the info went from there to here I didn't hear anyone crying foul. That seems kind of hypocritical to me. I personally couldn't give a sh*t because I really don't see the reason for the uproar. Just wanted to make sure you knew that it happens over here as well. I realize this could be a coincidence but probably not.
I just checked the post times to show the time difference to illustrate my point but that was pointless as JR's site had the clock wrong for the forum for a long time. I do however remember when the original post was made here as I frequent both sites at work.
Ktown D said:Apples and oranges. In your example the OP has a compiled a procedure of operation and composed it entirely of his own experiences and practices. The OP owns the content theoretically.
In the situation with the post on this board with the links, the OP only made reference to another person's property that was made available of their own free will. I do not see it as the same thing.
Just another way to look at it. Continue on with your high wire act.
Nick B said:Well I just read all the posts over at IP and it's obvious John you went over there looking for trouble...and found it. Poor me I rode over to the other village...pee'd on City Hall and they ran me out of town.
That's one way of looking at it. Except that this was supposed to be the place where didn't get banned for peeing on City Hall. It was the cornerstone of the foundation.
Come on now. If you got to go over there get your self banned leave it there. What exactly do the members of this forum care? Our village is bigger than yours...nan nannna boo boo. Then you bob and weave a mock argument about copyright and pseudoo intellectual property based on poor law assumptions.
I don't know if the members of AZ care or not. I posted my experience and the relevant link. The ones who care have said so and the ones who don't have also said so. For the enlightenment and education of us all why don't you clarify the legal questions for us. What is the status of a forum post under the law?
They posted a bunch of links to a free and public forum. Neither party has any claim to it. Nevertheless you didn't care. You simply wanted to engage.
Oh, this is your proof, "neither party has any claim to it". So it's okay to take a "bunch of links" from anywhere they happen to be and post them wherever I want to because no one has any claim to them. I see. At the risk of getting another apples/oranges fruit salad thrown in my face I just want to ask if the telephone book and it's collection of links is protected content or not?
The man claims you wagered and lost. He further claims you didn't make good on your obligation.
Yes, a red herring intended to divert attention from the subject as are most off-topics insults including the inclusion of this comment by you.
Many a member was sorry to see Jimbo gone. In the end it was his choice. His actions put into motion a inevitable end. Anything else is simply not honest. Your actions ended in a comparable finish.
It wasn't my choice to be banned. Tom chose to do it. For what reason exactly? I don't know, he doesn't give credit to the source of information he steals as a token courtesy to the place he lifted it from so why should I expect either a warning or a reason. Perhaps the reason was "too much gobbledygook" as he put it. I guess his brain hurt from the barrage of controversy stemming from his impolite affront.
Nick
John, not choosing any sides here, but you do seem to have lots of time to rehash it here. It seems to me as though it was merely a token ban, just the weekend. No big deal. They were merely making a statement that you could not go there and tell them how to run there show. You really have nothing to gain and lots to lose with this discourse. My best advice to you John is to let it rest. Don't bring the skeletons out of the closet.John Barton said:And no Nick I didn't go there looking for trouble. I went there as I go to many boards looking for interesting information. But as I have patiently explained I took offense to the way the post was handled and in this case I posted a deliberately worded response to convey my displeasure. But the response was not personally insulting to either Tom or Jim. It merely gave credit as to WHERE the information came from. The response from them was predictable though and for that I take all the blame or credit.
I don't have time to go places looking to start fights. But you can be sure that I will always voice my opinion wherever I am inspired (and allowed) to do so.
Nick B said:...Many a member was sorry to see Jimbo gone. In the end it was his choice. His actions put into motion a inevitable end. Anything else is simply not honest. Your actions ended in a comparable finish.