Just accept it and move on....

[SpiderWebComm]

Dude... lay off the JB crap. Your nitty detective work to try and associate Roadie to JB is terrible. His writing style is nothing like JB and his account is years old.

You, however, likely ARE Mike Lalumeire or however you spell it. In fact, Wilson should run an IP check. That'll show Roadie ain't JB (which is blatantly obvious) and you're mlalum.

Add some knowledge to this site for once and stop stalking other posters.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[champ2107]

spidey, that's him in the picture, he is just a kid on his moms computer lol Can you believe this 16 year old kid was/is allowed to stalk and troll members on here freely and drive them off? lol

 

[sfleinen]

Cowardly?? And this from someone that tries to make a point of superiority by stating what they do for a living?? Amazing that you still have a job in that field!

Did it ever occur to you that it was MY knowledge that I was sharing, and I am free to share it with whom I will, and not share it with whom I don't care to?? Quite frankly, people like you are the reason they all got deleted. You want it all for free, but when the person sharing the knowledge asks for help, what's he get?? NOTHING! Numerous times I asked others, including you specifically, to help do something about some of the people on here, you chose to do nothing, so now you have nothing but the troublemakers.

This is a private set of forums offered to the public, owned and managed by someone else. Not you, not I, not anyone but Mike H. and Jerry F. This is not your property. They (Mike and Jerry) obviously have different ideas on what constitutes "problematic" or troublesome behavior than you do. It is their site. But you continued your crusade to enforce your rules and consequences upon someone else's property. We, the participants, are only responsible for managing OURSELVES. That is something that I have continuously offered you as a response to your pleas for help.

Thaiger wants to state that I thought of myself as a dog. Well, some of us were the "dogs" on here. Mike and Wilson are the dog owners. Some, such as Thaiger, PoolSharkAllen, Duckie, and a few others, are nothing more than the ticks on the dog. They contribute nothing of value, just want to suck the life out of everthing. And, apparently, the owners and the other dogs don't seem to care enough to do something about them.

I chose to try and get rid of the ticks. When that failed, I did the reasonable thing and left the area that was tick infested. I don't like the way the ticks make me react, so I was gone.

As to my previous posting being a collosal waste of time, maybe to you it was. To me, and quite a few others, it wasn't. I helped quite a few on here improve their pool game. I don't consider that a waste of time. I am not out to "make a legacy", like you apparently are. I was just here to help others. That I did. Nice to see your real reason for your posting on here though, just to make a name for yourself. Frankly, that means nothing to me. I just wanted to help, and when that became impossible, I chose to leave. Apparently you also think all the pros that don't post on here are cowardly because they won't freely share their knowledge with anyone on here. At least some on here got the benefit of what I did share freely for a while.

Nice spin, Neil. Legacy? Really? Actually, I was talking about the *information* being available after you're gone. In the true spirit of "helping" people, if you put something out on the public domain, it's now public information. There's no legacy there other than the simple name "Neil." What "legacy" would be involved with just a first name as yours? And what "legacy" would be involved with a seemingly obscure screenname like "sfleinen"?

And, as previously stated, as long as there are people like you around, that are willing to put up with a tick infested hide, nothing will change. I'm curious though, how much precious time have YOU spent scratching the ticks? Time you won't get back, and shouldn't of had to waste in the first place? Go ahead and keep scratching them, and wasting more time knocking those that were smart enough to go somewhere else.

That is a very good question. More time than I care to want to admit. But I view that as part and parcel of being a good netizen. Not all of a netizen's life is a bed of roses. You just have to deal with it.

I deleted because I no longer wish to share with people that only want to attack, not learn something. What is cowardly, is that you choose to call me more names when I'm gone, than to stand up and do something to make the forums a decent place that others would want to share info in.

Really now? Case in point -- you still read these forums (including responded to this post), just as you said you'd do in your pleas as well as subsequent communiques with me. And in those communiques I told you the very same thing -- that while it's your choice to participate in the site or not, I think it's a bad move to delete the content. Funny how you want to spin this as I'm talking behind your back, when we'd had spirited chats offline about this very topic, and I'm not telling you anything I hadn't before.

As a side benefit, I had hoped on an outside chance that a byproduct of me deleting everything would open a few eyes around here, and maybe give some the courage to stand up and do something beneficial here. I see that was just too much of an outside chance of happening now.

Actually, what got your final disappearance noticed, was not your disappearance itself. It was the periodic "bumps" you'd do a new or existing thread with nothing more than "..........." as the text. For example, I *told you* that I noticed your final departure when you "bumped" a thread by posting an empty post, and I would go to that thread to read your new post, only to see that it was empty.

Let's get this straight, Neil -- it *looks like* you were *trying* to get people to notice that you left. That's the only conclusion someone can come to when you're still posting to threads "after your departure date" -- only to have the readership see that this new post is empty:

For example:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3697430#post3697430
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3687806#post3687806
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3682581#post3682581
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=3674376#post3674376

(There are no "Last edited by Neil on..." on these, btw, at the time of this writing. They are pristine NEW posts.)

Oh, and Thaiger and PSAllen, go ahead and report me for referring to you as ticks. I guess that is a terrible thing to do on here. Of course, you referring to me as a dog is perfectly acceptable. And, Sfleinlin, I'll leave this post up just for you.

That's fine. And this is my reply, the content of which is nothing new to you.

-Sean

 

[champ2107]

Neil this guy is also not worth it, he goes from thread to thread deciding who and what is worthy of posting on AZ, i notice he has been doing his stalk/troll thing with JoeyA lately also, he is similar to the calired guy, very amusing guys

 

[Neil]

Let's get this straight, Neil -- it *looks like* you were *trying* to get people to notice that you left. That's the only conclusion someone can come to when you're still posting to threads "after your departure date" -- only to have the readership see that this new post is empty:




-Sean[/QUOTE]

It's your story, tell it any way you like. Just more "garbage". I say that, because of the pm I sent you when you discovered that I was deleting, and why that happened. It wasn't my doing, bringing a few of the posts to the current date, it was a glitch in the forums. And, yeah, your theory makes a lot of sense, I wanted people to notice that I was no longer noticeable?? You sure have a twisted way of seeing things, Sean. Just like everytime someone mentions an aiming system you have to cry "Ad, ad, ad, we can't have any ads on here!" Try seeing the big picture some time, Sean.

I still view the forums from time to time in the dim hope of learning something new that will help my game. And with that, I'm done posting here. It's like talking to a wall, and the same old crap of why I left in the first place. I said my piece, that's it. Flame away.

 

[JMW]

Neil good to see your still following! sfleinen's "holier than thou" attitude on this site is similar to an attention seeking kid, he is best ignored! and speaking of kids, guess who this is in the pic from 2 years ago.

The red sweater makes him look like a girl!

 

[sfleinen]

The red sweater makes him look like a girl!

Ah, so *that's* the kind of stuff going on under the "This message is hidden because champ2107 is on your ignore list"?

<chuckles> "Oh gosh, I guess I'm busted. That's me in the red sweater. Gosh, I'm so, *so* embarrassed! I should've known that one day, champ2107's random musings and Internet-pic plucking would just so happen to pluck a pic off the 'net that actually had me in it."


-Sean

 

[champ2107]

sfleinen that is kelly in the red shirt and that is allen the younger troll version of you in the suit, when you were like 15. poolsharkAllen doesnt call you dad does he?

sfleinen I was hoping you would continue to embarrass yourself trying to trash Neil, it was amusing! I guess you are going to have to go troll joeyA about nicknames and whatever else makes you feel important. :wink: you defiantly do not have what it takes and are not worthy to try me again, your first attack didn't work out to well, remember lol

This is a private set of forums offered to the public, owned and managed by someone else. Not you, not I, not anyone but Mike H. and Jerry F. This is not your property. They (Mike and Jerry) obviously have different ideas on what constitutes "problematic" or troublesome behavior than you do. It is their site. But you continued your crusade to enforce your rules and consequences upon someone else's property. We, the participants, are only responsible for managing OURSELVES. That is something that I have continuously offered you as a response to your pleas for help.


-Sean

lmao!! This guy patrols this site and confronts members in all types of threads and has the balls to post the above poolsharkAllen does this as well with the rules

Dub, We have forum rules that specify that posters will not be attacked, insulted or called names for expressing a opinion. Even with those rules in place, certain members especially from the so-called yeahsayer camp oftentimes take liberties in violating the forum rules.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Let's continue connecting the dots on Roadie's affiliation with John Barton.

In this thread regarding "Copyright and trademark question", http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=240183, take a look at Roadie's posts #5, 15, 22, 23, 25 and 29.

In these postings, Roadie demonstrates that he is extremely familiar with copyright and trademark laws and he is extremely familiar with John Barton's personal history, as well as with the history of JB cases and with the J. Flowers trademark name.

Roadie's involvement and knowledge of so many different aspects of John Barton's life is just another nail in the coffin that the two are the same person. Read Roadie's post shown below for a example of what I'm talking about:

That is correct. There is no infringement whatsoever. People often jump to the wrong conclusions based on their feelings rather than their actual knowledge of the law. Mr. Barton created a trademark. He did not approriate one. Mr. Flowers did not brand his cases as Flowers cases in the same way that Mr. Justis has done. The brand name used by Mr. Flowers was J.EF Q Cases. Legally a trademark is a very specific logo or collection of words that are attached by the trademark owner to a product or service.

Mr. Barton created a wholly new trademark. "J.Flowers" is no different than J.Smith in this instance. However if Mr. Barton had chosen J.Justis which is technically also an original brand name it is very likely that a court would find that this brand name is confusingly similar to Jack Justis or simply Justis Cases and they would disallow it.

As to the physical appearance or design there is not any automatic copyright extended to utilitarian objects. Thus the construction and shape of a cue case is not protected unless the creator applies for and is granted a design patent. Design patents, when granted, are very narrow in scope and easily circumvented. However Mr. Barton did not copy the construction or appearance of the original cases built by Mr. Flowers so that point is moot.

Next up is the decoration. Artistic expression used on a utilitarian object does have some copyright protection IF it was copyrighted in a protected medium previously. So if you draw an eight ball on a piece of paper that rendering is copyright protected by American law from the moment you create it. I am not legally allowed to then take that image and put it on coffee mugs and sell them without your written permission. The simple arrangement of decorative elements on a utilitarian item is by itself not protected by copyright and falls under the rubrik of design patent above.

One could make the argument for trade dress which is what Apple is using to sue Samsung in their dispute. Apple is claiming that Samsung has copied the look and feel of what makes an Apple product distinctive and therefore they are capitalizing on Apple's trade dress. This argument is tough to prove and will involve millions to settle among these two companies. In general trade dress is though to come about as a developmental process from many influences inside and outside the company. So to say that Mr. Barton has made a cue case that has a similar look and feel to those made by Mr. Flowers would be correct in a loose sense but since Mr. Flowers' cases are no longer made then there is no chance of infringement of trade dress. And in that vein the same argument of infringement of trade dress then also applies to the cases being made by Mr. Justis and Mr. Swift among others. However to be clear this argument would not get very far in the court because the differences in the products of all three current makers are significant enough.

This is a long educational piece about copyright and trademark. The answer to your question is that no, Mr. Barton is not infringing in any way on the intellectual property that Mr. Flowers could have or would have owned. Regarding trademarks it is also important to note that they have a shelf life. Registered trademarks have a term of ten years and design patents have a protected span of 17-20 years and then they MUST be renewed or they lapse. Unregistered trademarks, those designated with the TM or SM symbol, must remain in constant use or they lapse from disuse.

A registered trademark is considered live or dead. Live is when it is in use and registered or in the application process. The trademark office also has rules about using a trademark once it has been registered. They frown on people who register trademarks only to prevent others from using it with no intention to actually use it in commerce. Dead is when a trademark application has been abandoned or the registration has lapsed. At the instant that a trademark is considered dead then it is fair game for anyone to register it and in fact there are services that specialize in attempting to register trademarks which go dead through the negligence of the trademark owner.

Specifically where this applies to Mr. Flowers and his descendants or partners is that the brand name used J.EF Q Cases was not a federally registered trademark. Thus in order to remain live it would have to be in constant use. Which it has not been since the mid-90s. So legally the brand is dead. Legally Mr. Barton could have simply taken that brand. Of course in some people's view he would have been morally wrong to revive that brand and would been even more falsely accused of theft than he has been.

Now that you have the knowledge of what is legal you can make up your own mind as to the morality of Mr. Barton's use of the J.Flowers trademark and the use of certain designs that a somewhat similar to some of the cases made by Mr. Flowers. I don't find anything wrong with it either legally or morally and think that Mr. Barton has done a fine job of creating a line to pay tribute to Mr. Flowers. He owes a tithe to no one in this case.​

You got banned for stalking John Barton and JoeyA in every post possible and inciting them as well as others to fuel your obsessions, and you have bad mouthed CTE or anybody who spoke about it from the beginning and continue to do so.

It's deja vu. Now you claim Roadie is John Barton to replace the real JB, you copy and pasted an old post from JoeyA yesterday which had comments in there from Roger Long who is one of the teachers on your pool website, and your writing style with identical verbage before your ban is in all of your posts. All of your obsessions and insanity are back in full force and you can't stop.

Here are some of your old posts under your original screen name, mlalum, and it's the same nightmare of bashing JB and JoeyA.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/search.php?searchid=9054937&pp=25&page=3

You'll continue to deny it but if you aren't mlalum, Michael Lalumiere, you're his identical twin brother or have been reincarnated into him.

You need to be banned again and banned immediately since you don't provide and never have provided anything of substance on topic.
Stalking trolls don't belong here and you've gotten away with it for too long.

 

[TheThaiger]

Oh, and Thaiger and PSAllen, go ahead and report me for referring to you as ticks. I guess that is a terrible thing to do on here. Of course, you referring to me as a dog is perfectly acceptable. And, Sfleinlin, I'll leave this post up just for you.

I cannot see any eventuality that would lead me to reporting a post to the mods. It's the internet, not real life.

For the record, Neil, I am sorry if what I have posted contributed to you leaving. It was never my intention to upset you. I see the pool community as family - some you love, some you hate, some you love to hate, some you bicker with, some you're attracted to, some you'll avoid like the plague etc etc, but the bottom line is there is respect for all, for we share the same pain and frustration no matter where we are in the world, or whatever our abilities.

The key to life is tolerance of others - and not to take yourself too seriously.

 

[PGHteacher]

I cannot see any eventuality that would lead me to reporting a post to the mods. It's the internet, not real life.

For the record, Neil, I am sorry if what I have posted contributed to you leaving. It was never my intention to upset you. I see the pool community as family - some you love, some you hate, some you love to hate, some you bicker with, some you're attracted to, some you'll avoid like the plague etc etc, but the bottom line is there is respect for all, for we share the same pain and frustration no matter where we are in the world, or whatever our abilities.

The key to life is tolerance of others - and not to take yourself too seriously.

We agree on something. :shocked2:

Only I think that the internet is real life, I am sitting here really living breathing and typing. :smile:

 

[justadub]

Likewise, JB thought he was the top dog beyond all scrutiny.

There are a lot of folks here who feel that way. It's quite evident.

 

[justadub]

Neil, for what its worth, I miss having you here contributing.

 

[jbcases-mike]

For Sale -

 

[Roadie]

Let's continue connecting the dots on Roadie's affiliation with John Barton.

In this thread regarding "Copyright and trademark question", http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=240183, take a look at Roadie's posts #5, 15, 22, 23, 25 and 29.

In these postings, Roadie demonstrates that he is extremely familiar with copyright and trademark laws and he is extremely familiar with John Barton's personal history, as well as with the history of JB cases and with the J. Flowers trademark name.

Roadie's involvement and knowledge of so many different aspects of John Barton's life is just another nail in the coffin that the two are the same person. Read Roadie's post shown below for a example of what I'm talking about:

That is correct. There is no infringement whatsoever. People often jump to the wrong conclusions based on their feelings rather than their actual knowledge of the law. Mr. Barton created a trademark. He did not approriate one. Mr. Flowers did not brand his cases as Flowers cases in the same way that Mr. Justis has done. The brand name used by Mr. Flowers was J.EF Q Cases. Legally a trademark is a very specific logo or collection of words that are attached by the trademark owner to a product or service.

Mr. Barton created a wholly new trademark. "J.Flowers" is no different than J.Smith in this instance. However if Mr. Barton had chosen J.Justis which is technically also an original brand name it is very likely that a court would find that this brand name is confusingly similar to Jack Justis or simply Justis Cases and they would disallow it.

As to the physical appearance or design there is not any automatic copyright extended to utilitarian objects. Thus the construction and shape of a cue case is not protected unless the creator applies for and is granted a design patent. Design patents, when granted, are very narrow in scope and easily circumvented. However Mr. Barton did not copy the construction or appearance of the original cases built by Mr. Flowers so that point is moot.

Next up is the decoration. Artistic expression used on a utilitarian object does have some copyright protection IF it was copyrighted in a protected medium previously. So if you draw an eight ball on a piece of paper that rendering is copyright protected by American law from the moment you create it. I am not legally allowed to then take that image and put it on coffee mugs and sell them without your written permission. The simple arrangement of decorative elements on a utilitarian item is by itself not protected by copyright and falls under the rubrik of design patent above.

One could make the argument for trade dress which is what Apple is using to sue Samsung in their dispute. Apple is claiming that Samsung has copied the look and feel of what makes an Apple product distinctive and therefore they are capitalizing on Apple's trade dress. This argument is tough to prove and will involve millions to settle among these two companies. In general trade dress is though to come about as a developmental process from many influences inside and outside the company. So to say that Mr. Barton has made a cue case that has a similar look and feel to those made by Mr. Flowers would be correct in a loose sense but since Mr. Flowers' cases are no longer made then there is no chance of infringement of trade dress. And in that vein the same argument of infringement of trade dress then also applies to the cases being made by Mr. Justis and Mr. Swift among others. However to be clear this argument would not get very far in the court because the differences in the products of all three current makers are significant enough.

This is a long educational piece about copyright and trademark. The answer to your question is that no, Mr. Barton is not infringing in any way on the intellectual property that Mr. Flowers could have or would have owned. Regarding trademarks it is also important to note that they have a shelf life. Registered trademarks have a term of ten years and design patents have a protected span of 17-20 years and then they MUST be renewed or they lapse. Unregistered trademarks, those designated with the TM or SM symbol, must remain in constant use or they lapse from disuse.

A registered trademark is considered live or dead. Live is when it is in use and registered or in the application process. The trademark office also has rules about using a trademark once it has been registered. They frown on people who register trademarks only to prevent others from using it with no intention to actually use it in commerce. Dead is when a trademark application has been abandoned or the registration has lapsed. At the instant that a trademark is considered dead then it is fair game for anyone to register it and in fact there are services that specialize in attempting to register trademarks which go dead through the negligence of the trademark owner.

Specifically where this applies to Mr. Flowers and his descendants or partners is that the brand name used J.EF Q Cases was not a federally registered trademark. Thus in order to remain live it would have to be in constant use. Which it has not been since the mid-90s. So legally the brand is dead. Legally Mr. Barton could have simply taken that brand. Of course in some people's view he would have been morally wrong to revive that brand and would been even more falsely accused of theft than he has been.

Now that you have the knowledge of what is legal you can make up your own mind as to the morality of Mr. Barton's use of the J.Flowers trademark and the use of certain designs that a somewhat similar to some of the cases made by Mr. Flowers. I don't find anything wrong with it either legally or morally and think that Mr. Barton has done a fine job of creating a line to pay tribute to Mr. Flowers. He owes a tithe to no one in this case.​

This is all you have? It might be news to you but there are other people in the world who have a passing knoweldge of intellectual property law. And for those who don't the internet provides many excellent sources to learn about the subject.

As for knoweldge of Barton and the J.Flowers trademark that is all gleaned easily from Barton's detailed and repetitive postings.

This is the point where I ask you if you have reported yourself to the moderators for breaking the rules. You have taken this thread completely away from the topic with your harassing posts. Since you report and chastise others for breaking the rules shouldn't you be reporting yourself?

 

[TheThaiger]

For Sale -

That's a very nice case.

 

[TheThaiger]

Favorite AZ poster: PoolSharkAllen

:grin:

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

This is all you have?

Taken collectively, the evidence that I've presented is quite convincing that you're John Barton. You still haven't denied that you are JB.

It's up to you now to prove to us that you're not John Barton. :grin:

 

[Roadie]

Taken collectively, the evidence that I've presented is quite convincing that you're John Barton. You still haven't denied that you are JB.

It's up to you now to prove to us that you're not John Barton. :grin:

I don't have to prove anything. My real world identity is not owed to you or anyone else. Is there some compelling reason why you need to know who is typing this?

As I told you before I don't care who you are. I debate your content, what's worth debating anyway.

Taken collectively you have quoted a bunch of posts that mean nothing along with some opinions of a few people who had vested interests in deflecting the conversation away from the real topics.

The burden of proof is on the accuser so unless you have more than this you don't have any actual proof. Conveniently you left out any posts that I made where I criticized Mr. Barton. That did not fit your theory did it?

Truly sir, you are my favorite poster. When it comes to verbal jousting you can be compared to the cat who is easily led around with a laser pointer. Always amusing to the person holding the laser.

My initials are JB, for James Brown, gonna go do my thing, haah! Or perhaps I am Justin Bieber dancing on your dreams.....

Let's recap:

I have posted a few times in defense of John Barton's points.
I (now) own a JB Case.
I use CTE.
I know something about copyrights.
I don't like bullies or hypocrites.
I stand up for others.
I make long posts.
I am famliar with China and pool in China.
I am long time poster going back to RSB.

Gosh looking at all that I must be John Barton then.

Would you like to buy a case? Send $500 to roadie@roadie.com through paypal and I will send you one right away. I promise.

Now, I ask you again, have you reported yourself to the mods for breaking the rules?

 

[Roadie]

Cowardly?? And this from someone that tries to make a point of superiority by stating what they do for a living?? Amazing that you still have a job in that field!

Did it ever occur to you that it was MY knowledge that I was sharing, and I am free to share it with whom I will, and not share it with whom I don't care to?? Quite frankly, people like you are the reason they all got deleted. You want it all for free, but when the person sharing the knowledge asks for help, what's he get?? NOTHING! Numerous times I asked others, including you specifically, to help do something about some of the people on here, you chose to do nothing, so now you have nothing but the troublemakers.

Thaiger wants to state that I thought of myself as a dog. Well, some of us were the "dogs" on here. Mike and Wilson are the dog owners. Some, such as Thaiger, PoolSharkAllen, Duckie, and a few others, are nothing more than the ticks on the dog. They contribute nothing of value, just want to suck the life out of everthing. And, apparently, the owners and the other dogs don't seem to care enough to do something about them.

I chose to try and get rid of the ticks. When that failed, I did the reasonable thing and left the area that was tick infested. I don't like the way the ticks make me react, so I was gone.

As to my previous posting being a collosal waste of time, maybe to you it was. To me, and quite a few others, it wasn't. I helped quite a few on here improve their pool game. I don't consider that a waste of time. I am not out to "make a legacy", like you apparently are. I was just here to help others. That I did. Nice to see your real reason for your posting on here though, just to make a name for yourself. Frankly, that means nothing to me. I just wanted to help, and when that became impossible, I chose to leave. Apparently you also think all the pros that don't post on here are cowardly because they won't freely share their knowledge with anyone on here. At least some on here got the benefit of what I did share freely for a while.

And, as previously stated, as long as there are people like you around, that are willing to put up with a tick infested hide, nothing will change. I'm curious though, how much precious time have YOU spent scratching the ticks? Time you won't get back, and shouldn't of had to waste in the first place? Go ahead and keep scratching them, and wasting more time knocking those that were smart enough to go somewhere else.

I deleted because I no longer wish to share with people that only want to attack, not learn something. What is cowardly, is that you choose to call me more names when I'm gone, than to stand up and do something to make the forums a decent place that others would want to share info in.

As a side benefit, I had hoped on an outside chance that a byproduct of me deleting everything would open a few eyes around here, and maybe give some the courage to stand up and do something beneficial here. I see that was just too much of an outside chance of happening now.

Oh, and Thaiger and PSAllen, go ahead and report me for referring to you as ticks. I guess that is a terrible thing to do on here. Of course, you referring to me as a dog is perfectly acceptable. And, Sfleinlin, I'll leave this post up just for you.

And now you understand the true reality. Whatever you post is only momentary. Nothing you post has any real true lasting value due to the nature of this forum being more like a bar and less like a library.

There are other forums which function quite well at discussing the topics without the drama and those forums do serve a function of preserving helpful content. I often search on google for technical questions concerning material properties and find a wealth of information contained in forums. Very rarely do I see any pettiness and trolling on those forums.

This forum though is far from a technical discussion board. It's a general discussion board and actually is pretty mild among those types. Go to a baseball, basketball, football and even golf forum and you will find people arguing in a much bigger way than here. And predictably you won't find a lot of useful information on those forums either. AZB appears to be somewhere in the middle and at the end of the day it's what is here and you take the good with the bad.

Personally my opinion is that spending time crafting instructionals on forums like this is a waste of time. Were I a technical writer then I would do as Dr. Dave or Matt Sherman does and put my content out of reach of the trolls and simply link to it where relevant. Thus it cannot be polluted or diluted by those who have no real interest in discussions centered around solid points. Those who like to interject personal slurs and cause drama are just a part of life on boards like this. More moderators would help but it won't stop it.

I think it's a shame that you pulled your content but I applaud you for doing it. Unfortunately your content doesn't matter. It already served it's purpose of generating page views in the discussions you created it in. While most SEO companies would stress the value of of a good functioning forum and encourage forum owners to place a lot of value on contributors who write a lot of good content since Google eats that up the fact is that some forum owners just don't care about that.