VEPP online video clips

[Mikjary]

Lou:

Please see my reply to Rich, since it addresses much of what you're asking above. Let's lose the fixation on the real names thing, ok? I only used that for the example of quoting from a book, where you quote the author's name, the title, and the ISBN. Obviously, when you quote from a website where screennames are used, you attribute to the screenname (the privacy issue of not attributing to the full name, even if you know it, is a valid concern).

And this thinking of "we're talking about pool players" is precisely the wrong stance to take on this. One leads by example, not by perceived "educational" or "intelligence" perceptions of his/her audience. (And as a pool player, I'd take issue with your "perception" that we as a group don't care if information is not correctly attributed to the original author.) This is obviously a polarizing issue, and it appears we have folks on both sides of the fence here. So in this instance, I'd err on the side of ethics and correctness, not "what I can get away with, because I think Joe Barbanger doesn't care."

As for the proper attribution idea, in the spirit of following along with the screennames concept, I add my first name just as a friendly "gimme", but I've often mentioned my full name. Not always, of course, because it gets pedantic after a while, but if I have to, in the spirit of "every post can be tracked back to me," I will do so. Again, please lose the full names thing -- it was only an example for the purposes of quoting a book, not a website with screenenames.

-Sean Leinen

Sean,

I noticed you don't have the F in your signature anymore. :grin-square:

Your stand has been noted and out of it a consensus should be policy in the future. Nit picking the status quo is a habit of many more posters here than just yourself. It is also the reason we still have all our First Amendment rights. Well, I think we still do anyway.

Best,
Mike

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave:

Thank you. If you make just this one change -- to allow the user to follow back to the original source (and the context in which it was posted), this will address my main concern.

Again, your suggestion is excellent, and I do plan to address this.

Obviously, Lou disagrees with me, knowing that he supports you unflinchingly, and probably because he might be sensitized to the negative attention you've received from the aiming systems devotees and may be "globbing" my issues in with them. But I hope I addressed those concerns.

I certainly wouldn't describe Lou as an "unflinching" supporter. In fact, he and I have often "butted heads" in the past (although, we usually agree on most important topics). Regardless, I do appreciate the support from Lou and others in the presence of all of the recent and relentless "CTE mob" attacks.

Regards,
Dave

 

[sfleinen]

Sean,

I noticed you don't have the F in your signature anymore. :grin-square:

Your stand has been noted and out of it a consensus should be policy in the future. Nit picking the status quo is a habit of many more posters here than just yourself. It is also the reason we still have all our First Amendment rights. Well, I think we still do anyway.

Best,
Mike

Mike:

Please understand that I *did* get a chuckle out of your reply, but I only saw it a few minutes ago. I'd been offline until now, and obviously had to address a couple more pointed posts than yours (sorry).

I'm status quo as long as the status quo works. When there's something wrong with it, I speak up. I hope the readership knows me by now on that point.

As for the "F" thing -- it's actually for my middle name. Now I'm probably going to catch h*ly h*ll for it, but my middle name is from my father's side of the family (German), named after my grandfather, Frederick. It's not for "Big F'ing Dipstick" as you alluded to earlier.

Thanks again for the chuckle,
-Sean

 

[JoeyA]

Again, your suggestion is excellent, and I do plan to address this.

I certainly wouldn't describe Lou as an "unflinching" supporter. In fact, he and I have often "butted heads" in the past (although, we usually agree on most important topics). Regardless, I do appreciate the support from Lou and others in the presence of all of the recent and relentless "CTE mob" attacks.
Regards,
Dave

Please cease your ad hominem attacks.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou:

Please see my reply to Rich, since it addresses much of what you're asking above. Let's lose the fixation on the real names thing, ok? I only used that for the example of quoting from a book, where you quote the author's name, the title, and the ISBN. Obviously, when you quote from a website where screennames are used, you attribute to the screenname (the privacy issue of not attributing to the full name, even if you know it, is a valid concern).

And this thinking of "we're talking about pool players" is precisely the wrong stance to take on this. One leads by example, not by perceived "educational" or "intelligence" perceptions of his/her audience. (And as a pool player, I'd take issue with your "perception" that we as a group don't care if information is not correctly attributed to the original author.) This is obviously a polarizing issue, and it appears we have folks on both sides of the fence here. So in this instance, I'd err on the side of ethics and correctness, not "what I can get away with, because I think Joe Barbanger doesn't care."

As for the proper attribution idea, in the spirit of following along with the screennames concept, I add my first name just as a friendly "gimme", but I've often mentioned my full name. Not always, of course, because it gets pedantic after a while, but if I have to, in the spirit of "every post can be tracked back to me," I will do so. Again, please lose the full names thing -- it was only an example for the purposes of quoting a book, not a website with screenenames.

-Sean Leinen

Whether you take issue with what pool players as a group look for in a resource site, the fact remains that no one is looking for footnotes and a bibliography. All you have to do is go to any pool room or tournament to figure out that we are not talking about The Royal Family. I count myself among the non-Royals.

And I will lose the full name "fixation" if you will lose the hourly update of your online/offline status fixation

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

...Nit picking the status quo is a habit of many more posters here than just yourself. It is also the reason we still have all our First Amendment rights. Well, I think we still do anyway.

Best,
Mike

Unless the AZ CTE Taliban is on your ass ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Again, your suggestion is excellent, and I do plan to address this.

I certainly wouldn't describe Lou as an "unflinching" supporter. In fact, he and I have often "butted heads" in the past (although, we usually agree on most important topics). Regardless, I do appreciate the support from Lou and others in the presence of all of the recent and relentless "CTE mob" attacks.

Regards,
Dave

It's easier for him if he just whitewashes my position

Lou Figueroa
never a nitpicker around
when you need one

 

[sfleinen]

Whether you take issue with what pool players as a group look for in a resource site, the fact remains that no one is looking for footnotes and a bibliography. All you have to do is go to any pool room or tournament to figure out that we are not talking about The Royal Family. I count myself among the non-Royals.

Footnotes and bibliography? No, Lou. Just a means of proper attribution, 's all. Even a simple link, that goes back to the post the info was lifted from, is enough. Not an "all roads begin and end here" screen-scraping website. While you may want to correlate the pool populace according to what you see in the local pool room, sorry, fella, I'm sure there are many of us that don't consider ourselves "Royals" (an obvious exaggeration on your part), but we don't consider ourselves scum, either.

And I will lose the full name "fixation" if you will lose the hourly update of your online/offline status fixation

Lou Figueroa

Just being conversational, Lou, as I always am in my posts. I address *you* personally when I reply, just as if I were talking to you face to face. More exaggeration on your part, but hey, that's ok.

-Sean

 

[JoeyA]

Unless the AZ CTE Taliban is on your ass ;-)

Lou Figueroa

More ad hominem attacks from the Naysayers.

(And they wonder why they get punished).

 

[dr_dave]

Footnotes and bibliography? No, Lou. Just a means of proper attribution, 's all. Even a simple link, that goes back to the post the info was lifted from, is enough. Not an "all roads begin and end here" screen-scraping website. While you may want to correlate the pool populace according to what you see in the local pool room, sorry, fella, I'm sure there are many of us that don't consider ourselves "Royals" (an obvious exaggeration on your part), but we don't consider ourselves scum, either.

Lou,

What Sean has suggested makes sense, and is very easy to do, and is a good idea. It certainly won't make my site look like some sort of academic journal. That would be terrible! :grin:

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Unless the AZ CTE Taliban is on your ass ;-)

More ad hominem attacks from the Naysayers.

(And they wonder why they get punished).

JoeyA,

... Most Muslims are very kind and respectful people.
... Joey, I consider you and many other CTE proponents to be "good" CTE followers.

Regards,
Dave (not a Naysayer, but a believer of the positive and realistic benefits of CTE and other cut shot "aiming systems")

 

[champ2107]

no time right now...but when i come back we can have some fun

 

[Rich93]

........

The LOGICAL search that one would do, would be the one you quoted. However, it does not turn up the results you think it does. In fact, it only turns up two results -- both leading to Dr. Dave's website, as the attached screenshot attests to.

Now, could one "finagle" with the search terms and ultimately turn up the real source for the information? Sure. But the question remains -- WHY? Why should someone have to do this with obviously-lifted and incorrectly attributed information?
...........

-Sean

Sean, all this is by-the-by now but just to defend myself, the Google result I get is shown in the attached screenshot. Two results turn up - one from Dr. Dave's site and one from AZB. The one from AZB has extra links below the main one. The link titled "Major downsides to a snooker stance in pool" leads to your post quoted by Dr. Dave. When I click on that link I see a post by mosconiac repping you, and the post above that one is your post. That's the same result I got last night, but it could be different tomorrow.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Sean, all this is by-the-by now but just to defend myself, the Google result I get is shown in the attached screenshot. Two results turn up - one from Dr. Dave's site and one from AZB. The one from AZB has extra links below the main one. The link titled "Major downsides to a snooker stance in pool" leads to your post quoted by Dr. Dave. When I click on that link I see a post by mosconiac repping you, and the post above that one is your post. That's the same result I got last night, but it could be different tomorrow.

View attachment 204542

If it's so easy to Google, why didn't Dr. Dave do it and use the reference. It's on Dr. Dave to list the reference correctly, not the reader.

It'd also be nice if Dr. Dave contributed content HERE in lieu of redirecting people back to his site. Sure link people back, but occasionally CONTRIBUTE CONTENT HERE. Paste the info here.

 

[dr_dave]

... occasionally CONTRIBUTE CONTENT HERE. Paste the info here.

This is also a good idea. I will try to do this more; although, sometimes it is difficult and time consuming to duplicate all of the formatting, embedded videos, and numerous links. Also, often my resource pages are many pages long. I wouldn't want to copy and past the entire content of a resource page here. Then people will be mad at me for writing posts that are too long.

Regardless, I get your point ... I can at least sometimes paraphrase the content and provide links for people who want more in-depth information and supporting resources.

Regards,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

Footnotes and bibliography? No, Lou. Just a means of proper attribution, 's all. Even a simple link, that goes back to the post the info was lifted from, is enough. Not an "all roads begin and end here" screen-scraping website. While you may want to correlate the pool populace according to what you see in the local pool room, sorry, fella, I'm sure there are many of us that don't consider ourselves "Royals" (an obvious exaggeration on your part), but we don't consider ourselves scum, either.



Just being conversational, Lou, as I always am in my posts. I address *you* personally when I reply, just as if I were talking to you face to face. More exaggeration on your part, but hey, that's ok.

-Sean

Funny how that kinda "conversational" logic works for you when it serves your porpoises

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

What Sean has suggested makes sense, and is very easy to do, and is a good idea. It certainly won't make my site look like some sort of academic journal. That would be terrible! :grin:

Regards,
Dave

Oh no -- if it works for you, that's great. I just didn't see any problem with the way you were doing it. I guess now, from here on out, you will go to that trouble and satisfy all of one guy. Mazeltov!

Lou Figueroa

 

[dr_dave]

I just didn't see any problem with the way you were doing it.

Me neither, but now I see how linking to sources pages in AZB is a good thing. Some people might want to see the context of a quote, and it is easy for me to provide the links. I think this will make my site even more useful, which is a good thing, IMO.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

JoeyA,

Do you consider yourself to be lumped into the "AZB CTE Taliban" group?

This reminds me of the terrorists vs. Muslim issue. Most Muslims are very kind and respectful people. Unfortunately, most terrorists are Muslims.

Joey, I consider you and many other CTE proponents to be "good" CTE followers (like the "good" Muslims). Only a select few are the "terrorists." It's too bad that many of the "AZB terrorists" also seem to be CTE followers. This sometimes results in unfortunate ad hominem prejudice.

I know I'm asking for more abuse with posts like this (and maybe I deserve it), but it's fun. Thank you sir ... may I have another?

Regards,
Dave (not a Naysayer, but a believer of the positive and realistic benefits of CTE and other cut shot "aiming systems")

Wow. You are an academic and you just stereotyped terrorists as mostly Muslim? Based on what exactly?

Ever heard of the Georgian Separatists, Basque Separatists, Neo-Nazis, PETA, Anti-Abortion Groups, The Irish Republican Army, any number of Rebel groups in South America, The American Revolutionaries, The Mafia, The Zetas and their rivals?

Who are the "aiming system" terrorists Dave? Am I one of them?

Frankly, if you want to apply this rhetoric then let's speak in terms of war then. How about when people want to discuss aiming systems and you and your buddies carpet bomb those threads with insults like calling those who teach aiming systems snake-oil salesmen, con artists and charlatans, and those who use aiming system suckers, tin-foil hat wearing deluded religious loonies and the like?

Since you like to link how about linking us to the official terrorist census that proves that most terrorists are Muslims, and please don't make something from Fox news. Unbelievable that you would even go there comparing people who try to teach and discuss aiming systems with the Taliban and with terrorists.

 

[JB Cases]

Dr. Dave:

<sigh> You still don't get it. You are obviously engaging in a little "see no evil, hear no evil" at the expense of the AZB contributors, *for* the benefit of your website. Ok, I'm going to have to break out the heavy machinery to get the point across.

Let's take an example:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stance.html​

Now, let's pretend you're a outside reader reading this. This reader stumbled across your website, say, from a Google search. This reader may or MAY NOT also be a member of AZB. The reader finds this information interesting, and wants to follow-up with the original author of this information. But the following problems will prevent him/her from doing this:

1. The only "attribution" you give, is a plain text "from sfleinen:" intro. If the reader isn't an oft-reader of the AZB forums, the reader has no idea who, or what, an "sfleinen" is.

2. There is no indicator of any kind where this information was taken from. There's no URL, no reference, and no footnote at the bottom of *any* of your website pages where the user can go to pursue where you got this information. Again, in-touch readers of the AZB forums might recognize the "sfleinen" moniker, and put two-and-two together that this is the same "sfleinen" that posts on AZB. But it's left up to the reader to do the R&D gymnastics to find out who the original source is.

3. The above is an example of what many of us have issues with. You "say" you "give attribution" to the information, but you actually don't. All you give attribution to is some screenname, without any kind of hint where that screenname is from or where it lives.

4. You don't include any links to that information so that the reader can follow the information to its source. You've intentionally broken that relationship by sanitizing the information of its source. There's no way an AZB-unfamiliar reader can find out it's from the AZB forums, much less the thread and the context in which it was posted. There's no context for this information at all. The information lives, and dies, with YOU. The only recourse the reader has, it to email YOU to find out where you got it from, and ask for contact information for "sfleinen". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you would give that info, but something also tells me that you'll also exploit that opportunity to see what else you can "give" that reader who contacted you -- e.g. perhaps more links to related information on your website concerning the topic that my information above was about (e.g. to *keep* the user glued to your website)? Perhaps sales pitches on your commercial products?

5. Proper attribution to information includes the person's full name, and the full resource path (including ISBN in case of a book, or URL in case of a website). Without this information, the source author and *the context* in which the information is posted, is LOST. With a full name, ISBN, and/or URL, the user has a full uninterrupted path back to the original author, and the context that the original information was posted in. When I see an excerpt from a book, I can go get that book, and find out why the author said what he/she said -- the full context is right there. By breaking that linkage to the original source as you've done all over your website, you've DESTROYED that reader's ability to do that!

Ok Dr. Dave, *NOW* do you get it? Again, I do think you're a valued contributing member of AZB. I don't think anyone can doubt that. But the issue is the way in which you HANDLE information that is NOT YOURS. As a published author myself, I have a huge beef with how you handle information.

I hope this helps explain it. Please contact me for more details, or if you want to follow up. This is a big issue.

Respectfully,
-Sean F. Leinen
(aka: "sfleinen" on the AZB forums -- a take on the old 8-character limitation on the UNIX /etc/passwd file for usernames)

If I tap tap tapped as much as this post deserves then I'd be the Gregory Hines of AZB!!!

GREAT POST SEAN! Perfectly made points that hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD precisely.

WHENEVER I cut and paste ANYTHING on my blog or website that came from SOMEWHERE ELSE on the web I post the attribution in the form of a plan text description that is also linked to the source. This is simple netiquette first of all, it's what Tim Berners Lee envisioned with hyperlinks, and it's standard academic practice.

There are PLENTY of links BACK to AZB on my blog so that anyone who wishes to read the full thread where the information was taken from can easily get to it.

Not so on Dr. Dave's site. He posts links to his website but never sprinkles AZB links from his website back to here. AZB could use the link juice as well and anyone who is populating their website with CONTENT from AZB contributors SHOULD link back to AZB. Otherwise it's called scraping and is frowned upon in the world of SEO and good conduct in website authoring.