Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
thelizman wrote:
sancho wrote: have we heard back from ian on whether he gave his okay for this? I have had quite a bit of contact with Ian the last week. He's responded in kind to every one of my e-mails. He has made it clear that he has only ever given permission to one person to reproduce the FAQ - thats Eddie Runner (which to the best of my knowledge, Eddie hasn't done so). Ian's viewpoint on this is that there's 'not alot he can do to stop [the plagiarism of his FAQ]'. I can understand completely - this community relies on people with ethics and morals to maintain its standards. I'm a little more visceral, however. Mobileaudio.com has a clear copyright statement, as well as a clear distribution statement for the FAQ. I am going to propose to Ian that he copyright the FAQ under the Creative Commons Copyright which best fits the current model so that preserving the sanctity of the FAQ is enforcable by simply contacting the offenders ISP. I'll speak for myself here. I have received lots of requests to duplicate the FAQ. I almost always reply with my standard reply: Please do not create copies extra copies of the FAQ on your website, but instead create a link to the official location. This helps to prevent confusion, ensures that the FAQ remains objective, and helps prevent the document from forking. I can't prevent other people from making copies of the FAQ -- and as long as the FAQ remains unaltered and includes the notices in Section 0, then I don't really care (even though I discourage this). I _do_ mind when people copy the FAQ (either in part or in its entirety), and either remove the notices at the beginning of the document, don't provide proper attribution, etc. Some sites have done this, and many have stopped after I reminded them of the problem. Others have continued to violate the terms in the FAQ. With regard to mobileaudio.com and the FAQ: Although the FAQ is hosted on my site, mobileaudio.com, it is certainly not my property. It belongs to its authors and the rec.audio.car community. As such, the notice at the beginning of the FAQ supersedes the mobileaudio.com copyright. Thanks - Ian Bjorhovde rec.audio.car FAQ Maintainer -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
thelizman wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote: Sancho and Lizzy are just posturing.... ha ha Oh please eddie, everyone knows I have bad posture. and i can barely see over my desk... |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
EFFENDI wrote:
Yeah ICE could have worked with enough support you could have called it '**** we've been over a kajillion times' or 'here's something else to annoy you' -- sancho truth in advertising |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Good God you guys are freaks.
Quoted from the Introduction of rec.audio.car FAQ 4.5.2 : "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced as long as i remains wholly unaltered and includes this notice. If you d redistribute this document, especially on a commercial basis, pleas contact the FAQ maintainer before doing so. " My sight is not commercial; it is not for profit. The document' orginal content is intact and all credits and notices are included. ".. freely distributed and reproduced .." Good grief you guys are amazing .. perhaps you should up your meds - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Ian wrote:
.. as long as the FAQ remains unaltered and includes the notices in Section 0, then I don't really care ... Ian, Thanks for clearing this up for the freakshow. I hadn't realize that the main purpose of this newsgroup had been reduced to an exercis in Sado-Masochism - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
Good God you guys are freaks. Thank you. Quoted from the Introduction of rec.audio.car FAQ 4.5.2 : It's actually 4.52. Thanks for noticing. "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced as long as it remains wholly unaltered and includes this notice. If you do redistribute this document, especially on a commercial basis, please contact the FAQ maintainer before doing so. " You altered the FAQ. You did not contact the FAQ maintainer before altering it. My sight is not commercial; it is not for profit. Site. And yes it is. You may not profit monetarily, but you raise visibility of yourself. Nobody is faulting you for doing this - its America. But don't pretend like you're acting purely altruistically. The document's orginal content is intact and all credits and notices are included. From your posting from the FAQ from not more than a week ago (and I took a screenshot): "This is the FAQ list for the Usenet newsgroup rec.audio.car, [previously] maintained by Ian D. Bjorhovde" You have recently changed it back to "This is the FAQ list for the Usenet newsgroup rec.audio.car, maintained by Ian D. Bjorhovde" Theif and a liar. -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
sancho wrote:
thelizman wrote: and i can barely see over my desk... Is it because you have the seat all the way back, or because the plastic jesus on the keyboard is blocking the view? -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
He is STILL calling us names
and wondering why no one here likes him..... Lee wrote: Good God you guys are freaks. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
You left this part out LEE
IAN WROTE I can't prevent other people from making copies of the FAQ -- and as long as the FAQ remains unaltered and includes the notices in Section 0, then I don't really care (even though I discourage this). For get about the even though I discourage this part..?? selective quoting eh? Lee wrote: Ian wrote: .. as long as the FAQ remains unaltered and includes the notices in Section 0, then I don't really care ... Ian, Thanks for clearing this up for the freakshow. I hadn't realized that the main purpose of this newsgroup had been reduced to an exercise in Sado-Masochism. -- Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176471 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Eddie Runner wrote:
I came in the thread where you claimed to be a RAC regular but didnt know anyone here that were regulars and the regulars didnt know you.... Again, I don't think I ever claimed to be a regular; I said I joine rec.audio.car 8 years ago and that I was not a newbie. I might have a problem with you STEALING Ians FAQ though... Oh come on! Stealing? Is the one on his server missing? He has alread addressed this point. Why not just atart fresh...??? Because the point was to do something for this newsgroup. Lee wrote: This is another asinine assumption; I never stated it was going t be mine. No, its NOT an assinine assumption... EVEN THOUGH other folks write the articles, YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER and choose what goes and what stays...! No, that might be the way you do things. When I've writte collaborative documentation in the past and will in the future, I wor on creating a consensus. I usually put together a team, and the tea decides. .. are YOU good enough to do this correctly??? Yes, but you would have no way of knowing. Lee wrote: If you read my first post in that thread, there was no suggestion that I was better than anyone here. Some of us have gotten that impression... But not from the first post... From yourother posts.... If you check, you will see that my posts never started the insults just responded to them; nor did they claim that I was better .. Lee wrote: There were no insults directed at anyone. I saw you insult Lizzard! And wasnt it an insult just above whenyou said I made an ASSININE ASSUMPTION..?? I responded to others that were attacking me. Again, I did no initiate any attacks, claims or insults, they were the results of firs being attacked. You jumped in, attacking me, apparently with no regar to the facts. And no, I insulted the assumption. Eddie Runner wrote: I attack you for lying to us about how long you have been a RAC member... I've never lied about that .. OK, so if that is correct you posted on RAC in 1996.... So what? Does that make you a regular..?? So, since Ian hasn't been "active" is he now considered a newbie? never said I was a "regular" .. I said I wasn't a newbie. Eddie Runner wrote: AND, when you say you were a RAC regular .. Can you see my view on this..?? I'm sorry, but when did I say I was a regular .. If I said I was regular, I apologize .. I am not a regular; I am also not a newbie. Lee wrote: 1) I was attacked for offering help. not by me...[/color] No, but you later joined in on the attacking with no regard for th facts .. I attacked you cause you claimed you were a RAC member in good standing... Again, see point above. And because you were attacking some of the REAL RAC members (although it may have just been you dfending yourself against them, they can be tough sometimes) But it is okay to attack someone defending themselves regardless of th facts? You assumed this other person's claims were true and just pitched righ in .. and this other person; a stellar beacon of truth and honesty? On not prone to over reaction or exaggeration? Do you see my point of view? Typicly there are hidden motives... I havent figgured yours out ye but there are probably some hidden there somewhere... ya cant blame us for being cautious... So shoot first and ask questions later? I have no hidden motives, stated simply what I was offering to do, and then I was attacked. Lee wrote: 5) It was claimed that I am here only to steal rac'ers to build my forum -- another illogical assumption considering the very lo number of people to "steal" compared to the size of our curren membership. Now there is where it makes you look like you r better N us... Thats the kinda stuff that ****es the RACers off at cha.... you just said, Im trying to help you morons, I wouldnt come to RAC to steal members because your members suck compared to ours.... No, I said: if you think I was here to steal members, think about the logic behind that; I have plenty of members .. look at the numbers, it doesn't make sense that I would be here to steal members. Not one word of my quote qualifies anything or anyone, it simply states the numbers are not there to support the theory that I was here steal members. Tell me where in that quote I wrote anything about the quality of this newsgroup or its members? Lee wrote: I can see now how it would be very difficult for some of you to understand simply wanting to help; it is difficult to understand a characteristic of which you have no first hand knowledge. there is another insult directed at us.... Yeah. But that one was probably due. Lee wrote: If the senior members of this newsgroup were actually interested in moving things in any kind of positive direction, they would not attack first then ask questions. Do the senior members have any say in RACs direction?? there are no moderators and no way to ban folks if they get outa hand... We cannot easily direct it or control it, which is why I LIKE IT!! Actually you do whether you are aware of it or not -- I'm thinking you're more aware of it that you'll admit. People read what goes on in here and are afraid to post because they don't want to be ragged on .. by ragging on people instead of explaining, you promote less participation by the visitors -- but I'm sure you already know this. Lee wrote: 3) I was attacked because some people want to assert their "dominance" over this newsgroup. Yeah, you tried that and the regulars shoved it right back in your own face. No. I did not try to assert any dominance here. I asserted that the behavior by some towards me was both meritless and undeserved. The idea that there should be anyone dominating the newsgroup is anti-thematic, it is a public forum, and yet you have supported the ideas posted by the same person that posted this: "He apparently doesn't realize that teamROCS has already won the battle for domination of rec.audio.car once already." Do you support this idea? The idea that one group should dominate, control and repress the expression of others? That is what this has all been, and you've been part of it. -- Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176872 |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
"He apparently doesn't realize that teamROCS has already won the battle
for domination of rec.audio.car once already." Do you support this idea? The idea that one group should dominate, control and repress the expression of others? That is what this has all been, and you've been part of it. I think you're missing another joke or something. "teamROCS" clearly hasn't "dominated, controlled, and repressed the expression of others." Quit being such a drama queen. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Eddie Runner wrote:
For get about the even though I discourage this part..?? selective quoting eh? No, but apparently you guys missed the ".. I don't really care .. part of his post, thus my quoting it. How sneaky of me to exclude th rest of his post in my quote .. the point was, he stated that h doesn't really care .. how unclear is that? and again LEE WHO are you and HOW do I know you? Apparently you don't know me .. so you should always attack those tha you don't know? You should always assume that those that are new to yo are evil? You guys were and are off base, that's all there is to it -- and no one of you has acknowledged it. And of course I don't expect you to - from recent history, I'd say the reaction will be more over the to hate being directed my way for merely mentioning the idea that anyon here acted inappropriately - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
For get about the even though I discourage
this part..?? selective quoting eh? No, but apparently you guys missed the ".. I don't really care .. " part of his post, thus my quoting it. How sneaky of me to exclude the rest of his post in my quote .. the point was, he stated that he doesn't really care .. how unclear is that? I think you're being a little disingenuous here. He said he doesn't really care but he discourages it. In other words, even though he's discouraging you from hosting the FAQ and would prefer that you just link it, you've decided to do it anyway. How come? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Lee wrote:
Again, I don't think I ever claimed to be a regular; I said I joined rec.audio.car 8 years ago and that I was not a newbie. You still havent told me who you are.. If you were here 8 years ago I might remember you but I will need a few more hints... this is the third time I have nicely asked you who you are. I am getting the feeling you dont wanna say. what cha got to hide? When Im tryin to be nice you dont answer, I guess you prefer a hard time..?? |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
he aint got no sense of humor... folks like that can never
understand the deep philosphy of RAC... MZ wrote: "He apparently doesn't realize that teamROCS has already won the battle for domination of rec.audio.car once already." Do you support this idea? The idea that one group should dominate, control and repress the expression of others? That is what this has all been, and you've been part of it. I think you're missing another joke or something. "teamROCS" clearly hasn't "dominated, controlled, and repressed the expression of others." Quit being such a drama queen. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
Apparently you don't know me .. so you should always attack those that you don't know? You should always assume that those that are new to you are evil? ??? Your the one that said I DID KNOW YOU! You said you tried to sell me some web space... dont you remember posting that?? Now this is the 4th time i have nicely asked you for more information, but you appearantly dont wanna have a decent conversation you just wanna whine about things.... Eddie Runner |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Lee wrote:
Again, I don't think I ever claimed to be a regular; I said I joined rec.audio.car 8 years ago and that I was not a newbie. YOU LIE! You BACKPEDAL! You said "I've been here for 8 years...." Oh come on! Stealing? Is the one on his server missing? He has already addressed this point. Yes, Ian quite diplomatically addressed this point. At no time did you acquire permission to copy the FAQ from Ian. Ergo, you stole it. Because the point was to do something for this newsgroup. No, the point for you was to do something for your FORUM by EXPLOITING this newsgroup. No, that might be the way you do things. When I've written collaborative documentation in the past and will in the future, I work on creating a consensus. Well, the consensus here is that you're a lying stealing asshat, so good job. I usually put together a team, and the team decides. What team "decided" to steal the FAQ? If you check, you will see that my posts never started the insults, just responded to them; nor did they claim that I was better .. I responded to others that were attacking me. Again, I did not initiate any attacks, claims or insults, they were the results of first being attacked. You jumped in, attacking me, apparently with no regard to the facts. And no, I insulted the assumption. You "insulted the assumption"? That sounds like someone my ex girlfriend would say. Check the plumbing, are you a woman? Cause you sure argue like one. Is this the "mommy he started it" defense? Like an arrogant sumbitch you assert your supremacy over everyone else, but in truth you're a child with a webpage. Grow up, and start helping people - stop bitching. So, since Ian hasn't been "active" is he now considered a newbie? I never said I was a "regular" .. I said I wasn't a newbie. Ian has contributed more to this group over the years than you could hope. His temporary absense differs from your complete and total lack of evident participation. Besides which, a "noob" is often more about how you act. There are guys on this group right now who barely have a year on their record, and they're more worthy of praise than you. Do you support this idea? The idea that one group should dominate, control and repress the expression of others? That is what this has all been, and you've been part of it. We're Americans! Of course we don't believe this idea - unless the dominant group is us, and the subordinate group is the rest of the planet. -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
MZ wrote:
I think you're missing another joke or something. "teamROCS" clearly hasn't "dominated, controlled, and repressed the expression of others." Quit being such a drama queen. Hmm...he's feeling "repressed". He's acting like a drama "queen". I'm seeing a very disturbing pattern about Lee. -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
MZ wrote:
I think you're being a little disingenuous here. He said he doesn't really care but he discourages it. In other words, even though he's discouraging you from hosting the FAQ and would prefer that you just link it, you've decided to do it anyway. How come? Lee does not respect the intellectual property of others. You know what is worse - he deliberatly made changes to the FAQ, and when he was called on it, he unchanged them to cover his ass without even an apology. What a tool! -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Lee wrote:
Oh come on! Stealing? Is the one on his server missing? He has already addressed this point. yeah... he sais he wasn't happy you stole it, but there isn't much he can do about it... Because the point was to do something for this newsgroup. since when was 'this newsgroup' synonymous with 'lee's forum'? .. are YOU good enough to do this correctly??? Yes, but you would have no way of knowing. he could look at 'your' faq and see how many revisions it's seen in the 'two years' you've been 'maintaining' it... So, since Ian hasn't been "active" is he now considered a newbie? I never said I was a "regular" .. I said I wasn't a newbie. ian was active before... very much so... i don't believe you ever were, n00b0r 5) It was claimed that I am here only to steal rac'ers to build my forum -- another illogical assumption considering the very low number of people to "steal" compared to the size of our current membership. you didn't steal us, you stole r.a.c. and the rac-faq to use as 'content' on your site -- sancho |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
MZ wrote:
I think you're missing another joke or something. "teamROCS" clearly hasn't "dominated, controlled, and repressed the expression of others." how could we? usenet is juat about as democratic an institution as any... nobody is denied FREE SPEECH not even you -- sancho |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Eddie Runner wrote:
Your the one that said I DID KNOW YOU! You said you tried to sell me some web space... dont you remember posting that?? Actually I believe that I wrote that I had offered to host your sit for free. I sent you an email a while back .. let me make sure I'm no wrong .. you are the author of the Car Audio Basics tutorials right? I so, yes, I emailed you and offered to give you hosting space for you site free .. not sure how long ago that was, your reply was tha someone else had already offered and no thanks. That was all there wa to it. .. you just wanna whine about things.... Let's see, in the last couple days, in this newsgroup, I've been calle a newbie, a liar, a thief, stupid, no-talent, a spammer, ***-clown, an moron just to mention a few. I probably have a right to whine. O course if you consider the source for most of this .. perhaps you ar right - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Eddie Runner wrote:
he aint got no sense of humor... folks like that can never understand the deep philosphy of RAC... I've got a great sense of humor, when things are funny. Are you saying that the RAC philosophy is: abusing people == a funny? That doesn't really qualify as all that deep does it? Sounds more lik slap-stick to me .. you know, Three Stooges kind of humor, except les creative - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17687 |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Eddie Runner:
I *was* wrong, you aren't the person I was thinking you were. You aren't losing your mind. As you must have realized if you read my last post, I thought you were someone else. I apologize for the confusion. -- Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176872 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Lee wrote:
That doesn't really qualify as all that deep does it? Sounds more like slap-stick to me .. you know, Three Stooges kind of humor, except less creative. are you assing on the three stooges now? i say we hang'im -- sancho |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
LEE has no references! (I guess I called your bluff)
OK, so now your saying YOU DONT KNOW ME...???
(I guess I called your bluff) ha ha ha That leaves you with ZERO! You dont know ANYONE here..!! I was trying to give you the benifit of the doubt about you being a RAC kinda guy, but now you admit YOU DONT KNOW ANYONE ON RAC!!!! Notta, Zip, Zilch, donuts, zero, no one, nobody, ... And you want our respect....???? Lee wrote: Eddie Runner: I *was* wrong, you aren't the person I was thinking you were. You aren't losing your mind. As you must have realized if you read my last post, I thought you were someone else. I apologize for the confusion. -- Lee |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Lee doesnt know Eddie After all
Lee wrote:
let me make sure I'm not wrong .. you are the author of the Car Audio Basics tutorials right? No, you made a mistake... I am Eddie Runner you know, twfer! http://www.twfer.com in the old days just known as installer... Installin since 1974 Creator of the Installer Mailing List http://www.installer.com/tech/iml (professionals in the 12 volt field only) Creator of the Mobile Electronics Mailing List http://www.installer.com/tech/meml Founding member of teamROCS http://www.teamrocs.com The one that put Richard Clark in his place for lieing about his conquests. The one that debunked Richard Clarks CAT5 Ideas http://www.installer.com/tech/cat5.html The one that taught Tom Nosaine that location DOES matter. http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming2.html The one that taught Dave Navone about vintage car audio amps. The one that taught many amp manufacturers that bridging DOES NOT half the impedence. The one that solved the bass trap theory http://www.installer.com/tech/aiming.html The one that told The Sound Solutions to goto hell The one that told Soundstream to use a nekkid girl in thier adds (and they did) The one that brought Car Audio online in 1982 *YES 1982* The one that Judged the very first World Finals The one that wrote so many great car audio tech articles http://www.installer.com/tech The one that first put 15s in the doors (two in each door) The one that writes his own T/S software Forum Moderator at http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ Technical advisor for too many companies to name here.. The owner of installer.com of course The owner of River Oaks Car Stereo in Houston Everyday installer The Unimog guy http://tx4x4.com/unimog.html The Hummer guy http://tx4x4.com/hummer.html And so much more I cant sit here and write all this, I am too modest... But if ya do need more lemme know... ;-) Eddie Runner |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks the THREE STOOGES!!
If he is messin with the stooges, he has gone too far...!!
sancho wrote: Lee wrote: That doesn't really qualify as all that deep does it? Sounds more like slap-stick to me .. you know, Three Stooges kind of humor, except less creative. are you assing on the three stooges now? i say we hang'im -- sancho |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
Lee wrote:
I *was* wrong, That's nothing new. Learn to quote, asshat. -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
sancho wrote:
are you assing on the three stooges now? i say we hang'im I got some 8 gauge power wire... -- thelizman teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/ teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/ "It's about the music, stupid" This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere other than usenet without the express written permission of the author is forbidden. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by Ian:
I have tried to be diplomatic. From the looks of this post, and the lack of any email received by me from you *ever* -- you haven't or aren't doing so. I have never received any updates or additions for the FAQ from you. I have never sent you any updates or additions. I've never stated that I had sent you updates or additions. I stated that I sent you multiple emails regarding the condition of the FAQ pointing out the fact that it is no longer being updated and needs to be .. I received *NO* response from any of my emails. When I first found that your site had copied the FAQ, without permission THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Get your facts straight before accusing me of doing anything unethical. Your permission is granted within the text of the FAQ. If you didn't want people to copy or distribute the FAQ, you should not have placed: "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced.." in the Introduction. How confusing is that? and then proceeded to remove the FAQ notice and other attribution THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Get your facts straight before accusing me of doing anything unethical. The FAQ notice was posted at the same time the FAQ was, 7/2002 -- The FAQ was posted in it's entirety at that time. The only recent change that has been made to the copy posted on the forum is the "[previously]" attribute inserted preceding your name in the introduction, it was added due to lack of information to the contrary or any response from repeated attempts to contact you. Not being available, in this case, indicated you were no longer active. Once you posted that you were still maintaining the FAQ, that attribute was removed. I requested that you fix this (you didn't). If you ever sent an email to me, I never received it. I've never seen a post from you regarding our forum's posting of the FAQ in this newsgroup either. I've never seen a post from you regarding the FAQ on our forum as well. If you have placed a post in either this newsgroup and/or our forum and I missed it, my apologies, but I have not received *any* communication from you in any forum via any media in over two years. You know Ian, if you had sent me an email and received no response and didn't try any one of the other options I mentioned above, then were you really trying? Were you really trying preserve the "Integrity of the FAQ?" I personally don't think you've tried for quite some time and this is your attempt at averting the attention from this valid point. Of course I will be attacked for daring to mentioning the possibility that the great Ian has been remiss in his duties. Apparently that changed at some point. THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Get your facts straight before accusing me of doing anything unethical. Again, nothing has changed regarding the FAQ credits and/or introduction since it was posted with the exception of the attribute mentioned above. However, your copy of the FAQ on your website is *STILL* not complete. You pointed out the distribution paragraph in the Introduction. I excluded that part based the fact that the document they were reading would NOT be available through those channels, as it was changing and with NO input from you, as you subsequently admit, there was no information to the contrary. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to include it with the addition of "Original Version" available, and for this I stand corrected. Section 0 also includes a table of contents for the document, which I did not include above. The table of contents *is* the listing of the FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/3a22r I am not going to spend the time to go through the rest of the document posted on your website to try and figure out what else might be missing. Sounds like you already did and you didn't find anything else missing. I did receive your emails asking to take over the FAQ, And for THOSE THAT CALLED ME A LIAR on this topic take notice. To each of you, that with no knowledge of facts, stated unequivocally that I was a liar, is there one of you man enough to admit you were wrong and apologize? I don't think so. I did receive your emails asking to take over the FAQ, but after your shenanigans, it was clear to me that you (and your site) clearly were not interested in maintaining the FAQ's integrity. After my shenanigans? When? Are you saying that you received my email two years ago, then waited until now to judge me unworthy? Or are you saying that you received my email two years ago, reviewed my sight, noticed something missing, and instead of pointing out what needed to be changed and discussing the future of the FAQ, you simply chose not to respond? Or are you saying that you sent me an email, and I possibly never received it? From how your post reads, you are suggesting that I have been something less than above board on this topic, and if that is what you're suggesting, then you do not have your facts straight and you owe me an apology. I _am_ interested in protecting the FAQ. _That_ is why I chose to ignore your email. So, you did ignore them. You didn't respond two years ago, or before that, or after? A simple email stating that you were still active in maintaining them would have been too much trouble? As I said before -- I have received many emails asking about updates for the FAQ, and to each one I ask for assistance in updating sections, adding new sections, etc. When the newsgroup created the FAQ in the first place, did you simply wait around for people to organize and it spontaneously snowballed into all those sections? Or did you have to promote and marshal the efforts of others to stimulate its creation? Sitting back and waiting on things to happen isn't what I call actively maintaining the FAQ -- I call that abandoning it. It seems clear to me that this is not about the condition of the FAQ, BUT the control of them. If anyone here was indeed worried about creating something useful for the community instead of preserving the status quo, the response would have been helpful not insulting and evasive. I am sure, at one point, many here were here to be helpful, but it seems clear now the past helpfulness has decayed into rancid turf fighting. Ian, I call on you to either actively persue the improvement and updating of the FAQ or relinquish your claim to be the maintainer and "officially" pass the torch to someone else. I state here now, due to being responsible for bringing this issue to light and any question as to motive, am not seeking, nor will accept those responsibilities. -- Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176471 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
I have tried to be diplomatic.
From the looks of this post, and the lack of any email received by me from you *ever* -- you haven't or aren't doing so. Lee, I was helpful to you at the beginning, but you're really starting to be a prick. Go away. No one except for your car audio forum chums agrees with you. I'm snipping the rest of your pathetic argument and your apparent lack of reading comprehension. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by MZ
Lee, I was helpful to you at the beginning, but you're really starting to be a prick. Go away. Really? Where? I hadn't seen anything posted with your name on it tha was helpful .. I'm not sure a qualification of "disingenuous" directe at me is being helpful. And I pretty sure calling me a prick isn' helpful either. Just so you know, being a prick is calling people name simply based on the fact that they don't agree with you, supportin others that do the same and/or simply calling them names for lack o anything better to say. If you have a point, besides the one on you head, make it. If you don't have the intellectual aptitude to come u with something better than "we're right and you're wrong", then go bac to your sandbox - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee, I was helpful to you at the beginning, but you're
really starting to be a prick. Go away. Really? Where? I hadn't seen anything posted with your name on it that was helpful .. Yeah? Well I guess you wouldn't mind removing the suggestions I made about the FAQ that I, like Ian, never gave you permission to post on your site. I'm not sure a qualification of "disingenuous" directed at me is being helpful. And I pretty sure calling me a prick isn't helpful either. Just so you know, being a prick is calling people names simply based on the fact that they don't agree with you, supporting others that do the same and/or simply calling them names for lack of anything better to say. No, it's based on the demonstrable fact that you're an asshole. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by MZ
No, it's based on the demonstrable fact that you're an asshole. heh, thanks for proving my point, now wash the sand off your feet whe you go back into the house - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
heh, thanks for proving my point, now wash the sand off your feet when
you go back into the house. -- Lee While you're at it, can you fix your stupid usenet gateway so that it places replies in the correct position in the thread? For those of us who actually know how to use computers, it's annoying to see all your replies in this thread as a response to something Lizard said 3 days ago. Who knows? Maybe if you search google you can find some code that will fix that problem for you. Then you can even post the code on your website even if the original author asks you not to. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
"Lee" wrote in message s.com... snipped drivel trying to say that Ian was wrong Ian, I call on you to either actively persue the improvement and updating of the FAQ or relinquish your claim to be the maintainer and "officially" pass the torch to someone else. I state here now, due to being responsible for bringing this issue to light and any question as to motive, am not seeking, nor will accept those responsibilities. -- Lee -------------------------------------------------------------snipped Lee's spam So.. uhh.. Lee.. you don't want the responsibilities, so I CALL ON YOU to go ahead and remove the F.A.Q from your forum. You linked your forum to us, not the other way around, so it's OUR sandbox you're in, buddy. If you aren't seeking and don't want said responsibilities, then you should remove the FAQ and replace it with a link to Ian's version, since he has the proper version and will be updating it, which we wouldn't expect you to put yourself through the torture of having to do everytime he updates it. OUR sandbox, buddy. If you're going to respond to this, please reply directly rather than replying to some thread entitled "How Do I wire my anus in series" by someone who is now probably a highly respected member of your forum in 1998. narcolept ----- tell Carl I said Hello, ask him how |V| is doing |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by narcolept
So.. uhh.. Lee.. you don't want the responsibilities I said I would not ask for or accept them, I didn't say I didn't wan them. I tried to take them on already and Ian ignored my emails. Now i I tried, considering the festering mess this issue has taken on, i would be used to beat the issue to death. The issue is not that become the maintainer; the issue is for someone to that will activel try and improve it to become the maintainer -- as was the case when i was created. The FAQ needs to be updated. It did not have an activ maintainer pursuing its improvements. I think the last update bein over FOUR YEARS ago proves my point. You linked your forum to us, not the other way around, so it's OUR sandbox you're in, buddy. And here is the problem. You think this is *YOURS* -- it is ours. I does not belong to you, or anyone else. It is a public forum. I belongs to all of us. It is this kind of perspective that results i narrow thinking and possessive turf wars. And do you think that you could actually make some kind of valid poin instead of simply trying to dissuade me by insulting me - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |