Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
"Lee" wrote in message s.com... 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 want them. I tried to take them on already and Ian ignored my emails. Now if I tried, considering the festering mess this issue has taken on, it would be used to beat the issue to death. The issue is not that I become the maintainer; the issue is for someone to that will actively try and improve it to become the maintainer -- as was the case when it was created. The FAQ needs to be updated. It did not have an active maintainer pursuing its improvements. I think the last update being 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. It does not belong to you, or anyone else. It is a public forum. It belongs to all of us. It is this kind of perspective that results in narrow thinking and possessive turf wars. And do you think that you could actually make some kind of valid point instead of simply trying to dissuade me by insulting me? my "invalid point" is that you should forget about your cause for a fact with information stating it is the "property" of certain individuals.. oh. wait. you took that part out. What you're doing by copying it for your own use borders on intellectual terrorism. we don't want you to have them, and Ian seems to have said as much. so kindly remove the property of the newsgroup community from your community. AND REPLY DIRECTLY TO ****ING MESSAGES. Your web **** messes up the entire format of a usenet group. narcolept --- Looks like we're gonna have to wait for Lee to get off the short bus after school tommorow to discuss this further. -- Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee's Spam snipped |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by narcolept
Lee wrote: And do you think that you could actually make some kind of valid point instead of simply trying to dissuade me by insulting me? my "invalid point" is that you should forget about your cause for a fact with information stating it is the "property" of certain individuals.. oh. Uh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say .. wait. you took that part out. THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Get your facts straight before accusing me of doing anything unethical. I did not remove any attribution from the original content; all credits to authors as well as Ian himself were and are intact. What you're doing by copying it for your own use borders on intellectual terrorism. Oh brother, get a grip will ya. The document states: "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced .." would you get some kind of clue? we don't want you to have them So, you speak for everyone now do you? Just so you know, it is not your right to not let me "have them," the right of redistribution was granted in the document itself and is the right of any one interested in free redistribution. -- Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176471 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
I said I would not ask for or accept them, I didn't say I didn't want
them. I tried to take them on already and Ian ignored my emails. Now if I tried, considering the festering mess this issue has taken on, it would be used to beat the issue to death. The issue is not that I become the maintainer; the issue is for someone to that will actively try and improve it to become the maintainer -- as was the case when it was created. The FAQ needs to be updated. It did not have an active maintainer pursuing its improvements. I think the last update being over FOUR YEARS ago proves my point. It's updated whenever someone sends him an update. If you took over, do you think people would come out of the woodwork to submit an update? Or are you suggesting Ian submit one himself? And if you took over, would that mean we'd have to look forward to updates by Lee? |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
"Lee" wrote in message s.com... Originally posted by narcolept Lee wrote: And do you think that you could actually make some kind of valid point instead of simply trying to dissuade me by insulting me? my "invalid point" is that you should forget about your cause for a fact with information stating it is the "property" of certain individuals.. oh. Uh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say .. wait. you took that part out. THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Get your facts straight before accusing me of doing anything unethical. I did not remove any attribution from the original content; all credits to authors as well as Ian himself were and are intact. What you're doing by copying it for your own use borders on intellectual terrorism. Oh brother, get a grip will ya. The document states: "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced .." would you get some kind of clue? we don't want you to have them So, you speak for everyone now do you? Just so you know, it is not your right to not let me "have them," the right of redistribution was granted in the document itself and is the right of any one interested in free redistribution. -- Lee uhhh. asshat. Try to follow.. Reproduction means exactly as it is, not changed by you or anyone else. Comprende? narcolept ----- This is the last time I want to tell him to reply directly to me. It's not yours, as much as it's not mine, but don't take it. By the way, you ever gonna tell me how Carl and |V| are doing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee spam snipped |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Lee doesnt know Eddie After all
Eddie Runner wrote:
I am Eddie Runner you know, twfer! http://www.twfer.com Founding member of teamROCS http://www.teamrocs.com a founding member And so much more I cant sit here and write all this, I am too modest... But if ya do need more lemme know... ;-) incredibly modest -- sancho |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
Originally posted by Ian: 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. you just don't get it, do you? if you felt the faq needed updating, you should have sent in updates... if each 'keeper of the faq' in turn handed the faq maintenance off to any asshat that... never mind... i'm tired of typing... you prolly can't even see this with your head that far up your ass... "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced.." in the Introduction. How confusing is that? left out a little part there "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." 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 then what the **** have you done for the faq in the last two years, mr. self appointed faq-king 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. i don't reply to every dip**** that sends me e-mail either... doesn't mean i ain't unavailable Once you posted that you were still maintaining the FAQ, that attribute was removed. how gracious of you... -- sancho |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
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 that was helpful .. try looking in your forums, dicktard in the rec.audio.car section I'm not sure a qualification of "disingenuous" directed at me is being helpful. it was very helpful to me, as i was fumbling for the perfect word to describe you... 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. If you have a point, besides the one on your head, make it. If you don't have the intellectual aptitude to come up with something better than "we're right and you're wrong", then go back to your sandbox. ha ha ha that was hypocrisy, right? i'm getting so good at this vocabulary thing... thanks, mike... -- sancho |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
The issue is not that I become the maintainer; the issue is for someone to that will actively try and improve it to become the maintainer -- as was the case when it was created. The FAQ needs to be updated. It did not have an active maintainer pursuing its improvements. I think the last update being over FOUR YEARS ago proves my point. was your point that you are an idiot? the maintainer of the faq ia not charged with the task of making a show... he is in charge of making revisions to the faq when they are submitted and making the faq available to the general public... the faq does not suffer from lack of maintenance, it suffers from lack of submissions... oh yeah... and theft... -- sancho |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
Oh brother, get a grip will ya. The document states: "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced .." would you get some kind of clue? again you leave out a key element "...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." |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
MZ wrote:
It's updated whenever someone sends him an update. If you took over, do you think people would come out of the woodwork to submit an update? he claims to have 'taken over' ian's duties two years ago... do you see any updates? -- sancho |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Lee is a Moron! He Attacks Eddie Runner!!
thelizman wrote:
Lee wrote: I *was* wrong, That's nothing new. Learn to quote, asshat. he doesn't need quotes, lizzypoo on his fancy spiffy web forum that post is directly under eddie's, i'm sure... we should all just use lee's portal... was i talking about the thing on his website? you decide... -- sancho master of the entendre |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
LEE IS A THEIF (was: " The FAQ needs a major update")
Lee wrote:
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? It's apparently confused you. The FAQ states that "This document may be freely distributed and reproduced AS LONG AS IT REMAINS WHOLLY UNALTERED AND INCLUDES THIS NOTICE" You altered the FAQ in several places, and you've admitted to this in the past. I've also documented with screenshots the instances where you're altered the FAQ, so your feeble attempt to cover your tracks will fail. and then proceeded to remove the FAQ notice and other attribution THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. You just did it in this very post - you deleted the "unaltered" clause of the license. 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. No, you'll be attacked for being a ****stick who stole the FAQ, lied about stealing it, then attacked myself, Eddie Runner, and now Ian for correcting you. 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. You're still a liar. You claimed that Ian never responded to you. He clearly did, he just chose to ignore subsequent e-mails from you. And you are still a theif. 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. Maybe you should look up the word maintenance, ya dumb****. Ian hosts the FAQ on mobileaudio.com. He also makes sure it is mirrored at MIT. He makes updates as he receives them from CONTRIBUTORS. That's what "maintaining" is about. Notwithstanding, Ian is personally responsible for a considerable portion of the FAQ. 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. Right...so when you getting the hell off our turf, schmuck? 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. I'm calling on Lee to get lost. He has made it clear his only aim on this group is to bitch and whine. I have not seen him help a single person. I am also calling on Ian to ignore Lee and keep doing his job as he's done it faithfully for the last 10 years (or so), including the 7 or 8 years before Lee stole the FAQ. -- 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. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
And here is the problem. You think this is *YOURS* -- it is ours. It does not belong to you, or anyone else. It is a public forum. It belongs to all of us. Check your self. Actually, check your ISPs Acceptable Use Policy. Verio has very strict copyright guidelines. Teranews also hase very strict rules on accessing usenet. It is not "yours" either, and you cannot simply come in here and do as you please. Usenet is not your local bulletin board - we don't have to tolerate your crapfloods. -- 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. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
HA HA HA...
narcolept wrote: 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 |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by MZ:
It's updated whenever someone sends him an update. It is updated when an initiative is created to update it. You want t see how often it has been updated using the "whenever" model; las updated: Feb 2000 How is ZERO times in FOUR YEARS working? Leaving the door open for anyone to simply drop off an update isn' going to get it done. The FAQ was created through the efforts of many, and it didn't jus come into being as a result of many spontaneously submitting article -- it required someone to facilitate its creation. Updating the FAQ will require the same sort of time and effort, or i will never get done. If you took over, do you think people would come out of the woodwork to submit an update? If someone (not me) took over that was attempting to get the job done they would make calls for suggestions, organize the suggestions an make calls for volunteers to address specific issues or questions. vetting process would be done, in this newsgroup, to clarify languag on each proposed answer and the team assigned to that question woul submit the final answer. Or are you suggesting Ian submit one himself? No, I am suggesting he do what the maintainer should do, activel pursue updates as outlined above. And if you took over, would that mean we'd have to look forward to updates by Lee? A] I won't be taking over. B] No, the job would be that of a facilitator. To help get the jo done. Personally, if I were assigned a question, I would take the researc approach and present the question to a few industry names, get thei responses and synthesize them into a single answer with references quotes and footnotes, but that's just me - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
It's updated whenever someone sends him an update.
It is updated when an initiative is created to update it. Which is exactly what I did! Look at the title of the thread and the name of the person who started it. Since then, I have written updates (not yet emailed to Ian), I have proposed corrections in this thread, and Lizzard has written updates. You want to see how often it has been updated using the "whenever" model; last updated: Feb 2000 How is ZERO times in FOUR YEARS working? How many updates have you submitted? Who do you know that has submitted updates? Leaving the door open for anyone to simply drop off an update isn't going to get it done. Which is why it is incumbent upon us regulars to make sure that the FAQ is updated. I have generally refrained from doing so because I feel there's a better tech site available (BCAE). I've combed that site myself looking for errors or oversights, and have found NONE. So I usually refer people to that one. But I think an updated FAQ would be useful because it would allow people to access their questions directly, without having to google search it. Some people, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with google's groups search. The FAQ was created through the efforts of many, and it didn't just come into being as a result of many spontaneously submitting articles -- it required someone to facilitate its creation. Updating the FAQ will require the same sort of time and effort, or it will never get done. That's why Lizard and I have been writing. If you took over, do you think people would come out of the woodwork to submit an update? If someone (not me) took over that was attempting to get the job done, they would make calls for suggestions, organize the suggestions and make calls for volunteers to address specific issues or questions. Like what I did? Note that I didn't insist on hijacking the FAQ in the process. I said, and I'm saying now: people, write updates. A vetting process would be done, in this newsgroup, to clarify language on each proposed answer and the team assigned to that question would submit the final answer. Unnecessary. No, I am suggesting he do what the maintainer should do, actively pursue updates as outlined above. And if you took over, would that mean we'd have to look forward to updates by Lee? A] I won't be taking over. B] No, the job would be that of a facilitator. To help get the job done. Personally, if I were assigned a question, I would take the research approach and present the question to a few industry names, get their responses and synthesize them into a single answer with references, quotes and footnotes, but that's just me. None of this explains why you've decided to host the FAQ on your site, even after the current maintainer asked you not to. So please explain to us why you need to move the site in order to call for submissions. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
[...] THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. [...] THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. [...] THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Oops. My bad. I must be thinking of the other guy named Lee who copied the FAQ, removed attribution, etc. Please accept my sincerest apologies for confusing you and your upstanding site with that other guy. 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! =----- |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
Leaving the door open for anyone to simply drop off an update isn't going to get it done. Then why don't you write something for the FAQ instead of STEALING it? The FAQ was created through the efforts of many, and it didn't just come into being as a result of many spontaneously submitting articles -- it required someone to facilitate its creation. As I recall, it did start with a bunch of people spontaneously submitting articles to Jeffrey Curtis. Ian took over from Curtis ca 1995. Updating the FAQ will require the same sort of time and effort, or it will never get done. So why don't you send Ian something? No, I am suggesting he do what the maintainer should do, actively pursue updates as outlined above. That's not how it works. Besides, think about this (if you're capable of such). Who wants a FAQ which is just one mans mouthpiece. -- thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either" 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. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Ian wrote:
Oops. My bad. I must be thinking of the other guy named Lee who copied the FAQ, removed attribution, etc. Please accept my sincerest apologies for confusing you and your upstanding site with that other guy. ROFLMAO! FWIW, I didn't steal the FAQ either. -- thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either" 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. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Ian wrote:
Please accept my sincerest apologies .. I'm glad you cleared that up, cause I was beginning to think I had yo confused with the BALD-FACED LIAR named Ian that made outrageous claim that were completely UNTRUE just to cover up his lack of action. I was worried, because I know you would never make a claim that wa completely false or without any proof to the contrary what so ever Cause those that do are complete liars, and you aren't a liar - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by MZ:
Lee wrote: It is updated when an initiative is created to update it. Which is exactly what I did! Look at the title of the thread and the name of the person who started it. And I applaud you. Perhaps you should take on the responsibilities o being the FAQ maintainer. Of course these actions are being done no and were not prior to the creation date of this thread. MZ, I had attempted to gather support for updating the FAQ back i 2002. I attempted to contact Ian to either get him involved or have him pas the torch on to someone more active. I answered this thread stating that the FAQ needed to be updated an I've been nothing but attacked every since. Of course I did fight back .. until I just added a few people to m ignore list. Lee wrote: Leaving the door open for anyone to simply drop off an update isn't going to get it done. Which is why it is incumbent upon us regulars to make sure that the FAQ is updated. And that was the idea when I attempted to initiate the process tw years ago. Little did I realize that some have grown to think of th FAQ as some Holy Relic. I have generally refrained from doing so because I feel there's a better tech site available (BCAE). I agree with you, but felt that the RAC deserved a FAQ worthy of it history. Lee wrote: Updating the FAQ will require the same sort of time and effort, or it will never get done. That's why Lizard and I have been writing. I'm glad someone is .. my efforts to begin with were to stimulat activity and move the FAQ to improvement -- I just didn't expect to b attacked relentlessly. Like what I did? Note that I didn't insist on hijacking the FAQ in the process. I still don't get this point of view. The FAQ is hosted on many site world wide. The FAQ states that it can be distributed and reproduced. What makes my hosting it any different? Prior to Ian's public response, I had no way of knowing how it would b changed. Ian's last post here as far as the Google records show was i May of 2001. I requested information from him at least as long ago a July of 2002, if not earlier .. we'd heard nothing from him -- so don't think it was unreasonable to conclude that he was no longe interested. As far as the rights of the FAQ are defined, you may host the yourself, you may burn them to CDRoms and toss them from the balcony o your hotel room. You may do all of this and still be within complianc of the terms defined in the FAQ itself. I said, and I'm saying now: people, write updates. People haven't for four years. You have started to now because Mar Zarella posted a thread stating that the FAQ needed to be updated an my response that I had already put things in place to help organize th efforts. If you reread the first few posts prior to the flames poste by others, you would see that it was a simple, non-control-grabbin attempt to be helpful. None of this explains why you've decided to host the FAQ on your site, even after the current maintainer asked you not to. Ian did not ask me not to host a copy of the FAQ on my site. He mad unsubstantiated claims, but corrected himself. At this point, I am not sure I would remove the copy if he did ask me although I do plan to restore the distribution information. So please explain to us why you need to move the site in order to call for submissions. I think I already explained this, but simply; there was no indicatio that Ian was still updating the document, and if any new efforts wer being made, it would have been required for someone to host an update version. Simple as that. Thanks for the rational debate - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Rip him a new one Ian!! (glad to see ya posting!)
Ian wrote: Lee wrote: [...] THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. [...] THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. [...] THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM. Oops. My bad. I must be thinking of the other guy named Lee who copied the FAQ, removed attribution, etc. Please accept my sincerest apologies for confusing you and your upstanding site with that other guy. 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! =----- |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Why not just go back to your forum and leave the RAC FAQ to RAC..??
Lee wrote: A] I won't be taking over. B] No, the job would be that of a facilitator. To help get the job done. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
It is updated when an initiative is created to update it. Which is exactly what I did! Look at the title of the thread and the name of the person who started it. And I applaud you. Perhaps you should take on the responsibilities of being the FAQ maintainer. I have no desire to do it. Ian does a good job of it himself. I'll happily contribute. I sent in some stuff to him tonight. Of course these actions are being done now and were not prior to the creation date of this thread. MZ, I had attempted to gather support for updating the FAQ back in 2002. I've been bringing this issue up before you ever found RAC. (no one believes your unsubstantiated '96 claims). I attempted to contact Ian to either get him involved or have him pass the torch on to someone more active. I answered this thread stating that the FAQ needed to be updated and I've been nothing but attacked every since. It's funny. You're the only one "being attacked". Why is that? Are we against people named Lee? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you print everything that people say on your stupid website, could it? Not only without their permission, but even after they asked you not to. Which is why it is incumbent upon us regulars to make sure that the FAQ is updated. And that was the idea when I attempted to initiate the process two years ago. Little did I realize that some have grown to think of the FAQ as some Holy Relic. Lee, you are not and have never been a regular contributor in here. Like what I did? Note that I didn't insist on hijacking the FAQ in the process. I still don't get this point of view. The FAQ is hosted on many sites world wide. The FAQ states that it can be distributed and reproduced. What makes my hosting it any different? Ian asked you not to. That would be enough for me to pull something down from my website (in fact, that's happened before and I immediately removed it). Yet you haven't. In my view, you'd redeem yourself by pulling it down, along with anything else put up there of someone else's. Besides, there's simply no need to reproduce it. You've got such a big site with members and everything. Why don't you try to "stimulate" those people into writing a FAQ? Prior to Ian's public response, I had no way of knowing how it would be changed. Ian's last post here as far as the Google records show was in May of 2001. I requested information from him at least as long ago as July of 2002, if not earlier .. we'd heard nothing from him -- so I don't think it was unreasonable to conclude that he was no longer interested. You should have posted something on here. He would have responded, or at the very least, one of us would have tracked him down. He replied to me when I contacted him a year ago, so I don't know what was in your email that prompted him not to respond. Anyway, regardless of Ian's yea or nay, I think it would be wisest to post rec.audio.car related suggestions or questions to rec.audio.car, don't you? I don't recall you ever doing so prior to hosting the FAQ. I said, and I'm saying now: people, write updates. People haven't for four years. You have started to now because Mark Zarella Mark Zarella...MZ...the two of us are pretty similar, huh? posted a thread stating that the FAQ needed to be updated and my response that I had already put things in place to help organize the efforts. If you reread the first few posts prior to the flames posted by others, you would see that it was a simple, non-control-grabbing attempt to be helpful. None of this explains why you've decided to host the FAQ on your site, even after the current maintainer asked you not to. Ian did not ask me not to host a copy of the FAQ on my site. He made unsubstantiated claims, but corrected himself. At this point, I am not sure I would remove the copy if he did ask me, although I do plan to restore the distribution information. Why wouldn't you remove it? |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
MZ, I had attempted to gather support for updating the FAQ back in 2002. could you point us at the fruits of your labor? or perhaps some evidence of it? a single post announcing your faq theft and a call for updates perhaps? I attempted to contact Ian to either get him involved or have him pass the torch on to someone more active. how benevolent of you Of course I did fight back .. until I just added a few people to my ignore list. ahhh... the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU !!!" -- sancho |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Why does this bother me?
A non RACer steals the RAC FAQ and then attacks the FAQ Owner like a kiddie baby..? Lee wrote: the BALD-FACED LIAR named Ian that made outrageous claims that were completely UNTRUE just to cover up his lack of action. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Originally posted by Eddie Runner
Why does this bother me? A non RACer steals the RAC FAQ If that were what happened, I would understand why it would bother you If you managed to put together the events of this topic as the happened, and reviewed them in a rational manner, I don't think i would bother you. The events and the facts as stated by some here ar simply untrue. I emailed IAN requesting efforts to be made to upgrade the FAQ or t pass on the torch. I never received any communication from him. I posted the FAQ with full credits on my forum two years ago. I emailed Ian that I had posted the FAQ and again requested for th responsibilities to be passed on; again no response. I waited a few months at the very least for any contact from Ian an finally posted in this newsgroup that I had posted copies of the FAQ o my site and wanted to organized efforts to work for an upgrade. There was an active thread on the topic at the time, Ian never poste anything in it. With mostly apathy from the current members at the time, and a six wee tour of Europe ahead of me, my time was no longer available and th issue was dropped. Which brings us up to now. I answered a post by Mark stating that the FAQ needed to be updated. responded. Many posts by a few more interested in a flame war than the truth o anything productive has brought us here. I did not "steal" the FAQ. It is free for redistribution o reproduction. I have seen no attempt by Ian, prior to this thread, to contact me vi email, this newsgroup or my forum. My attacks have been in defense of prior attacks; find one post where initiated an attack -- you won't, they were in reaction to prio attacks. and then attacks the FAQ Owner like a kiddie baby..? A] Ian is not the FAQ owner, it is owned by the public. Ian has th title of being it's maintainer. No posts from Ian regarding the FAQ in this newsgroup for nearly thre years would constitute abandonment by ANY standard. If you read my posted response to Ian's first post, it was supportiv and non-insulting. My second post to Ian was also non-insulting. M harsh posts to Ian since have been direct results of his implication o claim that I had done anything less than above board -- which maintain I have not. These are the FACTS, if you are interested, if not, don't bothe responding because I won't attempt to make my actions clear again - Le ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
I emailed Ian that I had posted the FAQ and again requested for the
responsibilities to be passed on; again no response. I believe this is the first you've mentioned this tidbit. I waited a few months at the very least for any contact from Ian and finally posted in this newsgroup that I had posted copies of the FAQ on my site and wanted to organized efforts to work for an upgrade. When? Was your user name "Lee" at the time? I'll try to google it. Remember the thread name? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
I emailed IAN requesting efforts to be made to upgrade the FAQ or to pass on the torch. I never received any communication from him. I emailed Ian that I had posted the FAQ and again requested for the responsibilities to be passed on; again no response. I waited a few months at the very least for any contact from Ian and finally posted in this newsgroup that I had posted copies of the FAQ on my site and wanted to organized efforts to work for an upgrade. i don't think we can talk to you any plainer... why are you avoiding the issues? who the **** are you to demand ian update the faq without submitting any sort of update or even a suggestion for one? who the **** are you to decide ian wasn't doing a good enough job and steal the faq? what have you done for the faq since you stole it? who the **** are you to steal r.a.c. to use it as content on your forum? There was an active thread on the topic at the time, Ian never posted anything in it. point us at it... any little clue will do... your username at the time? e-mail address? the title of the thread? the exact dates (you ought to remember the approximate date you 'left for europe', eh)? -- sancho this post was intended for usenet, if you are reading this post on a webforum it is because someone has STOLEN it to use as content to draw traffic to his site... please acquire a proper newsreader if you want to access rec.audio.car and rethink your patronage of said site... |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee wrote:
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 want them. I tried to take them on already and Ian ignored my emails. Now if I tried, considering the festering mess this issue has taken on, it would be used to beat the issue to death. The issue is not that I become the maintainer; the issue is for someone to that will actively try and improve it to become the maintainer -- as was the case when it was created. The FAQ needs to be updated. It did not have an active maintainer pursuing its improvements. I think the last update being over FOUR YEARS ago proves my point. The FAQ does need to be updated. And I _have_ been pursuing people to update it -- as I said before, when I receive email from people (you excepted) asking about updates, my answer is always: "I'd be happy to include any contributions that you have for the FAQ." And I have yet to hear back from any of these people. Maintaining the FAQ does _not_ mean writing the FAQ. When there are updates, I apply them. Fortunately, some other RAC members have stepped up to the plate, and guess what? There will be a FAQ update next month. Imagine that. 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! =----- |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Ian wrote:
Maintaining the FAQ does _not_ mean writing the FAQ. When there are updates, I apply them. Fortunately, some other RAC members have stepped up to the plate, and guess what? There will be a FAQ update next month. Imagine that. And the month after that. And the month after that. And the month after that. And the month after that. (repeat as necessary - eventually Lee will get it). -- thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either" 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. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Wow... quite lot of douche bags in r.a.c. You guys need to get a life.
Keyboard commandos in an audio forum.... thats quite amuzing - The_spacemonke ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
why not leave the FAQ in the stone age where it belongs
honestly, there isn't much of a need for it anymore with all of th info available on the web today i know some of you may say that the info on the web is incorrect however, while some of this may be true, the majority of it i ideas/procedures that weren't available nor known in the 'hay day' o the FAQ some of you may have been here for the last 10 years, but alas, tha does not mean it is still 1994 who the hell cares if its acronym, abbrev,....we all know what it mean :a geriatric fu - delvrybo ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
LEE has no references! (I guess I called your bluff)
Mr. Runner you sound like a god damn idiot.
I don't give a **** who you are. Could care less really. Stop acting like a little child and act like the old ugly fat *** yo really are - xjmadnes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17844 |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
LEE has no references! (I guess I called your bluff)
Lee,
are you using an alias..?? xjmadness wrote: Mr. Runner you sound like a god damn idiot. I don't give a **** who you are. Could care less really. Stop acting like a little child and act like the old ugly fat *** you really are. -- xjmadness ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=178444 |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
Lee is using another alias..
either that or the messages we typed a week ago are FINALLY making it to the Caraudioforum.... the delay is too long for me, I would rather get em real time right here on RAC The_spacemonkey wrote: Wow... quite lot of douche bags in r.a.c. You guys need to get a life. Keyboard commandos in an audio forum.... thats quite amuzing. -- The_spacemonkey ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176471 |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
the idjit invasion
let's have a contest... first person that finds a constructive, intelligent, logical or even properly formatted/quoted post from the carassioforums 'gateway' posted prior to this post wins a prize... GO !!! -- sancho |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
LEE has no class! (and he ain't the only one)
xjmadness wrote:
Mr. Runner you sound like a god damn idiot. I don't give a **** who you are. Could care less really. Stop acting like a little child and act like the old ugly fat *** you really are. was that irony? mz, you think of a better word? -- xjmadness ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CarAssioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online! one million posts and not a hint of wit or style -- sancho get this **** outta here, lee |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
The FAQ needs a major update
The_spacemonkey wrote:
Wow... quite lot of douche bags in r.a.c. You guys need to get a life. Keyboard commandos in an audio forum.... thats quite amuzing. Don't you ****ants have something better to do with your browsers than spam threads that died last week? -- thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either" 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. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
LEE has no references! (I guess I called your bluff)
xjmadness wrote:
snip Nothing of consequence. Go away web-lUsers. Leave car audio to people who know what they're doing. -- thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either" 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. |