Pu Erh aging

I'll agree Google never forgets. I did some research and the earliest reference to my 'cheat sheet' was made in August 99 "Questions about Chinese Teas". It was a 'cheat sheet' till I refered to it as a Rosetta Stone in July 2003 "Ahmand Tea in UK and in Russia". I think with some research I was giving transliterations based on that cheat sheet in 95 but that is also besides the point. All my evidence is date stamped with Google before it was purloined under the guise of public domain. I also am an armchair psycho babble analyst so I'll discount your LTS experience and chaulk it up as a dejavu experience of what you think you would call it if you did it again. I honestly think my gleeming of transliterations from foreign cans of tea which I first called a 'cheat sheet' and then a 'Rosetta Stone' isn't obvious or public domain. I'm the first to do it in the first two millennia, two years, 6 months, and some days AD. The webmaster can't answer the simple question why his Rosetta Stone webpage is so seemingly out of place because it simply refers to items from a dictionary or person. It doesn't follow. It's out of context. The only explanation copyright infringement.

Jim

Derek wrote:

archive,

delusional

My first complaint about you is when you morphed into a webmaster wannabee wanting criticism about your site. You liked the attaboy but not the hiss. You really need to set up a message board (difficult) or a blog (trivial) which is standard WWW practice so we can air our dirty laundry elsewhere and anybody else with a oh or ah. You're really afraid no one will show up but me. So you promote yourself here. You keep avoiding the question. Why do you call one of your web pages the Rosetta Stone and not as you suggested the Tower of Babel. Just consulting a dictionary or person doesn't imply that concept. It's not appropo. It doesn't follow. I used it here first. You used it later maybe subconsciously but I think perniciously. The majority in this case is wrong. If you use Google I'm third in the number of posts here since I wandered out of the wilderness in July 95. I was surprised at who is number one and I didn't think number two was around that long to have an impact. I enjoy talking about tea. I don't force you to read a webpage or look at pictures. If I did I'd set up a website and disappear. People come and go and Google has it's share of obsolete websites.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:

Space Cowboy wrote: "If I did I'd set up a website and disappear."

Oh, pretty please, with sugar on top, would you?

Yes, because as we all know, one is only allowed to participate in one type of online activity at a time. And by having both a website and posting to this newsgroup, Mike is violating the law.

Oh, wait. So am I.

In other words, Jim. History is not quite how you remember it, and now you're having to change your story. And let's not ignore your attempt to dismiss my experience by claiming it to be "deja vu." That's simply intellectually dishonest.

But all of that's beside the point, because you've simply not proven that your copyright has been violated.

Excerpts from the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ: (Emphasis through capitals is mine)

Copyright DOES NOT PROTECT facts, IDEAS, systems, or METHODS OF OPERATION, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

Copyright does not protect names, TITLES, slogans, or SHORT PHRASES. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks.

Copyright DOES NOT PROTECT IDEAS, CONCEPTS, systems, or METHODS OF DOING SOMETHING. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that COPYRIGHT WILL NOT PROTECT THE IDEA ITSELF as revealed in your written or artistic work.

In other words, once you shared the idea, the idea itself became public domain. Any description of the idea is yours, but that's it. But, as noted, copyright will not protect the idea itself. Nor will copyright protect your use of "rosetta stone."

You cannot even honestly claim that Mike had to have gotten the idea from you. Your posts and Usenet are *NOT* the only places where this information can come from, as demonstrated by the fact that my local tea seller was doing it without ever having read your post.

So, unless you can point out to CONTENT that Mike clearly "purloined" from your posts and could have gotten from nowhere else, you're simply full of a lot of bovine fecal material.

Jim, you cantankerous dogmatist….

Your implication that nobody else in the world might use the word "Rosetta" to personify translations is totally irrational. Are really so vane that you think you are the only one in the world who could come up with such an association? Are really so vane to think a “tea translation cheat sheet” is not obvious to anyone but you? I guess Lew’s work was really your idea too? I titled my page "The Puerh (普 洱 茶) Rosetta Page” (not Stone)

simply because it fit. The whole idea actually started when I decided to publish my “puerh cheat sheet” that I had maintained for years for the occasions when I traveled to the city and would visit the Vietnamese markets who stocked some puerh. I am well aware of the history and of the VERY commonplace use of the term “Rosetta Stone” to represent translation epiphanies and that’s exactly what came to mind when I decided to share my notes. It had nothing to do with you or your posts. Trust me when I say that I want nothing to do with you or your Space Cadet ideals. Our concepts were very different anyway, my concept was to share translations with the world; I never saw anything resembling that from you. You just talked about deciphering a can that someone else printed. I suppose you also claim a copyright on the use of the term “cheat sheet” in relation to tea, it’s not any different than “Rosetta”, even though I have been using both terms much longer than I have known of your belligerent prose. I have a notebook full of Cheat Sheets for different things including tea. Even if you did mention it back in 95, which appears to be questionable, that doesn’t mean I read it, I didn’t even participate in RFDT back then! Do you really expect me to search the archives for all of your babble before I work on my own research?

You want to insist that I change the features of my site to suite your twisted idea of a “Standard” where no standard really even exists. My site is unique, heck I “set the standard” for puerh information in English! I even got compliments from some of the exact same Chinese factories that make puerh!

You know I always thought that those other people who you ran off were weak. I now realize that they weren’t weak, they just got tired of listening to your crap and came to the conclusion that it(you) just wasn’t worth it. You have been nothing short of hateful towards me since the beginning. Your first attack on me appeared to be out of some sort of URL phobia where you claimed any and all URLs were trespassing and didn’t belong in this newsgroup, you have since posted many URLs yourself, and yet you call me a hypocrite? Who in the world am I hurting by sharing this information? Nobody is asking you buy anything, or donate anything, or to even look at my website, though my logs show that you are!

I asked you before if you would shut your mouth if I changed the name, you chose not to answer so I will take it as a “No”. Therefore I have nothing more to say on the subject. Besides, I keep forgetting the cardinal rule of the Usenet “DON’T FEED THE TROLLS”! I now respectfully bow out of this thread……

Besides, I don't think anybody can copyright words related to something. If that were the case, I'd copyright all indefinite articles related to tea, so if anybody said "the teapot" i'd sue them. haha.

I'd copyright Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'd be a millionare by the end of the week suing the media.

Mydnight

-------------------- thus then i turn me from my countries light, to dwell in the solemn shades of an endless night.

You'd have to trademark them. And that involves an approval process.

Besides, I don't think anybody can copyright words related to something. If that were the case, I'd copyright all indefinite articles related to tea, so if anybody said "the teapot" i'd sue them. haha.

I'd copyright Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'd be a millionare by the end of the week suing the media.

Mydnight

-------------------- thus then i turn me from my countries light, to dwell in the solemn shades of an endless night.