Tea Talk service has been shutdown

it's not even up on the site anymore. wow.

Mydnight

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

A shame, too. I'm sure a lot of time and effort when into developing the service. And I think it had the potential to be something better than what it started out as. Oh, well. Such is life, I guess.

Interesting.

Thanks.

One down one to go.

Jim

Mike Boucher wrote:

Give it a rest.

You have yet to point to anything Mike "purloined" from this newsgroup, or anything that he could have gotten from no other place.

Where did you see the word you mentioned in this post? You need to get more sleep.

Jim

Derek wrote:

"Purloined" comes from one of your previous posts, Jim. There's no rule in USENET that says I can't take a quote from one of your older posts.

As for my need to get more sleep, that fact (which does happen to be true) has nothing to do with your attempt to evade the issue.

You're having flashbacks. If I was going anywhere in this thread it wouldn't be as you suggest. A late night cup of puerh calms my stomach and puts me to sleep like a baby. I pick and choose my battles. I follow the Bush Doctrine of International Relations. All I have to do is declare I'm right. You're the group historian so when you're taking a trip down memory lane of my previous posts ask the webmaster for another version when he came up with the term Rosetta because he was an active poster for a whole year prior to when I first used it in July

Jim

Derek wrote:

He's right, Howard.

Rufus T.

I see you've been taking yet another trip down Selective-memory Lane.

Quoting verbatim is good, but so is quoting in entirety. You just suggested that Mike was lying about his participation in this group in

On January 11, 2005, Mike Wrote the following:

In fact, Mike was talking about your erroneous and recently modified claim to have first used the term "rosetta" in 1995 and not about his participation in this group in 2003. By taking his words out of context, you shifted them chronologically by 8 years and then twisted them to support your accusation. You were either deceptive or sloppy. Either way, you got caught.

Since you want to wax jurisprudential, you haven't proven means, motive or opportunity beyond a shadow of a doubt. You have ignored other explanations, and even facts, when they contradict your agenda. When asked to point to clear evidence that Mike has "purloined" (your term) something from this group, you give only opinion.

Your proofs of Mike's wrongdoing and your assertions about his motivations have so many holes in them that they resemble Swiss cheese, rather than a brick of puerh.

Your knowledge of tea is impressive. Your argument against Mike is not.

I tire of this, and it seems that many others do as well. At this point it is all I can do to remain civil so once again

You have my email address if you choose to take this offline, just don't expect me to respond here anymore.......

Mike Petro snipped-for-privacy@pu-erh.net

I tire of this, and it seems that many others do as well. At this point it is all I can do to remain civil so once again

You have my email address if you choose to take this offline, just don't expect me to respond here anymore.......

Mike Petro snipped-for-privacy@pu-erh.net

If you tell the truth you can't be caught in a lie. He got caught with his pants down. I mentioned the first use of Rosetta in July 2003. He said he didn't read archives from 95 so couldn't have known I used it even in 2003. He was an active poster for a whole prior to my first use of Rosetta. He read my post in 2003 and added it to his cheatsheet for later use on his website. The guy is a thieving webmaster typical of the genre that requires you to install firewall-virus-spam-adware-spyware protection. He won't take his PT Barnum snake oil side show pitching pickled tea elsewhere which one could argue is a form of advertising expressly prohibited by the charter of this group. At least Teapost had some integrity and bowed out.

Jim

Derek wrote:

If you were telling the truth, you would not be misrepresenting a quote that Mike made about what he was doing in 1995 as being about his behavior in 2003.

I've followed this ordeal with only moderate interest, and for the sake of full disclosure i am bound to say that your agenda against mike is ill-founded, mean-spirited, and most important, wrong. on a website as comprehensive as mike's, one could find any number of things which have been discussed on a newsgroup. your blanket dismissal of him as a fraud is as incomprehensible as it is disgusting. see ya.

rec.food.drink.tea is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for creation by 376:38 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 5 Apr 1995.

The charter, culled from the call for votes:

Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant (C. sinensis or close relatives) in water. Discussions of herbal teas (e.g. chamomile, sassafras, etc.) are also approved, but this newsgroup should NOT be used for advertising herbal tea products or discussing tea as anything other than a beverage. Tea-as-medicine discussions should take place in misc.health.alternative.

He said he didn't read archives back to 95. He hung himself not me. I don't even think the date is important which is the reason I didn't include it. He was an active poster a year before I mentioned my Rosetta reference. He didn't need to read an archive to purloin my intellectual copyright protected material. He saw my post and instantaneously hit the PRINT button and stapled it too his cheatsheet. I corrected a statement about using a cheatsheet in 95 which s/b 99. However I just had a dejavu experience while posting this and it was nothing more than a typo. Even if we allow his cheatsheet as evidence which he never mentioned in the group he specifically didn't mention a single instance of it ever containing a transliterated term. The way he described it, it was a memory jogger which today would be replaced by a PDA.

Jim

Derek wrote:

You're still misrepresenting what he said about 1995 as being about

He never said he didn't see what you wrote in 2003. He said he didn't see what you wrote in 1995.

And you're still trying to claim copyright infringement for items that do not fall under the protection of copyright law.