Thanks. I can handle this guy with one arm tied behind my back. I'm bringing his newly recruited dodgeball refugees up to speed. Where I come from that is considered a joke and not intolerance. If I rant about someone you can consider that a compliment that I even take the time. No wonder Dennis Miller bombed on CNBC. I didn't like his politics but I liked his rants and the scretching "one more thing". I'm more concerned about Ellie ending up in research laboratory.
Jim
Michael Plant wrote: ...I delete me... ...I waste him...
What I, for one, object to is much more the style than than the substance of Jim's post. Also, where his ire only directed at Mike I'd be much more inclined to stay out of it. But Jim has directed attacks against me for no good reason, and I therefor have reason to believe that he has and will direct attacks against other people.
If Jim has a just complaint against Mike, than he certainly has the right to voice it. But, first of all, this is not the place to do it, and, second, I and others are not able to discern what he's talking about. Now, I'm sure there is something there to be understood, but I don't think it's my obligation to decrypt barely coherent prose. If you want to be understood, you should express yourself clearly. It is not cool to be incoherent, however much postmodern culture might suggest it is.
I want to be fair, I really do. But Jim has engaged to rather low ad hominem attacks against me and others, and being tolerant does not mean being passive. I have refrained from such ad hominem attacks, but I will not stand by as people are bullied.
Once again, if Jim has a case, he and Mike can work it out on their own. I don't see any need to use this space as a platform for it. If his mission is to garner sympathy, then he is doing a poor job indeed.
If Jim or someone else would indulge my curiousity, I would like to know what gives Jim the right on the use of this term. I have to claim ignorance on these matters, but it seems to me simply using a term does not give you legal rights over it. But I'll suspend my judgement.
What I would like it a touch more lucidity and civility.
The real point, however, is that Jim is going WAY beyond his complaint with Mike.
And again, writing cryptically to sound intelligent is at best incredibly clicheed and at worst an attempt to conceal ones intellectual mediocrity. It may have been interesting circa 1900. But it is never justified when you actually want to make a point.
Can someone actually explain why this entails that no one can link to other sites? Jim, you present this as if it stood for itself. Look, I read the charter, and it simply does not ban commercial posting outright. The only thing it says is this:
I think the idea here is that the topic of RFDT should stick to tea proper, aka "camelia sinensis and its close relatives".
And again, who are you to decide who has a right to post what? I want an explicit answer to that.
If I and so many others are out of line in linking to sites, then I challenge everyone who thinks so to tell me with some kind of evidence. So far, all I've seen is Jim's pseudo-argument. I will continue bringing up this point so long as Jim uses this point as a pretext to bully people and no one can elucidate the point.
This member of the silent whatever is very solidly on Mike's side, but would like to see Mike just plain ignore Jim. It's like arguing with a brick wall Mike. Marlene
Jim, who says it can't be all three? Frankly I belive it IS public domain, he didn't know you had used it 'first', and he did come up with the idea to use that term independantly of you because of the first two reasons.
Having just now done some searching into the recent history of this debate, I'm now inclined to agree with you.
Mike, I don't think you have to worry about this guy discrediting you. It it patently obivious to me that Jim is being irrational, and I'm beginning to realize that MANY other people have made this observation. As far as I can tell, Jim's two big accusations against you, your posted URLs and your use of the Rosetta name, seem completely unfounded, and most people who bother to say anything seem to agree.
Unless anyone can actually offer new evidence in this matter, specifically toward the above accusations, I, for one, would like to see this topic dropped.
You are both right of course, and intellectually I fully agree. I guess it is just instinct, or pride, or whatever, but it is really hard not defend to one's self when attacked, I have never been the type to just stand there and take abuse. I guess I need to try harder.
It's a long story. On March 13, 2004, Mike posted an announcement to this group that he'd put together a "Puerh Rosetta Page" on his web site. Jim's first response, 2 days later, was the following (in its entirety):
He later claimed to have used the phrase years earlier (1999), in an attempt to establish a claim to antecedence, as a description of his "cheat sheet." Except his only evidence in Google's USENET archive was a reference to a "cheat sheet" and not a "rosetta page". He followed this with a lot of double talk about how using the phrase years later would still apply to his previous use.
When it was pointed out that you can't copyright an idea or a phrase, even in a title, Jim tried a different tactic. On March 18, 2004, he attempted to use Fox News Corp's law suit against Al Franken over the phrase "Fair and Balanced" as support for his claim.
On May 19, 2004, he posted the following (in its entirety):
The problem here for Jim's argument, is twofold. First, in spite of misrepresentation through a number of sources, the Fox News suit against Al Franken was a TRADEMARK infringement suit, not copyright.
Second - Fox not only failed to prove trademark infringement in a preliminary hearing (subsequently dropping the case), but also brought forth legal scrutiny that it might not even be a valid trademark to begin with.
-- Derek
"Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference."
With all due resect, Michael, this is questionable. In fact, over the last couple of years, individuals claiming to have legal expertise have fallen on BOTH sides of the issue.
-- Derek
Sons don't take notes on teh lessons their fathers teach.
Just for the record I offered, on more than one occasion, to change the Rosetta Page name if he would just shut up and leave me alone. He chose to ignore every offer, obviously he just wants an excuse to bellyache regardless.
Life goes on........ Mike Petro
formatting link
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed." Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.
Thanks, Derek. If your description is accurate, than I would say Jim's complaint is a stretch, to put it mildly. Was Jim selling this "cheat sheet?". I'm far from being a legal expert, but if you decide to use a term (a very common one at that) in your website, and then someone else decides to use that term, wittingly or not, you don't have a case. If Jim's site is commercial, then I might see the point. But If it's a trademark issue, I'm pretty sure those need to be registered. Plus, Fox did indeed loose said case.
At any rate, if Jim really does have a point (which I doubt) he does not serve his cause by posting paragraph upon paragragh of incoherent, irate blather, nor by attacking anyone who has different tastes or opinions than him. I have to say I find that sort of postering not so much offensive as exceptionally pathetic, regardless of the legal soundness, or lack thereof, of his claims.
Jim doesn't have a site, his only contributions are his posts to this group. I don't believe the Rosetta moniker is the real issue, it is just the only quasi-tangible, albeit still irrational, thing he can hang his hat on to justify his vendetta against me. I offered to retract it if he would commit to leaving me alone, he ignored the multiple offers.
Mike Petro
formatting link
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed." Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.
You don't need anyone's permission to do the right thing. Your offer is conditional. You never explained the changes. I'm not biting till there is a concrete offer on the table.
Let's make this absolutely clear, I concede NOTHING. I, and EVERYONE else who has spoken up on this subject, still believe you are dead wrong. I am simply willing to make a silly "concession" to get you to shut the hell up. I will remove the word "Rosetta" from my translation page if you cease and desist all attacks aimed at me. Personally I don't believe you can do it.
Given your predisposition to twisting my words, that's all I am willing to say.
"The Puerh Rosetta Page" thread that started it all:
formatting link
"Puerh Aging" thread, in which Jim continued his attacks on Mike:
formatting link
"Tea Talk service has been shut down" thread, in which I unfortunately poked the hornets' nest, and which contains more of the same:
formatting link
The longer this goes on, the more it looks like what REALLY ticked of Jim is the belief that Mike stole his idea. But since you can't protect an idea outside of patenting it, he's tried to claim copyright.
-- Derek
"Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.