On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:49:00 GMT, Michael Plant wrote:

> Space 9/7/05
>
>
>> I just brought the new guy up to speed so your accusation of
>> intolerance is in context. I first used the term Rosetta stone here
>> while you were an active poster. You change that story every time.
>> First it was public domain not copyright, then you couldn't have known
>> , and last serendipity. You're worse than Sasha fishing in other
>> groups for what people said but I stand by that statement because the
>> Supreme Court said I could do it for personal use and not because some
>> vendor tried to keep honest people honest. You say public service I
>> say infomercial with commercial links otherwise why not more links that
>> sells puerh? If you impose the criteria you're selling something. The
>> Charter taken as a whole prohibits commercial posting. We have a
>> hypocrite that accused TeaTalk of using the newsgroup for commercial
>> gain. This is a discussion group and if you can't say it here then
>> you're a special interest looking for traffic. 99% of what you say is
>> regurgitation so load up your site with hypertext anchors and provide
>> those for people who pay for bandwidth on newsgroup servers. Remember
>> this is Usenet and not WWW. I wouldn't want anybody chosen last for a
>> dodgeball team sticking up for me. The people most concered about God
>> are the sinners. If I don't care where you buy tea, then you don't
>> care where I do. All I can say if you recommend a site it is off my
>> list. I even changed puer sellers on Ebay. Now you can take a guess
>> and blabbermouth who you think that is. You're batting 50/50.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Mike Petro wrote:
>>> Space Cowboy wrote:
>>>> You're the guy who steals my ideas from this group and uses it on your
>>>> website under the guise of public domain.
>>>
>>> Jim, that old song is getting lame.
>> ...
>>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> With due respect to you and others, Jim does have legal rights regarding the
> use of the words "Rosetta Stone" on usenet in a tea context based in part on
> his first use of the term in this regard. You guys misunderstand most of
> what he writes because you do not read between the lines. A bit of tolerance
> in his direction would be appeciated by what has become the silent majority
> here for which I hopefully speak. Hope this helps.
>
> Michael

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.