Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Tea (rec.drink.tea) 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. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:41:16 GMT, Mydnight wrote:
> On 09 Jan 2005 17:10:23 -0500, Lewis Perin > wrote: > >>Mydnight > writes: >> >>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:31:53 +0100, (Antoine C.) >>> wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> not that many people around like mike. >> >>I like him just fine. >> > oops again. damn, just erase my entire participation from this > thread, please. > > i meant, there aren't many people around that "are like mike" in his > knowledge on pu'er. i like him just fine too...his site is awesome. > > > there are not many people around that are like mike. Ah, yes. Another one like me. You know, people who have an unswerving ability to put one foot in their mouth and to start off on the wrong one. -- Derek The harder you try, the dumber you look. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:41:16 GMT, Mydnight wrote:
> On 09 Jan 2005 17:10:23 -0500, Lewis Perin > wrote: > >>Mydnight > writes: >> >>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:31:53 +0100, (Antoine C.) >>> wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> not that many people around like mike. >> >>I like him just fine. >> > oops again. damn, just erase my entire participation from this > thread, please. > > i meant, there aren't many people around that "are like mike" in his > knowledge on pu'er. i like him just fine too...his site is awesome. > > > there are not many people around that are like mike. Ah, yes. Another one like me. You know, people who have an unswerving ability to put one foot in their mouth and to start off on the wrong one. -- Derek The harder you try, the dumber you look. |
|
|||
|
|||
Mydnight > writes:
> On 09 Jan 2005 17:10:23 -0500, Lewis Perin > wrote: > > >Mydnight > writes: > > > >> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:31:53 +0100, (Antoine C.) > >> wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >> not that many people around like mike. > > > >I like him just fine. > > > oops again. damn, just erase my entire participation from this > thread, please. > > i meant, there aren't many people around that "are like mike" in his > knowledge on pu'er. i like him just fine too...his site is awesome. I knew what you meant, but I just couldn't resist. Sorry! /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
|
|||
|
|||
Mydnight > writes:
> On 09 Jan 2005 17:10:23 -0500, Lewis Perin > wrote: > > >Mydnight > writes: > > > >> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:31:53 +0100, (Antoine C.) > >> wrote: > >> [...] > >> > >> not that many people around like mike. > > > >I like him just fine. > > > oops again. damn, just erase my entire participation from this > thread, please. > > i meant, there aren't many people around that "are like mike" in his > knowledge on pu'er. i like him just fine too...his site is awesome. I knew what you meant, but I just couldn't resist. Sorry! /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
|
|||
|
|||
:P to both of you! heh
Mydnight -------------------- thus then i turn me from my countries light, to dwell in the solemn shades of an endless night. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Of course not, you need to raid this group for public domain ideas used
on your website. We called you a copycat in school because you never had an original idea. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > Damn Jim, you still trying to run me off? I am not going anywhere, > get over it! |
|
|||
|
|||
Of course not, you need to raid this group for public domain ideas used
on your website. We called you a copycat in school because you never had an original idea. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > Damn Jim, you still trying to run me off? I am not going anywhere, > get over it! |
|
|||
|
|||
First you're another clueless WWW webmaster using USENET for self
promotion because otherwise you're just another meaningless URL on a Google search page for puerh with hit counters not far from zero. Second you steal ideas from this group under the guise of public domain. You simply can't claim a webpage of transliterations is a Rosetta Stone because you simply consulted a dictionary or asked some person. So obviously you stole that characterization from my posts on the subject. Third all you have to do is set up a simple link to a free blog site and go away but you won't which proves your disingenuous motives. Fourth you're a self admitted hipocrite complaining about what other websites do with this group. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > He mentioned once in a post that he used a tea box as a "Rosetta > Stone". He therefore feels that he owns a copyright on the term > anytime it is associated with tea translation. My position has > always been that I did not get the idea for my "Puerh Rosetta Page" > from him, the term "Rosetta" is commonly used for projects related to > translation in all sectors. > > Actually he was bitter towards me and tried to run me off long before > I added the "Rosetta Page" to my site. I firmly believe that I could > delete the page and he would still try to run me off. Life goes > on..... > > Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
First you're another clueless WWW webmaster using USENET for self
promotion because otherwise you're just another meaningless URL on a Google search page for puerh with hit counters not far from zero. Second you steal ideas from this group under the guise of public domain. You simply can't claim a webpage of transliterations is a Rosetta Stone because you simply consulted a dictionary or asked some person. So obviously you stole that characterization from my posts on the subject. Third all you have to do is set up a simple link to a free blog site and go away but you won't which proves your disingenuous motives. Fourth you're a self admitted hipocrite complaining about what other websites do with this group. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > He mentioned once in a post that he used a tea box as a "Rosetta > Stone". He therefore feels that he owns a copyright on the term > anytime it is associated with tea translation. My position has > always been that I did not get the idea for my "Puerh Rosetta Page" > from him, the term "Rosetta" is commonly used for projects related to > translation in all sectors. > > Actually he was bitter towards me and tried to run me off long before > I added the "Rosetta Page" to my site. I firmly believe that I could > delete the page and he would still try to run me off. Life goes > on..... > > Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
If that is your understanding you're wrong. I used the concept first
in this group to describe how I determined transliteration of tea terms from commercial cans of tea written in Arabic, Chinese, Indian etc which had the corresponding English. The fact I did it for decades has nothing to do with the establishment of the group. Jim Derek wrote: > Never mind the fact that there doesn't seem to be any record of him > actually making the post he claims to have made in 1995 where he > shared his idea. And Google's archive goes back to the April 11, 1995 > start of this group. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Cowboy" > writes:
> > Mike Petro wrote: > > Damn Jim, you still trying to run me off? I am not going anywhere, > > get over it! > > Of course not, you need to raid this group for public domain ideas used > on your website. We called you a copycat in school because you never > had an original idea. "We"? You and who else? /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
|
|||
|
|||
"Space Cowboy" > writes:
> > Mike Petro wrote: > > Damn Jim, you still trying to run me off? I am not going anywhere, > > get over it! > > Of course not, you need to raid this group for public domain ideas used > on your website. We called you a copycat in school because you never > had an original idea. "We"? You and who else? /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
|
|||
|
|||
I've got a thirty year old commercial brand black tuocha that taste the
same as the same version on the shelf today. It aged 10 years in the SouthWest and 20 years in the West. I can't help but think that recommendations on storing puerh is just parrot talk. What else is somebody from HK going to say about humidity and temperature. I worry about exposing any tea to moisture. Any argument on storage can't be settle for 30 years. I've got some certified green tuocha produced in Jan 2000 that I put away as a retirement investment. There will be a date of production if someone buys it and they can read Chinese. Every beengcha I've seen comes in the tissue wrapping. I think a paper bag is all you need for long term storage. Jim Michael Plant wrote: ....www meister babble stripped... > FWIW, the guys at The Tea Gallery make the same claim that Sasha does > regarding the alternating of dry and less dry environments for Pu'erh cakes. > They say that the seasonal variations in temperature and humidity in Hong > Kong are perfect for Pu'erh. They do not speak of air conditioning. > > If I ruin a $20.00 cake, that's one thing; if I ruin a $20,000 cake, that's > quite another. But, don't worry about me. > > Raise that humidity 10 percent or so and you have a good cigar storage, as > Jim said. Unless you're storing your cigars in England, and in that case > lower it 10 percent. > > Wise words. Thanks for reminder. I'm trying to get my hands on those zisha > clay canisters without paying an arm and a leg. > > Michael |
|
|||
|
|||
I've got a thirty year old commercial brand black tuocha that taste the
same as the same version on the shelf today. It aged 10 years in the SouthWest and 20 years in the West. I can't help but think that recommendations on storing puerh is just parrot talk. What else is somebody from HK going to say about humidity and temperature. I worry about exposing any tea to moisture. Any argument on storage can't be settle for 30 years. I've got some certified green tuocha produced in Jan 2000 that I put away as a retirement investment. There will be a date of production if someone buys it and they can read Chinese. Every beengcha I've seen comes in the tissue wrapping. I think a paper bag is all you need for long term storage. Jim Michael Plant wrote: ....www meister babble stripped... > FWIW, the guys at The Tea Gallery make the same claim that Sasha does > regarding the alternating of dry and less dry environments for Pu'erh cakes. > They say that the seasonal variations in temperature and humidity in Hong > Kong are perfect for Pu'erh. They do not speak of air conditioning. > > If I ruin a $20.00 cake, that's one thing; if I ruin a $20,000 cake, that's > quite another. But, don't worry about me. > > Raise that humidity 10 percent or so and you have a good cigar storage, as > Jim said. Unless you're storing your cigars in England, and in that case > lower it 10 percent. > > Wise words. Thanks for reminder. I'm trying to get my hands on those zisha > clay canisters without paying an arm and a leg. > > Michael |
|
|||
|
|||
Space Cowboy:
> Of course not, you need to raid this group for public domain ideas used > on your website. We called you a copycat in school because you never > had an original idea. From an intellectual property perspective (and that's how I make most of my living, such as it is, these days), this is slightly interesting. As others have pointed out here, one can patent an idea, though without a credible embodiment the patent may not withstand challenge from someone who actually does the work to make it work. And an idea is simply not the subject matter of copyright law; that pertains only to the form of expression. From a creativity perspective, this exchange nicely illustrates a major point in the field: invention ("Gee, I have a clever idea") is not innovation ("I will make this happen"). The space dude may have had the idea of applying the ubiquitous Rosetta Stone concept to tea, though it's hardly plausible that he was the first anywhere to do so. It is certainly insulting to all of us to assume that because he may have used it someplace (please provide the message citation), we could never have come up with the same idea independently. More to the point, though, Mike P. actually DID THE WORK of exhaustively researching and publishing a completely unique and unprecedented compendium of extremely useful information. And continues to add to it. Space Cowboy might just as well say the he had thought of doing this, hence Mike's hundreds (thousands?) of hours of work were really just derivative. Personally, I wish Mike _would_ go into business. Nothing more frustrating than reading about great stuff and having no idea where to get the identical product. In fact, I'd pay a premium to buy teas from his site - I've bought some really crap Pu-erh from vendors who just didn't know their stuff. I suspect that Mike may be the single most knowledgeable individual on the subject now residing in the US. SC - by all means start your own blog. Might divert a troll or two from this list. -DM |
|
|||
|
|||
Did you forget to take your meds again Jim?
Space Cowboy wrote: > First <snip> Whatever...... > Second you steal ideas from this group under the guise of public > domain. You simply can't claim a webpage of transliterations is a > Rosetta Stone because you simply consulted a dictionary or asked some > person. So obviously you stole that characterization from my posts on > the subject. Jim, I have been aware of the Rosetta Stone and it's use as a translation icon long before I ever heard any of your babble. Do a google on it and see how many translation related derivatives show up, it is just as iconic as the Tower Of Babble or the Rock of Gibraltar. Quite honestly I never even thought of your posts when I came up with the idea. Besides picking up a can in a grocery store and deciphering it for your personal benefit is hardly the same thing as spending hours of research and sharing it with the public. "If" I were to rename my Translation Page to something else will you shut your mouth and leave me alone? I sincerely doubt it, you had it out for me long before this came up! >Third all you have to do is set up a simple link to a > free blog site and go away but you won't which proves your disingenuous > motives. Why should I bother with a blog, there are already several groups that discuss tea, this is one of them. There is no need to start another just because you don't like me. I dont hear anyone else asking me to leave. The day that a majority asks me to leave, I will! >Fourth you're a self admitted hipocrite complaining about > what other websites do with this group. Self admitted what? All I did was complain about someone who was insinuating that this newsgroup belonged to their business, they have since ceased. I don't mislead anyone. Currently all I offer is lots of honest information. If I ever change that, and someday I might, I will be up front about it and change my posting style accordingly. My posts here are usually just responses to someone requesting information anyway. Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
Did you forget to take your meds again Jim?
Space Cowboy wrote: > First <snip> Whatever...... > Second you steal ideas from this group under the guise of public > domain. You simply can't claim a webpage of transliterations is a > Rosetta Stone because you simply consulted a dictionary or asked some > person. So obviously you stole that characterization from my posts on > the subject. Jim, I have been aware of the Rosetta Stone and it's use as a translation icon long before I ever heard any of your babble. Do a google on it and see how many translation related derivatives show up, it is just as iconic as the Tower Of Babble or the Rock of Gibraltar. Quite honestly I never even thought of your posts when I came up with the idea. Besides picking up a can in a grocery store and deciphering it for your personal benefit is hardly the same thing as spending hours of research and sharing it with the public. "If" I were to rename my Translation Page to something else will you shut your mouth and leave me alone? I sincerely doubt it, you had it out for me long before this came up! >Third all you have to do is set up a simple link to a > free blog site and go away but you won't which proves your disingenuous > motives. Why should I bother with a blog, there are already several groups that discuss tea, this is one of them. There is no need to start another just because you don't like me. I dont hear anyone else asking me to leave. The day that a majority asks me to leave, I will! >Fourth you're a self admitted hipocrite complaining about > what other websites do with this group. Self admitted what? All I did was complain about someone who was insinuating that this newsgroup belonged to their business, they have since ceased. I don't mislead anyone. Currently all I offer is lots of honest information. If I ever change that, and someday I might, I will be up front about it and change my posting style accordingly. My posts here are usually just responses to someone requesting information anyway. Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Jan 2005 06:11:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote:
> Derek wrote: >> Never mind the fact that there doesn't seem to be any record of him >> actually making the post he claims to have made in 1995 where he >> shared his idea. And Google's archive goes back to the April 11, 1995 >> start of this group. > > If that is your understanding you're wrong. I used the concept first > in this group to describe how I determined transliteration of tea terms > from commercial cans of tea written in Arabic, Chinese, Indian etc > which had the corresponding English. The fact I did it for decades has > nothing to do with the establishment of the group. If it is a misunderstanding, it is based upon what you, yourself, have written. You are the one who claimed "I first posted about my cheatsheet of Chinese and English tea terms here in 95" (March 18, 2004, "The Puerh Rosetta Page" thread). Note the date, Jim. I have read 36 archived posts you made from your email address to this newsgroup in 1995. Perhaps one of your posts slipped past the archive, but I can find no evidence that you did, in fact, post about your cheatsheet in 1995. As far as I can tell, that claim is unsubstantiated. And yet, you used it to bully Mike for something he didn't do. [Note: I said "as far as I can tell." I fully admit that not finding evidence doesn't mean it exists. Neither does admitting that limitation mean the reverse.] Now, by March of 2004, you had very specifically conveyed the idea of a "rosetta label," but that hardly gives you ownership of the idea. You may well have been the first person in this newsgroup to mention the idea, but, by your own admission, you were using it for decades before this group even existed. Do you seriously think you are the only one who used both the concept and the term "rosetta" regarding tea? I learned of the "rosetta list" concept from my local tea merchant, not from you. He used it on the labels his tea shipped under. And I learned about it from him before you ever posted anything about the idea to this newsgroup. All of which is moot, because copyright does not protect an idea. Facts, ideas and words are public domain - unless trademarked or patented. Copyright doesn't even recognized distinctiveness of the idea, which is why bookstores have multiple items on the same topic but from different authors. He didn't violate your copyright, Jim. Nor did he necessarily have to get the idea from you. To insist that he must have reeks of delusional self-aggrandizement. -- Derek The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Jan 2005 06:11:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote:
> Derek wrote: >> Never mind the fact that there doesn't seem to be any record of him >> actually making the post he claims to have made in 1995 where he >> shared his idea. And Google's archive goes back to the April 11, 1995 >> start of this group. > > If that is your understanding you're wrong. I used the concept first > in this group to describe how I determined transliteration of tea terms > from commercial cans of tea written in Arabic, Chinese, Indian etc > which had the corresponding English. The fact I did it for decades has > nothing to do with the establishment of the group. If it is a misunderstanding, it is based upon what you, yourself, have written. You are the one who claimed "I first posted about my cheatsheet of Chinese and English tea terms here in 95" (March 18, 2004, "The Puerh Rosetta Page" thread). Note the date, Jim. I have read 36 archived posts you made from your email address to this newsgroup in 1995. Perhaps one of your posts slipped past the archive, but I can find no evidence that you did, in fact, post about your cheatsheet in 1995. As far as I can tell, that claim is unsubstantiated. And yet, you used it to bully Mike for something he didn't do. [Note: I said "as far as I can tell." I fully admit that not finding evidence doesn't mean it exists. Neither does admitting that limitation mean the reverse.] Now, by March of 2004, you had very specifically conveyed the idea of a "rosetta label," but that hardly gives you ownership of the idea. You may well have been the first person in this newsgroup to mention the idea, but, by your own admission, you were using it for decades before this group even existed. Do you seriously think you are the only one who used both the concept and the term "rosetta" regarding tea? I learned of the "rosetta list" concept from my local tea merchant, not from you. He used it on the labels his tea shipped under. And I learned about it from him before you ever posted anything about the idea to this newsgroup. All of which is moot, because copyright does not protect an idea. Facts, ideas and words are public domain - unless trademarked or patented. Copyright doesn't even recognized distinctiveness of the idea, which is why bookstores have multiple items on the same topic but from different authors. He didn't violate your copyright, Jim. Nor did he necessarily have to get the idea from you. To insist that he must have reeks of delusional self-aggrandizement. -- Derek The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures. |
|
|||
|
|||
You not a very good copyright lawyer if you don't even know the
definition of the word, but let me digress for a moment, in fact you're so bad one could argue you lifted your post almost verbatum from other posts previously on the subject. It applies to 'matter and form' inclusive and not 'matter or form' exclusive. My idea of protected intellectual property meets both inclusive criteria. It is a given I used it here first. The courts want more than should,could,would ah propositions and it's corollary there's nothing new under the sun. Here's how dumb ass you guys can be. One of the prosecutors in the Andrea Yates appeal actually argued the Law and Order episode used by the psychiatrist in the trial didn't have to exist because the subject matter was plausible. If you are a copyright lawyer use Lexus\Nexus and do a search on previous uses relating the Rosetta Stone to transcriptions from tea cans and post the results. The courts use this almost as definitive proof on what has been said on the subject in the media. Personally I think you are a blowhard and don't have the access. No matter the body of the material. I don't think a compendium is all that original. I want my stolen intellectual property idea removed. You already identified one of the possible motives for self promotion in the group. You don't know how to use Google and find those selling Puerh? If you want the really good stuff you'll need someone to search Chinese webpages. The bottom line there isn't anymore than what is available through export companies. I'm the old fogey who believes in USENET as a public discussion forum suscinct from the WWW and it's dead end mouse clicks. I need more people in join in my request and have the website put up a message board or blog which is standard practice so I can go overthere and complain and not be accused of being a troll here. Jim Dog Ma 1 (reply w/o spam) wrote: > Space Cowboy: > > Of course not, you need to raid this group for public domain ideas used > > on your website. We called you a copycat in school because you never > > had an original idea. > > From an intellectual property perspective (and that's how I make most of my > living, such as it is, these days), this is slightly interesting. As others > have pointed out here, one can patent an idea, though without a credible > embodiment the patent may not withstand challenge from someone who actually > does the work to make it work. And an idea is simply not the subject matter > of copyright law; that pertains only to the form of expression. > > From a creativity perspective, this exchange nicely illustrates a major > point in the field: invention ("Gee, I have a clever idea") is not > innovation ("I will make this happen"). The space dude may have had the idea > of applying the ubiquitous Rosetta Stone concept to tea, though it's hardly > plausible that he was the first anywhere to do so. It is certainly insulting > to all of us to assume that because he may have used it someplace (please > provide the message citation), we could never have come up with the same > idea independently. > > More to the point, though, Mike P. actually DID THE WORK of exhaustively > researching and publishing a completely unique and unprecedented compendium > of extremely useful information. And continues to add to it. Space Cowboy > might just as well say the he had thought of doing this, hence Mike's > hundreds (thousands?) of hours of work were really just derivative. > > Personally, I wish Mike _would_ go into business. Nothing more frustrating > than reading about great stuff and having no idea where to get the identical > product. In fact, I'd pay a premium to buy teas from his site - I've bought > some really crap Pu-erh from vendors who just didn't know their stuff. I > suspect that Mike may be the single most knowledgeable individual on the > subject now residing in the US. > > SC - by all means start your own blog. Might divert a troll or two from this > list. > > -DM |
|
|||
|
|||
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: > On 10 Jan 2005 06:11:03 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote: > > > Derek wrote: > >> Never mind the fact that there doesn't seem to be any record of him > >> actually making the post he claims to have made in 1995 where he > >> shared his idea. And Google's archive goes back to the April 11, 1995 > >> start of this group. > > > > If that is your understanding you're wrong. I used the concept first > > in this group to describe how I determined transliteration of tea terms > > from commercial cans of tea written in Arabic, Chinese, Indian etc > > which had the corresponding English. The fact I did it for decades has > > nothing to do with the establishment of the group. > > If it is a misunderstanding, it is based upon what you, yourself, have > written. You are the one who claimed "I first posted about my > cheatsheet of Chinese and English tea terms here in 95" (March 18, > 2004, "The Puerh Rosetta Page" thread). Note the date, Jim. > > I have read 36 archived posts you made from your email address to this > newsgroup in 1995. Perhaps one of your posts slipped past the archive, > but I can find no evidence that you did, in fact, post about your > cheatsheet in 1995. As far as I can tell, that claim is > unsubstantiated. And yet, you used it to bully Mike for something he > didn't do. > > [Note: I said "as far as I can tell." I fully admit that not finding > evidence doesn't mean it exists. Neither does admitting that > limitation mean the reverse.] > > Now, by March of 2004, you had very specifically conveyed the idea of > a "rosetta label," but that hardly gives you ownership of the idea. > > You may well have been the first person in this newsgroup to mention > the idea, but, by your own admission, you were using it for decades > before this group even existed. Do you seriously think you are the > only one who used both the concept and the term "rosetta" regarding > tea? > > I learned of the "rosetta list" concept from my local tea merchant, > not from you. He used it on the labels his tea shipped under. And I > learned about it from him before you ever posted anything about the > idea to this newsgroup. > > All of which is moot, because copyright does not protect an idea. > Facts, ideas and words are public domain - unless trademarked or > patented. Copyright doesn't even recognized distinctiveness of the > idea, which is why bookstores have multiple items on the same topic > but from different authors. > > He didn't violate your copyright, Jim. Nor did he necessarily have to > get the idea from you. To insist that he must have reeks of delusional > self-aggrandizement. > > -- > Derek > > The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures. |
|
|||
|
|||
Space Cowboy wrote: "If I did I'd set up a website and disappear."
Oh, pretty please, with sugar on top, would you? |
|
|||
|
|||
Space Cowboy wrote: "If I did I'd set up a website and disappear."
Oh, pretty please, with sugar on top, would you? |
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:34:29 GMT, Robert Wright 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. -- Derek Every dark cloud has a silver lining, but lighting kills hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Jan 2005 06:14:29 -0800, Space Cowboy wrote:
> 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. 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. -- Derek Luck can't last a lifetime unless you die young. |
|
|||
|
|||
Jim, you cantankerous dogmatist=E2=80=A6.
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 =E2=80=9Ctea translation cheat sheet=E2=80=9D is not obvious to anyone but you? I guess Lew=E2=80=99s work was really your idea too? I titled my page "The Puerh (= =E6=99=AE =E6=B4=B1 =E8=8C=B6) Rosetta Page=E2=80=9D (not Stone) http://www.pu-erh.ne= t/rosetta.html simply because it fit. The whole idea actually started when I decided to publish my =E2=80=9Cpuerh cheat sheet=E2=80=9D 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 =E2=80=9CRosetta Stone= =E2=80=9D to represent translation epiphanies and that=E2=80=99s 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 =E2=80=9Ccheat sheet=E2=80=9D in relation to tea, it=E2=80=99s = not any different than =E2=80=9CRosetta=E2=80=9D, even though I have been using bot= h 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=E2=80=99t mean I read it, I didn=E2=80=99t even participate in R= FDT 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 =E2=80=9CStandard=E2=80=9D where no standard really even = exists. My site is unique, heck I =E2=80=9Cset the standard=E2=80=9D for puerh info= rmation 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=E2=80=99t weak, they just got tired of listening to your crap and came to the conclusion that it(you) just wasn=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D. There= fore I have nothing more to say on the subject. Besides, I keep forgetting the cardinal rule of the Usenet =E2=80=9CDON=E2=80=99T FEED THE TROLLS=E2=80=9D! I now respectfully bow out of this thread=E2=80=A6=E2=80=A6 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:15:30 GMT, Mydnight wrote:
> 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. You'd have to trademark them. And that involves an approval process. -- Derek If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Aging | Winemaking | |||
Aging | Winemaking | |||
US steak houses, wet aging v. dry aging. | General Cooking | |||
Aging In Bulk Vs Aging In Bottle | Winemaking | |||
Aging | Winemaking |