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 |
|
|||
|
|||
>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 Hehehe, yes, the VERY silent majority....... Actually its like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it. Besides in the court of public opinion it is clear who has won this case. My motives and character have spoken for themselves, while he sticks his foot in mouth every time he attacks. I steadfastly refuse to allow him to run me off like he did all the others and somebody really does need to stand up to the bully/troll. BTW, if he has Legal Rights to the Rosetta Stone metaphor then I stand humbly corrected and will forever bow before his presence..... NOT! Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net "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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Every time you talk about a Rosetta timeline you keep adding more
contraditions. You've mentioned three so far public domain, awol, and serendipity. Now your making up another excuse I'll call anachronism. The first time we had a run in is when you wanted us to critique your website. I told you this is the Usenet and not the WWW. (You still haven't explained why you don't think that matters besides simply postings URLs to drum up traffic for your website. If you need to find something on the Internet you use Google. You don't need to litter Usenet with links. Those days are long gone). I could go back and find you responding to my posts directly or indirectly prior to you requesting feedback on your site. I haven't checked that perse but I remember I could almost see the expression on your face when I told you to take your commercial website and get lost. It was like your mom sitting you in the corner. It wasn't a stranger asking you to go for a ride. Only then you started to hide behind Plonking and Killfiles which you selectively choose to invoke. (For the rest of you who claim I'm in your killfile let's see you back it up by not continously saying I'm in your killfile). I hope people are paying attention to your argument about commercial sites being allowed. Why don't you be honest with us and make that argument about your running infomercial. If you want to publish information using video rerouting to defeat copyright protect you'll need my permission. But that hasn't stopped you before. I preempted any EtTu charges by declaring Ebay a flea market in a previous post. I'm sure I can find more websites that sell puerh with Google than you list. You're probably using Google to come up with a partial list without giving credit. Previously you mentioned they had some stamp of approval and now you're making it sound like potpourri. You still avoid the messy questions I've raised about vendors who overcharge and misrepresent puerh. I'm the only one exposing fraud not you. Your likewise claims are empty sales rhetoric. I'd probably find a lot more under your recommended commercial links probably by the same people you claim have approved your site. I only hoard tea. You're the tea pimp looking for johns and janes. To bring others uptodate I've killfiled this website. I don't make empty threats. You have a HOSTS file on Unix and Windows. You simply enter the dummy address of 127.0.0.1 for the website. I just visited it once to make sure I was being plagiarize through a direct link provided by the webmaster which was obvious my the link name. The website was a commercial business was from day one. It by a legal definition is an infomercial where you trust someone to represent a product. No explicit claims can be made only anecdotal presentation. So if I buy the product and it doesn't work I can't sue you for fraud. You don't have to be that blind to know when you're in a room with an elephant. Anything else I know about the site is said here by others in particular by the webmaster. This guy will also link IP addresses of his web traffic to the IP addresses of newsgroup posters claiming popularity then go looking for your other posts in other groups. I live by the Las Vegas motto. He also seems to fixated on where you buy your puer. This guy simply doesn't respect your privacy. When you get your ass in trouble you want the meaniest, nastiest, and if deep pockets smartest lawyers like Cockran and Mesereau you can find. In our metro area you'll need one to sue the state so you can sell your house which lies in a proposed correidor for state highway development. No eminent domain just an idea in the planning stage being tossed around by state agencies probably ten years to the first use of eminent domain if ever. You'll need one to sue the water district over existing water rights to replace an existing well. They claim when your well dries up so does your water rights. They illegally sold your water rights to a big developer so he could put in a subdivision using underground water. The next time you're on trial make sure your lawyer selects jurors who have an antimedia bias. That advice was free. I've explained my style of posting in the past. I think it interesting you consider it coy. Sometimes I like to frame it as a murder mystery. You know the ending but the story is interesting. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > Space Cowboy wrote: > > 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. > > As I said Jim, lame, and rather trollish even. I say Troll because you > argue anything I have to say, right/left, black/white, even if I said > the the sun was shining you would argue it. I havent changed my stance > a bit, you simply change the way you twist the facts. > > BTW, just because I was an active poster does NOT mean that I read your > post, I have been known to ignore and otherwise killfile many of your > posts due to your high S/N ratio and Ad Hominem attacks. > > > > 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. > > So its okay for you to publicly teach people how to defeat copy > protection but its not ok for me to use the word "Rosetta"? Bit of a > double standard if you ask me. Your just peeved because you got caught. > > > You say public service I > > say infomercial with commercial links otherwise why not more links that > > sells puerh? > > Umm Jim, to my knowledge, I have the most complete list of vendors who > sell puerh that exisits in the English language. Show me a more > complete list and I will stand corrected but I think you are talking > out of your tail again. > > > If you impose the criteria you're selling something. The > > Charter taken as a whole prohibits commercial posting. > > Show me where Jim, in what twisted logic do you get that from, please > tell me. I quoted the actual charter and I dont see it in there > anywhere! Since I am not commercial your statement is groundless > anyway. > > > > We have a > > hypocrite that accused TeaTalk of using the newsgroup for commercial > > gain. > > Once again you twist the facts, I got on their case for portraying that > this group was their own property, it was misleading at best. I dont > care if they linked to it, just portray it for what it is, they tried > to portray it as being theirs. > > If you want to talk about being a hypocrite how about the fact that you > are now doing the EXACT same thing you criticized me for doing last > year when you said I should never buy tea off of ebay or the internet. > Look where you are buying your tea now! > > <idiotic drivel sniped> > > > 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. > > Thats my point, I share information with others, you horde it..... If > you were truly intersted in contributing to the group you wouldnt be so > damn coy about everything. > > Mike > www.pu-erh.net |
|
|||
|
|||
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... > Space 9/7/05 > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Spaced Out Cowboy wrote: >Every time you talk bout a Rosetta timeline you keep adding more contraditions.... <the rest of the twisted, libelous, ravings of a Troll have been sniped> The only contradictions are in your own perverse sense of the truth Jim ! Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
Space Cowboy wrote: > If I rant > about someone you can consider that a compliment that I even take the > time. Please! NO more compliments...... Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
>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 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. As always, I invite critical responces. Nico |
|
|||
|
|||
> And again, writing cryptically to sound intelligent is at best > incredibly clicheed and at worst an attempt to conceal ones > intellectual mediocrity. Its an old legal trick, if you cant dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your BS. Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
>I told you this is the Usenet and not the WWW.
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: >This newsgroup should NOT be used for advertising herbal >tea products 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. Nico |
|
|||
|
|||
.. 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 > > > Hehehe, yes, the VERY silent majority....... > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
> Every time you talk about a Rosetta timeline you keep adding more > contraditions. You've mentioned three so far public domain, awol, and > serendipity. 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
>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 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. Nico |
|
|||
|
|||
Nico wrote: > >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 > > 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. > > Nico 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. Mike |
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Sep 2005 08:17:22 -0700, Nico wrote:
> 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. 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): > The term rosetta was first used by me several months ago to identify > the process I used to translate between Chinese and English tea terms. > Please remove any inferences from your pathetic plagiarising website > using any of my copyright ideas expressed in this group. 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): > No the court ruled on a claim of copyright infringement by Fox for the > phrase "Fair and Balanced". The court ruled at the minimum it needed > a qualifier so "The Rosetta Stone Fair and Balance" would pass the > test. 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." -- Voltaire |
|
|||
|
|||
>> 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. > >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): 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 http://www.pu-erh.net "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. |
|
|||
|
|||
(responding to Derek's post from 9-8-05 7:41)
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. Nico |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Sep 2005 20:17:19 -0700, "Nico" > wrote:
>(responding to Derek's post from 9-8-05 7:41) > >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. 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 http://www.pu-erh.net "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. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. Mike http://www.pu-erh.net/rosetta.html Space Cowboy wrote: > 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. > > Jim > > Mike Petro wrote: > > 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
On 9 Sep 2005 09:03:41 -0700, Space Cowboy wrote:
> 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. What's so abstract about "I disagree with you, but I'm willing to make the changes you want if you'll agree to leave me alone"? Or is it only "concrete" if he admits that he's wrong? -- Derek "People ask for criticism, but they only want praise." -- W. Somerset Maugham |
|
|||
|
|||
On 8 Sep 2005 20:17:19 -0700, Nico wrote:
> (responding to Derek's post from 9-8-05 7:41) > > 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. The record is available on Google. "The Puerh Rosetta Page" thread that started it all: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X600135CB "Puerh Aging" thread, in which Jim continued his attacks on Mike: http://makeashorterlink.com/?H210215CB "Tea Talk service has been shut down" thread, in which I unfortunately poked the hornets' nest, and which contains more of the same: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W120125CB 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > 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. Hmm, interesting observation, you may be right. Although I would argue that creating a printable sheet of translation terms specifically customized to the Puerh genre is not the same "idea" as someone reading a Tin at a supermarket. I think many of us have read similar tins at the local ethnic stores, it is hardly a new concept. At work I deal with foreign language translation cheat sheets all of the time. Most published translation books don't cover technical terms, try looking up the French/German/Italian translation of a "spectrophotometer" or a "magnahelic", you wont find it in the standard Larousse book. So a lot of us engineering types keep cheat sheets of the technical terms used in our industry, they actually become good barter material as we trade them back and forth. I have a notebook full of them in various languages. My puerh cheat sheet was hardly an original idea, it was inspired by these notes I use at work. It started as a MS Word document full of notes and pictures meant for my own personal use, after answering several emails about interpreting puerh wrappers from people who visited my website I decided to enhance and publish my notes. The name came naturally due to my familiarity of various translation sites and packages, it is after quite common. Besides, all of this "Intellectual Property" mumbo jumbo aside, why should anyone care that I offered help to the tea community at large. Am I taking money out of anyone's pocket? Am I hurting anyone? Am I defaming anyone? If I wasn't so damn stubborn I would just give up and go away like all his other victims did, it really isn't worth all of this grief when I don't even profit from it, well, except for some good friendships along the way. Mike http://www.pu-erh.net/rosetta.html |
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Petro wrote:
> 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. I believe he is dead wrong. However, the fact that he used this metaphor appears to be true. He used it in 2003 and early 2004, but does copywriting a metaphor even make any sense? Anyways, below are the posts to which I'm referring. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...en&filter= 0& Space Cowboy Jul 7 2003, 5:28 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.food.drink.tea From: "Space Cowboy" > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:24:49 -0600 Local: Mon, Jul 7 2003 5:24 pm Subject: Ahmand Tea in UK and in Russia On one box? I used the English+language as a Rosetta stone. It helped me understand the Chinese character terminology for tea. The Arabic and Sanskrit are a much tougher nut to crack even with the English equivalent. I'm not finding that much English+Russian. Space Cowboy Feb 20 2004, 11:48 am show options Newsgroups: rec.food.drink.tea From: (Space Cowboy) Date: 20 Feb 2004 07:48:54 -0800 Local: Fri, Feb 20 2004 11:48 am Subject: Poo Poo Puerh I worked at a canning factory every summer doing college. The stories I could tell. I still don't eat canned vegetables. I'm going to insist my agricultural service update it assay profile for insect excretia. How do you know the websites aren't substituting snail sludge. My stomach trumps my palette. I only recommend taking a blow torch to the kettle. It wasn't always the case. If the elephant is still under the BigTop and since I found my contacts I did some more research and made a call. The Formosa oolong is called Bai Hai. My source said he got a call from Georgia once and the lady came back from Taiwan and wanted some BooHoo. This in response to my question why almost everybody seems to call it BaiHao. The real problem with transliteration nobody in Chinatown understands what you mean and we use it to confuse ourselves. I made a note to add the characters for BaiHao and BaiHai to my cheat sheet. The only way this works is find the rosetta can of tea in the store with Chinese and English and see what is inside. Or since I recently got my phone's company version of broadband high speed dsl I can go surfing for those UTF-8 webpages in Chinese. If it's 5 miles to the phone switch I'm sitting at mile marker 7 and not getting what I pay for with the babybell disclaimer your results will vary. Anyway better than 14.4. It's been too long since I've been to Chinatown. You'll get more hits on Lin Yun BaiHao. The rats are scurrying for cover since the Asian bird flu outbreak. Space Cowboy Feb 23 2004, 12:48 pm show options Newsgroups: rec.food.drink.tea From: (Space Cowboy) Date: 23 Feb 2004 08:48:02 -0800 Local: Mon, Feb 23 2004 12:48 pm Subject: Bai Hao Oolong. [UTF 8] I woke up this morning expecting to do battle and came across a post discussing tea. All I can say to Kuri is thanks very much. This is a rosetta stone post resolving the use of BaiHao and a Chinese character is a thousand words. When I first saw the post with Google all I saw were boxes for unknown characters. You have to use View: Original Format for UTF-8. Only the second character from the left for Taiwan bai hao wu long cha didn't seem to translate (box). I'm not going to quibble but All the Tea in China by Chow and Kramer use the characters for "white hair" to describe Yinzhen Bai Hao. I'll use the marketing name Silver Needles and Oriental Beauty so not to confuse myself. My Japan reference is in my metro area you can immerse yourself in Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, Spanish languages without leaving the US. Any travel required is just an exercise in geography. In fact we have the only University outside of Japan where all subjects are in Japanese. The students come here to immerse themselves in our culture and language. Space Cowboy Mar 9 2004, 11:37 am show options Newsgroups: rec.food.drink.tea From: (Space Cowboy) Date: 9 Mar 2004 07:37:11 -0800 Local: Tues, Mar 9 2004 11:37 am Subject: Where do you generally buy your tea? The aisles I mention are my own metro area. I gave the example of finding commercial Chinese teas in Oakland versus SF because a poster in this thread and several others over the years who say you can't even find Chinese brand teas in VCBC. So is it simply they're not looking in the right place? Even at that Oakland doesn't have a great selection. So my favorites in Chinatown any generic Fujian oolong(Black Dragon), Wuji(oolong birthplace), Silver Needles(rarely), Foojoy. Plug in Foojoy tea into the Google search engine and you'll get other commonly available Chinese commercial teas with rosetta stone labeling of Chinese characters. The website for Mark T. Wendell should sort to the top which carries top of the line Foojoy in the tins which I can find locally. Over the years everytime there is a Chinese commercial tea thread someone asks where is the good stuff only to discover they like Indian and Ceylon teas well duh. If you like lichee then any off the shelve brand will do the same for gunpowder. If you don't like Jasmine try Lotus. Learn some lettering and look in the loose herbal section for kilo bags. I stay away from any HongKong export. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:12:37 GMT, Steve Hay wrote:
> Mike Petro wrote: >> 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. > > I believe he is dead wrong. However, the fact that he used this > metaphor appears to be true. He used it in 2003 and early 2004, but > does copywriting a metaphor even make any sense? [snip] I don't think anyone here is suggesting that he was NOT the first person to use the term in this newsgroup. But we're also not accepting his assertion that this newsgroup is the only place from which Mike or anyone else could possibly have gleaned the idea. I know that I've already acknowledged this fact previously, and I don't think Mike would disagree. -- Derek "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence." -- Robert Frost |
|
|||
|
|||
I'm still thinking about it ... I'll let you know Monday.
Jim Mike Petro wrote: > 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. > > Mike > http://www.pu-erh.net/rosetta.html |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:12:37 GMT, Steve Hay
> wrote: >Mike Petro wrote: >> 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. > >I believe he is dead wrong. However, the fact that he used this >metaphor appears to be true. He used it in 2003 and early 2004, but >does copywriting a metaphor even make any sense? I do not dispute that he published his use of a very common metaphor before I published mine. So what! About 50,000 people published their variation of the same metaphor before he did (http://tinyurl.com/9hhfc). Somewhere in this old thread it was even documented that someone else even used the term specifically regarding tea long before he did. If it can be said that I am plagiarizing the term then so is he. Either way, so what, its a common metaphor! Here is an interesting quote about metaphors: "Metaphor is often used as a teaching tool, or to convey difficult concepts. It is found throughout languages and is considered by many to be essential to language. Since metaphor allows for the substitution of ideas across differing areas of study, it is considered by some to be an interdisciplinary Rosetta Stone." Now why exactly cant I use the term? Just because he published the term before I did doesn't mean I got any of my ideas from him and it doesn't mean I even read his post. My idea is actually rather different and was arrived at independently, it was a natural feature to add to a website devoted to puerh. Researching and creating a genre specific translation sheet is a lot different than reading a tin in a supermarket. I actually put work and effort into my solution and shared it with the world, what did he do besides pick up a can from a shelf and log the fact. The Rosetta thing is just another excuse to attack me, he started attacking me long before I published the Rosetta page on 3/13/2004. Just look at these: http://tinyurl.com/buyxs http://tinyurl.com/ctd79 http://tinyurl.com/9qo65 http://tinyurl.com/8korn http://tinyurl.com/95wl3 All of this was prior to the creation of my Rosetta Page. Now what specifics have you seen him quote INCLUDING references? He doesn't because if he quotes accurately he cant twist my words around. Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net "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. |
|
|||
|
|||
I really don't care if you take the offer or not. I have already won
in the court of public opinion. It would just be nice to get back to tea again without having to listen to all you BS. Cheers, Mike On 10 Sep 2005 06:09:28 -0700, "Space Cowboy" > wrote: >I'm still thinking about it ... I'll let you know Monday. > >Jim > >Mike Petro wrote: >> 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. >> >> Mike >> http://www.pu-erh.net/rosetta.html Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net "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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Petro wrote:
>>>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. >> >>I believe he is dead wrong. However, the fact that he used this >>metaphor appears to be true. He used it in 2003 and early 2004, but >>does copywriting a metaphor even make any sense? > > > I do not dispute that he published his use of a very common metaphor > before I published mine. So what! About 50,000 people published their > variation of the same metaphor before he did > (http://tinyurl.com/9hhfc). Somewhere in this old thread it was even > documented that someone else even used the term specifically regarding > tea long before he did. If it can be said that I am plagiarizing the > term then so is he. Either way, so what, its a common metaphor! I absolutely agree. However, in this age of commercialism taking over society, it would not surprise me if precedent was set for copywriting methaphors. I'm not sure many people anymore care about the expressivity of modern language. Your pu-erh picture-word-list is double-plus-good, I must say. Well, so anyways, I was in California a few months ago and discovered a Ten-Ren store. I found an opportunity to buy tea from a place (in person) that was likely not very commercial (it was right between an Asian Grocer and an authentic chinese food restaurant (which was exceptionally good)). So, I walked in and bought some mid-grade Pu-Erh. It was kind of strange. They had, I believe, four grade of it in large tubs, one each more expensive than the last (but still not too expensive). I bought a bit of the one that was one up from the bottom grade, which was called "OP-20" (not very descriptive). I'd have to say the whole experience wasn't that special, because I really had no way of knowing what I was buying other than that it was Pu-Erh. The tea isn't bad though. I've had better Pu-Erhs that I've purchased online. Steve |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:37:46 -0400, Mike Petro wrote:
> The Rosetta thing is just another excuse to attack me, he started > attacking me long before I published the Rosetta page on 3/13/2004. > Just look at these: > http://tinyurl.com/buyxs I'd forgotten about Jim attacking you because you dared to include an active URL in a message to the group and how the mistyping of the URL (using backslashes instead of just slashes) let the link slip past his virus protection. The tangential attempt to connect your link to the FCC Communication Decency Act was also a treat. -- Derek Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:44:13 -0400, Mike Petro wrote:
> I really don't care if you take the offer or not. I have already won > in the court of public opinion. It would just be nice to get back to > tea again without having to listen to all you BS. I think you should withdraw the offer. If he's got to "think about it," then he's likely not serious. You're willing to give him what he says he wants and he has to think about whether or not he's willing to leave you alone? Sounds to me like he's more interested in toying with you than in resolving the issue. -- Derek 'On the whole human beings want to be good, but not too good, and not quite all the time." -- George Orwell |
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Derek > wrote:
> I think you should withdraw the offer. If he's got to "think about > it," then he's likely not serious. You're willing to give him what he > says he wants and he has to think about whether or not he's willing to > leave you alone? I think you should all avail yourselves of the most simple and elegant solution of all: kill file his old angry ass. Then you only have to see his blather tangentially, when it pops up as quoted text. Even that can get annoying, but it's periodic at worst. |
|
|||
|
|||
For the last year or so, through a constant surveillance of tea
discussion sites, I have enjoyed learning facts and opinions regarding tea in its numerous iterations. Further, I have taken delight in a lively correspondence that has sprung up with several other tea infusiasts who haunt the same posting sites. At some boards I have hidden in the weeds, watching and studying, analyzing and classifying. At others I have, from time to time, opined a conjecture or narrated a tea experience. At this site, I have lurked for the most part, but nevertheless the discussions here have played a wonderful role in my trek. I have realized I would not know one-tenth so much as I know about tea were it not for the resources available to me on the www. The sites have, in many ways, served as fantastic ROSETTA STONES in my filtering and making of meaning from what would otherwise be still a rather nebulous subject-not that I am anything near an expert now. Far from it! I have also realized that the making of meaning, the connecting of symbols with thought, creates ROSETTA STONE moments throughout our lives. Great teachers have been, in my experience, ROSETTA STONES. Even naturalistic observations can be ROSETTA STONES moments. I noticed how a tree cast a sprinkler shadow in my yard, and I realized at last how one mountain, Mt. Rainier, creates a rain shadow and a desert. That was a ROSETTA STONE moment. The horrible experience of those poor people in Mississippi and Louisiana helped me, as I watched their awful tragedy unfold, understand better the nature of humanity as a whole. That was a sad ROSETTA STONE moment. I would like to develop a blend of tea that I shall name ROSETTA STONE. In fact, I might go over the top and call it Imperial ROSETTA STONE Blend. I shall, from time to time, search the Internet to determine whether anyone has used the terms similar to my using them above after I post these sentences here at this site. If any person does such a thing, then I am entitled, by previous practice of another poster here, to harp and burble and insult and attack and whine and defame, and far, far, worse, to do so in language which, after careful study by readers, makes no sense because it lacks any semblance of coherency. Perhaps I will not carry on in such a fashion, because to do so would mean more than simply that I have big ROSETTA STONEs. They would see in me a microcosm of a world of sorry people in a dark, sad state: I would have labeled myself a crank and an obsessive, one who lashes out at the world, one who attacks what others build through great effort and for charitable reasons, but will not himself build anything at all. All the best, ~grasshopper |
|
|||
|
|||
>I think you should all avail yourselves of the most
>simple and elegant solution of all: kill file his old >angry ass. Then you only have to see his blather >tangentially, when it pops up as quoted text. I'm inclined to agree with you, but the problem is that Jim seems to revel in bullying people off of this forum, which we all lose from, and that won't change until it becomes very clear that the majority of people people find this unacceptable. I've dealt with bullies for a long time, and I know that they thrive on other's passivity. So you, and preferably many others, have to tell them that what they're doing is pathetic and no one is impressed. I think we all lose out from the environment that Jim has fostered in this forum just as much as we gain from having helpful folks like Mike around. And as long as I make use of this forum I will do what I can to make it a better place. For the moment, that involves holding BSers accountable for their BS. I hope I have been effective in this to some degree. |
|
|||
|
|||
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:44:13 -0400, Mike Petro wrote:
>> I really don't care if you take the offer or not. I have already won >> in the court of public opinion. It would just be nice to get back to >> tea again without having to listen to all you BS. >I think you should withdraw the offer. If he's got to "think about >it," then he's likely not serious. You're willing to give him what he >says he wants and he has to think about whether or not he's willing to >leave you alone? >Sounds to me like he's more interested in toying with you than in >resolving the issue. I agree. I don't think it makes sense to appease irrational bullies, because they'll almost certainly do it again. I would really like to have something cleared up. Does anyone else think that it's innappropriate to post URLs? There certainly isn't anything in the charter. As I see it, the WWW exists and is the primary location of a lot of information. It just doesn't make sense to me that this forum, simply because it's in another realm, should be isolated from such a wealth of information. I have yet to see anyone but Jim voice this complaint. I realize that in any media format there tend to be insiders who expect a code of behavior that new people don't understand. So if, somehow, I am out of touch here than I'd love to know about it. But, being that many clearly knowledgable folk have yet to agree with Jim on this matter, I assume it's just an excuse to bully people. Nico |
|
|||
|
|||
On 10 Sep 2005 19:39:34 -0700, "Nico" >
wrote: >I would really like to have something cleared up. Does anyone else >think that it's innappropriate to post URLs? There certainly isn't >anything in the charter. > >As I see it, the WWW exists and is the primary location of a lot of >information. It just doesn't make sense to me that this forum, simply >because it's in another realm, should be isolated from such a wealth of >information. I have yet to see anyone but Jim voice this complaint. > >I realize that in any media format there tend to be insiders who expect >a code of behavior that new people don't understand. So if, somehow, I >am out of touch here than I'd love to know about it. But, being that >many clearly knowledgable folk have yet to agree with Jim on this >matter, I assume it's just an excuse to bully people. > >Nico Your assumption is correct. Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net "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. |
|
|||
|
|||
> I would really like to have something cleared up. Does anyone else > think that it's innappropriate to post URLs? NO. I rely on it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Space Cowboy wrote:
>There is no such thing as mediocre tea. It all > depends on your tastebuds. Intriguing proposition. Though a big fan of Stilton, durian and pickled herring, I recognize these as acquired tastes. (Still trying to find an importer for surstromming.) My impression is that nearly everyone is born with a predisposition against stale/decayed odors. So while there is a huge range of tea styles, to me stale tea will taste mediocre (at best) to anyone who's had the fresh stuff. On the other hand, I live in a country where some people prefer Tang to fresh-squeezed orange juice, sow ho knows. -DM |
|
|||
|
|||
/11/05
> > >> I would really like to have something cleared up. Does anyone else >> think that it's innappropriate to post URLs? > > NO. I rely on it. I only object when the poster is the vendor and tries to hide the fact by pretending to be a tea drinker who "discovered" the site, or some such. Otherwise, I encourage vendors to put their site URL as part of their signature for easy access, if so desired. Michael |
|
|||
|
|||
When somebody gives me a take it or leave it ultimatum I always walk
away. It means there is nothing on the table. I didn't do that in this case and gave it some more thought over the weekend even while the taunts from you and the peanut gallery continued. In this case you want me to 'shut the hell up' while you make a 'concession' denying any culpability. Okay I can live with that if your changes are done in good faith literally and figuratively. But before I accept I also want you too include a message board on your website. That should also be a 'concession' because it is SOP for the WWW. I still reserve the right to raise issues not pertaining to your website directly or indirectly. I will do that in good faith so we can still agree to disagree. Jim Mike Petro wrote: > I really don't care if you take the offer or not. I have already won > in the court of public opinion. It would just be nice to get back to > tea again without having to listen to all you BS. > > Cheers, > > Mike > > > On 10 Sep 2005 06:09:28 -0700, "Space Cowboy" > > wrote: > > >I'm still thinking about it ... I'll let you know Monday. > > > >Jim > > > >Mike Petro wrote: > >> 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. > >> > >> Mike |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
MyCityCuisine, a Wiki Project dedicated to food! | General Cooking | |||
Spicy Food Wiki | Mexican Cooking | |||
A tea-related wiki has been born | Tea | |||
Looking to Build a Wiki | Wine | |||
Pubs Wiki. | Beer |