Who Owns The Borland.* Newsgroups?
Zane Thomas
All,
It appears that Borland (cum Imprice) seems to think that it _owns_
the borland.* hierarchy and all messages posted therein. I found the
following at http://www.inprise.com/newsgroups/guide.html :
<legal bs>
17. These are Borland newsgroups.
By participating, you grant to Borland the unrestricted right to use,
reproduce, modify, translate, display, perform, transmit and
distribute any material you post to a newsgroup in any present or
future medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
</legal bs>
This presents an interesting problem. I don't use Borland's server to
post messages and so I fail to see where Borland gets the cajones to
claim that it owns the contents of my posts. In fact I'll bet there
are going to be surprised borland.* posters all over the world when
they see that Borland has laid claim to worldwide usenet posts.
Also, it appears that if I was to post one of my controls to usenet
that Borland would be claiming that it could distribute my controls
"for any purpose, including commercial purposes". Naturally I'd sue
over that blatant copyright violation.
If Borland wants to have private newsgroups on its own servers then it
can do that and people can either agree or not agree to abide by
Borland's terms. But the borland.* hierarchy is not _owned_ by
Borland, it's distributed on and accessed by servers all over the
world none of whose users probably even know that Borland has such an
incredibly all-encompassing claim on their writings.
Perhaps the legal department at Borland should realize that they
aren't dealing with compuserve anymore and get the absurd wording off
of their web page.
Zane
Copyright (c) 1998, Zane Thomas - All Rights Reserved
Taz Higgins
Actually you are wrong.
Borland have a news server called forums.borland.com. On that server they
created some discussion groups. That newsserver was made publically
accessable (via the internet) to other people so that news clients/readers
could access the messages on it - the idea being that borlands developers
could use this and other newsgroups for diverse purposes. News readers are
very efficient tools for this purpose, especially compared with using a web
style forums interface, which will have been why borland choose this
mechanism for their discussion areas.
Some of the "people" accessing these newsgroups are in fact other
newsservers (not people with their news readers). The difference between
news servers and news clients/readers is really very small, and both can
(and do) use each others commands to pass messages to each other.
Those other newsservers then read the messages from the various newsgroups
on the borland news server and then make the messages they collect
available to third parties. They merge the borland messages/newsgroups
into their normal usenet hierarchy, and thus it appears to you that the
borland hierarchy is part of usenet.
The process described above is called peering and newsservers in fact peer
with each other quite a lot. That's how usenet works, news servers connect
to each other and say "give me message from newsgroup xxx" or
"I can give you messages from newsgroup yyy want them?".
One of these newsservers that reads directly from borland then peers with
another one and shares it's messages/newsgroups with that one, that one
then shares it's messages further on, thus the newsgroups propogate.
The above explains why and how you get to see the borland newsgroups on the
news server you use news.newsguy.com or something like that. In summary
the Botlans.* newsgroups get shared around newsservers by the mechanism of
NNTP (the protocol used for news).
Now Usenet is not the same thing at all.
Usenet is the hierarchy of newsgroups that comprises usenet. For a
newsgroup to be "oficially" part of usenet it should be created following
the normal rules for creating usenet newsgroups - going through a request
for discussion (RFD) and a call for votes (CFV), normally done under the
news.* Hierarchy. If a Usenet newsgroup does not go through that process
it will almost certainly be deleted as soon as it is created. Now for a
listing of what constitutes the core newsgroups you should take a look at
the following message:
News.announce.newgroups#<8926632...@isc.org> by David C Lawrence.
In addition to these core newsgroups there are a number of "official" sub
hierarchies, mostly regional. The uk.* Hierarchy is one such, these are UK
related newsgroups (thats United Kingdom if you didn't know what the uk bit
stands for), there is an "official" process for creating new newsgroups
under the uk.* hierarchy. The alt.* Hierarchy is another official
newsgroup hierarchy which has it' own creation procedures (see alt.config)
Now in both cases above (core and others) I've put official in quotes,
because as much as anything else the "official" position in usenet is what
the general consensus of usenet users make it. The "official" procedures
are what the user have agreed will be the "official" procedures, nothing
more or less than that. However many people are rightly fanatic about
following these procedures in order to keep the potentially extremly
chaotic situation that is news managable.
Right following on from all of the above...
1) Usenet is what usenet says it is. To be a part of usenet you have to be
created under the rules of Usenet. Newsgroups created in any of the
following hierchies following the official procedures are a part of Usenet.
Comp.* Humanities.* Misc.* News.* Rec.* Sci.* Soc.* Talk.*
Some other hierarchies could also be included (regionals and alt.*).
2) Borland created discussion groups on their own server, and made them
publically accessable via NNTP, for the convenience of their customers.
3) Some perope decisded to collect messages from the borland discussion
groups and merge them into their normal outgoing usenet news base.
(Possible because it's the same protocol).
So to summarise all of the above:
Your news provider is making borland's discussion groups appear as part of
usenet and is therefor decieving you into believing that the borland
newsgroups are a part of usenet. It may be that your news provider is
acting unintentionally in this matter - due to the automatic procedures
setup by him to collect news from his provider(s).
Hopefully I've explained all of the above so that it is understandable to
you, the confusion between usenet, news and nntp is common, because they
three things are so very interwined. But these fine differences are
important. I have made any number of sweeping generalisations and have
left aside many issues in order to keep the explanation as concise and
clear as it can be, but I don't believe I've distorted anything or
misrepresented anything.
Taz Higgins...
Peter Sawatzki
In article <354a6bf3....@enews.newsguy.com>,
z_thomas@@ix.netcom.com (Zane Thomas) says...
> All,
>
> It appears that Borland (cum Imprice) seems to think that it _owns_
> the borland.* hierarchy and all messages posted therein. I found the
> following at http://www.inprise.com/newsgroups/guide.html :
AFAIK it is a private newsserver just like msnews.microsoft.com or
service.symantec.com is. In the early days the news were only available
from forums.borland.com (now forums.inprise.com). Some other news server
seem to mirror it now. I don't know if this happens via push/pull
feeds or "sucking" feeds. The former have to be explicitly allowed
by the (here Inprise) news server, the "sucking" feed emulates a news
client just like an ordinary user.
Peter
Douglas F. Kiely
Zane Thomas wrote:
>
> It appears that Borland (cum Imprice) seems to think that it
> _owns_ the borland.* hierarchy and all messages posted therein.
I don't see where they said "owns."
> I found the
> following at http://www.inprise.com/newsgroups/guide.html :
>
> 17. These are Borland newsgroups.
>
> By participating, you grant to Borland the unrestricted right to use,
> reproduce, modify, translate, display, perform, transmit and
> distribute any material you post to a newsgroup in any present or
> future medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
>
> This presents an interesting problem. I don't use Borland's server to
> post messages and so I fail to see where Borland gets the cajones to
> claim that it owns the contents of my posts.
Again, I don't see where it says "owns."
I think it's reasonable what they're stating, because they'd
have no physical ability to do any newsgroup activity with the
posts, including storage, transmition and so forth, otherwise.
And when you said, "I don't use Borland's server to post
messages..."
It doesn't matter how your message got here... it got here --
it's been posted.
"If" the guidelines didn't fall on you, it would fall on
whomever (corporation or person) posted the message.
> In fact I'll bet there
> are going to be surprised borland.* posters all over the world when
> they see that Borland has laid claim to worldwide usenet posts.
This is not usenet, and they have not laid claim.
> Also, it appears that if I was to post one of my controls to usenet
> that Borland would be claiming that it could distribute my controls
> "for any purpose, including commercial purposes".
The guidelines say...
Section 12. Do not post messages with large attachments.
Large files fill up our servers more quickly, and
are an annoyance for people who download and read
the newsgroups off-line. If you need help with a
program, briefly describe your problem and include
a small code snippet that illustrates the problem.
Post a small demonstration application or large
blocks of code only when requested to do so by
TeamB or Borland employees.
If you have a component or application that you
wish to share, post a message describing the item,
and offer to mail it to interested parties.
Alternatively, make the item available on the web
via FTP or HTTP, and direct interested parties to
the associated URL.
What this is basically saying is that there really shouldn't be
any attachment such that you described, i.e. a control.
> Naturally I'd sue over that blatant copyright violation.
Section 7 says... "Do not post copyrighted material without
permission of the author."
So if your control wound up here because you posted your control
then your permission was granted -- you're the owner and you
posted it.
But, this is only an indication to post, but like I said above,
Borland has NOT asked for ownership or copyright.
But... you said above...
> Also, it appears that if I was to post one of my controls to usenet
> that Borland would be claiming that it could distribute my controls
> "for any purpose, including commercial purposes".
You pointed out, "... if [you] was to post one of [your] control
to usenet..."
This isn't usenet.
> If Borland wants to have private newsgroups on its own servers then it
> can do that and people can either agree or not agree to abide by
> Borland's terms.
Exactly. And this is Borland's servers.
> But the borland.* hierarchy is not _owned_ by Borland,
This server with the hierarchy borland.* at
news://forums.borland.com IS Borland's server.
> it's distributed on and accessed by servers all over the
> world
So what? Seriously. <g>
The whole Internet is a network -- it's all servers and
workstations.
When the posting hits this server, it's Borland's server it's
on, and it's Borland's guidelines.
See what others responded to you about in regards to the
activities and communications transpired between NNTP servers.
> none of whose users probably even know that Borland has such an
> incredibly all-encompassing claim on their writings.
All encompassing? Again, it's this server that the information
touches, which is Borland's newsgroups and Borland's server.
Any other places or means in which the information gets here, is
inconsequential.
> Perhaps the legal department at Borland should realize that they
> aren't dealing with compuserve anymore
They know it's their server, I'm sure.
> and get the absurd wording off of their web page.
I don't see anything absurd about it. They've only asked for
what it is they need to run these newsgroups, and I see
*nowhere* where it says anything about "owns," "ownership" or
"transfer of copyrighted material."
But I'll be quite honest, this has been hashed over, and hashed
over, and hashed over. This is the way it is, and it's not going
to change.
I, as well as others here scrutinized these guidelines. They've
only asked for what it is they need to run these newsgroups. If
it wasn't explicitly stated what it is they're asking for, then
one really wouldn't know what the guidelines were or what it is
they're asking for to be able to run these newsgroups.
Also, I'm not going to comment on this anymore, because this has
been fine toothed combed before, and I'm happy with the
guidelines.
Also, I'm not an employee of Borland, nor do I speak for
Borland. I only spoke for myself in the context of this message
posted to
news://forums.borland.com/borland.public.delphi.non-technical.
> Zane
>
> Copyright (c) 1998, Zane Thomas - All Rights Reserved
--
Doug
BobK
Taz,
Thanks for your thoughts on that point. I'm actually quite ignorant on
that part of the law. Since Winken and Blinken wandered in, I was
beginning to wonder what the deal was.
Perhaps we could persuade some Inprise representative to make a short
but definitive confirmation?
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Peter --
>AFAIK it is a private newsserver just like msnews.microsoft.com or
>service.symantec.com is. In the early days the news were only available
>from forums.borland.com (now forums.inprise.com). Some other news server
>seem to mirror it now. I don't know if this happens via push/pull
>feeds or "sucking" feeds. The former have to be explicitly allowed
>by the (here Inprise) news server, the "sucking" feed emulates a news
>client just like an ordinary user.
Nope, it's quite different than msnews. MS doesn't cooperate in the propogation of
their news to the outside world. Neither does it accept incoming feeds.
Later... Karl
--
[This space intentionally left blank.]
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Doug --
>> By participating, you grant to Borland the unrestricted right to use,
>> reproduce, modify, translate, display, perform, transmit and
>> distribute any material you post to a newsgroup in any present or
>> future medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
>
>Again, I don't see where it says "owns."
Seriously? Man, are you *really* that dense?
>> Naturally I'd sue over that blatant copyright violation.
>
>Section 7 says... "Do not post copyrighted material without
>permission of the author."
<LOL> Yep! I guess so.
Zane Thomas
Taz,
That was an interesting summary of how news propagates and how
newsgroups are created. But it misses the point.
I post messages on enews.newsguy.com. Noone at borland has control
over what I post. And there is no contract, implied or otherwise,
between me and newsguy which states that things I must give up rights
to things I own if it turns out that owners of some server down the
line would like to lay claim to them.
Further, regarding content, if Borland wants to control content then
they need to run moderated groups (and assume the liability that comes
with doing so).
Zane
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 1 May 1998 13:25:24 +0200, Pe...@Sawatzki.de (Peter Sawatzki)
wrote:
>AFAIK it is a private newsserver just like msnews.microsoft.com or
>service.symantec.com is.
Sure, you may be using a private server. But I'm not.
>In the early days the news were only available
>from forums.borland.com (now forums.inprise.com).
And Borland could refuse to engage in exchanges without oustide
servers, but they don't.
Zane
Ben Matterson (Inprise)
Zane Thomas wrote:
> This presents an interesting problem. I don't use Borland's server to
> post messages and so I fail to see where Borland gets the cajones to
> claim that it owns the contents of my posts.
I am reading your message off of the Inprise news server,
forums.inprise.com.
> In fact I'll bet there
> are going to be surprised borland.* posters all over the world when
> they see that Borland has laid claim to worldwide usenet posts.
This is where you are mistaken. Inprise does not claim ownership nor
copyright of the contents of messages posted to forums.inprise.com;
all we claim are usage rights.
> If Borland wants to have private newsgroups on its own servers then it
> can do that and people can either agree or not agree to abide by
> Borland's terms.
We *do* have private newsgroups on our own servers. This is one such.
You can either agree or not agree to abide by our terms. If you do not
wish to agree to allow us to use your posts, we will not force you to
post to our server.
Ben
--
Online Forum Sysop
Inprise Electronic Marketing
**
Inprise Newsgroup Guidelines at:
http://www.inprise.com/newsgroups/guide.html
**
Inprise Online Newsgroup Search Engine at:
http://forumsearch.inprise.com:88/
(forumsearch is offline until May)
Zane Thomas
Douglas,
>> It appears that Borland (cum Imprice) seems to think that it
>> _owns_ the borland.* hierarchy and all messages posted therein.
>
>I don't see where they said "owns."
My, literal aren't we? Borland does seem to think it can make rules
for these newsgroups, cancel messages as inappropriate, and
expropriate any intellectual property appearing thereon.
>Again, I don't see where it says "owns."
Again, see my previous comment.
>It doesn't matter how your message got here... it got here --
>it's been posted.
And? What you seem to be trying to say is that if a message arrives
on someone's server then you agree to be bound by whatever contractual
terms the server owner chooses, even if you have no knowledge of them
or control over whether your post arrives on that particular server or
not!
I hope you can see the hopelessly absurd legal ramifications of that.
>> Also, it appears that if I was to post one of my controls to usenet
>> that Borland would be claiming that it could distribute my controls
>> "for any purpose, including commercial purposes".
>
>The guidelines say...
>
>Section 12. Do not post messages with large attachments.
Define "large". Also, those are guidelines which I can ignore as I
will. But forget those problems, let's just say that there's a
borland.delphi.binaries group in the hierarchy. Please argue that
point.
>> Naturally I'd sue over that blatant copyright violation.
>
>Section 7 says... "Do not post copyrighted material without
>permission of the author."
>
>So if your control wound up here because you posted your control
>then your permission was granted -- you're the owner and you
>posted it.
That won't work. Remember, my post will end up on servers all over
the world. Surely you don't expect that I will be bound by all the
potential terms on their servers. Also, note that there must be a
quid pro quo involved in a contractual relationship. Since I am not
using Borland's server they aren't giving me anything, and I'm not
permitting them to take anything.
>But, this is only an indication to post, but like I said above,
>Borland has NOT asked for ownership or copyright.
No, they didn't ask. What they said was that they will make use of my
material for their own advantage whether I like it or not ... or at
least that they feel they have the right/power to do so.
>> If Borland wants to have private newsgroups on its own servers then it
>> can do that and people can either agree or not agree to abide by
>> Borland's terms.
>
>Exactly. And this is Borland's servers.
No it's not! Look at the headers and see where I post from.
>> it's distributed on and accessed by servers all over the
>> world
>
>So what? Seriously. <g>
So, consider the ramifications of having people subjected to contracts
simply because their posts arrived on a server.
>The whole Internet is a network -- it's all servers and
>workstations.
Thanks for that useful information. :-)
Zane
Jeff Overcash
Wrong, the microsoft.public groups from msnews are propagated to my Mindspring
news server and I can post to those groups from mindspring. This is exactly
what happens with the Borland forums.
Jeff Overcash
In article <6icvse$jk...@forums.borland.com>, "Karl E. Peterson"
Peter Sawatzki
In article <6icvse$jk...@forums.borland.com>, karl@mvps-dot-org says...
> Hi Peter --
> >from forums.borland.com (now forums.inprise.com). Some other news server
> >seem to mirror it now. I don't know if this happens via push/pull
> >feeds or "sucking" feeds. The former have to be explicitly allowed
> >by the (here Inprise) news server, the "sucking" feed emulates a news
> >client just like an ordinary user.
>
> their news to the outside world. Neither does it accept incoming feeds.
Hmm, then why was it so easy to set up a push/pull feed with msnews for
me (some time ago) ? Another thing: do you know whether Borland/Inprise
cooperates on this ?
Peter
Peter Sawatzki
In article <354d021b....@enews.newsguy.com>,
z_thomas@@ix.netcom.com (Zane Thomas) says...
> On Fri, 1 May 1998 13:25:24 +0200, Pe...@Sawatzki.de (Peter Sawatzki)
> wrote:
>
Fine, you delegate this to this newsguy, where is the difference ?
> >In the early days the news were only available
> >from forums.borland.com (now forums.inprise.com).
>
>
> And Borland could refuse to engage in exchanges without oustide
> servers, but they don't.
As I told you, some newsservers have a sucking feed that makes it appear
as a newsreader to avoid the peer block the pull feed. There is no way
for the private newsserver to distinguish between a server and a user
this way.
If your ISP sucks the news from Borland and provides you with the data
it's still Borlands private newsserver (maybe misused (?) by your
ISP/newsguy whatever).
Peter
Peter Sawatzki
Karl,
In article <6icvse$jk...@forums.borland.com>, karl@mvps-dot-org says...
> Hi Peter --
>
> Nope, it's quite different than msnews. MS doesn't cooperate in the propogation of
> their news to the outside world. Neither does it accept incoming feeds.
One word yet: why is it then that I can get all of msnews from my local
Provider ? It's exactly the same as the Borland news server I think!!
Peter
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Peter --
>> And Borland could refuse to engage in exchanges without oustide
>> servers, but they don't.
>
>As I told you, some newsservers have a sucking feed that makes it appear
>as a newsreader to avoid the peer block the pull feed. There is no way
>for the private newsserver to distinguish between a server and a user
>this way.
Yep, you did mention that. Of course it has no relevance to the situation being
discussed, nor even to the quote you're replying to. The situation you describe is
pretty much how MS operates. It's not how Borland operates. See the problem with
your answer now?
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Peter --
>One word yet: why is it then that I can get all of msnews from my local
>Provider ?
Try an experiment. Login to your provider, and count the messages in a handful of
groups. Then login directly to msnews, and do the same. What you're getting is not
msnews. It's a public "impersonation" (for lack of a better word) of the microsoft
server. Same structure, different content.
>It's exactly the same as the Borland news server I think!!
Nope. With Borland, it's same structure, and nearly identical content.
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Peter --
>Hmm, then why was it so easy to set up a push/pull feed with msnews for
>me (some time ago) ?
Couldn't tell ya. Blind stoopid luck, perhaps?
>Another thing: do you know whether Borland/Inprise
>cooperates on this ?
I know there's something quite different about how the two appear to the world.
Borlands has very rapid propogation, while MS's may lag for days. Also, when I log
directly onto the Borland server, I see about 3x as many messages as when I log onto
one of the public news feeds. The situation with msnews is typically just the
opposite of that -- no/few incomings.
Andreas Prucha
In article <354e0257....@enews.newsguy.com>,
z_thomas@@ix.netcom.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>Douglas,
>
>>> It appears that Borland (cum Imprice) seems to think that it
>>> _owns_ the borland.* hierarchy and all messages posted therein.
>>
>>I don't see where they said "owns."
>
>for these newsgroups, cancel messages as inappropriate, and
>expropriate any intellectual property appearing thereon.
They can. I know that borland.* is available outside
forums.borland.com, too. A lot of hirarchies - like regional
hierarchies - have their own rules. In the austrian (at.) hirarchy is
a discussion running about HTML-cancels. at.* has its own rules, and
so does de.*, for example. And a lot of other hirarchies has their
rules or guidelines. This does not affect other hirarchies, of course.
If regional hierarchies have their guidelines and rules, why can't
borland.* have it's own rules? They can not force other nntp-servers
to accept cancels, but they can cancel based on the rules. Some
servers will accept the cancels, others will not.
If there were a RfD/CfV for the current guidelines I'd vote with Yes.
And I think most people would do so.
>
>>Again, I don't see where it says "owns."
>
>Again, see my previous comment.
>
>>It doesn't matter how your message got here... it got here --
>>it's been posted.
>
>And? What you seem to be trying to say is that if a message arrives
>on someone's server then you agree to be bound by whatever contractual
>terms the server owner chooses, even if you have no knowledge of them
>or control over whether your post arrives on that particular server or
>not!
Well, any ISP or Newsadmin is free to carry groups, to delete messages
locally, to accept cancel or not. And each hirarchy can have its
rules. The guidelines for borland.* are available. You can accept them
or not. And you are free to post in borland.*. But since there are
special rules for borland.*, you /accept/ that your messages might be
canceled under some cirumstances. Some servers might accept the cancel
others might not.
>>> Naturally I'd sue over that blatant copyright violation.
>>
>>Section 7 says... "Do not post copyrighted material without
>>permission of the author."
>>
>>So if your control wound up here because you posted your control
>>then your permission was granted -- you're the owner and you
>>posted it.
>
>That won't work. Remember, my post will end up on servers all over
>the world. Surely you don't expect that I will be bound by all the
>potential terms on their servers. Also, note that there must be a
>quid pro quo involved in a contractual relationship. Since I am not
>using Borland's server they aren't giving me anything, and I'm not
>permitting them to take anything.
The guidelines are for borland.* and not for forums.borland.com only.
But Borland should write this down more clearly.
See borland.* as moderated newsgroups. There are rules. You know the
rules.
>>Exactly. And this is Borland's servers.
>
>No it's not! Look at the headers and see where I post from.
The guideline is for borland.* and not only for forums.borland.com.
Ben sayed in an earlier message that they don't feed their newsgroups.
So some servers seems to use suckfeed and exchange with other
newsserves. It seems that Borland does not want availability of
borland.* newsgroups on other servers. And perhaps Borland should
reject connections from darkhorse.triad.net (which seems to do the
exchange with the other newsserves in your case)
Anyway, this fact does not change anything. There are guidelines for
borland.*. You know it. And you accept them by posting in borland.*
Andreas
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Ben --
>> This presents an interesting problem. I don't use Borland's server to
>> post messages and so I fail to see where Borland gets the cajones to
>> claim that it owns the contents of my posts.
>
>I am reading your message off of the Inprise news server,
>forums.inprise.com.
And I read it off a server that Netcom owns. Does Netcom similarly have usage rights
to whatever is posted here?
>This is where you are mistaken. Inprise does not claim ownership nor
>copyright of the contents of messages posted to forums.inprise.com;
>all we claim are usage rights.
Aw, c'mon! What the hell is that? How can someone claim to have a legitimate right
to *use* something, without permission, when they don't own it? You realize how fast
any court would laugh at an argument like that, right?
>We *do* have private newsgroups on our own servers. This is one such.
Wrong. This one's all over the 'net. It "lives" on 100's of servers.
Zane Thomas
Ben,
>I am reading your message off of the Inprise news server,
>forums.inprise.com.
And? I'm writing and reading at enews.newsguy.com.
>This is where you are mistaken. Inprise does not claim ownership nor
>copyright of the contents of messages posted to forums.inprise.com;
>all we claim are usage rights.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to give you usage rights.
>> If Borland wants to have private newsgroups on its own servers then it
>> can do that and people can either agree or not agree to abide by
>> Borland's terms.
>
>We *do* have private newsgroups on our own servers. This is one such.
No, you're mistaken. As I mentioned previously, more than once, I
don't use your server. I use newsguy, and I can access the borland.*
groups from netcom, dejanews, altavista, and probably thousands of
servers around the world.
>You can either agree or not agree to abide by our terms.
I will not abide by your terms. Hope you don't mind.
>If you do not
>wish to agree to allow us to use your posts, we will not force you to
>post to our server.
Fine, you never could force me to post to your server and I'm _not_
posting to your server. Your server is communicating with other
servers and _asking_ for my posts. Your doing so does not obligate me
to abide by your terms or to give up any rights at all.
Zane
>
>Ben
Hank
Karl E. Peterson <karl@mvps-dot-org> wrote in article
<6id5vb$jl...@forums.borland.com>...
> Aw, c'mon! What the [lake of fire] is that? How can someone claim to
have a legitimate right
> to *use* something, without permission, when they don't own it? You
realize how fast
> any court would laugh at an argument like that, right?
I have used your book but I don't own it. Ever heard of a library?
Aside: And I may own your book but I can't post huge amounts of it as my
own. So I don't really "own" it.
Isn't Borland(Uninspire...whatever) responsible for anything that leaves
its server(within reason)? I think that is why they delete profound
messages.
--
Hank Ingram
Programmer,Tea-drinker, former corporate stooge, member of the dreaded
Religious Right @ http://www.nr.infi.net/~hingram
Needlessly consuming valuable resources in Blacksburg, Va
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Hank --
>I have used your book but I don't own it.
Yep, and I would guess that you used it within the parameters granted. IOW, you had
express *permission* to use the material. Standard copyright law applied. It was a
commercial transaction.
>Ever heard of a library?
Absolutely. Again, the copyright holders granted permission for such usage.
>Aside: And I may own your book but I can't post huge amounts of it as my
>own. So I don't really "own" it.
Right. Copyright is the issue here, plain and simple. Borland may be slurping
public newsfeeds, but that doesn't mean they own what they slurp.
>Isn't Borland(Uninspire...whatever) responsible for anything that leaves
>its server(within reason)? I think that is why they delete profound
>messages.
:-)
It's actually a tricky area to get involved in. This is why phone sex is so big,
really. Most information providers would prefer to be considered common carriers,
which lifts the burden of responsibility for content. By accepting that burden, I
could sue Borland if, say, you posted smut here and my son downloaded it. Likewise,
if someone started posting child porn, Borland would be a willing accomplice, simply
due to their decision in favor of retro-moderation over more preventive measures.
IOW, they're *much* better off in the long run with an *absolute* hands-off policy.
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Jeff --
>Wrong, the microsoft.public groups from msnews are propagated to my Mindspring
>news server and I can post to those groups from mindspring. This is exactly
>what happens with the Borland forums.
It's a hit or miss thing. Some can, some can't. MS blocks most feeds. They have
one or two cooperative agreements (as I understand it).
BobK
Zane Thomas wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I refuse to give you usage rights.
What precisely have you posted here that is worth using?
Hank
Karl E. Peterson <karl@mvps-dot-org> wrote in article
> IOW, they're *much* better off in the long run with an *absolute*
hands-off policy.
Actually, they are better off by setting a policy and sticking to it. There
is no such thing as a hands-off policy. Somebody is responsible for the
server. If they make an effort at policing, they are less liable. Even the
off-ramp had rules and i know of one person who paid the price for
violating them. There is no point having copyright laws if you aren't going
to enforce them.
Zane Thomas
Peter,
>Fine, you delegate this to this newsguy, where is the difference ?
The difference is that since Borland isn't providing my access to the
newsgroup they are in no position to a) tell me what I can and cannot
post and b) presume to lay claim to any of my material.
>As I told you, some newsservers have a sucking feed that makes it appear
>as a newsreader to avoid the peer block the pull feed.
Idle speculation. But as long as we're speculating then perhaps you
should consider that Borland purposefully propagated the borland.*
newsgrouops.
>There is no way
>for the private newsserver to distinguish between a server and a user
>this way.
The server can block any users it chooses to block.
>If your ISP sucks the news from Borland and provides you with the data
>it's still Borlands private newsserver (maybe misused (?) by your
>ISP/newsguy whatever).
That still doesn't obligate me to agree to arbitrary contractual terms
dreamt up by Borland's attorneys. Sorry.
Zane Thomas
Bob,
>> I'm sorry, but I refuse to give you usage rights.
>
>What precisely have you posted here that is worth using?
Would you like to make this personal or would you rather stick to
discussing the issues as I have been thus far?
Zane Thomas
Andreas,
>If regional hierarchies have their guidelines and rules, why can't
>borland.* have it's own rules?
Borland does have its own rules, they just can't enforce them out
here. If Borland did try to get all the news biggies to agree to
their rules they would likely find themselves laughed at for the next
decade. The idea that Borland can make whatever commercial use it
wants of whatever I post on borland.* groups is the most obvious
problem, but not the only one.
>They can not force other nntp-servers
>to accept cancels, but they can cancel based on the rules. Some
>servers will accept the cancels, others will not.
Most will not.
>If there were a RfD/CfV for the current guidelines I'd vote with Yes.
Day dreaming eh?
>The guidelines for borland.* are available. You can accept them
>or not.
I don't accept them. For instance, I can say FUCK FUCK FUCK! all I
want and there isn't anything Borland can do, except cancel my message
on their own server.
Personally I'm in favor of free speech, and I'm not in favor of people
simply laying claim to what I do without compensating me.
>But Borland should write this down more clearly.
You should learn more about contracts and the US legal system.
>See borland.* as moderated newsgroups. There are rules. You know the
>rules.
No, if they were moderated that would be different. They aren't and
so there's no reason I should "see" them as being so.
>The guideline is for borland.* and not only for forums.borland.com.
ROFLMAO! That's what Borland might like to think, I can assure you
however that Borland will not get the major news carriers to agree
with their silly rules.
>It seems that Borland does not want availability of
>borland.* newsgroups on other servers.
What makes you say that? I'll bet Borland _does_ want their
newsgroups to propagate and I'll bet Borland actively participates in
making sure they do. That "newsfeed suck" stuff is just some _theory_
y'all made up to support what is even then a pretty damned shakey bit
of poor logic.
>And perhaps Borland should
>reject connections from darkhorse.triad.net (which seems to do the
>exchange with the other newsserves in your case)
Fine by me. Then Mike's stupid and insulting remarks wouldn't be
propagated all around the world.
>Anyway, this fact does not change anything. There are guidelines for
>borland.*. You know it. And you accept them by posting in borland.*
No, I don't accept them. Here, let me make that perfectly clear:
FUCK BORLAND'S GUIDELINES!!!
Better? :-)
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Zane --
>If Borland did try to get all the news biggies to agree to
>their rules they would likely find themselves laughed at for the next
>decade.
Sorry, dude. Borland locked that honor up long ago. You can have dibs on the decade
*after* the next, if you wish. ;-)
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Zane --
>FUCK BORLAND'S GUIDELINES!!!
>
>Better? :-)
Much! <g> But, fwiw, it seems they put a fuck filter on their server. All posts to
this group with that word in it are now showing up on the entire 'net *except* on
forums.inprise.com. Their loss, eh?
Later... Karl
PS -- Sometimes, they say, pictures speak louder than words! <evilG>
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Zane --
>F U C K B O R L A N D ' S G U I D E L I N E S!!!
Let's see how versatile that filter is, eh?
Later... Karl
Lorie Hull <Inprise>
Zane,
Your post has been cancelled because of profane language. Please feel
free to repost without the profanity.
Thank you for using our newsgroups.
Regards,
Lorie Hull
Online Manager
Inprise Developer Support
BobK
You're 'discussing' issues now ?
Alex Bakaev [TeamB]
Zane Thomas wrote:
[snip]
>
> And? What you seem to be trying to say is that if a message arrives
> on someone's server then you agree to be bound by whatever contractual
> terms the server owner chooses, even if you have no knowledge of them
> or control over whether your post arrives on that particular server or
> not!
>
You intend to post to this server, you are supposed to follow the rules
governing this server.
[snip]
> That won't work. Remember, my post will end up on servers all over
> the world. Surely you don't expect that I will be bound by all the
> potential terms on their servers. Also, note that there must be a
> quid pro quo involved in a contractual relationship. Since I am not
> using Borland's server they aren't giving me anything, and I'm not
> permitting them to take anything.
>
you are using Borland server as the destination of your post, even if
you used some other server to *originate* it. It doesn't matter how your
post arrives at this server.
[snip]
> No it's not! Look at the headers and see where I post from.
But see where it ends up.
>
> >> it's distributed on and accessed by servers all over the
> >> world
> >
> >So what? Seriously. <g>
>
> So, consider the ramifications of having people subjected to contracts
> simply because their posts arrived on a server.
>
Your logic is flawed because of 'a server'. You intend to post to
forums.borland.com. This is *the* server.
> >The whole Internet is a network -- it's all servers and
> >workstations.
>
> Thanks for that useful information. :-)
>
I am sure you can pick up a lot more here <g>
> Zane
Alex
Tim Young
Zane,
<< And? What you seem to be trying to say is that if a message arrives
on someone's server then you agree to be bound by whatever contractual
terms the server owner chooses, even if you have no knowledge of them
or control over whether your post arrives on that particular server or
not! >>
When you post to the Borland newsgroups at forums.borland.com I think it's
safe to assume that your post is going to land on *Borland's* servers, which
are indeed private.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Alex --
>> And? What you seem to be trying to say is that if a message arrives
>> on someone's server then you agree to be bound by whatever contractual
>> terms the server owner chooses, even if you have no knowledge of them
>> or control over whether your post arrives on that particular server or
>> not!
>
>You intend to post to this server, you are supposed to follow the rules
>governing this server.
Wow! Did you *even* read what you responded to? Didn't you notice that Zane did
*not* post to "this" server? Does the sort of logic you just displayed work in a
language like Delphi, too? <g>
Later... Karl
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 01 May 1998 05:07:29 -0700, BobK <ezb...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Since Winken and Blinken wandered in
Fuck you too Bob.
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 1 May 1998 14:21:52 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson"
<ka...@no.spam.man> wrote:
>Hi Zane --
>
>>F U C K B O R L A N D ' S G U I D E L I N E S!!!
>
>Let's see how versatile that filter is, eh?
ROFLMAO! Ok, how about:
Gimme an F
Gimme a U
Gimme a C
Gimme a K
What's the spell?
tmiller
Zane Thomas wrote:
>
> All,
>
> It appears that Borland (cum Imprice) seems to think that it _owns_
> following at http://www.inprise.com/newsgroups/guide.html :
>
> <legal bs>
> 17. These are Borland newsgroups.
>
> By participating, you grant to Borland the unrestricted right to use,
> reproduce, modify, translate, display, perform, transmit and
> distribute any material you post to a newsgroup in any present or
> future medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
> </legal bs>
>
> This presents an interesting problem. I don't use Borland's server to
> post messages and so I fail to see where Borland gets the cajones to
> are going to be surprised borland.* posters all over the world when
> they see that Borland has laid claim to worldwide usenet posts.
It sounds to you like you have a problem with the people you
posted your
original message with. Why are they taking your work
product without
your permission and sending it to this server where they
know it's
going to become the property of Borland!
--
Thomas Miller
BSS Accounting & Distribution Software
BSS Application FrameWork
BSS VCL Pack
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
>When you post to the Borland newsgroups at forums.borland.com I think it's
>safe to assume that your post is going to land on *Borland's* servers,
Um, would you consider it offensive if I responded (in the only way that seems to me
appropriate) -- DUH. Read it again. Zane didn't post to forums.borland.com (as I am
with this post). Some folks actually understand what server they're posting to,
believe it or not. :-)
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Zane --
>On Fri, 01 May 1998 05:07:29 -0700, BobK <ezb...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Since Winken and Blinken wandered in
>
>[F u c k] you too Bob.
To get through their filter, you need to be smarter than they are. (Of course, that
isn't saying a whole helluvalot, is it? <bg>)
Hope this helps!
Later... Karl
Zane Thomas
Lorie,
>Your post has been cancelled because of profane language.
Don't you feel silly saying that when it's obvious that my post has
been propagated all over the world?
Btw, Lorie, I haven't entered into any agreement with you or anyone
regarding what I can post via my news server. I strongly advise you
to make sure that your cancels aren't propagating outside of your news
server because if I find that they are I will be very upset.
>Thank you for using our newsgroups.
I'm not using your newsgroups.
Zane Thomas
Alex,
>You intend to post to this server
No, not only do I not intend to post on that server I'm _not_ posting
on it. Geesh, are y'all dense or something?
>you are supposed to follow the rules
>governing this server.
No I'm not. I'm not using your server at all and there is no reason
why I should be bound by your terms. If y'all are getting my messages
from somewhere and putting them on your server and you don't like the
result then you only have yourselves to blame.
>you are using Borland server as the destination of your post
No, newsgroup postings have no destination. Again, if y'all don't
like my posts on your server you can a) not accept them, b) cancel
them after they arrive, or c) quit whining.
>> No it's not! Look at the headers and see where I post from.
>
>But see where it ends up.
Not my problem, I have nothing to do with news propagation. Y'all can
stop taking posts from the outside world any time you want.
>> So, consider the ramifications of having people subjected to contracts
>> simply because their posts arrived on a server.
>>
>
>Your logic is flawed because of 'a server'. You intend to post to
>forums.borland.com. This is *the* server.
Assumes facts not in evidence, specifically you don't know what my
"intent" is.
Again, you there at Borland have complete control over your server.
If you don't like what's on it then deal with it and leave me alone,
ok?
>I am sure you can pick up a lot more here <g>
Of a similar worth no doubt.
Zane Thomas
Bob,
>> Would you like to make this personal or would you rather stick to
>> discussing the issues as I have been thus far?
>
>You're 'discussing' issues now ?
I guess you are as dumb as you look. Notice the title of the thread
please Bob. I have been discussing the issues surrounding Borland's
rather bizarre attempt to, among other things, acquire the rights to
all material posted in the borland.* newsgroups. You, on the other
hand, have been making stupid and childish remarks.
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 1 May 1998 17:40:44 -0400, "Tim Young" <timy...@adelphia.net>
wrote:
>When you post to the Borland newsgroups at forums.borland.com I think it's
>safe to assume that your post is going to land on *Borland's* servers, which
>are indeed private.
Good assumption Tim. But if you look at the message headers you will
find that exactly NONE of my messages were posted on Borland's
servers. Instead I'm using enew.newsguy.com and netcom.com.
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Zane --
>>>F U C K B O R L A N D ' S G U I D E L I N E S!!!
>>
>>Let's see how versatile that filter is, eh?
>
>ROFLMAO! Ok, how about:
>
>Gimme an F
>Gimme a U
>Gimme a C
>Gimme a K
>
>What's the spell?
S'posed to be good for ya. Let's ask Lorie! :-)
Later... Karl
Mike Orriss
Taz, is that really you with all those words? <vbg>
Mike Orriss (m...@3kcc.co.uk)
http://www.3kcc.co.uk
Lorie Hull <Inprise>
Karl,
Your post has been cancelled because of profanity. Please feel free to
post again without the profane language.
Thanks for using the Inprise newsgroups!
Lorie Hull <Inprise>
BobK
You appear to be in a class by yourself on that.
Goodbye.
Into the killfile you go.
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 01 May 1998 16:36:13 -0700, BobK <ezb...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Into the killfile you go.
Yeah right bob. Admit it, you're going to read my posts just because
you can't help yourself. It may be that you realize what a fool
you've been and that you'll only get in further over your head by
responding, but you will be reading them.
Tim Young
Zane,
<< Good assumption Tim. But if you look at the message headers you will
find that exactly NONE of my messages were posted on Borland's
servers. Instead I'm using enew.newsguy.com and netcom.com. >>
Gotcha loud and clear, but as you will notice I didn't mention anything
about where you posted the message, rather I was saying that the logical
assumption is that the message will eventually end up on Borland's private
servers. These private servers initiate the newsgroup and maintain it, thus
it is the source and the destination for all messages related to
forums.borland.com. Therefore, Borland employees asking someone to observe
the Borland guidelines for the newsgroups is not out of line. These
guidelines exist to keep things within the bounds of civility and lower the
signal to noise ratio. But, of course, I think you already know this. ;-)
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Um, would you consider it offensive if I responded (in the only way that
seems to me appropriate) -- DUH. Read it again. Zane didn't post to
forums.borland.com (as I am with this post). Some folks actually understand
what server they're posting to, believe it or not. :-) >>
Well, yes I am actually kind of offended because that's not what I said.
Both you and Zane took my message out of context. I said nothing about
posting to any given server, my message said that it's a logical assumption
that when you post to the forums.borland.com *newsgroup* that the message
will eventually end up on Borland's private server. Last time I checked, a
newsgroup is not the same thing as a physical server.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Zane Thomas !MVP
On Fri, 1 May 1998 14:20:16 -0700, "Karl E. Peterson" <ka...@no.spam.man> wrote:
>Hi Zane --
>
>>FUCK BORLAND'S GUIDELINES!!!
>>
>>Better? :-)
>
>
>Much! <g> But, fwiw, it seems they put a fuck filter on their server.
Hmmm, didn't work out here in the real world. But I guess they're comfortable
with their heads stuck in their little sandbox eh?
Zane
za...@mabry.com !MVP
Zane Thomas
Tim,
>Gotcha loud and clear, but as you will notice I didn't mention anything
>about where you posted the message
Actually this is what you said:
"When you post to the Borland newsgroups at forums.borland.com..."
I correctly rebutted that by saying that I don't post on
forums.borland.com.
>the logical
>assumption is that the message will eventually end up on Borland's private
>servers.
And thousands of other servers around the world, which _may_ have
"rules" which directly contradict some of those that borland has. So
who wins in that case Tim?
>These private servers initiate the newsgroup and maintain it, thus
>it is the source and the destination for all messages related to
>forums.borland.com.
That's quite a stretch. The source and destination for my messages is
enews.newsguy.com. I have, implicitly at least, agreed to abide by
their rules (which fortunately don't require me to act like Nick's
grandmother). If Borland chooses to take my messages and put them on
their server then fine, they can do that. But Borland has no right to
tell me what I can put on borland.* newsgroups on the server I use.
Surely you aren't going to claim that borland owns all of the
borland.* newsgroup instances in the world are you Tim?
>Therefore, Borland employees asking someone to observe
>the Borland guidelines for the newsgroups is not out of line.
Therefore nuttin! They are out of line trying to tell me what to do.
If they don't like what I write they can keep it off of their servers,
that's the beginning and end of it.
>These
>guidelines exist to keep things within the bounds of civility and lower the
>signal to noise ratio.
Yeah, well if Mr. TeamB had been following his own guidlines then we
wouldn't be having this little discussion today eh Tim? The fact of
the matter is that here, as it was on CI$, Nick and his type will
unevenly enforce their "rules" whenever it suits them. The difference
between the present situation and CI$ is, however, that Nick doesn't
have the ability to lock me out of the borland.* newsgroups.
Bwahahahahaha!
Zane
Zane Thomas
On Fri, 1 May 1998 20:59:38 -0400, "Tim Young" <timy...@adelphia.net>
wrote:
>it's a logical assumption
>that when you post to the forums.borland.com *newsgroup* that the message
>will eventually end up on Borland's private server
Part of the confusion results from your "creative" use of words. :-)
There is no such thing as "the forums.borland.com *newsgroup*". There
is a borland.* hierarchy.
Whether the arrival of a particular post on Borland's server is
significant or not has yet to be established. Like I said in another
post, that same message will arrive on thousands of servers and they
may have contradictory "rules".
Who decides which "rules" apply to a newsgroup?
If borland wants to have control over the contents of a newsgroup then
they have to use a moderated newsgroup Tim. That's the way it is, the
way it always has been, and hopefully the way it always will be.
Zane
Zane Thomas
>Both you and Zane took my message out of context.
Maybe it wasn't clear Tim.
Tim Young
Zane,
<< I correctly rebutted that by saying that I don't post on
forums.borland.com. >>
We've got a semantics thing here. When I say forums.borland.com I am
implying the *logical* entity, in other words forums.borland.com is the
newsgroup hierarchy maintained by Borland, regardless of where it propogates
to.
<< And thousands of other servers around the world, which _may_ have
"rules" which directly contradict some of those that borland has. So
who wins in that case Tim? >>
Well, let me ask you this question and see if I understand everything
correctly. If you post a message to the newsgroup hierarchy
forums.borland.com (no matter what server you physically post it on) is it
guaranteed to end up on Borland's physical server ?
<< That's quite a stretch. The source and destination for my messages is
enews.newsguy.com. >>
That's simply not true. I'm reading your message right now and I am
definitely not reading it off of enews.newsguy.com. I'm reading it directly
off of the Borland servers.
<< I have, implicitly at least, agreed to abide by their rules (which
fortunately don't require me to act like Nick's grandmother). If Borland
chooses to take my messages and put them on their server then fine, they can
do that. But Borland has no right to tell me what I can put on borland.*
newsgroups on the server I use. >>
I disagree. They created forums.borland.com, they maintain it, therefore
they control it. If this wasn't so then it wouldn't be called
forums.>>>BORLAND.COM<<<
<< Surely you aren't going to claim that borland owns all of the borland.*
newsgroup instances in the world are you Tim? >>
Certainly not. What I've said is that they maintain and provide the
resources, the physical servers that house the original newsgroup hierarchy
and personnel that manages it, so this obviously entitles them as a private
organization to set guidelines for their usage.
<< Therefore nuttin! They are out of line trying to tell me what to do. If
they don't like what I write they can keep it off of their servers, that's
the beginning and end of it. >>
Unfortunately, it may just come down to that. Is it really that much to ask
for someone *not* to swear in messages in the Borland newsgroups ? I ask my
kids not to swear and they don't seem to have a problem with it. Last time
I checked it wasn't consider acceptable business behavior to swear at
others. The sad thing is that it has nothing to do with your message
content, per se, the guidelines simply state that swearing will not be
permitted because it may offend someone. It's a reasonable guideline that
provides due consideration to the entire audience. I don't believe any
messages posted by yourself or Karl have been cancelled unless they have
contained swearing.
<< Yeah, well if Mr. TeamB had been following his own guidlines then we
wouldn't be having this little discussion today eh Tim? The fact of
the matter is that here, as it was on CI$, Nick and his type will
unevenly enforce their "rules" whenever it suits them. The difference
between the present situation and CI$ is, however, that Nick doesn't
have the ability to lock me out of the borland.* newsgroups. >>
My points are strictly regarding observance and enforcement of the
guidelines.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Zane,
<< Part of the confusion results from your "creative" use of words. :-)
There is no such thing as "the forums.borland.com *newsgroup*". There
is a borland.* hierarchy. >>
Sorry, I left off an "s" on the word newsgroup.
<< Whether the arrival of a particular post on Borland's server is
significant or not has yet to be established. Like I said in another
post, that same message will arrive on thousands of servers and they
may have contradictory "rules". >>
Here's another question then. If Borland did not physically have
forums.borland.com residing on their own private servers would
forums.borland.com cease to exist ?
<< Who decides which "rules" apply to a newsgroup? >>
In this case Borland.
<< If borland wants to have control over the contents of a newsgroup then
they have to use a moderated newsgroup Tim. That's the way it is, the
way it always has been, and hopefully the way it always will be. >>
Well, then maybe that's what they should do. It would at least end the
controversy once and for all. <g>
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Zane Thomas !MVP
Tim,
>We've got a semantics thing here.
I don't think so.
>When I say forums.borland.com I am
>implying the *logical* entity, in other words forums.borland.com is the
>newsgroup hierarchy maintained by Borland, regardless of where it propogates
>to.
The correct way of refering to the collection of newsgroups is borland.*. I
suspect that fact won't support the conclusion you're trying to reach.
>Well, let me ask you this question and see if I understand everything
>correctly. If you post a message to the newsgroup hierarchy
>forums.borland.com (no matter what server you physically post it on) is it
>guaranteed to end up on Borland's physical server ?
Assuming forums.borland.com == borland.* the answer is no. There is no
guarantee that news messages will be delivered. Might arrive, might not, and if
it does arrive it might be canceled. I have no control over any of those
scenarios.
>That's simply not true. I'm reading your message right now and I am
>definitely not reading it off of enews.newsguy.com. I'm reading it directly
>off of the Borland servers.
So? I posted to newsguy and the fact that it shows up on Borland's servers had
nothing to do with me. Hence I haven't entered into any implied contract with
Borland. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
>I disagree. They created forums.borland.com, they maintain it
Wrong. Borland does _not_ maintain borland.*, it's maintained by the news
servers who choose to carry and propagate it.
>therefore they control it.
Sorry, but since your premise is flawed the consequent doesn't follow.
>If this wasn't so then it wouldn't be called forums.>>>BORLAND.COM<<<
ROLFMAO! Ok, now I see why you're trying so hard to rename borland.* to
ANYTHING.BORLAND.COM - you think that putting borland.com in the name somehow
magically grants borland control over thousands of servers all over the world!
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.
>
><< Surely you aren't going to claim that borland owns all of the borland.*
>newsgroup instances in the world are you Tim? >>
>
>Certainly not. What I've said is that they maintain and provide the
>resources
Yeah, you said that but you're wrong. Thousands of systems are maintained
around the world by people having nothing to do with borland.
>the physical servers that house the original newsgroup hierarchy
LOL, so you think that whoever originates a newsgroup gets to determine what
happens on newsgroups of that name no matter where they are in the world? I'd
like to know what legal theory supports that wild idea!
><< Therefore nuttin! They are out of line trying to tell me what to do. If
>they don't like what I write they can keep it off of their servers, that's
>the beginning and end of it. >>
>
>Unfortunately, it may just come down to that.
I'm sure it will.
>Is it really that much to ask for someone *not* to swear in messages
>in the Borland newsgroups ?
You can ask all you want, but you don't get to dictate.
>I ask my kids not to swear and they don't seem to have a problem with it.
Does someone around here look like your kids?
>Last time I checked it wasn't consider acceptable business behavior
>to swear at others.
Is there an Acceptable Business Behaviour Bible online somewhere, or is that a
fantasy of yours?
>The sad thing is that it has nothing to do with your message
>content
Bingo! You'll note that I haven't been swearing.
>the guidelines simply state that swearing will not be
>permitted because it may offend someone
Actually the guidelines don't say anything about the topic. Just goes to prove
my point about the arbitrary and capricious nature exhibited by the
self-appointed censors who have been canceling mine and Karls' messages.
>It's a reasonable guideline that provides due consideration to the entire
>audience.
How do you know it's a reasonable guideline if you haven't read it? (hint:
there is no such guideline)
>I don't believe any
>messages posted by yourself or Karl have been cancelled unless they have
>contained swearing.
Yes, one of my messages was canceled just for mentioning a word that is
sometimes used in a context some would refer to as "swearing".
>My points are strictly regarding observance and enforcement of the
>guidelines.
Yeah, well let's talk about this after you've read the guidelines. I read them
before starting this thread.
Zane
za...@mabry.com !MVP
Zane Thomas !MVP
Tim,
><< Part of the confusion results from your "creative" use of words. :-)
>There is no such thing as "the forums.borland.com *newsgroup*". There
>is a borland.* hierarchy. >>
>
>Sorry, I left off an "s" on the word newsgroup.
I was trying to make an important point, sorry you missed it.
>Here's another question then. If Borland did not physically have
>forums.borland.com residing on their own private servers would
>forums.borland.com cease to exist ?
The borland.* hierarchy would not cease to exist.
><< Who decides which "rules" apply to a newsgroup? >>
>
>In this case Borland.
Wrong! I would like you to show me what authority under law or widely accepted
convention grants that power to Borland. Please don't be remiss in this, you
seem to be so certain of yourself that you must have some cites to support your
position.
>Well, then maybe that's what they should do.
Yep, I think that's what they should do. Then the rest of us can carry on free
from the obnoxious censor wanabes and they would be liable for their comments.
Zane
za...@mabry.com !MVP
Anatoly Podgoretsky
Zane Thomas wrote in <355f421a....@enews.newsguy.com> ...
>I'm not using your newsgroups.
It is header from your post
Newsgroups: borland.public.delphi.non-technical
You are using it :)
--
Sincerely yours
Anatoly Podgoretsky <k...@estpak.ee>
Zane Thomas
>>I'm not using your newsgroups.
>
>
>It is header from your post
>
>Newsgroups: borland.public.delphi.non-technical
I post on enew.newsguy.com. Are you saying that borland owns
newsguy's newsgroup on newsguy's server?
Zane
Hank Ingram
Anatoly Podgoretsky wrote in message <6if0c6$l0...@forums.borland.com>...
>It is header from your post
>
>Newsgroups: borland.public.delphi.non-technical
>
>
I just looked in my header. I'm using InfiNet. Who da thought?
Tim Young
Zane,
<< The correct way of refering to the collection of newsgroups is borland.*.
I
suspect that fact won't support the conclusion you're trying to reach. >>
Sorry about that, I see where I'm confusing the issue. I'll refer to the
newsgroups as borland.* from here on out. Because I use the Borland server
at forums.borland.com I sometimes forget that the two are not synonymous.
<< Assuming forums.borland.com == borland.* the answer is no. There is no
guarantee that news messages will be delivered. Might arrive, might not,
and if
it does arrive it might be canceled. I have no control over any of those
scenarios. >>
Right, you don't but the physical server you are posting to does, and it's
pretty clear to me that your messages *do* end up on Borland's physical
server. To twist this whole idea until it becomes too vague to comprehend
does not change the fact that, besides being cancelled or a server problem,
it's guaranteed that someone reading directly off of forums.borland.com will
see your messages.
<< So? I posted to newsguy and the fact that it shows up on Borland's
servers had
nothing to do with me. Hence I haven't entered into any implied contract
with
Borland. Thanks for playing, better luck next time. >>
You seem to wish to ignore the basic fact that newsguy *does* send your
messages back to Borland's servers and that you are well aware of it. This
obviously plays into your "theory" better but it does not reflect the truth.
<< Wrong. Borland does _not_ maintain borland.*, it's maintained by the
news
servers who choose to carry and propagate it. >>
This is a point we're going to endlessly disagree on, so we'll leave it.
It's been fun, in a masochistic way. <g>
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Zane,
<< I was trying to make an important point, sorry you missed it. >>
Gotcha, as I stated in an earlier message.
<< The borland.* hierarchy would not cease to exist. >>
Who would retain it, since the newsfeeds originate from Borland's servers ?
<< Wrong! I would like you to show me what authority under law or widely
accepted convention grants that power to Borland. Please don't be remiss in
this, you seem to be so certain of yourself that you must have some cites to
support your position. >>
Physical locality grants them this control. They own the physical servers
which reside in *their* offices. These servers are the heart of borland.*
<< Yep, I think that's what they should do. Then the rest of us can carry
on free
from the obnoxious censor wanabes and they would be liable for their
comments. >>
Well, I think we all know that in this society there is a difference between
free speech and responsible behavior. Just because we *can* swear up a storm
and disrupt things doesn't mean that we *should*. More people should
remember this.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Anatoly Podgoretsky
Hank Ingram пишет в сообщении <6ifk6k$m1...@forums.borland.com> ...
It's your server not a group.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm5-236.roanoke.infi.net <-- where you post it
Path: forums.borland.com!not-for-mail <-- how you go
Newsgroups: borland.public.delphi.non-technical <-- and I say about it
Hank Ingram
Tim Young wrote in message <6ifo5n$m1...@forums.borland.com>...
>Well, I think we all know that in this society there is a difference
between
>free speech and responsible behavior. Just because we *can* swear up a
storm
>and disrupt things doesn't mean that we *should*. More people should
>remember this.
Excellent Point, Tim. Just because we can poke a pencil in our neighbor's
eye doesn't mean we should just to see what happens.
Jim Van Hook
Hank -
>Isn't Borland(Uninspire...whatever) responsible for anything that leaves
>its server(within reason)? I think that is why they delete profound
>messages.
You trying to slip something over on every one?
Jim
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Mugass --
>I beg to differ as the borland.* hierarchy is private.
Beg all you want, you're wrong.
>>If Borland wants this to be a moderated group, and have sole authority as
>>to what will appear in any image of this newsgroup, they should simply
>>state that publicly.
>
>It takes a lot of work to moderate a newsgroup.
Censorship *is* hard work, yes.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
>We've got a semantics thing here.
No, it's not semantics. It's a profound misunderstanding.
>When I say forums.borland.com I am
>implying the *logical* entity,
Bingo. "forums.borland.com" is a *physical* entity. It's IP address is
207.105.83.40.
>in other words forums.borland.com is the
>newsgroup hierarchy maintained by Borland, regardless of where it propogates
>to.
Wrong again. It's a server, and the newsgroup hierarchy you refer to is something
utterly beyond the control of any single company or individual.
>Well, let me ask you this question and see if I understand everything
>correctly. If you post a message to the newsgroup hierarchy
>forums.borland.com (no matter what server you physically post it on) is it
>guaranteed to end up on Borland's physical server ?
Simply put, no. (And, yes, I overlooked your misunderstanding of what constitutes a
newsgroup and what constitutes a server.) There are *no* guarantees that a post to
these newsgroups will end up on forums.borland.com *unless* one uses that particular
server as the posting host.
>The sad thing is that it has nothing to do with your message
>content, per se, the guidelines simply state that swearing will not be
>permitted because it may offend someone. It's a reasonable guideline that
>provides due consideration to the entire audience.
I noticed you never replied when Zane pointed out you didn't have a clue what you
were talking about here. Heck, it even took the Borland folks nearly 48 hours before
they realized that their guidelines didn't say squat about profanity. The *only*
reference to language in the guidelines is a request that folks use English.
>My points are strictly regarding observance and enforcement of the
>guidelines.
Here's a free clue -- *read* the guidelines before pretending you know what they say.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
><< The borland.* hierarchy would not cease to exist. >>
>
>Who would retain it, since the newsfeeds originate from Borland's servers ?
Wow! You *really* don't get it, do you? It's a big world out there, son. Time you
opened your eyes. Newsgroups don't die just because a server goes down. Borland's
little forums server is nothing more than that anymore. And what the heck makes you
think any single server "originates" an entire hierarchy? <LOL>
>Physical locality grants them this control. They own the physical servers
>which reside in *their* offices. These servers are the heart of borland.*
As I said, they could unplug them, and only folks like you would notice. The rest of
the world wouldn't miss a beat.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
>Well, yes I am actually kind of offended because that's not what I said.
Yes, it is. Maybe if I offend you enough, you'll stop spewing and learn something.
>Both you and Zane took my message out of context.
No, we took you literally. Perhaps that was our mistake, but it was what happened.
>I said nothing about
>posting to any given server, my message said that it's a logical assumption
>that when you post to the forums.borland.com *newsgroup* that the message
>will eventually end up on Borland's private server.
Not sure how you can claim a "logical assumption" follows an oxymoron. There is no
such beast as the "forums.borland.com newsgroup" (singular or plural).
>Last time I checked, a
>newsgroup is not the same thing as a physical server.
Duh.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Hank --
>Actually, they are better off by setting a policy and sticking to it. There
>is no such thing as a hands-off policy.
Heh, I take it you've never been to msnews, huh? <bg>
>Somebody is responsible for the server.
See? That's the whole point. There are thousands of servers carrying these groups.
No one, not a single soul (or corporation) is responsible for that. It's just the
way it is.
>If they make an effort at policing, they are less liable.
Just the opposite. They become *completely* liable. That's why we have phone sex
lines. The bells have protection in their common carrier status. Microsoft knows
this. You'd think Borland would be half that smart.
>Even the
>off-ramp had rules and i know of one person who paid the price for
>violating them.
He wasn't kicked out for behavior in the offramp.
>There is no point having copyright laws if you aren't going
>to enforce them.
That's a different argument.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Jim --
I caught it! ;-)
Later... Karl
Harry M. Pierson
Zane,
My analogy is that whether you are using FEDEX, DHL, or USPO to send your
editorial to the New York Times, you are merely using the transport as a
vehicle for your communication. Which mailslot you use doesn't change the
message or the recipient. You are sending it to a particular place because
you want it to be read by a specific group of readers.
The real issue here is whether this is or should be a moderated discussion
group. Borland certainly has the right to run a modearted group. But
Borland (or whatever) has to decide whether they are in or out. You can't
be just a little bit pregnant.
There are Delphi discussion groups that run outside of Borland in the
comp.* hierarchy. If there isn't already an approriate group for your
audience, perhaps you would want to help start one.
Harry M. Pierson
Alex,
I think you and I are arriving at the same resolution of this question.
Whether I mail a letter from New York, San Francisco, or push it under the
door of the intended recipient, it doesn't change the message or the
intended recipient.
There still is the question, however, as to whether Borland has the right
to cancel any messages. Certainly they have the right to delete them from
their own server. If my ISP doesn't want to carry certain newsgroups or
even specific messages within those groups, I can respect that. However, if
they attempt to prevent others from seeing them anywhere else, I do think
they are overstepping their bounds.
If Borland wants this to be a moderated group, and have sole authority as
to what will appear in any image of this newsgroup, they should simply
state that publicly. Then others with similar interests who want an
unmoderated group can go start an unmoderated group.
Harry M. Pierson
DREJ Consulting
Alex Bakaev [TeamB] <al...@jetsuite.com> wrote in article
<354A40B4...@jetsuite.com>...
> you are using Borland server as the destination of your post, even if
> you used some other server to *originate* it. It doesn't matter how your
> post arrives at this server.
J. Peter Mugaas
On 3 May 1998 01:54:57 GMT, "Harry M. Pierson" <nospam...@drej.com> wrote:
>even specific messages within those groups, I can respect that. However, if
>they attempt to prevent others from seeing them anywhere else, I do think
>they are overstepping their bounds.
>
I beg to differ as the borland.* hierarchy is private. Thus, the hierarchy
owners have the authority to cancel posts deemed inappropriate for that
hierarchy (it's the same principal as the christnet.* hierarchy). If Inprise
canceled messages from the alt.* and big 8 hierarchies without following
specific conventions and only for extremely specific reasons (these apply to
anyone else), I would have little sympathy for Inprise.
>If Borland wants this to be a moderated group, and have sole authority as
>to what will appear in any image of this newsgroup, they should simply
>state that publicly.
It takes a lot of work to moderate a newsgroup. First, you have create
several E-Mail aliases for administration and submission of articles. Second,
you have be able to modify certain headers that many administrators normally
wouldn't normally permit alteration of. Third, you can reasonably be expected
to read, approve or disapprove possibly thousands of messages a day, and then
post the approved ones with a turnaround rate of less than one day. Finally,
you would be expected to work with other moderators of other newsgroups the
articles may be cross posted to.
If Inprise is willing to do all of that work, more power to them.
-- Support the anti-Spam amendment - Join at http://www.cauce.org/
J. Peter Mugaas E-Mail: oma0...@mail.wvnet.edu
http://wvnvm.wvnet.edu/~oma00215/ Finger for PGP key.
Zane Thomas
Harry,
>My analogy is that whether you are using FEDEX, DHL, or USPO to send your
>editorial to the New York Times
Huh? I don't see how that analogy makes much sense, what I'm doing is
more like broadcasting than sending a letter.
>The real issue here is whether this is or should be a moderated discussion
>group. Borland certainly has the right to run a modearted group. But
>Borland (or whatever) has to decide whether they are in or out. You can't
>be just a little bit pregnant.
Bingo!
Zane
Zane Thomas
Tim,
><< The borland.* hierarchy would not cease to exist. >>
>
>Who would retain it, since the newsfeeds originate from Borland's servers ?
Say what??? What makes you think newsgroups even have an origin?
><< Wrong! I would like you to show me what authority under law or widely
>accepted convention grants that power to Borland. Please don't be remiss in
>this, you seem to be so certain of yourself that you must have some cites to
>support your position. >>
>
>Physical locality grants them this control. They own the physical servers
>which reside in *their* offices. These servers are the heart of borland.*
Yes, and they can exercise control over the things on their servers.
But they cannot exercise control over me and my understanding of
copyright law (such as it is) precludes them from expropriating my
property simply by posting a stupid "rule" on their web site.
>Well, I think we all know that in this society there is a difference between
>free speech and responsible behavior.
Yes, they are two seperate issues.
>Just because we *can* swear up a storm and disrupt things doesn't
>mean that we *should*.
Actually it's real clear that we should because some people apparently
don't understand the value of free speech and need to get whacked
upside the head with it once in a while.
>More people should remember this.
No Tim, more people should learn why we have free speech.
Zane
Zane Thomas
On Sat, 2 May 1998 14:22:09 -0400, "Tim Young" <timy...@adelphia.net>
wrote:
>To twist this whole idea until it becomes too vague to comprehend
>does not change the fact that, besides being cancelled or a server problem,
>it's guaranteed that someone reading directly off of forums.borland.com will
>see your messages.
And? Does that give borland the right to claim to be able to use
anything I post for any purpose they may choose? Legally I think
that's just plain not so.
>You seem to wish to ignore the basic fact that newsguy *does* send your
>messages back to Borland's servers and that you are well aware of it.
First I don't know how my posts get from newsguy to borland, so I
don't know "that newsguy *does" send" them as you say. Second, so
what? My posts are going to end up on any number of servers around
the world. Do they all get to claim unlimited use of whatever I post?
>It's been fun, in a masochistic way. <g>
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time! :-)
Zane
Zane Thomas !MVP
Tim Young
Zane,
<< And? Does that give borland the right to claim to be able to use
anything I post for any purpose they may choose? Legally I think that's
just plain not so. >>
Unfortunately you missed this whole thread about a month ago when the whole
usage issue was hashed out.
>First I don't know how my posts get from newsguy to borland, so I don't
know "that newsguy *does" send" them as you say. Second, so what? My posts
are going to end up on any number of servers around the world. Do they all
get to claim unlimited use of whatever I post? >>
Are they Borland's servers ?
<< Thanks for playing. Better luck next time! :-) >>
It's like gambling, I gotta quit. <g>
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Zane,
<< Say what??? What makes you think newsgroups even have an origin? >>
In this particular case they do have an origin.
<< Yes, and they can exercise control over the things on their servers. But
they cannot exercise control over me and my understanding of copyright law
(such as it is) precludes them from expropriating my property simply by
posting a stupid "rule" on their web site. >>
Well, as I said before this whole thing was hashed out a while ago. If you
search one of the newsgroup archives you can see the whole mess. I
personally don't care to get into the copyright issues again.
<< Actually it's real clear that we should because some people apparently
don't understand the value of free speech and need to get whacked upside the
head with it once in a while. >>
To understand the value of free speech does not mean one must exercise it in
an extreme way every chance he/she gets.
<< No Tim, more people should learn why we have free speech. >>
That's a rather elitist statement.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Wrong again. It's a server, and the newsgroup hierarchy you refer to is
something utterly beyond the control of any single company or individual. >>
I think I've already indicated that I had a mind block going and kept using
the wrong identifier for the newsgroup hierarchy.
<< Simply put, no. (And, yes, I overlooked your misunderstanding of what
constitutes a newsgroup and what constitutes a server.) There are *no*
guarantees that a post to these newsgroups will end up on forums.borland.com
*unless* one uses that particular server as the posting host. >>
Trust me, it was not a misunderstanding. It was equivalent to a typo. And
to challenge your assumption why don't you post 1000 random messages on
various servers that carry the borland.* newsgroups and see how many
physically end up on forums.borland.com. Heck, I'll check for them as they
arrive on the server.
<< I noticed you never replied when Zane pointed out you didn't have a clue
what you were talking about here. Heck, it even took the Borland folks
nearly 48 hours before they realized that their guidelines didn't say squat
about profanity. The *only* reference to language in the guidelines is a
request that folks use English. >>
The reason I ignored it was because:
a) He implied that I was ignorant and had not read the guidelines when in
fact I have done so many times (you are essentially adopting the same
position)
b) A lot of the comments were inflammatory, and although I'm trying to keep
things above board, yourself and Zane seem to keep making things personal
The guidelines state that you should not post anything that is offensive to
another person, and many people find swearing offensive. Therefore messages
that contain offensive language are cancelled. It would be the same as if
someone felt the need to slander someone's ethnic background.
<< Here's a free clue -- *read* the guidelines before pretending you know
what they say. >>
If you were actually an active participant in these newsgroups you might
realize that Ben Matterson posts the guidelines regularly throughout the
Borland newsgroups. You'd have to go out of your way *not* to read them.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Wow! You *really* don't get it, do you? It's a big world out there,
son. Time you opened your eyes. Newsgroups don't die just because a server
goes down. >>
No, they don't. But in this case if Borland were to pull the plug on
managing borland.* someone else would have to take over with a new borland.*
hierarchy or it would die, plain and simple.
<< Borland's little forums server is nothing more than that anymore. And
what the heck makes you think any single server "originates" an entire
hierarchy? <LOL> >>
Borland started the borland.* newsgroup hierarchy, and it originated on
their servers. What's so hard to understand about that ?
<< As I said, they could unplug them, and only folks like you would notice.
The rest of the world wouldn't miss a beat. >>
If they unplugged their servers then the newsgroup hierarchy would surely
follow in a timely death also. The public comp.* newsgroups would carry on,
though, so you could always post there with all of your questions regarding
Delphi. <g>
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Yes, it is. Maybe if I offend you enough, you'll stop spewing and learn
something. >>
If you're trying to teach me something then you've got some work to do on
your delivery.
<< No, we took you literally. Perhaps that was our mistake, but it was what
happened. >>
This is an old message, I've already explained the mistake.
<< Duh. >>
Gotta keep it nice and personal, huh ? <g> You've evidently got deficiencies
in your ability to carry on an argument with someone without belittling the
other person with remarks like that. You should read the guidelines, they
specifically state that you should not engage in personal attacks on others.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
><< Wrong again. It's a server, and the newsgroup hierarchy you refer to is
>something utterly beyond the control of any single company or individual. >>
>
>I think I've already indicated that I had a mind block going and kept using
>the wrong identifier for the newsgroup hierarchy.
Yeah, I saw that, but the confusion didn't seem to end there.
>Trust me, it was not a misunderstanding. It was equivalent to a typo.
As I said. Still confused. Far from a typo, and nothing at all to do with
semantics.
>to challenge your assumption why don't you post 1000 random messages on
>various servers that carry the borland.* newsgroups and see how many
>physically end up on forums.borland.com. Heck, I'll check for them as they
>arrive on the server.
Heh, sure, just give me an account to send them from. (My postmaster has a "thing"
about spammers. <g>) I *can* tell you, though, that if you care to compare you'd see
that there are messages in this very thread out on public newsservers that aren't on
forums.borland.com.
><< I noticed you never replied when Zane pointed out you didn't have a clue
>what you were talking about here. Heck, it even took the Borland folks
>nearly 48 hours before they realized that their guidelines didn't say squat
>about profanity. The *only* reference to language in the guidelines is a
>request that folks use English. >>
>
>The reason I ignored it was because:
>
>a) He implied that I was ignorant and had not read the guidelines when in
>fact I have done so many times (you are essentially adopting the same
>position)
Sorry, but it was *you* who implied you were ignorant, by refering to guideline that
clearly doesn't exist. I just highlighted the situation. <g>
>b) A lot of the comments were inflammatory, and although I'm trying to keep
>things above board, yourself and Zane seem to keep making things personal
Harry Truman once said, "I never did give anyone hell. I just told them the truth and
they *thought* it was hell." (Lorie, are you going to prohibit me from quoting our
presidents, too?) I'm sorry that reality sucks, but, well, it often does, doesn't
it?
>The guidelines state that you should not post anything that is offensive to
>another person, and many people find swearing offensive.
As Zane pointed out, the guidelines are meaningless, because they apply only to a
single server -- one that happens to *not* be the server to which I am posting this.
Anyway, twisting your logic, I (and many others) find Pascal offensive, so I suppose
most messages here should be deleted, huh? I also know many folks who find pagan
references to ancient gods offensive (y'know, ten commandments, moses, and all that
stuff), so the entire delphi hierarchy ought to go! It's a *very* slippery slope
you're treading on. I think what you *meant* is that if *you* find something
offensive it should be cancelled, right?
>Therefore messages
>that contain offensive language are cancelled.
Define "offensive." You may use the back of the paper to complete the assignment.
>It would be the same as if
>someone felt the need to slander someone's ethnic background.
Uh-huh. <LOL>
><< Here's a free clue -- *read* the guidelines before pretending you know
>what they say. >>
>
>If you were actually an active participant in these newsgroups you might
>realize that Ben Matterson posts the guidelines regularly throughout the
>Borland newsgroups. You'd have to go out of your way *not* to read them.
I guess you know just how far out of your way one really needs to go, huh?
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
><< Wow! You *really* don't get it, do you? It's a big world out there,
>son. Time you opened your eyes. Newsgroups don't die just because a server
>goes down. >>
>
>No, they don't. But in this case if Borland were to pull the plug on
>managing borland.* someone else would have to take over with a new borland.*
>hierarchy or it would die, plain and simple.
Bwahahahaha!!! Hey, where's that dweeb who 'splained newsgroups to everyone a little
while ago? Tim here needs a refreser in Newsgroups 101.
>Borland started the borland.* newsgroup hierarchy, and it originated on
>their servers. What's so hard to understand about that ?
Originated, but no longer originates. See the difference?
>If they unplugged their servers then the newsgroup hierarchy would surely
>follow in a timely death also.
I highly doubt that. If you want, you can *still* go out and log into
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape -- are you saying there's
more folks interested in *that* than there are in Delphi?
Someone else here said, "On the internet, there is no trashcan." You'd be wise to
remember that.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
><< Say what??? What makes you think newsgroups even have an origin? >>
>
>In this particular case they do have an origin.
Wrong again, timmy. At least in an ongoing sense. They may indeed have an origin in
an absolute sense, but no one here is arguing that.
Later... Karl
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
><< Yes, it is. Maybe if I offend you enough, you'll stop spewing and learn
>something. >>
>
>If you're trying to teach me something then you've got some work to do on
>your delivery.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other if you learn anything from me -- so
much for trying.
><< No, we took you literally. Perhaps that was our mistake, but it was what
>happened. >>
>
>This is an old message, I've already explained the mistake.
No, related it to a typo. IOW, you keep repeating it.
><< Duh. >>
>
>Gotta keep it nice and personal, huh ? <g>
:-)
>You've evidently got deficiencies
>in your ability to carry on an argument with someone without belittling the
>other person with remarks like that.
There was no argument. You stated the obvious. To wit:
>Last time I checked, a
>newsgroup is not the same thing as a physical server.
What else would any rational person say, but "Duh!"? It's like, wow, what on earth
would even prompt a person to say such a thing? Sorta like, "last time I checked,
the moon is not the same thing as green cheese."
>You should read the guidelines, they
>specifically state that you should not engage in personal attacks on others.
Did you feel attacked when I agreed with you? Awwww...
Later... Karl
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Yeah, I saw that, but the confusion didn't seem to end there. >>
Well, sorry if it seemed that way, but there's a difference between having
an opposing viewpoint and being confused.
<< Heh, sure, just give me an account to send them from. (My postmaster has
a "thing" about spammers. <g>) I *can* tell you, though, that if you care
to compare you'd see that there are messages in this very thread out on
public newsservers that aren't on forums.borland.com. >>
If they're yours or Zanes then we both know why they're not here. <g>
<< Sorry, but it was *you* who implied you were ignorant, by refering to
guideline that clearly doesn't exist. I just highlighted the situation. <g>
>>
Yes, but the guideline *does* exist, it just doesn't seem to be explicit
enough for certain people. See our discussion below.
<< Harry Truman once said, "I never did give anyone hell. I just told them
the truth and they *thought* it was hell." (Lorie, are you going to prohibit
me from quoting our
presidents, too?) I'm sorry that reality sucks, but, well, it often does,
doesn't
it? >>
What has that statement got to do with personal attacks on people ?
Comparing yourself to Harry Truman is quite a stretch, don't you think ? <g>
<< As Zane pointed out, the guidelines are meaningless, because they apply
only to a single server -- one that happens to *not* be the server to which
I am posting this. >>
They can't be completely meaningless, because I'm not seeing any of your
messages that contain profanity.
<< Anyway, twisting your logic, I (and many others) find Pascal offensive,
so I suppose most messages here should be deleted, huh? I also know many
folks who find pagan references to ancient gods offensive (y'know, ten
commandments, moses, and all that stuff), so the entire delphi hierarchy
ought to go! It's a *very* slippery slope you're treading on. I think what
you *meant* is that if *you* find something offensive it should be
cancelled, right? >>
Not at all, I hardly find anything offensive. In fact I've had several
messages cancelled that I could swear did not contain profanity per my
personal definition. Did I raise a big stink and scream about freedom of
speech issues ? No, and the reason I didn't is because who gives a darn ?
I re-worded the messages and re-posted them, no big deal. You'll notice
that whenever a message is cancelled you are invited to re-post the message
sans the profanity. If you really had something important to say, i.e.
pertaining to topics regarding Delphi or programming in general, I can't see
how this would bother you. Losing the profanity does not change the message
unless the whole message is profanity. And if that's the case then that's
no great loss to anyone in these newsgroups.
<< Define "offensive." You may use the back of the paper to complete the
assignment. >>
A message that offends someone. Believe it or not there are accepted
standards of what is offensive in this country and others.
<< Uh-huh. <LOL> >>
<< I guess you know just how far out of your way one really needs to go,
huh? >>
Great, Seinfeld could've used you all these years. <g>
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Karl E. Peterson
Hi Tim --
>Well, sorry if it seemed that way, but there's a difference between having
>an opposing viewpoint and being confused.
Absolutely. And it's pretty clear which is which in this case. <g>
>If they're yours or Zanes then we both know why they're not here. <g>
My, but you're pretty quick on the wit there, for a fellow who doesn't like that sort
of thing! ;-) I'll leave it to you to carry out the experiment I suggested -- I
*think* you'll find other similar situations as well. No two servers have identical
message lists, in most cases.
>Yes, but the guideline *does* exist, it just doesn't seem to be explicit
>enough for certain people.
No, the guideline doesn't exist. Explicit, Implicit, Intrinsic, Impressionistic, or
Holistic. It simply ain't there.
>What has that statement got to do with personal attacks on people ?
Some people just can't accept the truth.
>Comparing yourself to Harry Truman is quite a stretch, don't you think ? <g>
Why would you, then? <bg>
>They can't be completely meaningless, because I'm not seeing any of your
>messages that contain profanity.
You just did, and not only that but you quoted it. (According to some of the censors
here, anyway.)
>Not at all, I hardly find anything offensive.
Wow! Then why so *uptight*, Tim?
>In fact I've had several
>messages cancelled that I could swear did not contain profanity per my
>personal definition. Did I raise a big stink and scream about freedom of
>speech issues ? No, and the reason I didn't is because who gives a darn ?
I agree. Really. That isn't *the* issue, it's just a very funny little idiosyncracy
that I'd personally be embarrased to be associated with. That only came up as a side
issue, related due to being part of the same drivel aka guidelines.
No, the issue (see thread title) was copyrights, and Borland's silly claim to
anything posted in a hierarchy that contained their name. That's (obviously)
ludicrous.
My hunch is you're either trying to divert the conversation into an area everyone
agrees is meaningless, because you too realize that Borlands claim isn't worth the
disk space it occupies.
>A message that offends someone. Believe it or not there are accepted
>standards of what is offensive in this country and others.
Tell it to the Supremes. They seem to have a *very* hard time codifying that. I can
tell you that you can't even define "accepted standards" in a single state in this
country, much less the entire country. (Here, I'm guessing we're both talking the
same country?)
Later... Karl
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Bwahahahaha!!! Hey, where's that dweeb who 'splained newsgroups to
everyone a little while ago? Tim here needs a refreser in Newsgroups 101.
>>
You're obviously failing to see my point.
<< Originated, but no longer originates. See the difference? >>
Same as above.
<< I highly doubt that. If you want, you can *still* go out and log into
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape -- are you saying
there's
more folks interested in *that* than there are in Delphi? >>
True, but it's common knowledge that the alt.* newsgroups are for public
distribution.
<< Someone else here said, "On the internet, there is no trashcan." You'd
be wise to remember that. >>
I'm sure we'll be able to read these messages for years to come.
Inspirational, truely inspirational. <g>
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Tim Young
Karl,
<< Wrong again, timmy. >>
You must have been talking with my mom, tell her I said hi. <g>
<< At least in an ongoing sense. They may indeed have an origin in an
absolute sense, but no one here is arguing that. >>
The argument about whether Borland propagates this newsgroup intentionally
has yet to be determined, so it's a little premature to state that as fact.
Tim Young
Elevate Software
Zane Thomas
Tim,
><< And? Does that give borland the right to claim to be able to use
>anything I post for any purpose they may choose? Legally I think that's
>just plain not so. >>
>
>Unfortunately you missed this whole thread about a month ago when the whole
>usage issue was hashed out.
I can't see how it was hashed out. Borland can't acquire rights to
things it doesn't own simply by posting a notice on its web page.
>>First I don't know how my posts get from newsguy to borland, so I don't
>know "that newsguy *does" send" them as you say. Second, so what? My posts
>are going to end up on any number of servers around the world. Do they all
>get to claim unlimited use of whatever I post? >>
>
>Are they Borland's servers ?
No, that was the point. I hope you aren't going to claim that borland
can expropriate my property and others do so by similarly bogus means.
Zane
Zane Thomas
Tim,
>The guidelines state that you should not post anything that is offensive
> to another person ...
No they don't. Please provide a quote if you think the guidelines do
say that.
Besides, I find Pascal offensive so please refrain from posting
anything about it ok?
Zane Thomas
>I (and many others) find Pascal offensive
ROFLMAO! I chose that exact same example in my reply to his post.
Zane Thomas
Tim,
><< Say what??? What makes you think newsgroups even have an origin? >>
>
>In this particular case they do have an origin.
Uh yeah, enew.newsguy.com so you guys have to follow _my_ rules.
Seriously, usenet is distributed it really makes no sense to speak of
newsgroups which are widely carried as having a center or origin.
>Well, as I said before this whole thing was hashed out a while ago. If you
>search one of the newsgroup archives you can see the whole mess. I
>personally don't care to get into the copyright issues again.
Sounds like it was hashed out wrong.
>To understand the value of free speech does not mean one must exercise it in
>an extreme way every chance he/she gets.
To understand the value of free speech does mean that one must not
prevent other people from exercising it.
><< No Tim, more people should learn why we have free speech. >>
>
>That's a rather elitist statement.
Maybe, and?
Tell me Tim, what do _you_ think the purpose of free speech is?
Zane