Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
MarkA
Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
-
saggy
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
"MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Buy the product legally and you'll get the registration key for free.
news:1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
Buy the product legally and you'll get the registration key for free.
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
wrote:
try http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cracks/topics
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
SHUT UP with this spam
try http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cracks/topics
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
-
MarkA
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
saggy wrote:
I am proposing a legal purchase. If you know nothing about the
legalities, please refrain from posting bullshit.
Buy the product legally and you'll get the registration key for free.
I am proposing a legal purchase. If you know nothing about the
legalities, please refrain from posting bullshit.
-
saggy
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
"MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're first line asks to purchase the key not the product.
Who in their right mind would sell you the product cheap when they'd paid
good money for it.
And as for the legality of it maybe you can sell the product on but that
removes the use of the product from the original owner who would in all
probability continue using it making you an accessory after the fact.
news:1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
You're first line asks to purchase the key not the product.
Who in their right mind would sell you the product cheap when they'd paid
good money for it.
And as for the legality of it maybe you can sell the product on but that
removes the use of the product from the original owner who would in all
probability continue using it making you an accessory after the fact.
-
Robert Melson
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
In article <1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com> writes:
sweetness and light.
Since you seem to be both reading impaired and ethically challenged,
I'll repeat here what others said on soc.genealogy.computing:
THERE ARE FREE PROGRAMS YOU CAN OBTAIN FOR THE COST OF THE TIME
YOU'LL SPEND DOWNLOADING THEM. THEY ARE FULL-FEATURED PROGRAMS
WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ON USAGE - TRY PAF OR LEGACY.
Now, GTF away.
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are
hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer
"MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com> writes:
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
Didn't work elsewhere so you're posting here now? Spreading your
sweetness and light.
Since you seem to be both reading impaired and ethically challenged,
I'll repeat here what others said on soc.genealogy.computing:
THERE ARE FREE PROGRAMS YOU CAN OBTAIN FOR THE COST OF THE TIME
YOU'LL SPEND DOWNLOADING THEM. THEY ARE FULL-FEATURED PROGRAMS
WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ON USAGE - TRY PAF OR LEGACY.
Now, GTF away.
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are
hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer
-
MarkA
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
saggy wrote:
I am buying it legally. Please, no more BS. You're not a lawyer. The
terms of the license agreement state that you may on-sell it.
Anyone else, want $15 for your license? Email me at mark.amba at gmail
dot com or paintblot at hotmail dot com
Buy the product legally and you'll get the registration key for free.
I am buying it legally. Please, no more BS. You're not a lawyer. The
terms of the license agreement state that you may on-sell it.
Anyone else, want $15 for your license? Email me at mark.amba at gmail
dot com or paintblot at hotmail dot com
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On 13 Jan 2007 09:32:12 -0800, MarkA <mark.amba@gmail.com> wrote:
alt.genealogy is not the appropriate group for commercial posts.
Additionally, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere, the terms of the
license agreement specifically say it's all or nothing - media, key,
manuals, the whole bit.
And if you transfer all of the materials with it. As you've been told
repeatedly.
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
alt.genealogy is not the appropriate group for commercial posts.
Additionally, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere, the terms of the
license agreement specifically say it's all or nothing - media, key,
manuals, the whole bit.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
And if you transfer all of the materials with it. As you've been told
repeatedly.
-
mousepotato
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
"MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
| key from you.
|
| Payment by PayPal - $15
|
| The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
| you stop using it yourself.
|
| Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
|
DUDE, I don't think your welcome around here...
..·° )~~~ mousepotato ~~~( °·.
news:1168709529.199353.56660@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
| key from you.
|
| Payment by PayPal - $15
|
| The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
| you stop using it yourself.
|
| Email me at pain*****tblot****@****hot***mail.com (remove stars)
|
DUDE, I don't think your welcome around here...
..·° )~~~ mousepotato ~~~( °·.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
"MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1168723026.806059.262590@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
The ACTUAL terms are that you may sell THE ENTIRE PRODUCT, not
parts of the product. You are in fact trying to get someone to
break the law, when you request only the registration key.
It's obvious you're no lawyer either. Or even a reasonable person.
So YOU should "refrain from posting buls***t."
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
Research causes cancer in rats.
news:1168723026.806059.262590@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
saggy wrote:
Buy the product legally and you'll get the registration key
for free.
I am buying it legally. Please, no more BS. You're not a
lawyer. The terms of the license agreement state that you may
on-sell it.
The ACTUAL terms are that you may sell THE ENTIRE PRODUCT, not
parts of the product. You are in fact trying to get someone to
break the law, when you request only the registration key.
It's obvious you're no lawyer either. Or even a reasonable person.
So YOU should "refrain from posting buls***t."
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
Research causes cancer in rats.
-
Starch
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
US courts have found that the license and software are one and the same
thing. Do some research. Please post links to any proof you have that
the buyer has to take possession of all parts of the product, and may
not elect to take merely the software/license combination and discard
manuals and disks. You won't find case law, because there is none to
support this contention.
The ACTUAL terms are that you may sell THE ENTIRE PRODUCT, not
parts of the product. You are in fact trying to get someone to
break the law, when you request only the registration key.
US courts have found that the license and software are one and the same
thing. Do some research. Please post links to any proof you have that
the buyer has to take possession of all parts of the product, and may
not elect to take merely the software/license combination and discard
manuals and disks. You won't find case law, because there is none to
support this contention.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net> wrote in
news:VSeqh.6$Y47.1@newsfe13.phx:
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself. This
is a matter of contract law, after all. And the contract is very
specific.
It says:
"YOU MAY NOT:
* Rent, lease, license or otherwise transfer this Program without
the express written consent of RootsMagic, Inc., except that you
may transfer the complete Program copy and accompanying materials
on a permanent basis, provided that no copies are retained and
the recipient agrees to the terms of this Agreement."
Since you're disputing it, you post the link proving that the
license agreement isn't valid. I look forward to seeing it. Any
of the findings from the "US courts" will do it.
I'll give you a hint: you should be looking in the CIVIL court
database. And I'll give you a FURTHER hint: you'll be wasting
your time.
But hey, you're young and stupid, it's your time to waste.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
news:VSeqh.6$Y47.1@newsfe13.phx:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
The ACTUAL terms are that you may sell THE ENTIRE PRODUCT,
not parts of the product. You are in fact trying to get
someone to break the law, when you request only the
registration key.
US courts have found that the license and software are one and
the same thing. Do some research. Please post links to any
proof you have that the buyer has to take possession of all
parts of the product, and may not elect to take merely the
software/license combination and discard manuals and disks.
You won't find case law, because there is none to support this
contention.
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself. This
is a matter of contract law, after all. And the contract is very
specific.
It says:
"YOU MAY NOT:
* Rent, lease, license or otherwise transfer this Program without
the express written consent of RootsMagic, Inc., except that you
may transfer the complete Program copy and accompanying materials
on a permanent basis, provided that no copies are retained and
the recipient agrees to the terms of this Agreement."
Since you're disputing it, you post the link proving that the
license agreement isn't valid. I look forward to seeing it. Any
of the findings from the "US courts" will do it.
I'll give you a hint: you should be looking in the CIVIL court
database. And I'll give you a FURTHER hint: you'll be wasting
your time.
But hey, you're young and stupid, it's your time to waste.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
-
Starch
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And one idiot, you, who doesn't understand the term "case law".
The Contract you cite above stipulates that all ownership must be
transferred on a permanent basis. That is the intention of the Contract.
It is up to the Buyer and Seller to decide what materials they wish to
trade and which discard, as long as at the end of the transaction only
one person has possession of the product. As such, there is no
restriction on the buying and selling of this software.
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
And one idiot, you, who doesn't understand the term "case law".
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself. This is a
matter of contract law, after all. And the contract is very
specific.
It says: "YOU MAY NOT: * Rent, lease, license or otherwise transfer
this Program without the express written consent of RootsMagic, Inc.,
except that you may transfer the complete Program copy and
accompanying materials on a permanent basis, provided that no copies
are retained and the recipient agrees to the terms of this
Agreement."
Since you're disputing it, you post the link proving that the license
agreement isn't valid. I look forward to seeing it. Any of the
findings from the "US courts" will do it.
I'll give you a hint: you should be looking in the CIVIL court
database. And I'll give you a FURTHER hint: you'll be wasting your
time.
But hey, you're young and stupid, it's your time to waste.
The Contract you cite above stipulates that all ownership must be
transferred on a permanent basis. That is the intention of the Contract.
It is up to the Buyer and Seller to decide what materials they wish to
trade and which discard, as long as at the end of the transaction only
one person has possession of the product. As such, there is no
restriction on the buying and selling of this software.
-
Starch
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
This is the sort of noxious situation you are supporting:
http://www.infoworld.com/weblog/foster/2005/08/22.html
So YOU should "refrain from posting buls***t."
This is the sort of noxious situation you are supporting:
http://www.infoworld.com/weblog/foster/2005/08/22.html
-
Starch
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Quite apart from the terms imposed by the copyright holder, it is law
that according to the doctrine of First Sale, one may re-sell a product.
This right is protected by recent Case Law
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 241-1.html
Hope this helps.
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself. This
is a matter of contract law, after all. And the contract is very
specific.
Quite apart from the terms imposed by the copyright holder, it is law
that according to the doctrine of First Sale, one may re-sell a product.
This right is protected by recent Case Law
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 241-1.html
Hope this helps.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
In News yBhqh.16$Xo7.0@newsfe06.phx,, Starch at modifiedfood@cox.net, typed
this:
This is true. The stickler is that after a sale is complete, the original
owner may not continue to use said registered product. If they do, that
would be a violation of copyright.
this:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself. This
is a matter of contract law, after all. And the contract is very
specific.
Quite apart from the terms imposed by the copyright holder, it is law
that according to the doctrine of First Sale, one may re-sell a
product. This right is protected by recent Case Law
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 241-1.html
Hope this helps.
This is true. The stickler is that after a sale is complete, the original
owner may not continue to use said registered product. If they do, that
would be a violation of copyright.
-
Starch
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
James A. Doemer wrote:
Absolutely.
In News yBhqh.16$Xo7.0@newsfe06.phx,, Starch at modifiedfood@cox.net,
typed this:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself. This
is a matter of contract law, after all. And the contract is very
specific.
Quite apart from the terms imposed by the copyright holder, it is
law that according to the doctrine of First Sale, one may re-sell a
product. This right is protected by recent Case Law
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 241-1.html
Hope this helps.
This is true. The stickler is that after a sale is complete, the
original owner may not continue to use said registered product. If
they do, that would be a violation of copyright.
Absolutely.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net> wrote in news:dphqh.15$Xo7.4
@newsfe06.phx:
I'm not "supporting" anything. I'm pointing out a point of law;
Sorry that bugs you.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
@newsfe06.phx:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
So YOU should "refrain from posting buls***t."
This is the sort of noxious situation you are supporting:
http://www.infoworld.com/weblog/foster/2005/08/22.html
I'm not "supporting" anything. I'm pointing out a point of law;
Sorry that bugs you.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net> wrote in
news:yBhqh.16$Xo7.0@newsfe06.phx:
Well, no. From your own reference:
" Read literally, the Copyright Act unambiguously says the owner
of a legitimate copy "is entitled, without the authority of the
copyright owner, to sell" that item."
This is not under dispute. The OP is free to find someone to
sell him their copy of RM3, including the registration key.
However, the owners of the software can't sell JUST a copy of
registration the key; they have to sell the entire product. THAT
is the issue. Selling only the key is tantamount to making a
copy of the software and distributing it for profit, a clear
violation of copyright law, and not protected by the doctrine of
First Sale.
Keep hitting the books. You'll be ready for the bar some day.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
"Strike the show, my ass. I'm outta here when the curtain
drops."
Clive Mitchell
news:yBhqh.16$Xo7.0@newsfe06.phx:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself.
This is a matter of contract law, after all. And the
contract is very specific.
Quite apart from the terms imposed by the copyright holder, it
is law that according to the doctrine of First Sale, one may
re-sell a product. This right is protected by recent Case Law
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 241-1.html
Hope this helps.
Well, no. From your own reference:
" Read literally, the Copyright Act unambiguously says the owner
of a legitimate copy "is entitled, without the authority of the
copyright owner, to sell" that item."
This is not under dispute. The OP is free to find someone to
sell him their copy of RM3, including the registration key.
However, the owners of the software can't sell JUST a copy of
registration the key; they have to sell the entire product. THAT
is the issue. Selling only the key is tantamount to making a
copy of the software and distributing it for profit, a clear
violation of copyright law, and not protected by the doctrine of
First Sale.
Keep hitting the books. You'll be ready for the bar some day.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
"Strike the show, my ass. I'm outta here when the curtain
drops."
Clive Mitchell
-
Starch
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
I see from your webpage that you are some sort of unemployed
actor/stagehand in Florida. You have no qualifications in law, indeed
you have no qualifications of any kind at all. I love how people like
you put themselves forward agressively as authorities on anything at
all. LOL!
FYI, copyright law is only contravened if the first buyer retains a copy
of the software. Never mind about the discs and manual: it's the USE OF
THE SOFTWARE that is important under law. Ho-hum, too bored to argue
with a wannabe actor, bye.
Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net> wrote in
news:yBhqh.16$Xo7.0@newsfe06.phx:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
We need only look as far as the license agreement itself.
This is a matter of contract law, after all. And the
contract is very specific.
Quite apart from the terms imposed by the copyright holder, it
is law that according to the doctrine of First Sale, one may
re-sell a product. This right is protected by recent Case Law
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/new ... 241-1.html
Hope this helps.
Well, no. From your own reference:
" Read literally, the Copyright Act unambiguously says the owner
of a legitimate copy "is entitled, without the authority of the
copyright owner, to sell" that item."
This is not under dispute. The OP is free to find someone to
sell him their copy of RM3, including the registration key.
However, the owners of the software can't sell JUST a copy of
registration the key; they have to sell the entire product. THAT
is the issue. Selling only the key is tantamount to making a
copy of the software and distributing it for profit, a clear
violation of copyright law, and not protected by the doctrine of
First Sale.
Keep hitting the books. You'll be ready for the bar some day.
I see from your webpage that you are some sort of unemployed
actor/stagehand in Florida. You have no qualifications in law, indeed
you have no qualifications of any kind at all. I love how people like
you put themselves forward agressively as authorities on anything at
all. LOL!
FYI, copyright law is only contravened if the first buyer retains a copy
of the software. Never mind about the discs and manual: it's the USE OF
THE SOFTWARE that is important under law. Ho-hum, too bored to argue
with a wannabe actor, bye.
-
Charani
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:35:02 -0600, Christopher Jahn wrote:
I think they are one and the same.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
I think they are one and the same.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
-
Charani
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On 13 Jan 2007 09:32:12 -0800, MarkA wrote:
When are you going to get the message? You've been told the same
thing on computing, Aus+NZ and now here and you've been ignored in
marketplace. You also slightly changed your name in marketplace and
Aus+NZ.
*You have to buy the whole package* *You cannot buy just the key
unless you buy it from RootsMagic*
Obviously tripping over the doormat before didn't do any good in the
other place, so mind the door as you leave here.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
I'm looking to LEGALLY buy your RootsMagic version 3.x.x registration
key from you.
Payment by PayPal - $15
The license of RootsMagic says you are allowed to sell the product if
you stop using it yourself.
When are you going to get the message? You've been told the same
thing on computing, Aus+NZ and now here and you've been ignored in
marketplace. You also slightly changed your name in marketplace and
Aus+NZ.
*You have to buy the whole package* *You cannot buy just the key
unless you buy it from RootsMagic*
Obviously tripping over the doormat before didn't do any good in the
other place, so mind the door as you leave here.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net> wrote in news:nqkqh.6699$Hj.3783
@newsfe11.phx:
Actually, I am an employed theatre adminstrator. I negotiate
contracts and deal with copyright law as part of my day-to-day
workload, what with various designers and playwrights and all.
And of course, we have to negotiate licenses with all our
designers and playwrights for our 20 productions a year.
You're not too good about getting facts right, so it's no
surprise at all that you've gotten this wrong, too.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
You can never trust a woman; she may be true to you.
@newsfe11.phx:
I see from your webpage that you are some sort of unemployed
actor/stagehand in Florida.
Actually, I am an employed theatre adminstrator. I negotiate
contracts and deal with copyright law as part of my day-to-day
workload, what with various designers and playwrights and all.
And of course, we have to negotiate licenses with all our
designers and playwrights for our 20 productions a year.
You're not too good about getting facts right, so it's no
surprise at all that you've gotten this wrong, too.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
You can never trust a woman; she may be true to you.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Charani <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:45aa109e$0$97235
$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
I suspect you're right, but he's smart enought to hide his trail.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
The only thing worse than bad theatre is good poetry reading. -
CLJ
$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:35:02 -0600, Christopher Jahn wrote:
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
I think they are one and the same.
I suspect you're right, but he's smart enought to hide his trail.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
The only thing worse than bad theatre is good poetry reading. -
CLJ
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net> wrote in
news:nqkqh.6699$Hj.3783@newsfe11.phx:
No, it's the terms of the contract you expressly agreed to.
As I said, it's obvious you're no lawyer.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
The only thing worse than bad theatre is good poetry reading. -
CLJ
news:nqkqh.6699$Hj.3783@newsfe11.phx:
FYI, copyright law is only contravened if the first buyer
retains a copy of the software. Never mind about the discs and
manual: it's the USE OF THE SOFTWARE that is important under
law.
No, it's the terms of the contract you expressly agreed to.
As I said, it's obvious you're no lawyer.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
The only thing worse than bad theatre is good poetry reading. -
CLJ
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns98B8634FA73Bxjahn@216.196.97.136:
BTW, my theatre's webpage is linked from my home page. Feel free
to give me a call at the office. I'm on extension 704.
And since you feel background is germane to this conversation,
why don't you tell us how we can verify YOUR expertise?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
We asked for Mojo Nixon, they said "He don't work here"
news:Xns98B8634FA73Bxjahn@216.196.97.136:
I see from your webpage that you are some sort of unemployed
actor/stagehand in Florida.
Actually, I am an employed theatre adminstrator.
BTW, my theatre's webpage is linked from my home page. Feel free
to give me a call at the office. I'm on extension 704.
And since you feel background is germane to this conversation,
why don't you tell us how we can verify YOUR expertise?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
We asked for Mojo Nixon, they said "He don't work here"
-
Zonk
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
In message <Xns98B8636DAF34Dxjahn@216.196.97.136>
Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
You mean the sock puppet uses <paintblot@hotmail.com> as an email address as
well?
--
Zonk
Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Charani <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:45aa109e$0$97235
$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:35:02 -0600, Christopher Jahn wrote:
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
I think they are one and the same.
I suspect you're right, but he's smart enought to hide his trail.
You mean the sock puppet uses <paintblot@hotmail.com> as an email address as
well?
--
Zonk
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Zonk <zonk@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:eac83aa54e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk:
No, I meant that the OP posted through Google while the "sock
puppet" posted from cox.net.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn't
said. (Peter Drucker)
news:eac83aa54e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk:
In message <Xns98B8636DAF34Dxjahn@216.196.97.136
Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Charani <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:45aa109e$0$97235
$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:35:02 -0600, Christopher Jahn wrote:
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
I think they are one and the same.
I suspect you're right, but he's smart enought to hide his
trail.
You mean the sock puppet uses <paintblot@hotmail.com> as an
email address as well?
No, I meant that the OP posted through Google while the "sock
puppet" posted from cox.net.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn't
said. (Peter Drucker)
-
Rebel Lion
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:49:20 -0600, Christopher Jahn wrote:
Not really see below.
MarkA aka MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com>
NNTPpostinghost 70.180.217.146
Starch aka Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net>
NNTPpostinghost 70.180.217.146
Gee they are the same wonder how that happened
And even more surprising they come from here
Cox Communications Inc. NETBLK-COX-ATLANTA-10 (NET-70-160-0-0-1)
70.160.0.0 - 70.191.255.255
Cox Communications NETBLK-LV-RDC-70-180-128-0 (NET-70-180-128-0-1)
70.180.128.0 - 70.180.255.255
If you are going to try and spoof another person to defend the
indefensible at least be a little more creative you idiot.
Zonk <zonk@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:eac83aa54e%Graeme@greywall.demon.co.uk:
In message <Xns98B8636DAF34Dxjahn@216.196.97.136
Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
Charani <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in news:45aa109e$0$97235
$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:35:02 -0600, Christopher Jahn wrote:
Well, we now know TWO posters who aren't lawyers.
I think they are one and the same.
I suspect you're right, but he's smart enought to hide his
trail.
Not really see below.
You mean the sock puppet uses <paintblot@hotmail.com> as an
email address as well?
No, I meant that the OP posted through Google while the "sock
puppet" posted from cox.net.
MarkA aka MarkA" <mark.amba@gmail.com>
NNTPpostinghost 70.180.217.146
Starch aka Starch <modifiedfood@cox.net>
NNTPpostinghost 70.180.217.146
Gee they are the same wonder how that happened
And even more surprising they come from here
Cox Communications Inc. NETBLK-COX-ATLANTA-10 (NET-70-160-0-0-1)
70.160.0.0 - 70.191.255.255
Cox Communications NETBLK-LV-RDC-70-180-128-0 (NET-70-180-128-0-1)
70.180.128.0 - 70.180.255.255
If you are going to try and spoof another person to defend the
indefensible at least be a little more creative you idiot.
-
R00tsMagic
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Rebel Lion wrote:
Tell me exactly what you find "indefensible" about the resale of
unwanted/unused software.
Because I think that you, and a lot of other people here, sincerely
cannot grasp the concept. Brainwashing, perhaps?
Once you have bought and paid for something, you have the right to sell
it to someone else. Take a CD of music, for instance. Do you regard it
as indefensible to sell your CD to a friend?
Fascinating.
If you are going to try and spoof another person to defend the
indefensible at least be a little more creative you idiot.
Tell me exactly what you find "indefensible" about the resale of
unwanted/unused software.
Because I think that you, and a lot of other people here, sincerely
cannot grasp the concept. Brainwashing, perhaps?
Once you have bought and paid for something, you have the right to sell
it to someone else. Take a CD of music, for instance. Do you regard it
as indefensible to sell your CD to a friend?
Fascinating.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
R00tsMagic <sellyours2me@cox.net> wrote in news:A5Aqh.70953
$9S6.19115@newsfe15.phx:
You're really good at strawman arguements, aren't you? It's very
obvious that what is "indefensible" is your ploy of adapting a
sock-puppet personality so you can come to your own defense.
You're just a slimy little rat.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
It can't rain all the time.
$9S6.19115@newsfe15.phx:
Tell me exactly what you find "indefensible" about the resale
of unwanted/unused software.
You're really good at strawman arguements, aren't you? It's very
obvious that what is "indefensible" is your ploy of adapting a
sock-puppet personality so you can come to your own defense.
You're just a slimy little rat.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://jahnstrosity.blogspot.com/
It can't rain all the time.
-
Gene Y.
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
R00tsMagic wrote:
You are only purchasing a license to USE the software according to the
terms of the licensing agreement. You do not own the software, only the
license. Under the terms of the licensing agreement you may sell the
LICENSE by complying with the terms of the license agreement; i.e., you
MUST transfer all materials when you sell the license, which is the only
thing you own and can sell under the previously cited "case law."
Gene Y.
P.S.
I don't expect attorney "Starch" aka "sock puppet" to accept this but,
what the heck. As Ron White said so eloquently, "You cain't fix stuped!"
Rebel Lion wrote:
If you are going to try and spoof another person to defend the
indefensible at least be a little more creative you idiot.
Tell me exactly what you find "indefensible" about the resale of
unwanted/unused software.
Because I think that you, and a lot of other people here, sincerely
cannot grasp the concept. Brainwashing, perhaps?
Once you have bought and paid for something, you have the right to sell
it to someone else. Take a CD of music, for instance. Do you regard it
as indefensible to sell your CD to a friend?
Fascinating.
You are only purchasing a license to USE the software according to the
terms of the licensing agreement. You do not own the software, only the
license. Under the terms of the licensing agreement you may sell the
LICENSE by complying with the terms of the license agreement; i.e., you
MUST transfer all materials when you sell the license, which is the only
thing you own and can sell under the previously cited "case law."
Gene Y.
P.S.
I don't expect attorney "Starch" aka "sock puppet" to accept this but,
what the heck. As Ron White said so eloquently, "You cain't fix stuped!"
-
R00tsMagic
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Gene Y. wrote:
Disregarding the egregious ad hom. attack, what about the case where you
download the s/ware and then buy a license online? In that case there
are no other materials to transfer.
R00tsMagic wrote:
Rebel Lion wrote:
If you are going to try and spoof another person to defend the
indefensible at least be a little more creative you idiot.
Tell me exactly what you find "indefensible" about the resale of
unwanted/unused software.
Because I think that you, and a lot of other people here, sincerely
cannot grasp the concept. Brainwashing, perhaps?
Once you have bought and paid for something, you have the right to
sell it to someone else. Take a CD of music, for instance. Do you
regard it as indefensible to sell your CD to a friend?
Fascinating.
You are only purchasing a license to USE the software according to
the terms of the licensing agreement. You do not own the software,
only the license. Under the terms of the licensing agreement you may
sell the LICENSE by complying with the terms of the license
agreement; i.e., you MUST transfer all materials when you sell the
license, which is the only thing you own and can sell under the
previously cited "case law."
Gene Y.
P.S. I don't expect attorney "Starch" aka "sock puppet" to accept
this but, what the heck. As Ron White said so eloquently, "You
cain't fix stuped!"
Disregarding the egregious ad hom. attack, what about the case where you
download the s/ware and then buy a license online? In that case there
are no other materials to transfer.
-
Gene Y.
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
P.S. I don't expect attorney "Starch" aka "sock puppet" to accept
this but, what the heck. As Ron White said so eloquently, "You
cain't fix stuped!"
Disregarding the egregious ad hom. attack,
A statement of fact is not an attack (or compliment), egregious or
otherwise. It is what it is; a statement of fact.
what about the case where you
download the s/ware and then buy a license online? In that case there
are no other materials to transfer
Which is covered in the specific licensing agreement pertaining to that
particular piece of software. You can't select one licensing agreement
and apply it to another piece of software. We are talking about
Rootsmagic in this thread and the EULA was clearly explained to you.
You my try to obfuscate the facts with your pointless personal attacks
but the fact remains that you refuse to accept what is true. You may or
may not be pursued for violating this agreement. Your refusal to
believe, however, does not require us to ignore the law. If someone
wishes to sell you a key illegally that is their choice.
Gene Y.
PS
"You STILL cain't fix stuped!"
-
R00tsMagic
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Gene Y. wrote:
Answer these questions:
1) Where on their website can you see the EULA? Is it readable before or
after purchase? It's not in the Help files. And not at the website,
unless I've missed it.
2) Since you have the software and have seen the post-purchase EULA,
tell us exactly what it says about selling the license to another party,
in cases where the selling party only owns the downloaded software plus key.
Listen, bub, it is not ILLEGAL to sell something you have bought.
Period. There is plenty of law supporting that. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale
Ye gods, the empty heads here!
what about the case where you
download the s/ware and then buy a license online? In that case there
are no other materials to transfer
Which is covered in the specific licensing agreement pertaining to that
particular piece of software. You can't select one licensing agreement
and apply it to another piece of software. We are talking about
Rootsmagic in this thread and the EULA was clearly explained to you.
Answer these questions:
1) Where on their website can you see the EULA? Is it readable before or
after purchase? It's not in the Help files. And not at the website,
unless I've missed it.
2) Since you have the software and have seen the post-purchase EULA,
tell us exactly what it says about selling the license to another party,
in cases where the selling party only owns the downloaded software plus key.
If someone wishes to
sell you a key illegally that is their choice.
Listen, bub, it is not ILLEGAL to sell something you have bought.
Period. There is plenty of law supporting that. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale
Ye gods, the empty heads here!
-
Gene Y.
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
R00tsMagic wrote:
You insist on making assumptions and refuse to listen to truth.
PLONK
Gene Y.
Gene Y. wrote:
what about the case where you
download the s/ware and then buy a license online? In that case there
are no other materials to transfer
Which is covered in the specific licensing agreement pertaining to
that particular piece of software. You can't select one licensing
agreement and apply it to another piece of software. We are talking
about Rootsmagic in this thread and the EULA was clearly explained to
you.
Answer these questions:
1) Where on their website can you see the EULA? Is it readable before or
after purchase? It's not in the Help files. And not at the website,
unless I've missed it.
2) Since you have the software and have seen the post-purchase EULA,
tell us exactly what it says about selling the license to another party,
in cases where the selling party only owns the downloaded software plus
key.
If someone wishes to
sell you a key illegally that is their choice.
Listen, bub, it is not ILLEGAL to sell something you have bought.
Period. There is plenty of law supporting that. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale
Ye gods, the empty heads here!
You insist on making assumptions and refuse to listen to truth.
PLONK
Gene Y.
-
R00tsMagic
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Gene Y. wrote:
Again, you've dodged the simple questions I asked you and run away from
the argument.
You insist on making assumptions and refuse to listen to truth.
PLONK
Again, you've dodged the simple questions I asked you and run away from
the argument.
-
Charani
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:41:50 -0500, Gene Y. wrote:
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, is
*not* a reliable or accurate source.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
You insist on making assumptions and refuse to listen to truth.
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, is
*not* a reliable or accurate source.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:58:02 +0000, Charani <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Well, that's not entirely fair. By it's very nature, if you find a
problem, fix it. Improve it. Add data. Add cites. Or delete wrong
information and say what you did and why you did it. Much like a well
run genealogy project, if you think about it.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:41:50 -0500, Gene Y. wrote:
You insist on making assumptions and refuse to listen to truth.
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, is
*not* a reliable or accurate source.
Well, that's not entirely fair. By it's very nature, if you find a
problem, fix it. Improve it. Add data. Add cites. Or delete wrong
information and say what you did and why you did it. Much like a well
run genealogy project, if you think about it.
-
jj206
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Charani wrote:
I disagree. Wikipedia is more accurate than you think. Vandalism is
fixed usually within the hour and since it is a world wide project,
the monitoring is 24 hours. The heavily vandalized article are
actually protected more so. Here is an excerpt of their site:
"Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy have been questioned.[8] The site
has also been criticized for being susceptible to vandalism,[9] for
having uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies,[10] and for
favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] To
address these concerns, Wikipedia has instituted several normative
policies and guidelines, such as excluding unverifiable assertions[12]
and unpublished research,[13] giving balanced presentations of topics
from a neutral point of view,[14] and supporting assertions with
reliable references.[15] Wikipedia's editors have also formed
specialized groups to address vandalism,[16], systemic bias,[17] gaps in
encyclopedic coverage,[18] and to improve its articles in various
fields.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Jonathan
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:41:50 -0500, Gene Y. wrote:
You insist on making assumptions and refuse to listen to truth.
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very nature, is
*not* a reliable or accurate source.
I disagree. Wikipedia is more accurate than you think. Vandalism is
fixed usually within the hour and since it is a world wide project,
the monitoring is 24 hours. The heavily vandalized article are
actually protected more so. Here is an excerpt of their site:
"Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy have been questioned.[8] The site
has also been criticized for being susceptible to vandalism,[9] for
having uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies,[10] and for
favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[11] To
address these concerns, Wikipedia has instituted several normative
policies and guidelines, such as excluding unverifiable assertions[12]
and unpublished research,[13] giving balanced presentations of topics
from a neutral point of view,[14] and supporting assertions with
reliable references.[15] Wikipedia's editors have also formed
specialized groups to address vandalism,[16], systemic bias,[17] gaps in
encyclopedic coverage,[18] and to improve its articles in various
fields.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Jonathan
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in
news:1170098758.113354@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
So, you're saying "Wikipedia's accurate because Wikipedia says
so."
Not at all a compelling arguement.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Hail Eris! Hail Bob! Hail Stones! All Hail Discordia.
news:1170098758.113354@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very
nature, is *not* a reliable or accurate source.
I disagree. Wikipedia is more accurate than you think.
(snip)
Here is an excerpt of their site:
So, you're saying "Wikipedia's accurate because Wikipedia says
so."
Not at all a compelling arguement.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
Hail Eris! Hail Bob! Hail Stones! All Hail Discordia.
-
jj206
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
How about you find a wikipedia article that is inaccurate ?
My point is that wikipedia is constantly updated when
real life events happen and new science and studies are done.
Most all online encyclopedias are updated not very often, so
I see wikipedia is very up to date and reliable.
If you want to, pick a genealogy topic and then post the links
to that topic from all the top ten encyclopedias online. Then
you could compare them ?
http://www.britannica.com/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://encarta.msn.com/artcenter_/browse.html
http://www.reference.com/
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/
http://www.bartleby.com/65/
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/
http://auth.grolier.com/login/go_login.html
http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Login?ed=wb
Jonathan
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in
news:1170098758.113354@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very
nature, is *not* a reliable or accurate source.
I disagree. Wikipedia is more accurate than you think.
(snip)
Here is an excerpt of their site:
So, you're saying "Wikipedia's accurate because Wikipedia says
so."
Not at all a compelling arguement.
How about you find a wikipedia article that is inaccurate ?
My point is that wikipedia is constantly updated when
real life events happen and new science and studies are done.
Most all online encyclopedias are updated not very often, so
I see wikipedia is very up to date and reliable.
If you want to, pick a genealogy topic and then post the links
to that topic from all the top ten encyclopedias online. Then
you could compare them ?
http://www.britannica.com/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://encarta.msn.com/artcenter_/browse.html
http://www.reference.com/
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/
http://www.bartleby.com/65/
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/
http://auth.grolier.com/login/go_login.html
http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Login?ed=wb
Jonathan
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in news:1172345244.364303@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
Middlebury College has already done it for me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/educa ... ref=slogin
It's a good place to find out where to look for solid references,
but is not a reliable reference in and of itself.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
We're just two lost souls swimmin' in a fishbowl, year after year
Christopher Jahn wrote:
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in
news:1170098758.113354@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very
nature, is *not* a reliable or accurate source.
I disagree. Wikipedia is more accurate than you think.
(snip)
Here is an excerpt of their site:
So, you're saying "Wikipedia's accurate because Wikipedia says
so."
Not at all a compelling arguement.
How about you find a wikipedia article that is inaccurate ?
Middlebury College has already done it for me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/educa ... ref=slogin
It's a good place to find out where to look for solid references,
but is not a reliable reference in and of itself.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
We're just two lost souls swimmin' in a fishbowl, year after year
-
jj206
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
LOL, you didn't even read the entire link you posted ! Wow !
I asked you a question, so you could easily prove your point and
you choked. (^: Thanks for proving my point. But you
probably won't "get it". You probably will reply with hatred
at me for your not understanding ?
Jonathan
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in news:1172345244.364303@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in
news:1170098758.113354@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
He obviously doesn't realise that Wikipedia, by it's very
nature, is *not* a reliable or accurate source.
I disagree. Wikipedia is more accurate than you think.
(snip)
Here is an excerpt of their site:
So, you're saying "Wikipedia's accurate because Wikipedia says
so."
Not at all a compelling arguement.
How about you find a wikipedia article that is inaccurate ?
Middlebury College has already done it for me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/educa ... ref=slogin
It's a good place to find out where to look for solid references,
but is not a reliable reference in and of itself.
LOL, you didn't even read the entire link you posted ! Wow !
I asked you a question, so you could easily prove your point and
you choked. (^: Thanks for proving my point. But you
probably won't "get it". You probably will reply with hatred
at me for your not understanding ?
Jonathan
-
jj206
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Dude, the article you posted talks about the teacher ENCOURAGING his
students to WRITE wikipedia articles and posting them. Sounds to me that
wikipedia is better than all other encyclopedias. Wikipedia grows and
grows and all other encyclopedias are shrinking in staff and content.
Also since you are so dense, you were supposed to find an inaccurate
wiki article that was CURRENTLY in error, but you chose to find one that
had been fixed by the one person in the world that knew it was in error.
That is THE definition of wikipedia ! That everyone adds to it ! But
you don't "get it" as usual. The challenge was for YOU to find a
mistake in a wiki article. Keep looking. If you find one yourself, then
I will publicly say good job. (^:
good luck,
Jonathan
Get what? That you'll lie to defend Wikipedia? That you're some
kind of idiot? That you don't have very good reading
comprehension skills? We all get that.
Dude, the article you posted talks about the teacher ENCOURAGING his
students to WRITE wikipedia articles and posting them. Sounds to me that
wikipedia is better than all other encyclopedias. Wikipedia grows and
grows and all other encyclopedias are shrinking in staff and content.
Also since you are so dense, you were supposed to find an inaccurate
wiki article that was CURRENTLY in error, but you chose to find one that
had been fixed by the one person in the world that knew it was in error.
That is THE definition of wikipedia ! That everyone adds to it ! But
you don't "get it" as usual. The challenge was for YOU to find a
mistake in a wiki article. Keep looking. If you find one yourself, then
I will publicly say good job. (^:
good luck,
Jonathan
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
jj206 wrote:
one on railroas switches was so hilarious
I decided not to fix it
it read like an under edited machine translation of a russian
encyclopedia - and it was informative
sometimes "bad" english is more fun
like franglish and danglish
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Get what? That you'll lie to defend Wikipedia? That you're some kind
of idiot? That you don't have very good reading comprehension skills?
We all get that.
Dude, the article you posted talks about the teacher ENCOURAGING his
students to WRITE wikipedia articles and posting them. Sounds to me that
wikipedia is better than all other encyclopedias. Wikipedia grows and
grows and all other encyclopedias are shrinking in staff and content.
Also since you are so dense, you were supposed to find an inaccurate
wiki article that was CURRENTLY in error, but you chose to find one that
had been fixed by the one person in the world that knew it was in error.
That is THE definition of wikipedia ! That everyone adds to it ! But
you don't "get it" as usual. The challenge was for YOU to find a
mistake in a wiki article. Keep looking. If you find one yourself, then
I will publicly say good job. (^:
one on railroas switches was so hilarious
I decided not to fix it
it read like an under edited machine translation of a russian
encyclopedia - and it was informative
sometimes "bad" english is more fun
like franglish and danglish
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
-
jj206
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
Hugh Watkins wrote:
This one ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_switch
Jonathan
one on railroas switches was so hilarious
I decided not to fix it
it read like an under edited machine translation of a russian
encyclopedia - and it was informative
sometimes "bad" english is more fun
like franglish and danglish
Hugh W
This one ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_switch
Jonathan
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
jj206 <jj206@remoooooooooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote in
news:1173210745.601432@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
I love the way you keep trying to win an argument you've lost by
changing the subject: you demanded that I cite a specific example
of an inaccurate Wikipedia article, and I have done so.
From the article:
'When half a dozen students in Neil Waters's Japanese history class
at Middlebury College asserted on exams that the Jesuits supported
the Shimabara Rebellion in 17th-century Japan, he knew something
was wrong. The Jesuits were in "no position to aid a revolution,"
he said; the few of them in Japan were in hiding.
'He figured out the problem soon enough. The obscure, though
incorrect, information was from Wikipedia, the collaborative online
encyclopedia, and the students had picked it up cramming for his
exam.
'But the errors on the Japanese history test last semester were the
last straw. At Waters’ urging, the Middlebury history department
notified its students this month that Wikipedia could not be cited
in papers or exams, and that students could not ‘‘point to
Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to
escape the consequences of errors.’’'
Even if the article actually DID say what you claim it did (it
doesn't*), it absolutely and positively proves my point: Wikipedia
isn't an absolutely reliable source, and shouldn't be used as a
reference.
And Wikipedia even agrees with me:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
'Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview.
“Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a
global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative
source."'
'Ordonez acknowledged that, given the collaborative nature of
Wikipedia writing and editing, “there is no guarantee an article is
100 percent correct,”'
You were wrong. Grow up and get on with your life.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
To err is human; to forgive is not company policy.
* Professor Waters ('the teacher') says nothing at all about
encouraging his students to write for Wikipedia. The article
mentions that several OTHER professors have given credit for
contributing to Wikipedia as an exercise in scholarly writing.
news:1173210745.601432@bubbleator.drizzle.com:
Get what? That you'll lie to defend Wikipedia? That you're
some kind of idiot? That you don't have very good reading
comprehension skills? We all get that.
Dude, the article you posted talks about the teacher
ENCOURAGING his students to WRITE wikipedia articles and
posting them.
I love the way you keep trying to win an argument you've lost by
changing the subject: you demanded that I cite a specific example
of an inaccurate Wikipedia article, and I have done so.
From the article:
'When half a dozen students in Neil Waters's Japanese history class
at Middlebury College asserted on exams that the Jesuits supported
the Shimabara Rebellion in 17th-century Japan, he knew something
was wrong. The Jesuits were in "no position to aid a revolution,"
he said; the few of them in Japan were in hiding.
'He figured out the problem soon enough. The obscure, though
incorrect, information was from Wikipedia, the collaborative online
encyclopedia, and the students had picked it up cramming for his
exam.
'But the errors on the Japanese history test last semester were the
last straw. At Waters’ urging, the Middlebury history department
notified its students this month that Wikipedia could not be cited
in papers or exams, and that students could not ‘‘point to
Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to
escape the consequences of errors.’’'
Even if the article actually DID say what you claim it did (it
doesn't*), it absolutely and positively proves my point: Wikipedia
isn't an absolutely reliable source, and shouldn't be used as a
reference.
And Wikipedia even agrees with me:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki
'Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview.
“Wikipedia is the ideal place to start your research and get a
global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative
source."'
'Ordonez acknowledged that, given the collaborative nature of
Wikipedia writing and editing, “there is no guarantee an article is
100 percent correct,”'
You were wrong. Grow up and get on with your life.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
http://camera-ephemera.blogspot.com/
To err is human; to forgive is not company policy.
* Professor Waters ('the teacher') says nothing at all about
encouraging his students to write for Wikipedia. The article
mentions that several OTHER professors have given credit for
contributing to Wikipedia as an exercise in scholarly writing.
-
geothermal
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Mar 6, 5:17 pm, Christopher Jahn <x...@yahoo.com> wrote:
A non-sequitur conclusion is one which does not follow
from the premises, therefore the premises must be wrong.
Jonathan
you demanded that I cite a specific example
of an inaccurate Wikipedia article, and I have done so.
A non-sequitur conclusion is one which does not follow
from the premises, therefore the premises must be wrong.
Jonathan
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
jj206 wrote:
that has been cleaned up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_switching_networks is the pearl
eg
"The speed of train processing at the stations plays a major role in
railway permitivity. Railway safety highly relies on station operation.
Switch and Signal Centralization is a kernel of stationary automation.
Centralization provides logical interaction and blockage in accordance
to safety standards, as well as economical and beneficial switch and
signal control within a distance."
the source is clear further down
"In Russia, the first mechanical centralization systems were built on a
few stations on the Moscow - St. Petersburg line. In 1884 a mechanical
centralization with rigid string staction acted at Sablino station.
The electric and electromechanical centralization systems which appeared
in USA (Taylor's in 1891) and in Austria (Siemens in 1893) were most
widely used. The first electromechanical centralization systems in
Russia were built at Vitebsk station of Rigo-Orlovskaya Railway (1909)
and on Saint Petersburg station of Moscow-Vindavo-Rybinsk railway
(1914), what is now know as Moscow Station of St. Petersburg.
In 1934 completely electrical system was installed in Gudermes station.
The next step of centralization was a semiconductor and electronic base
development. It was intensively researched in 1960-1970 period. Some
experimental equipment were introduced in England, Germany, Japan, etc.
The first station where the contactless centralization system were in
use are Rezekne of Baltic Railway in 1968, and Obukhovo of October
Railway in 1969 (now it is a part of St Petersburg)
The appearance of microprocessor base activated the development of new
stationary systems. The first system of microprocessor-based
centralization was built at Geteborg station in Sweden (1978) The system
were manufactured by "Ericsson" and had model number JZH-850 1980ies and
1990ies period marks the development and implementation of
microprocessor-based system in railway switching centralization. The
following firms were the most active in this aspect: Ericsson (Sweden),
SEL, SEG (Germany), Alcatel (Austria), JNR (Japan) Siemens (Germany),
DSI (Denmark) In Russia the computer and microprocessor centralization
developments are done by Saint Petersburg, and Kharkov, railway
institutes. As well as Girdotransignalsvyaz' institute.
<< it totally misses the pount of safety systems
"block system"
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... gle+Search
the writers need to learn about plain english
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English
William Strunk Jr.'s The Elements of Style
The Complete Plain Words by Sir Ernest Gower
Daily Mirror Style Book by Keith Waterhouse
to get the basics of writing english that is readable
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Hugh Watkins wrote:
one on railroas switches was so hilarious
I decided not to fix it
it read like an under edited machine translation of a russian
encyclopedia - and it was informative
sometimes "bad" english is more fun
like franglish and danglish
Hugh W
This one ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_switch
that has been cleaned up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_switching_networks is the pearl
eg
"The speed of train processing at the stations plays a major role in
railway permitivity. Railway safety highly relies on station operation.
Switch and Signal Centralization is a kernel of stationary automation.
Centralization provides logical interaction and blockage in accordance
to safety standards, as well as economical and beneficial switch and
signal control within a distance."
the source is clear further down
"In Russia, the first mechanical centralization systems were built on a
few stations on the Moscow - St. Petersburg line. In 1884 a mechanical
centralization with rigid string staction acted at Sablino station.
The electric and electromechanical centralization systems which appeared
in USA (Taylor's in 1891) and in Austria (Siemens in 1893) were most
widely used. The first electromechanical centralization systems in
Russia were built at Vitebsk station of Rigo-Orlovskaya Railway (1909)
and on Saint Petersburg station of Moscow-Vindavo-Rybinsk railway
(1914), what is now know as Moscow Station of St. Petersburg.
In 1934 completely electrical system was installed in Gudermes station.
The next step of centralization was a semiconductor and electronic base
development. It was intensively researched in 1960-1970 period. Some
experimental equipment were introduced in England, Germany, Japan, etc.
The first station where the contactless centralization system were in
use are Rezekne of Baltic Railway in 1968, and Obukhovo of October
Railway in 1969 (now it is a part of St Petersburg)
The appearance of microprocessor base activated the development of new
stationary systems. The first system of microprocessor-based
centralization was built at Geteborg station in Sweden (1978) The system
were manufactured by "Ericsson" and had model number JZH-850 1980ies and
1990ies period marks the development and implementation of
microprocessor-based system in railway switching centralization. The
following firms were the most active in this aspect: Ericsson (Sweden),
SEL, SEG (Germany), Alcatel (Austria), JNR (Japan) Siemens (Germany),
DSI (Denmark) In Russia the computer and microprocessor centralization
developments are done by Saint Petersburg, and Kharkov, railway
institutes. As well as Girdotransignalsvyaz' institute.
<< it totally misses the pount of safety systems
"block system"
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... gle+Search
the writers need to learn about plain english
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English
William Strunk Jr.'s The Elements of Style
The Complete Plain Words by Sir Ernest Gower
Daily Mirror Style Book by Keith Waterhouse
to get the basics of writing english that is readable
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
-
Gjest
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:43:54 +0000, Hugh Watkins
<hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:
How ironic that statement is.
<hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:
to get the basics of writing english that is readable
Hugh W
How ironic that statement is.
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:53:14 -0600, BlueBrooke <BlueBrooke> wrote:
I don't think "irony" is the correct term. That's OK, lots of people
mis-use that one.
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:43:54 +0000, Hugh Watkins
hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:
to get the basics of writing english that is readable
How ironic that statement is.
I don't think "irony" is the correct term. That's OK, lots of people
mis-use that one.
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Rootsmagic3 - sell me your registration key
BlueBrooke wrote:
this is chatter and scribble
I first sold an article in May 1960
I was paid per word
so I took every chance to go off topic
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:43:54 +0000, Hugh Watkins
hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote:
to get the basics of writing english that is readable
Hugh W
How ironic that statement is.
this is chatter and scribble
I first sold an article in May 1960
I was paid per word
so I took every chance to go off topic
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG