When did this group change from?

alanr added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Sorry for the trolling Jerry. it's the beer. YoU uNderStAnd
dontcha? I had a Mo-Par once. Bellhousing broke. Been driving
something else since. Moe, Larry cheese! Moe, Larry cheese!

I don't evangelize cars made by my company. Everyone is free to buy
whatever car(s) they like. That's part of the great freedoms we
enjoy in this country. My only comment on buying any car from any
company is to consider the domestic content of the car because our
economy depends to a large degree on workers paying income taxes
and businesses being profitable and then paying corporate income
taxes.

As to your particular problem, it has always made me chuckle that
people who buy a Chrysler product and have some serious problem
believe that all Chrysler products from then on are junk. What
makes this even more humorous is that these same people have
similar problems with their new make(s) only now they're afraid to
tell anybody about it. Example: there's a guy in my neighborhood
who buy Jap cars. Every now and then his car simply disappears for
days at a time. I've asked him where it is but he is vague about
it. I finally figured out that it's in the shop being repaired but
my neighbor is afraid to admit he bought a lemon from some
supposedly perfect Jap company.

So, investigate all the cars that fit your need and buy the best
one. Keep in mind that the American Big Three have vehicles that
the Asians do not and vice versa.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Alan Erskine added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

To continue the same argument here... where does it say the
images have to be original? As long as they are on-topic,
there should be no problem. As has been noted on .animals,
not all of the images shown on this group have ever been
original - you might want to talk to Mitchell about original
works - he's been posting here for some years now and he's not
the only one.

Also, if it is original work, you are placing that on a
public-access newsgroup; therefore, you have little say in
what is actually done to your images after they are posted -
how do you prove that you took them? There is no copyright
info attached; nobody can contact the OP (both Original Poster
and Original Producer) to ask for permission. Do you really
think people are simple looking at these images? I have
collected litterally thousands of images over the years - no
way of telling who the OP is or was.

You are mostly right about copyrights. Copyrights do not protect
ideas, they protect the expression of ideas. So, photographs are
expressions of the idea of capturing a particular subject to a
permanent media. A copyright is automatically granted to the
photographer. Now, it could happen that there are many
photographers taking almost identical photos as you have. They
all get an automatic copyright. Now, if one intends to defend
their copyright against infringers, one must register the
expression of the idea with the copyright office or a court case
cannot be heard. So, you are basically right that original
pictures posted here effectively enter the public domain because
most/all posters do not feel the need for formal copyright
registration and thus let their pictures go. Nothing wrong with
that.

What is wrong here is the notion that only original work is
allowed. If the collective group really wants to do that, it
should modify the FAQs and enforce them vigorously. But, they
should also be prepared for a huge drop in good content being
posted here if alternate sources of pictures are forbidden.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet

Hemi the god of the newsworld made this silly rantreading into a
statment instead of taking it as written.

What is wrong here is the notion that only original work is
allowed. If the collective group really wants to do that, it
should modify the FAQs and enforce them vigorously. But, they
should also be prepared for a huge drop in good content being
posted here if alternate sources of pictures are forbidden.


Hey Hemi you asshole I did not state that it could not be done I asked
WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL WORK? I did not ask that no one post other work I
asked a question that is very different then what you have written. Come
back when you quit being a RED NECK and have taken a reading course.


And frankly asswipe. There is great content on the www that need not be
reposted in its entierty here. If I am interested in Apollo I have the
brights to go to the NASA site myself or request the photo I do not need
every photo NASA has posted in this group. We are already seeing some
ISP's drop New service as it is.

But hey you may not be bright enough to find the Nasa site so here is a
link.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:11:34 GMT, Maple1 wrote:

Hemi the god of the newsworld made this silly rantreading into a
statment instead of taking it as written.

What is wrong here is the notion that only original work is
allowed. If the collective group really wants to do that, it
should modify the FAQs and enforce them vigorously. But, they
should also be prepared for a huge drop in good content being
posted here if alternate sources of pictures are forbidden.


Hey Hemi you asshole I did not state that it could not be done I asked
WHERE IS THE ORIGINAL WORK? I did not ask that no one post other work I
asked a question that is very different then what you have written. Come
back when you quit being a RED NECK and have taken a reading course.

Asking where is original content means you want it.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Someday we'll look back on all this and plough into a parked car.