rec.autos.simulators

LOL, then why'd you post is as "David Coulthard doing a qualifying lap at
Spa in 2002 in a F1 car:" with a link?

dave henrie

Well, it's called a qualifying lap at the link below, showing a side
by side comparason of a Caterham and a F1 at Spa. Scroll down towards the
bottom of the page, back to September 15, 2002, since it's an old video.

http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/

But other sites that had the same video called it a practice run made
for ITV. Now I'm not sure of what it is anymore.

Just because I put up with it before doesn't mean I didn't think it was wrong.
Also like the person who started this thread, I felt that the warnings,
deleted or locked threads were getting out of hand at RSC.

I just decided not to put up with it anymore and see if I could get
a reasonable response from you and the other moderators at RSC, but
you proved yourselves to be unreasonable.

Your's is the only forum that publicly displays warnings, no other forum
does this. The only possible purpose of such public displaying of warnings
is to punish, and therefore cause harm, to the victims of your warning system.
Since the intent such action is to cause harm, and is not covered in the
agreement made when a new member signs up, your on shaky legal ground here,
as no member of RSC has consented to your public abuse and harassment with
the intent to cause harm. If it ends up causing problems for RSC, then it's
your own fault.

If you feel that your public warning system is justified, then why don't you
include this information in your rules and agreement so a potential new
member can decide if he consents to having publicly attached warnings to
every post that member makes?

Both you and Mbrio turned this molehill into a mountain. You deleted the
link, claiming the video was copywrighted (based on your assumption, not
fact), this was OK with me. Then rather than suspending the warning for a
reasonable time to allow me to detmine if it was OK to have a link to the
video (either under fair use or public domain laws), you stated that instead
the warning would stay until I had the FIA or FOA sent you a letter stating
I had permission to link to that video. This was unreasonable. Next when I
mentioned that your public warnings were the equivalent of defamation of
character (referring to your own rule 4.1), Mbrio steps in and first
tells me I can never post a link to any video, even one that I had made,
and later asks me to send a letter stating that I would agree to your
public attachemnt of warning labels. This clearly shows you were violating
your own agreement and rules, because if the public warning policy was
covered by the original agreement no additional agreement would be
required.

Mbrio also stated that I had many times previously violated the rule
about posting links to copyrighted vidoes in the past, which is a
lie. There was just one occasion, a link to a video of a pair of
CART cars that I did not know was copywrighted, that I had posted
in two sub-forums. The only other warning I got was for mentioning
the LFS S1 slicks for all cars mod, and the stated reason for the
warning is that the mod was made by a banned member, how could any
reasonable person know if any content, mod or otherwise was from a
banned member?

Your wrong, that website did not host that video. I just grabbed the
first hit I got on google for F1 videos and ended up picking a bad example.
You didn't mention that I had emailed you that this particular site was a bad
example, taking advantage of a USA law that extend privileges for eductional
purposes.

I then referred to the site below which includes the actual video in a
side by side comparason of a Catherhan and an F1 car at Spa. This site has
no such disclaimers, is fairly popular, has had that video available for
download since September, 2002, and has never had any legal issues with
hosting this video. Many other web sites had hosted that video back in
2002 and early 2003. You'll need to scroll down towards the bottom
of the page to get to September 15, 2002 to see the "side by side"
videos.

http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/

Since I don't have access to my PM's at RSC anymore I can't know the exact
content, but I do remember the mentioning of FIA or FOA as holding all the
rights to F1 related content. Was asking for the warning to be withdrawn
for a reasonable period until I could get proof that the video was ok
to post a link to (public domain or fair use) that hard to take?

    Are you a mod at RSC Dave?

    Sure. I am just commenting mainly on what Dave implied with his
comparisons.

    I can see the nightmarish situation that RSC is in if they are liable
for mere "links" to illegal stuff, especially considering the size of the
joint. Virtually unmanagable! Shouldn't it be the respnsibility of the
copyright holder to make it clear that their material is copyrighted -
watermarks, etc? The situation with Jeff seems grey at worst - why should
that be RSC's problem? Unmanagable!

    Was that info in the wmv itself? If not, tough titties for them! :)

 two years ago I was one of two  unpaid volunteer help desk moderators
for
Sim Bin's GTR 2002 mod and it's RSC forum.  My partner is currently
employed by Simbin,  I'm not.  lol.  But since that time I have been just
a user like almost everyone else.  We did ban one fellow,  I can't
remember who, for impersonating himself.  He'd make a post, then log on
with a new name and insult his prior self, then he'd log back on as the
original name and cry for justice.

  My stand about RSC has nothing to do with the mods or warnings.  
Recently somebody re-installed SCC and had a problem.  SCC users found a
cure for that way back when the mod was first released, but nobody could
remember the cure.  Fortunately, we found the original thread and passed
on the info.  Stuff like that will not be possible if RSC is vaporized.

  I could give a ***about how anyone here feels about the owners and
the mods there.  Nobody here can replace even the tiniest portion of
files and knowledge stored there.  Until somebody can spend thier money,
spend their time, spend there knowledge assembling a replacement, then I
can't for the life of me understand why anyone would even wish ill upon
those that provide us with such a gift.  

  I beleive, and I don't care if there isn't any law that supports this
beleif,  I beleive that RSC is privately owned and provides a free
service to me and thousands of others.  If somebody has a problem with
the owners, then he can go elsewhere,  After all that person isn't paying
all the server costs, the hosting and software fees, the time spent
customizing and debugging and correcting programs.  Since 'I' am not
contributing to these costs, I have ZERO SAY in any action they take.  
Thats my personal view.  No amount of whining or namecalling or groveling
will change that.   Injury via a warning is just soooo pathetic.  "Yer
Honor, I'd like to sue the pants off these foriegners cuz they hurt my
feelings."
I play with toys.  I race imaginary cars on imaginary tracks against
imaginary people(see you all don't really exist)  I can't be bothered
with hurt feelings or slights of these kinds because my playtime is all
that matters.  And it's not just a matter of me only caring if it impacts
me.  No stuff like this impacts thousands.  Whomever started this carping
thread, I wonder just how he was abused.   His daughter wasn't stolen
from her room, his ability to earn a living was not impacted, nothing in
any of these messages rises to the importance of the hemoroid that winks
from my backside.  
  A real greivance, a real injury, and that I would easily support, but
this is all just so beneath grown men.  My 4 year old Grandchild has
better group-play skills than what I've read here.

  I don't know the owners of RSC,  I beleive I may recognize one of the
names if I saw it, but I have no connection with RSC or Blackhole or
Racesim or the pits or any other site.  I derive benefit from the
goodwill of others and it PISSES ME OFF that crybabies think they matter
more than the thousands of other users.  Let them start their own site,
get their own files, collect their own information.  But don't even begin
to  whine about RSC or any other site that provides us with goodies.

  What happened to the flight sim world after some of the big sites went
to a 'pay to play' model?  We are so lucky here.  How could ANYONE want
to lose this?

dave henrie  

Freedom of speach, Freedom of opinion, these things are part of the
fabric of my country.  But so too is the freedom to shut up.

    If you set out to do something then you are obliged to do it properly -
it makes no difference whether you pay for something or are a volunteer or
whatever - do it properly or don't do it. If there's nothing in it for you
then why do it and/or pay for it in the first place?

    Places like RSC are a community of people and apparently a service to
the sim community. Every member and every post they make is what makes RSC
what it is. To use powers of moderation in a vindictive and arguably
embarrassing way is not good for the RSC.

    There are 2 kinds of policemen - those that use their power to enhance a
community (correct) and those that seek to dominate with a "them Vs us"
mentality worthy of a stupid dog (wrong). Simple as that.

    I still would like to know how and why RSC was deleted before.

    Where is the line drawn on illegal links? I could link to a page with
pirated stuff on it (or it's sub pages) that I wasn't even aware of! Why
should RSC need to work out if something is legal or not where it's not
obvious? You won't even be able to post any links at all at this rate.

... the fact of the matter is that there is a small minority of
knuckle-draggers at RSC led by John Schoen who are quite willing to have RSC
erased off the ether because what matters to them is not the community, but
their own personal glory - but RSc has always been so, and as it says in
rule 1.4,

"you accept the right to be John Schoen and friends' Biatch by posting here,
and moderators/founders and admins of RSC may slander, libel, edit, censure,
or otherwise mess with your life as they see fit. And btw, donations are
welcome ... and will be well-spent on finding new ways of censuring the
community"

If these small minority of moderators at RSC want to continue its *** on
the free speech of this community, they should do so not by asking the
community for donations.  And whilst RSc is a private forum, its posts are
open and readable without being a member, and therefore fall under direct
publication laws - as such, all it would need from me is one call to tele.dk
to have RSC erased off the planet.

 I choose not to do so because the vast majority of this community should
not be penalised by the actions of a bunch of wannabe fascists led by John
Schoen; having said this, though, it is unquestionably a matter of time
before they libel the wrong person, and RSC will become history - John
Schoen and moderators like him, who actively promote libel and illegal acts
of speech, will oversee the destruction of RSC ... and while at the moment
only maybe a few dozen community members have suffered at his - and his
acolytes' actions - their actions will eventually result in all the
community losing one of its most important facets.

And when that time comes, John Schoen and his band of buddies, will only
have themselves to blame.

For the most part, web site BBS's suck.  One grand exception to this is the
one at HardOCP.com.  THAT place is how a web site BBS should be run.

True freedom of expression (or at least as true as it can get) can only be
had in a newsgroup.

For better or worse, the good with the bad.

-Larry