Kasim Sulton online chat synopsis (Copyright discussion) - Page 4

**The Flying Mouse** · 28 Jan 2004, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.

Oh ... as this is now Off Topic for all forums except one, ... have fun with it, Neil.

I'm gonna get you for this R.

original sin · 28 Jan 2004, 20:47

I have to say I don't understand why this has been split.
If a person starts a thread off then I would have thought that the content of their opening post on that thread sets the discussion.
IMO all discussion has been a direct result of the opening post and thereby on topic.

Seems like I'm wrong again but it seems daft to me you start a discussion and you include the "agenda".
Otherwise anyone could start a thread throw in the odd dig in the opening post and we have a situation where we are off topic.

shadow1000001 · 28 Jan 2004, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE FLYING MOUSE

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.

Oh ... as this is now Off Topic for all forums except one, ... have fun with it, Neil.

I'm gonna get you for this R.

Some mice have all the luck

CarylB · 28 Jan 2004, 21:12

Quote:

If a person starts a thread off then I would have thought that the content of their opening post on that thread sets the discussion.
IMO all discussion has been a direct result of the opening post and thereby on topic.

Can't fault the logic of that Sin, I agree with you. Having said that, at least the division of the thread will prevent any posts to the second part of the opening post being referred to as "dragging the thread off topic"

**SueW** · 28 Jan 2004, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by original sin

I have to say I don't understand why this has been split.
If a person starts a thread off then I would have thought that the content of their opening post on that thread sets the discussion.
IMO all discussion has been a direct result of the opening post and thereby on topic.

Seems like I'm wrong again but it seems daft to me you start a discussion and you include the "agenda".
Otherwise anyone could start a thread throw in the odd dig in the opening post and we have a situation where we are off topic.

Sin - you and I agree on something again.

SueW

CarylB · 28 Jan 2004, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by sultonfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

Ah well FM, I don't much like letters I send to a private list being copied, dissected and commented on here by someone not on that list .. so you're not the only one out of luck

If you're referring to me, you actually asked for proof of what you'd said, I gave it.

Yes I am. I asked for you to say exactly what "things" I was supposed to have said, though quite why that necessitated quoting large chunks of an email which you had no legitimate business seeing I don't know. Nor does it invalidate my saying I don't like having my correspondence, sent to a private list, bandied about here.

I said I thought it was wrong when one of David's posts was taken from here and quoted in another public forum. It's even less excusable for mail from a private list to be passed around between people not on that list.

And now the topic has been split, I'll point out for the public record that I have never drawn Meat's attention to a thread on this list as you claimed earlier. I wrote to him and his management company when I saw the item on eBay, and I would do so again.

R. · 28 Jan 2004, 21:31

What now, do you want to have it merged again?
I don't mind, that's easy. I'm just a tad surprised, regarding the "Get back on topic posts".

**The Flying Mouse** · 28 Jan 2004, 21:37

Personally, I agree with the decission to split the thread.
OK, there were two points brought up in the initial post, but one was about Kasim (with references to Meat) the other was about the ethics of copying the info to other sites.IMHO there was just way too much going on in one thread.

I definatly think it works much better as two threads

.

Just my 2 $00.02

*AndyK* · 28 Jan 2004, 21:42

If you ask me, which you didn't, (but I'm going to respond anyway 'coz I'm like that) then splitting this thread is a good idea. The whole thread diverged into two topics anyway and it became hard to follow either the discussion following on from the chat or the "discussion" about the copyright issue, both are valid discussions and both are at times interesting, although one of them may get a little more out of hand than the other.

Bottom line is that Vicki has both publicly and as I understand it privately apologised for her "error" (quotes used on purpose!!). So this thread will probably (hopefully?) die a quick and painless death..........

Andy

CarylB · 28 Jan 2004, 21:49

Whoops .. got cut off just as I was posting!

I said I agreed with Sin that the copyright discussion wasn't off-topic as it had been introduced in the starting post.

However, as I suspect it is easier to split the two topics than persuade those who keep talking about "dragging" the thread off topic to desist, this seems the simplest solution.

Some mountains are VERY hard to climb

I don't believe Vicki "apologised". I think she said that as soon as she knew SueW was not happy for her to quote from her website and acknowledge the source, she would of course not do this.

original sin · 28 Jan 2004, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by SueW

Quote:

Originally Posted by original sin

I have to say I don't understand why this has been split.
If a person starts a thread off then I would have thought that the content of their opening post on that thread sets the discussion.
IMO all discussion has been a direct result of the opening post and thereby on topic.

Seems like I'm wrong again but it seems daft to me you start a discussion and you include the "agenda".
Otherwise anyone could start a thread throw in the odd dig in the opening post and we have a situation where we are off topic.

Sin - you and I agree on something again.

SueW

well it had to happen sometime - still at least we've managed to avoid relegation into "the unspoken zone"

R. · 28 Jan 2004, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

Frankly I'm surprised that the topic has not been split before.

And now you are?

**The Flying Mouse** · 28 Jan 2004, 22:07

I can't believe i'm about to say this.
Can we stay on topic please

The point is about the Kasim interview being copied without permission.NOT weather the original thread should have been split or not

.
At this rate i'll have to split this thread again

original sin · 28 Jan 2004, 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE FLYING MOUSE

I can't believe i'm about to say this.
Can we stay on topic please

The point is about the Kasim interview being copied without permission.NOT weather the original thread should have been split or not

.
At this rate i'll have to split this thread again

Ever played consequences?

CarylB · 28 Jan 2004, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

Frankly I'm surprised that the topic has not been split before.

And now you are?
.

Not at all .. I merely agreed with Sin on her point about copyright actually being on topic, and have said that splitting the threads seems the simplest way to avoid people complaining that it's off-topic.

*AndyK* · 28 Jan 2004, 22:17

lol,,, and then can we have the thread splitting so we can see how surprised Caryl is by R's splitting of the original thread, and also for the discussion about Sin and Sue agreeing, and then we'll need a separate thread for you to whine about having to split the threads....... were you busy this week lol

original sin · 28 Jan 2004, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.

What now, do you want to have it merged again?
I don't mind, that's easy. I'm just a tad surprised, regarding the "Get back on topic posts".

Doesn't bother me either way - i merely expressed in my earlier post my surprise that after returning home from a long hard day at work, this had happened .
As to this thread being labeled copyright discussion, for me that actually wasn't the point in question it was how the starting post had be made and whether that was a fair way to tackle the issue

little_dancer · 28 Jan 2004, 23:23

Am I the only one here who feels that most of this has NOTHING to do with copyright law and EVERYTHING to do with who doesn't like who?

it's a bit childish.

If this were merely about copyright law- the task is simple, submit the information to a duty-council online and they'll tell you where the law stands...I have a feeling, however, that it is not about copyright law at all.

just a thought...and i'm outta here!

Dave · 29 Jan 2004, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

Frankly I'm surprised that the topic has not been split before.

And now you are?

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself R!!!

ROCK ON GOOD TIMES!!!

CarylB · 29 Jan 2004, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by David M. Driskell

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarylB

Frankly I'm surprised that the topic has not been split before.

And now you are?

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself R!!!

ROCK ON GOOD TIMES!!!

This strikes me as rather pointless David, particularly as I have already replied just above to the somewhat mystifying comment .. some might even think it was just posted for the sake of having a pop at me ..

little_dancer · 29 Jan 2004, 00:28

This has degraded from silly to senseless, why isn't it in fight club?? Surely despite the lack of flames, any semi-conscious individual can see that this has degraded into two camps fighting. There is nothing worthwhile being said- law is law- it's easy to ascertain-but nobody is interested in 'copyright law', they are interested in

'who-said-what-to- whom-and-who-has-a -right-to-say-that-and-who-doesn't-and-why-they- don't-like-so-and-so'

This is simply rediculous. People are looking for excuses to dredge up old fights, that's all- there is nothing new being said here that hasn't been said before...aren't we adults?? Why are we holding a popularity contest on a fan forum?

Em · 29 Jan 2004, 00:36

Little dancer wrote:

Quote:

Am I the only one here who feels that most of this has NOTHING to do with copyright law and EVERYTHING to do with who doesn't like who?

I agree and it gets tedious.
Think it was an odd decision to split the thread too.

little_dancer · 29 Jan 2004, 00:41

Well...
I have no problem with the thread being split...I have a problem with people putting each other down and pretending it has something to do with 'copyright law'--

Popularity contest, that's all SOME are trying to turn this whole fan forum into...

I don't understand why ADULTS hate each other so much over NOTHING!

that's all

Vickip · 29 Jan 2004, 00:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by little_dancer

This is simply rediculous. People are looking for excuses to dredge up old fights, that's all- there is nothing new being said here that hasn't been said before...aren't we adults?? Why are we holding a popularity contest on a fan forum?

And it's always Caryl who has to defend herself

Vicki

MEAT LOAF TRIBUTE · 29 Jan 2004, 01:26

its nothing more than tittle tattle, its boring and offensive!!!!!!! and it isnt what we want to read!

28 Jan 2004, 20:47	#77
original sin Sinner Join Date: 15.04.2003 Location: cyber space Posts: 2,457	I have to say I don't understand why this has been split. If a person starts a thread off then I would have thought that the content of their opening post on that thread sets the discussion. IMO all discussion has been a direct result of the opening post and thereby on topic. Seems like I'm wrong again but it seems daft to me you start a discussion and you include the "agenda". Otherwise anyone could start a thread throw in the odd dig in the opening post and we have a situation where we are off topic.

28 Jan 2004, 21:31	#82
R. You dig. Join Date: 02.04.2002 Location: On the fothermucker Posts: 7,179	What now, do you want to have it merged again? I don't mind, that's easy. I'm just a tad surprised, regarding the "Get back on topic posts".

28 Jan 2004, 21:37	#83
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	Personally, I agree with the decission to split the thread. OK, there were two points brought up in the initial post, but one was about Kasim (with references to Meat) the other was about the ethics of copying the info to other sites.IMHO there was just way too much going on in one thread. I definatly think it works much better as two threads . Just my 2 $00.02

28 Jan 2004, 21:42	#84
AndyK Relentless Join Date: 21.11.2003 Location: Over the top..... seeing what's on the other side Posts: 18,694	If you ask me, which you didn't, (but I'm going to respond anyway 'coz I'm like that) then splitting this thread is a good idea. The whole thread diverged into two topics anyway and it became hard to follow either the discussion following on from the chat or the "discussion" about the copyright issue, both are valid discussions and both are at times interesting, although one of them may get a little more out of hand than the other. Bottom line is that Vicki has both publicly and as I understand it privately apologised for her "error" (quotes used on purpose!!). So this thread will probably (hopefully?) die a quick and painless death.......... Andy

28 Jan 2004, 21:49	#85
CarylB Mega Loafer Join Date: 16.04.2003 Location: Sheffield UK Posts: 5,910	Whoops .. got cut off just as I was posting! I said I agreed with Sin that the copyright discussion wasn't off-topic as it had been introduced in the starting post. However, as I suspect it is easier to split the two topics than persuade those who keep talking about "dragging" the thread off topic to desist, this seems the simplest solution. Some mountains are VERY hard to climb I don't believe Vicki "apologised". I think she said that as soon as she knew SueW was not happy for her to quote from her website and acknowledge the source, she would of course not do this.

28 Jan 2004, 22:07	#88
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	I can't believe i'm about to say this. Can we stay on topic please The point is about the Kasim interview being copied without permission.NOT weather the original thread should have been split or not . At this rate i'll have to split this thread again

28 Jan 2004, 22:17	#91
AndyK Relentless Join Date: 21.11.2003 Location: Over the top..... seeing what's on the other side Posts: 18,694	lol,,, and then can we have the thread splitting so we can see how surprised Caryl is by R's splitting of the original thread, and also for the discussion about Sin and Sue agreeing, and then we'll need a separate thread for you to whine about having to split the threads....... were you busy this week lol

28 Jan 2004, 23:23	#93
little_dancer Super Loafer Join Date: 23.06.2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 363	Am I the only one here who feels that most of this has NOTHING to do with copyright law and EVERYTHING to do with who doesn't like who? it's a bit childish. If this were merely about copyright law- the task is simple, submit the information to a duty-council online and they'll tell you where the law stands...I have a feeling, however, that it is not about copyright law at all. just a thought...and i'm outta here!

29 Jan 2004, 00:28	#96
little_dancer Super Loafer Join Date: 23.06.2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 363	This has degraded from silly to senseless, why isn't it in fight club?? Surely despite the lack of flames, any semi-conscious individual can see that this has degraded into two camps fighting. There is nothing worthwhile being said- law is law- it's easy to ascertain-but nobody is interested in 'copyright law', they are interested in 'who-said-what-to- whom-and-who-has-a -right-to-say-that-and-who-doesn't-and-why-they- don't-like-so-and-so' This is simply rediculous. People are looking for excuses to dredge up old fights, that's all- there is nothing new being said here that hasn't been said before...aren't we adults?? Why are we holding a popularity contest on a fan forum?

29 Jan 2004, 00:41	#98
little_dancer Super Loafer Join Date: 23.06.2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 363	Well... I have no problem with the thread being split...I have a problem with people putting each other down and pretending it has something to do with 'copyright law'-- Popularity contest, that's all SOME are trying to turn this whole fan forum into... I don't understand why ADULTS hate each other so much over NOTHING! that's all

29 Jan 2004, 01:26	#100
MEAT LOAF TRIBUTE Banned Join Date: 16.04.2003 Location: UK Posts: 143	its nothing more than tittle tattle, its boring and offensive!!!!!!! and it isnt what we want to read!