Sign in to follow this  
w6kd

The MAAM vs RCS "Statement"

Recommended Posts

I just read over the Avsim-hosted statement "RCS PANELS B-25 IS A PIRATED WORK - THE EVIDENCE", and I am alarmed that Avsim has allowed themselves to become involved in this dispute by hosting Mr. Strine's "Statement" in its entirety... which is much, much more than just a statement. It is clearly a presentation of a "case", intended to elevate MAAM's position in the matter. "Evidence" is intended for use in a court and Avsim is not a court. Moreover, I feel that these types of disputes have no business being aired in full public view to begin with. It is unprofessional. It is dirty laundry. It is none of our business. I respectfully hope that in the future, Avsim will demonstrate much more restraint with regard to how their resources are used. I'd simply like to be assured that anything I read on Avsim.com is reliable fact, presented by those who have no vested interest in any particular issue. Lastly, I'd like to make it clear that I, Rob Balser, am in no way associated with, or even know, any of the individuals mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I don't believe that either conducting a catfight like this in plain view of the sim community, or facilitating it, as avsim has done here, is in the best interests of either party, the community, or the sim add-on "industry" such as it is.This isn't a simple case of "Festus took my panel and copied it as his own." Given that both teams initially worked together on this, I would fully expect that the "children" from this unhappy broken marriage would still look somewhat the same. There are sticky issues I can't answer here...how much do you have to change a bitmap before it ceases being the original work...what legal claims can the owner of an airplane claim on images of his airplane taken with or without his permission...etc. Ultimately, I have no interest in wading through this morass to figure out "who shot Willy." This sounds much less like a "piracy" issue and more like a breach of contract or a broken gentleman's agreement, or something else that I have no interest in getting into. MAAM and RCS can duke it out in court and let us know what the court decided.This "press release" reminds me of the "My wife slept with Bubba and now she stole my pickup truck" postings you might read in the personals here in Alabama. Maybe it made Billy-Joe feel better to air the dirty laundry in his broken marriage, but it didn't do anything but harm his own reputation in the long run. I feel the same about MAAM vis-a-vis this press release.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VRobert Kirkland wrote:>AVSIM has published a press release by MAAM as a news article>and we would do the same with one from RCS, nothing more and>nothing less .It is news whether we like it or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't believe that either conducting a catfight like this in plain view of the sim community, or facilitating it, as avsim has done here, is in the best interests of either party, the community, or the sim add-on "industry" such as it is."Speaking strictly for myself and not for the rest of the AVSIM Editorial Team, I would say that your use of the word "catfight" is pretty dimissive of the situation. Were these two parties as you characterize it; "Festus took my panel and copied it as his own", then I would agree with you, it would not deserve the attention that it has received. Believe me... we deal with the "Festus took my panel and copied it as his own" type of allegations daily... The fact of the matter is that the two parties involved in this are fairly substantive members of the flight simulation community. Setting aside the rumors, accusations and counter-accusations that have been floating about in the community for the past week or so, the stature alone of MAAM-Sim and Russ Strine deserved publication of that release. Add to that the rumors, accusations, etc., and that provided even more impetus for its publication. AVSIM was provided it; we published it. As we would RCS Panels rebuttal were we to be sent it.As for "facilitating" a "catfight", I have to take issue with that too. Were we to have editorialized on the press release, I might agree with your use of the word "facilitate". But, given that we have not editorialized on the subject, "facilitate" puts onus on AVSIM where it does not belong. As was said; the Strine Press Release is news, and we published it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to bicker this down to infinite points, but I do have a few thoughts on what has been said so far:A "news" statement does not give a full single-sided dissertation of all facts, as was done here.Robert Kirkland wrote: "AVSIM has published a press release by MAAM as a news article.."A "news article" is never written by those directly involved.. plain and simple.Avsim is responsible for anything and everything they publish. If it is found to be false, then Avsim themselves can be found at fault.If Avsim had simply posted a link to Mr. Stine's document, hosted on his own server, advising all of us that the document existed, it would have made it "news" and I would not have taken issue with Avsim's actions in any way. Alerting us to the document would have been the news, not the case presentation itself.Tom Allensworth wrote: "The fact of the matter is that the two parties involved in this are fairly substantive members of the flight simulation community." Tom's words spell out exactly why this whole thing should have been dealt with in a quiet and professional manner. And it is exactly why Avsim should want to distance themselves from it as far as possible, let alone hosting it on their own servers - which again, puts Avsim at risk in a number of ways.Lastly, I must apologize for my nit-picking of the finer points. However, these fine points are the very things that will maintain Avsim's neutrality, integrity, and reader trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Speaking strictly for myself...I would say that your use of the word>"catfight" is pretty dimissive (sic) of the situation. No, I disagree. It's not dimissive, it's colorfully descriptive. The stature if the two parties notwithstanding, it's still a "he said-she said" running gunbattle being conducted on our virtual streetcorner, as it were. I'm certain that MAAM-SIM feels they have a legitimate grievance, as I am certain the RCS Panels feels they do not. But why does the argument have to play out in public, when it seems apparent that nothing short of a court decision will decide who (if anyone) is on the high ground here?>As for "facilitating" a "catfight", I have to take issue with>that too. Were we to have editorialized on the press release,>I might agree with your use of the word "facilitate". But,>given that we have not editorialized on the subject,>"facilitate" puts onus on AVSIM where it does not belong. As>was said; the Strine Press Release is news, and we published>it.The National Enquirer and other tabloids publish lots of crazy stuff that other people say. The Enquirer, by publishing a story that says Elizabeth Taylor is alien offspring, for example, certainly does act to facilitate the dissemination of such nonsense, regardless of whether they make an editorial comment on it or not. The fact that Avsim would elect to publish a Russ Strine "press release" but not one from Peter Tishma, for example, makes Avsim something more than just another bystander in these discussions. Providing front-page space on an extremely popular website certainly *is* facilitating a very public argument between these two respected parties. And for that Avsim bears some responsibility. It is certainly your right to do that, but I question whether it's right to do. I say it does more harm than good--my original point. These parties can argue amongst themselves on their own websites without Avsim creating a virtual boxing ring on one of the most public forums in the hobby.RegardsBob Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue has not been addressed here. That is, if in fact a model rightfully owned by another has been pirated and made available to the public as freeware, are we now participating in the alleged crime by using any such downloads or repaints?Instances of such alleged piracy by other parties of lesser stature have received much more severe censure. Is it possible that we are disinclined to hold accountable people whose skills have clearly benefited flight simulation? Moreover, is it possible that some of us are prepared to leave the fight safely hidden away from the public in order to avoid admitting the possibility that we ourselves are enjoying the benefits of something that is stolen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot topic for my first posting. :)If MAAM wrote: "Roy Chaffin when he left MAAM agreed not to model a package with the materials he was working on for the Briefing time release. It is our opinion he did base the RCS B25 on the art work etcetra he worked on while doing BT. Therefore he is in breach of our agreement here's why" But they did not MAAM crossed the line and therefore I'm having trouble buying their side. In my opinion as a outsider MAAM may have circumstantial evidance of a broken agreement.But the way in wich they presented this was wrong! I've read the release several times the more I do the more it becomes clear that MAAM really does not have a case with RCS so in order to give the case more weight wrote a statement that would ensure that the flight sim community destroy's RCS panels and Roy Chaffin.I have the trial version and was considering purchasing briefing time because I felt they where a good cause. Despite likeing the RCS B25 more, actually was thinking it was the pre-view shots when changing views and the trial version script across the panel that was making me like the free B25 over BT. But I do not like the way they conduct themselves, without honor therefore I will not support them. Mr. Chaffin and the RCS panels team thanks for the plane. Until MAAM show's real solid proof without bashing without honor I'll keep flying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not think it improper or illegal to use Roy's version..His version has, so far, not been declared by any genuine court to be stolen.. there is just an allegation - which doesn't mean squat as far as we are concerned.You know, I'm looking at this whole thing as basically just another divorce. All involved have seemingly worked hard *together* on the project, and it just seems very silly to split the "hairs".I feel that the partnership should have been dissolved properly, with each party taking home complete and functional parts of the whole. In a divorce, no one gets half of the car or half of the couch... its ridiculous. ""Is it possible that we are disinclined to hold accountable people whose skills have clearly benefited flight simulation?""Sure, some people will certainly view it that way. Especially considering Roy and his years of freeware work. I'm personally rather indifferent. My attention was drawn to this because of Avsim's, for a lack of better words, "promotion" of the fray.I don't know how many folks would like to see this go away because of personal guilt - I never downloaded any of the planes in question. Go figure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I'm dismayed. No-one would deny that the respective B-25s produced by MAAM-SIM and RCS-PANELS are superb pieces of work. Excellence, unfortunately, is not the exclusive domain of nice people. However, the work produced by both parties is a positive contribution to the body of resources available to us flight-simmers -let's just be grateful for that. In my opinion, disagreements between MAAM-SIM and RCS-PANELS should have been kept private. Is that not what e-mail is for? Opting for such a public reputation-trashing exercise only demonstrates the least admirable quality of those engaged in computer geekery - the complete absence of interpersonal skills! Is this not the time to call for a little dignity in these proceedings? This whole affair should be chased out the public domain. Let those involved resolve their differences in private, not flouncing around the forums in a flurry of talcum powder and a Monroe-esque pout.Although disposed to geekery myself, I reserve my nastiest traits for my private correspondence. I can heartily recommend it! Steve Flanagan:-roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, this is really not a private matter. It is a matter of public interest, as the product in question is one that is available to all who are able to download it.Legal recourses are fine and dandy to talk about, but we all know that they are difficult to pursue in a freeware/online community. If one of my creations was blatantly ripped off, I would first contact the individual in question and seek relief. If the individual in question told me to go jump off a cliff, that they didn't do anything wrong, then I would take my grievences public. So that anybody who downloads it knows exactly what they are getting.MAAM has done this exact thing and provided substantial evidence as well. Are there other issues at hand here, personal issues? Sure/Maybe, and they are not our issues. But, the knowledge that a product we have the ability to acquire contains stolen material, or material that was not authorized to be published. I admonish any who say we should not have been informed of that.Imagine a world where somebody gets their purse stolen, and when they try to scream that somebody stole their purse, the person next to them says.. "Quiet. I don't want to hear about it. Take it up with the thief personally."BAH! I am ashamed of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Imagine a world where somebody gets their purse stolen, and>when they try to scream that somebody stole their purse, the>person next to them says.. "Quiet. I don't want to hear about>it. Take it up with the thief personally."If this were only as simple as a purse-snatching.I can think of a number of more fitting analogies:You're sitting in a bar, and a long-time friend tells the bartender he's buying a round for everyone. A couple seconds later, his recently divorced ex-wife stands up, proclaims loudly across the bar that he hasn't paid his alimony this month, and the money he's buying that round with is therefore *hers*. Do you let your friend buy you a drink? I do--the rest is between he and she and the judge.You're at the county fair. A woman, who's a regular contributor to the local community, is giving away free hot dogs at a small stand. Next to her stand is a refreshment stand where her ex-husband is selling hot dogs to benefit a local museum. He comes over to the woman's stand, and begins telling her patrons that she bought the hot dogs they're eating with a joint credit card that was supposed to be closed. Do you eat a free hot dog? I do--he can deal with her about the credit card, if that's even true.In either case, I don't want the couple's unhappy situation playing out in front of me, and in both cases neither party gains a think by going public with their squabble.I'm having a hard time seeing anything like RCS "ruining" their reputation here...one doesn't generally fall into disrepute by sinking thousands of hours of work into a freeware gift to the community. There are some issues between MAAM and RCS, it would appear, but none so compelling and clear that we're all going to gasp in shock and horror and banish Roy and his team to the hinterlands, never to adorn us with free good stuff ever again. I'm going to have a drink and eat a hot dog here...the divorce court can settle the rest if MAAM and RCS can't settle their differences.Bob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this imaginary and emotive world where a purse is stolen, a more accurate analogy would be thus:Two friends each buy identical purses. At some later point in time they fall out and don't see each other. Then the first, whilst out and about, sees the other with a purse and assumes it to be her own, to the extent that that she publicly accuses the other of theft, and produces a shop receipt as evidence to prove that she had purchased just such an item.To me, this would seem to be what we have in this dispute. We have allegations and we have circumstantial evidence. We have no proof - one way or the other. We do have institutions to settle such matters, to investigate allegations, collate evidence and establish proof. There is also the right of defence, I believe. This forum is not such an institution and none of us who participate in the discussions herein has powers of judge, jury and executioner. Please do not presume that I possess the attributes of a person who would say "Quiet. I don't want to hear about it", simply for holding views different to your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with this statement 0%. Mr RCS Panels seems to be verry harsh on Pirates by posting names on his web site. Im shure that those guys never got a trial so It seems to me that maybe Mr Roy Chafin does not deserve no better treatment than what he offers others. now I think MAAM-SIM speled out his Proof verry well ie. the site it is not on any other aircraft other than BT. As for keeping this private NOT A CHANCE.. Un like programers I bild things with my hands that you can hold turn over look at and I know what I made when Im looking at it. Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the woman showed me proof that he hadn't paid his alimony, and if the husband demonstrated to me that the account really should have been closed, no... I wouldn't drink and I wouldn't eat. There are no moral ambiguities about doing the right thing and furthering our personal notions of what a truly civilized society is and should be. We may disagree on what that is, but I know what I want it to be, and what I expect it to be, and will conduct myself according to those principles.I am flabbergasted that somebody can say with a straight face that there is no proof. Have you taken an even cursory glance at the images in question? *SIGH* Things do not have to go to a court of law for them to be wrong or unlawful. That is mere diatribe and skirting around the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're saying then, is that the world is black and white, and right and wrong are clear for all to see. The real world I live in doesn't work that way...sorry.MAAM presented strong evidence that some of RCS' panel graphics were derived from some of the same source images as theirs. It does not answer the legal questions of whether RCS is entitled to use those pictures, given that they were originally produced by a joint venture of which RCS was a part...and it also does not answer my questions of whether *MAAM* was entitled to use those jointly-produced source graphics, either. It also does not answer many other questions, like at what point a modified picture ceases to be the work or intellectual property of others. And so on and so on.Questions of law are decided by the courts...and I see significant questions of both fact and of law here. Rather than join a self-appointed lynch mob--a phenomenon which appears quite regularly across the history of so-called "truly civilized society"--I prefer to see the matter resolved within the institutions society has created precisely for the civil resolution of such questions. A duel at 20 paces with weapons of choice might have been the answer before the courts took their place in civil society."eko"...I seem to have missed your name. Seems to me a person with such strong opinions to offer wouldn't hide behind an alias.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob,The images were not derived from the same source images - the images created by Bill Rambow were taken, altered and published by Roy Chaffin, in spite of removal of authority to use them by their author.Bill Rambow also did not use Roy Chaffin's images to create his published work - he went back and rephotographed the aircraft to create new source images. Roy Chaffin has stated that he "may have" used MAAM materials and that he knowingly ignored the removal of authority to use them. Any close look at the images included with the RCS aircraft shows that "may have" to be a "definately has".With respect to your question of the law, should this case be filed and heard in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or the United Kingdom? It is notoriously expensive to prosecute cases over the internet, because of the number of jurisdictions involved. That, in itself, is far from black and white legally. Then we have the question of whether the 3rd party company hosting the RCS package can be prosecuted for distributing stolen material and which legal entity has jurisdiction in *that* case? The costs start spiralling out of all control very quickly and the recourse is unlikely to cover them whoever wins.I am far from unbiased in this case, because I have been involved in the DC3/R4D project since before either Roy Chaffin or MAAM were approached about it and I have personally communicated with all persons involved except Russ Strine. During that time I have had several occasions when I have had cause to question Roy Chaffin's integrity and none, so far, to question that of Bill Rambow or any of the MAAM staff. I question the way this has been handled by them, because I believe it could have been dealt with far better, but will continue to back their stance because both morally and legally I believe them to be in the right.Ian Pearson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well,as far as i'm concerned,the world IS black and white,and people who think it is grey should leave for mars(gives you a LOT of pic flying hours).MAAM presented strong evidence,which has now been backed up by all the correspondence between MAAM an Roy Chaffin.if and when that is reviewed,it is clear one party is wrong here,and the other is right.black and white eh?.example:quote"(...."eko"...I seem to have missed your name. Seems to me a person with such strong opinions to offer wouldn't hide behind an alias....)"unquote.this is exactly why people think the world is grey:something totally unimportant,that does not have anything to do with what's discussed here,is dragged in.if people were to read carefully,it would be clear the issue is:did x steal my bitmaps? and the answer would be:yes he did.but he says he did not?i say he does,and i back it up with evidence.finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian; You clearly have resolved in your own mind, based on knowing some of the personalities involved, some of the issues of who did what to whom. Put yourself in my shoes, however...I know neither group personally...I only know and respect them both by their previous good works. I have neither the time nor the inclination to run every last piece of "evidence" to ground here...what I've seen leaves me with as many questions as answers. Matters of jurisdiction are a whole legal subspecialty, but I am most confident there are certainly one or more venues that could host an action if it comes to that. The matter of cost is present anytime two parties cannot resolve disputes between themselves...an omnipresent and compelling incentive for people to do whatever they can to avoid letting situations get to the point where litigation is needed in the first place. It's still better than losing the duel at 20 paces! :-) Finally, I still have a fundamental philosophical, if not legal, question of how far "ownership" of a bitmap or other image extends. The RCS bitmaps I've examined are non-trivially and significantly different than the MAAM ones supplied in the original posting. If I snap a picture of the Mona Lisa and take it home and draw in new clothes, new teeth, new hair etc etc...at what point does the derivative work cease being the intellectual property of the Louvre? I can't answer that, but it seems to me that there's a fuzzy line out there somewhere...something quite pertinent to the discussion at hand.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Wrote: >MAAM presented strong evidence,which has now been backed up by all >the correspondence between MAAM an Roy Chaffin. >if and when that is reviewed,it is clear one party is wrong >here,and the other is right.So this correspondence that neither you nor I have read proves, sight unseen, that one of the parties is right and one is wrong? The identity of a correspondent is quite important to me. Suppose Peter Tishma were posting his take on this as a piracy issue...his identity and track record would weigh heavily in how much credence I gave his arguments. An anonymous pundit bears no responsibility to be held accountable for the things he/she says, so his/her words are taken by many--myself included--somewhat lightly. >well,as far as i'm concerned,the world IS black and white,and people >who think it is grey should leave for marsMy experience is that generally, those who truly subscribe to black and white, right and wrong, etc as discrete all-or-nothing positions have their warm bubbles burst in the most unkindly ways by life's complex challenges. The religious zealot whose cherished son comes home with a "partner" named Charles...the euthanasia opponent watching his spouse writhe in pain with end-stage cancer...the pacifist watching foreign tanks roll through his capital virtually unopposed...etc etc. Live long anough and you'll be swimming in grey.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL GUlfstream II-III-IV-V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,I would agree that the world is firmly coloured in shades of grey.The problem here is that Roy Chaffin is claiming credit for things that aren't - and never have been - his and that he is deliberately attacking another organisation under cover of those claims. If he was so worried about not abandoning projects which "so much work has been put into", how do you explain his unilateral decision to cancel the GMAX R4D? That was complete, finished, ready to go. I have it installed at the moment and thoroughly enjoy flying it.The problem was - and remains - that it does not work with the then current Microsoft Home operating system, Windows ME, or it's more common predecessor Windows 98. This is because Roy had grossly overloaded the panel with security code an not because of any quality issue. Apart from the O/S crashing problem I cannot find a single bug in the product.It's fine to accept that both shades are grey, but one is most definately darker than the other.Ian Pearson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:>>So this correspondence that neither you nor I have read>proves, sight unseen, that one of the parties is right and one>is wrong?the correspondence kindly provided by Mr Rambow which i have READ,clearly shows one party at fault. >>The identity of a correspondent is quite important to me. >Suppose Peter Tishma were posting his take on this as a piracy>issue...his identity and track record would weigh heavily in>how much credence I gave his arguments. An anonymous pundit>bears no responsibility to be held accountable for the things>he/she says, so his/her words are taken by many--myself>included--somewhat lightly.first:it is not the messenger we're after,it's the message.once again:that message is clear.second:if the identity of a correspondent means that much to you,you would surely already know who to believe and who to discard.>My experience is that generally, those who truly subscribe to>black and white, right and wrong, etc as discrete>all-or-nothing positions have their warm bubbles burst in the>most unkindly ways by life's complex challenges. The>religious zealot whose cherished son comes home with a>"partner" named Charles...the euthanasia opponent watching his>spouse writhe in pain with end-stage cancer...the pacifist>watching foreign tanks roll through his capital virtually>unopposed...etc etc. Live long anough and you'll be swimming>in grey.>>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL GUlfstream II-III-IV-Vso all kind of havoc is bound to break loose just because i see the world black and white?this "argument" is highly amusing,but only that,amusing. i've taken my decisions the B and W way,and i do not regret them.now i've had some complex challenges in my life,still have infact,but to say "my warm bubbles burst in the most unkindly ways by life's complex challenges" ? ...nah...i just decide what's good and what's bad...works great,you should try it.makes life simple,and that much easier to understand.also,there is no need to hide,twist or re-arrange certain things,because you've kept it simple.RegardsTom van der Elst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bob,Your Mona Lisa comparison is very apt and the answer is that you actually infringed the copyright of the holder when you took the photograph of it, provided that the copyright had been claimed(*):http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga...en_3.htm#mdiv17That link is to UK law, but I strongly suspect that it is very similar in the U.S. - and France for that matter!Clause 6 of section 17 also applies in this case, as the copies are transient to some other use of the work - your edited version.(* - Russ Strine claimed copyright on all MAAM and Briefing Time images in his message to Roy Chaffin, as reproduced by MAAM in their statements and backed up by Roy's statement that he received this and chose to ignore it.)From my perspective as a flightsim and aircraft enthusiast, a legal case is going to do little or nothing to recover MAAM's lost income from RC's release of his version as freeware and will, in effect, only swell the bank balances of the lawyers involved. That doesn't keep BT and the R4D aloft or help other aircraft be restored and flown. On the other hand, if telling the flight simulation community what Roy Chaffin has done causes people not to download his aircraft and to purchase MAAM's instead, that damage will at least partially be offset.If this was done entirely behind closed doors in a court of law, very few people in this community would ever find out what had been done and fewer people still would care. It would all take so long to play out that the issue, to most people, would be moot. The law may come down on MAAM's side, but justice could not, because the damage has already have been done.What saddens me in particular here is that the Roy Chaffin is a very talented artist who does not NEED to resort to what he has done. I suspect, although as I have no access to the team do not know for sure, that only he is behind this. It further saddens me that a project RCS are intending to undertake which directly interests me, the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, is going to be harmed by it. I can specifically state that it will because I, for one, will not be purchasing it. I will send my money directly to the BBMF as a direct contribution if they want it, but will send it with a letter explaining why I will not buy a product from a team containing Roy Chaffin however good the cause.I understand your position entirely, even though I do not agree with you, and thank you for bringing a more sensible level of debate to this issue here than has been the case elsewhere.Regards,Ian Pearson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom wrote:>first:it is not the messenger we're after,it's the message.>once again:that message is clear.>>second:if the identity of a correspondent means that much to>you,you would surely already know who to believe and who to>discard.>You once again oversimplify, Tom. Society does indeed place value on the identity of the messenger as well as the message...that's why universities bestow degrees on their graduates and why credible technical and academic leterature requires detailed cites, including the identity of the source. There are thousands of internet pundits generating a veritable cacophony which can drown out any message with their noise.Knowing the identity of the author is part (but not all) of the process by which we assess the credibility of the message. Some sources I believe outright...some I take with a grain of salt, and some I disregard summarily. And the source's credibility may vary with the topic. Anonymous postings are suspect to me from the outset.>so all kind of havoc is bound to break loose just because i>see the world black and white?>this "argument" is highly amusing,but only that,amusing. >i've taken my decisions the B and W way,and i do not regret>them.>now i've had some complex challenges in my life,still have>infact,but to say "my warm bubbles burst in the most unkindly>ways by life's complex challenges" ? ...nah...i just decide>what's good and what's bad...works great,you should try it.>makes life simple,and that much easier to understand.>also,there is no need to hide,twist or re-arrange certain>things,because you've kept it simple.No...all kinds of havoc is breaking out every day all over the world. People get killed, wars break out, there are typhoons and earthquakes, floods, and plagues etc etc. Eventually life presents most of us with situations that challenge our world views. I suppose that if a person is simple enough, he or she might be able to take black-and-white positions on just about anything. Most folks I know that operate this way I would categorize as either fanatics or dullards...either they don't understand that things happening around them don't fit into their world view, or they don't care about those inconsistencies and are intransigent to a fault. I offer this not so much as an "argument," but more as an observation.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfsream II-III-IV-V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>first:it is not the messenger we're after,it's the message.>>once again:that message is clear.>>>>second:if the identity of a correspondent means that much to>>you,you would surely already know who to believe and who to>>discard.>>>>You once again oversimplify, Tom. Society does indeed place>value on the identity of the messenger as well as the>message...that's why universities bestow degrees on their>graduates and why credible technical and academic leterature>requires detailed cites, including the identity of the source.> There are thousands of internet pundits generating a>veritable cacophony which can drown out any message with their>noise.if society(plainly stating:YOU) DOES place value on the identity of "messengers" as well as their message,i just don't understand why you are not satisfied with the evidence and call it a night;as we all know the messenger(s) are reliable,their arguments are reliable,i'd say you would say(by your own arguments,see below also) it's true then eh?so it is Black and White.>>Knowing the identity of the author is part (but not all) of>the process by which we assess the credibility of the message.> Some sources I believe outright...some I take with a grain of>salt, and some I disregard summarily. And the source's>credibility may vary with the topic. Anonymous postings are>suspect to me from the outset.to me they are not,until they prove to be suspicious.now i'm not that freaked as to people knowing my name and/or tracing me down,others might be,their choice,i respect that.....either way,i'll first look at their message.i've more than once valued someone by his/her looks,only to find out they were totally different.....that is why i think you have to see the message,and not base your understanding of the message on the looks of the messenger....that will hurt them,but also you.people can look like some kind of idiot,whilst really they are a phd in whatever.now if YOU would not know them,you would classify them as idiots,and maybe miss the most rewarding experience of your life.not simple...that is plain stupid.>>>so all kind of havoc is bound to break loose just because i>>see the world black and white?>>this "argument" is highly amusing,but only that,amusing. >>i've taken my decisions the B and W way,and i do not regret>>them.>>now i've had some complex challenges in my life,still have>>infact,but to say "my warm bubbles burst in the most>unkindly>>ways by life's complex challenges" ? ...nah...i just decide>>what's good and what's bad...works great,you should try it.>>makes life simple,and that much easier to understand.>>also,there is no need to hide,twist or re-arrange certain>>things,because you've kept it simple.>>No...all kinds of havoc is breaking out every day all over the>world. People get killed, wars break out, there are typhoons>and earthquakes, floods, and plagues etc etc. Eventually life>presents most of us with situations that challenge our world>views. I suppose that if a person is simple enough, he or she>might be able to take black-and-white positions on just about>anything. Most folks I know that operate this way I would>categorize as either fanatics or dullards...either they don't>understand that things happening around them don't fit into>their world view, or they don't care about those>inconsistencies and are intransigent to a fault. >>I offer this not so much as an "argument," but more as an>observation.>>Regards>>Bob Scott>ATP IMEL Gulfsream II-III-IV-Vi think you make life a bit to complicated there Bob.my world views do not change because of a war or a typhoon,be it in my backyard or 10000 miles away.i will still be able to say what's right and what's wrong,IMHO!!i'm not simple,i only have a simple philosophy about life.people who are simple would not go into this debate,as they would be too simple to understand what it is you are talking about.i do care about inconsistencies,and i do feel for people that are in big trouble,but i'm "simple" enough to know i'm not able to change anything by myself.so i say my prayer,and move on.kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this