What happened to the MAAM announcement post?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"It is nice and refreshing though, to see the balanced and unbiased stance of our hosts.Especially in light of the fact that they are selling the MAAM product in thir store."Ah, here we go.... AVSIM has made no secret of our longstanding relationship with MAAM. Look at the Front Page for crying out loud. Duh. Of course we are biased; we support the MAAM organization, and have done so PUBLICLY for over 4 years. Geez.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

RE: What happened to the MAAM announcement post?, ba747heavy, May 11th 2003, #3See the number at the end? That the message number that is refered to in the response.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

"(...Everything posted on the issue by or on behalf of MAAM, has raised more questions than it answered, and in fact often raised outright suspicion. At least with me, on account of having a bad character AND a hearty lack of trust in human goodness, which together make for a quite interesting combination....)" indeed,a licensed psychiatrist would have an interesting case if you were to show up on his doorstep.provided said psychiatrist could handle it ofcourse. "(...Time for damage control, Bill. ....)"Bill??....you mean Roy right??"(....Everything posted on the issue by or on behalf of MAAM, has raised more questions than it answered, and in fact often raised outright suspicion. At least with me, on account of having a bad character AND a hearty lack of trust in human goodness, which together make for a quite interesting combination. ....)" not interesting enough,sorry."(....let others dig their own graves, instead of you digging yours. ....)" sheesh...a politician talking about work.....i mean...SHEESH!!but ah....that would be my advice to you....how ironic.you can come over for a beer anytime.

[Guest WorkingStiff]

Tom,That's exactly my point. There are no posts that are explicitly numbered in any of these threads. I simply can't scroll through this thread and see "post #3." If no one were to reply to post #3 I would never know that's the post number.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

"(...Sure Tom: MAAM says Roy broke the agreement, Roy says he kept the agreement... so let somebody produce the agreement for all of us to read and to decide who did or did not break it. That is ALL i ask, and that is ALL we need to form a (more or less) informed opinion.Jaap Verduijn. ...)" and THAT very agreement has been spelled out in Russ's article.it also states who violated the copyright agreement,and who did not.last but not least,it shows us PROOF that the agreement has been violated.yet you say you need even more.i am utterly convinced that even when a fully authorized judge SPELLS it out for you,you will not be able to admit that what Russ,Jan,Bill and others have showed us has actually happened.that's too bad,but hey,life goes on.would love to have you over for a beer,or maybe even two,provided you can handle that.

[rambow 0]

No, Tom. Jaap is certainly what he says he is - the devil's advocate, and I know which devil ;-) Although, Vicki thinks he's my brother, who loves to argue both sides of a case, just for grins. As soon as you really start to get ###### and hit him with the outrageousness of his argument, my brother Tim will switch sides and hammer on the other side of the coin. He once got me going about whether or not the Vietnam War was really a war. I should have smelled a rat, because my kid brother was a Huey door-gunner. As soon as he had me ready to burst a blood vessel, he grinned and said, "You're right, Vietnam WAS a war!" I guess he's sort of an amiable off-line troll. ;-)I keep waiting for Jaap to flip-flop like that. After all, he IS an admitted politician - hopefully a recovering one. ;-) Bill Rambow MAAM-SIM - Rambow, Visser, Banting, and Younghttp://www.fssupport.com/maam_sim/maamsim_logo.gif

[Guest Javis]

Jaap,( Your English is at least as good as mine, so on behalf of the>other forum visitors I will give my reaction in English)Sure, but what about your *Dutch* ?? Did you understand one word i said ? You say you even fully understand where Bill and me are coming from but i have to see the first proof of that yet....do you have a witten agreement on that by any chance ? Or a contract maybe....Here you go happily onwards with this law-court and contract baloney, quite a hobby-horse of you,isn't it. I sense much more then FS is,no doubt. Well, our hobby-horse *is* FS, creating some nice stuff for it to the best of our ability and helping an aircraft museum to the very much needed revenues on top of that. What could an honest and dedicated FS add-on designer want more. No contracts or written agreements needed, just dedication and love for the hobby.What i gather from *your* hobby-horse evaluations is, that if you catch somebody walking away with your stereo set right underneath your nose you just let him get away with that,right ? Rather then grab him hot handed you go to court which will cost you a small fortune because you couldn't come up with the bill to prove that you are the rightfull owner of that stereo set. Nice hobby...>However, he kept hollering that "We will supply the community>with PROOF that Roy Chaffin STOLE things", but instead of>giving actual proof, Russ Strine produced a document that>showed quite remarkable similaties (not to say identicalities)>between parts of Roy's product and the beta-version of Bill's>product. In the same document Russ admits that parts of the>MAAM product are similar (or identical) to parts of Roy's>product. Since you love proof so much, the above proves without any doubt that you really don't know what you're talking about. Let me explain to you again : Roy has always been the gauge programmer of the R4D Team, a job which comprises solely the writing of code, nothing graphical about that non what so ever. As a member of the R4D Team Roy has never ever produced something graphical like panel or gauge bitmaps,that has always been the job of Bill. So if anything identical is showing up in the panel/gauges of both the MAAM B-25 and the RCS B-25 it is ALWAYS Bill's work and NEVER Roy's work. And please do not reverse the situation here, Jaap.*If* it would be true that there's some of Roy's work to be found in the MAAM B-25 it can only be in the gauge programming, NOT the graphics and if you bothered to look inside your FS/gauge folder you would've found only *one* MAAM_B25.gau and a truckload of RCS_B25*.gau files ( if you have both models of course ) A simple look inside the panel.cfg would've made you aware of which gauges belong to which panel. No similarities here. It's all about Bill's graphics work appearing in the RCS B-25 panel, NOT the other way around as you seem to want to insinuate with such grandeur. Why don't you take off your 3D glasses and put on normal ones for a change, you might be able to distinguise 'the trees from the forest'...Like i tried to get across to you in our mother tongue earlier, do you have the slightest idea of how much work and effort Bill has put into creating the B-25 panel and gauge graphics ? Do you have the slightest idea how it feels like to see that enormous amount of work turn up in another B-25 panel which has clearly been created just to jeorpadize the cause of what Bill created the panel for in the first place, to help an aircraft museum keep the real thing flying ? My Gawd,Jaap, what more do you need to see the irony of this all, 4D glasses ?? >Yes? And so what? Russ and Bill base their concept of "theft">on, and keep referring to, an alleged contract that forbids>both sides to use each others work, but refuse to show us that>contract. As far as all of us know, that alleged contract>might contain the exact OPPOSITE, namely permission for both>sides to actually USE (parts of) each other's work that dates>back to the sadly snuffed cooperation. Again, there is no contract, alleged or not. Talking about an 'alleged contract' which 'might contain' something which springs from your own mind ?? And, as if that wasn't enough already, get ' all of us ' into this totally unfounded insinuation as well ?? Hmm, i have a strong suspicion that your 'law-court and contract' hobby-horse is indeed only a hobby, atleast i very much hope so because if it had anything to do with your profession i fear very much for the rightfulness of the dutch jurisdiction.>If (I say IF) such a contract exists, and if (I say IF) it>indeed contains what Strine/Rambow maintain it contains, they>have a sound legal case against Roy Chaffin. As Gosta>explained here on this forum, it is neither difficult nor>expensive to settle this matter in court. 'If ifs and ans were pots and pans...' As in our 'As is verbrande turf ' , Jaap, don't you know ? Why bother ? >So why on earth don't they DO that? If you accuse a person of>a crime (copyright theft is not a misdemeanor but a felony!),>and you can prove he is a thief on base of a contract he>signed... why on earth NOT go to court and NOT produce the>alleged contract? Why damage yourself and your organisation> MAAM) by raising a stink on internet without providing the>ONLY piece of REAL evidence: THE CONTRACT?Again, this whole rambling on is based on ' If ifs and ans were pots and pans' some legal advisor your are, Jaap. My advice is to immidiately quit that hobby and stay with FS. Or take up MSTS, then you can go driving thru red signs all the time. Looks great with 3D glasses on ! >Right now all the accusations are backed up by NOTHING.Ermm, *your* accusations are backed up by nothing. If and ans and pots and pans, yes, sure. Ours are by the irrefuteable evidence of the use of Bill's hard earned graphics work by RCS by means of bitmap comparison which you can see for yourself if you take your 3D glasses off and have a more then 1 second look at them. DID you actually have a look at them ? DO you have any idea what you're looking at ? Regarding your nonsense writing here i fear not. Please have a look again, Jaap, because THAT'S what it's all about, not some 'alleged contract' which only exists in your mind and which seems the only thing you can come up with. When you're flying either the MAAM or RCS B-25 in FS, are you looking at a 'contract' ?? No, you are looking at Bill's hard work in either one of them, with changed colors and moved about gauges in the latter. Again, THAT'S what it's all about, not your silly alleged contract mumbo jumbo.> Sure:>it certainly looks like Roy used some of Bill's work. And>sure: by his own admission Bill certainly used some of Roy's>work.Really ?? Where exactly did you get that impression from ?? Like i said earlier, as was the case with the R4D, Roy's work for the B-25 existed solely in gauge programming. For the B-25, as will be the case with the still to be released GMax R4D ( if it wasn't for Roy's dislike of virtual cockpits it would've been outthere for more then a year now....) all gauge programming is done by Fred Banting. Period. > But as I said before: neither fact means a bloody thing.>They can only mean something in the context of the contract,>and if (I say IF!) this contract states that neither party can>under any circumstances use the work of the other party, only>THEN might Roy Chaffin be considered a thief, and be convicted>in court.Roy doesn't need to be convicted in court, he just has to withdraw his B-25 model of which the panel consists of rehasted panel and gauges bitmap work by Bill Rambow, and re-release it with an original made panel and gauges for all we care. Is that too much to ask ? Do we need to go to your precious court for a thing like that ? Come on now ! It would just be fair because that was exactly what Roy agreed upon in an email between him and Russ Strine when the earlier R4D Team fell apart. There then, there you have your precious 'written agreement' are you happy now ? I'm sure you'd like to see that particular email but we decided not to include it in the document because it is personal and, besides, of all people YOU should certainly be aware of the fact that email can never help to proof anything. >The interesting thing is that then, and only THEN, the same>sad fate befalls Bill Rambow who, by the same contract wording>which makes Roy a thief of Bill's stuff, makes Bill a thief of>Roy's stuff. I don't need to explain a third time, Jaap, do i ?......>You see, Jan: all hinges on the exact clauses and wording of>the alleged contract, and as long as Bill/Russ keep refusing>to show us that contract and refuse to go to court, I keep>smelling a great, big, Mid-Atlantic, flightsimulating rat. Atleast that's a beginning, Jaap, only you need to adjust your compass, the flightsimulating rat you're talking about is to be found at this side of the pond. >Now for something completely different (grin)! Would it be>possible to remove the yoke from the virtual cockpit of>Briefing Time? Your virtual cockpit is the only one I like to>use (my compliments, mate!), but in stereo 3D (eDimensional>glasses) the yoke, which is in a third plane of focus (or>rather UN-focus) turns out to be a headache producing>unfocussed blob...I have a better idea, since you probabely got both the B-25 models, use the RCS B-25 to fly from within the virtual cockpit, nothing will be out of focus there. In ending i'd like to advice you once more to *only* use your 3D glasses while simming, they are not feasable for reading important documents. The constant flipping about of the shutters can make you easily get the wrong impression and might even make you write utter nonsense without you knowing about it. And, when that happens, don't even think about taking your 3D glasses to court because they didn't sign any contract or written agreement. The're just hobby 3D glasses.I sure hope you might 'get the picture' ( pun intended) some day soon, Jaap, else i'd feel very sorry for you being so misguided and utterly wrong.Jan

[Guest]

Hey Tom, Why are you guys arguing with this guy, it is obvious that he is either on Roy's payroll or is lacking in the basic human value's which this should be judged on. Mitch

[Guest]

Now I know where Bush Lawyers hang out..He is a legend and an integral part of folk law and ledged in Australia. As his name describes, he practices his craft in the bush

[Guest Guruswarmyoz]

>Hi there,>>first I'd like to say that, if copyright law was as>all-encompassing as a lot of paricipants in flight-sim forums>make it out to be, you wouldn't be able to take a dump without>violating the toilet manufacturer's copyright.>>As to the Australian case (Gutnick v Dow Jones Co), the>plaintiff claimed that defamatory material has been published>in his place of residence (i.e. Australia). Upon finding that>the material was published on the Internet, and that thus was>available world-wide, including the complainant's place of>residence (Australia), the Australian court assumed>jurisdiction over the matter. It's a no-brainer, really - the>only surprising thing was that US lawyers actually tried to>challenge the ruling (Don't they have a rule blacklisting>vexatious litigants and their attorneys?) >>Cheers,>>Gosta.>>P.S. I'm aware that there are various states/territories in>Australia - the actual case was filed in Victoria.> >http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg> >Gosta thanks for the correction, being no legal eagle but realising that this decision will have far reaching ramafications. I for one found it an interesting decision.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Although Tom will undoubtedly refuse to believe me, WorkingStiff is correct. There are no posts that are explicitly numbered in any of these threads. Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Watch out Mike! I am probably less than a day removed from being kicked off this board, and it seems you're next in line to be considered "Simon" and be put on the shortlist for being digitally snuffed. Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Bill!"(...) I keep waiting for Jaap to flip-flop like that. After all, he IS an admitted politician - hopefully a recovering one. ;-) (...)"Naaah... being in politics incapacitates one for life. No 12 step program can be of help anymore. Not even a 120 step program, or a 1200 step one... (grin)!As for doing the flip-flop and changeing devils/positions: sure, that would be possible, but it wouldn't be any FUN! I would simply be joining the general mob under the benign guidance of Tom "Bias" Allensworth, and I've never derived any pleasure from going forth with crowds.However, if I happen to encounter a forum where the manager is utterly PRO-Chaffin even to the extend that he stifles other voices and calls them "Simon", I will immediately begin my subversive actions there, and tirelesly point out the inconsistensies, stupidities and outright lies in whatever Roy Chaffin might happen to holler from his sad little English rooftops. So if you know of such a forum: by all means point me in its direction!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Tom van der Elst!Beer, eh? Better not: I'm a "dry" alcoholic. Been dry for a lot of years now, and I like to keep it that way. But if you like to come around and empty the booze cabinet that I keep for guests, you're welcome. Search for me and my address on Google or possibly Ilse, and see if it might be worth your while.With prints of the documents in front of us, it will be easier for me to point out in a detailed way that the agreement that you say "has been spelled out in Russ' article", is NOT the agreement that the MAAM crew keeps referring to. If you look back at several recent posts in this thread, MAAM themselves eventually states that the have not published that agreement, beccause they are not allowed to. Bill Rambow (you reading this, Bill?!) will undoubtedly confirm this: if I'm not mistaken, Bill, you need Roy's permission to publish the emails containing the agreeement, and indeed you will do so the very moment that permission will (or rather might...) be given.So Tom, Bill Rambow himself states very clearly that the agreement in question has NOT YET been published or otherwise shown to us. Why on earth then do you insist that is has been "spelled out in Russ' article"? It hasn't: Russ can't, because according to Bill Rambow himself they need Roy Chaffin's permission to do so, which permission Bill would be very happy to receive in order to finally satisfy even ME (wide grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest ha5mvo]

"I am probably less than a day removed from being kicked off this board"I sure hope this would not happen, It will be very sad if one will not be able to speak out his mind (be it right or wrong) lest it will not coincide with the 'general' or admin's opinions.//Mike