What happened to the MAAM announcement post?

[Christopher Low 5,324]

Jaap,I suspect that Tom simply misunderstood the question.Chris Low,ENGLAND.

[Guest ha5mvo]

"you're next in line to be considered "Simon" "Didn't get that one...who (what) is (a) "Simon"?pardon for the ignorence...//Mike V

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Yes Mike, I agree. Nevertheles Tom Allensworth won't tolerate me disagreeing with him much longer. Now of course this is HIS place, and he has the fullest right to personally decide what can be said here and what can not; I won't contest that right in any way. But a forum where dissident voices are stifled is kind of a sad place. What continues to strike me is that so many people on this forum INSIST that they have read and are familiar with the contents of the agreement between MAAM and Chaffin. They continuously attack me when I say: "No, we have NOT seen that agreement. MAAM has NOT published it here, or anywhere else". They even disbelieve Bill Rambow himself who came to my aid and posted here that the MAAM team has NOT published the agreement in question, becauae they are waiting for (probably and sadly in vain...) for Roy Chaffin's persmission to do so. Guys, not only *I* say that the agreement has NOT yet been made available to us by the MAAM crew; Bill Rambow HIMSELF says that the agreement has NOT yet been made available to us by the MAAM crew.The reason why they haven't published it, is very clear and totally acceptable: MAAM needs the permission of "the other party" to show the agreement to us, and that permission has not been given.So those members of this forum who keep insisting that they have read this agreement between MAAM and Chaffin, can NOT have read it here on AVSIM, for the simple reason that not a single word of it was published here, neither in Russ Strine's statement nor anywhere in this forum. The only way they can have read this agreement is through Roy Chaffin/RCS, for MAAM has (for very good reasons, as Bill Rambow has convinced me) NOT made it available to the public. Be well, and don't be surprised if I'm suddenly gone. I am, as Tom Allensworth has made clear in unmistakable terms, on the very brink of being removed from AVSIM. And you, Mike, better shut up or you will join me in exile (sad grin)!Jaap Verduijn.Edited by me in order to add: I see a broken link to an attachment in this post. Now I did NOT add an attachment since I don't have anything to attach. So simply ignore the broken link: it's broken because there's nothing there. Dunno where the link comes from. J.V.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Hi Mike!"Simon" is Simon Evans, who was long ago banned from AVSIM. Recently Tom Allensworth decided that a forum member named Chas was also Simon, and subsequently banned him (Chas is NOT Simon, I happen to know that for a fact). Then Tom got the impression that *I* was Simon as well, and it took him a check on my IP to discover that I'm hardly likely to be. People here who speak with a dissident voice, are first called "Simon" by Tom, and subsequently banned from AVSIM. It's always fun to wait who will be the next "Simon" in Tom's unfathomable brain; after subsequently the real Siman, Chas, and me, there is a fair likelyhood of that being you (wide and wicked grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Possible. We should allow for Tom misunderstanding things.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest ha5mvo]

after subsequently the real Siman, Chas,>and me, there is a fair likelyhood of that being you (wide and>wicked grin)!>>Jaap Verduijn.I should then take on your friendly advise and shut up ( I doubt though if I could resist the temptation :) ).Anyway, I think that opting for the 'lynch' approach in that whole MAAM-RCS saga was a big shot in the foot. Rather than getting sympathy for their cause they turned Chaffin into the underdog of this entire affair.I honostly can't see how banning you, me or anybody else for that matter, and making this thread one-sided is going to serve any purpose.Just an opinion...//Mike V

[Guest jaapverduijn]

"(...) I think that opting for the 'lynch' approach in that whole MAAM-RCS saga was a big shot in the foot. Rather than getting sympathy for their cause they turned Chaffin into the underdog of this entire affair (...)"That's what I have been saying from the beginning. I have in several messages practically BEGGED both MAAM and AVSIM to remove Russ Strine's statement from the site and cool down the forum threads. AVSIM should have protected the MAAM guys against themselves, and kindly but decidedly have refused to publish Russ Strine's statement, or at least have asked Russ to change the wording to something less counterproductive. "(...) I honestly can't see how banning you, me or anybody else for that matter, and making this thread one-sided is going to serve any purpose (...)"Sure. But Tom Allensworth likes to keep the peasants in line (grin)!Either "see you later", or "farewell"!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

"(...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.....)"okay,coffee it will be then,i'll do a search and see what i come up with :-),as i'm not a licensed psychiatrist,i'll manage ...."(.....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.....)"yes,but the agreement is referred to in the Email Russ Strine sent to Roy Chaffin,and if you read that CAREFULLY,you can distilize that very agreement out of BOTH parties wording.so,in a sense we DO know the agreement,although not it's exact wording.and so i can say:it is SPELLED out in Russ's article.because it IS.you just have to READ and READ again,but there is on BUT:if one did not have the basic knowledge of trust and it's definition as most people have,then one COULD be led to believe MAAM is not doing the right thing.however,if and when we stick to our values as we've learned them through the years,we should be able to see the distinction between right and wrong as clearly as black and white,and be able to rule out the grey.that would mean in this case we ARE able to see who is the wrong party,and who is right.without all the hullabaloo about MAAM may-be using some of RCS's gauges,the issue becomes quite clear.maybe it is my youthfull innocence,or maybe i'm just stupid:i believe what MAAM has shown me,i believe the facts presented,and i believe i know roughly what the agreement made stood for.as i'm not representing either parties,i don't NEED to know the exact agreement,and neither do you,tinky,winky,la-la and oh-oh.especially when the agreement is made clear(without writing it in full) in Russ's his documented story of a theft.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

" RCS B-25 - Statement "RCS Panels would like it to be known, that the RCS B-25J FREEWARE package is 100% legal. During the past few days, many accusations have been made that our package infringes MAAM's copyright. This we strongly refute. So far none of the accusations have been backed up with any form of evidence. When such evidence is made available to RCS Panels, we will defend our position and offer the proof necessary to substantiate our case.RoyOn behalf of RCS Panelsall the accusations have been backed up with every form of evidence.

[Guest Milamber]

Nope...your still a little wrong. You sound like a lawyer but I don't know from what country. I am a lawyer in the US and although defamation is not may specialty, I do know the elements and the current state of the common law of defamation in most states here. And in your garden variety defamation case not involving public personas, the speaker's subjective belief is not the end of the case. That's because the 'mens rea' (state of mind for you non-lawyers) requirement of the tort can be negligence. That means that if you believe that what you said is true but you were negligent in determining whether the fact was indeed true, then you can be found liable. Your specific belief is only part of the story. In some cases it is theoretically possible for the court to apply a strict liability standard...ie there would be no mens rea required. But courts rarely will use that standard, they usually would require some sort of negligence on the part of the speaker.

[Guest]

Dear Mr Jaap VerduijnSorry - you're wrong there. Chas is Simon and Simon is Chas, the evidence is crystal clear.You are clearly not interested in anything but arguing for its own sake. You are trolling, which is not only unpleasant but extremely boring. Please do everyone a favour and find something constructive to do - you've written thousands of words already and everyone is clear on your views. You are now repeating yourself ad nauseam and becoming obsessed. If you do not stop soon I suggest you see a doctor and ask him to examine your need to write obsessively.It is not good for your health, and it is very boring for everyone else. Thanks,Rob Young

[gosta 0]

Hi there,>You sound like a lawyer but I don't know from what country.:). The mens rea element can be satisfied by negligence, but only gross negligence, which itself requires an element of malice. Strict liability can usually only be applied in cases involvong the re-publication of a statement previously found to be defamatory (although the author/publisher of both statements does not have to be identical). But even then, it's not like your typical strict liability offence, such as drink-driving, rather the court will make a general assumption of negligence (i.e. a reasonable person would have to have been grossly negligent not to know the statement was defamatory), which then eliminates the requirement for the plaintiff to show that that the defendant in this case has been negligent.Cheers,Gosta. http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest jaapverduijn]

"(...) Chas is Simon and Simon is Chas (...)"Well, that seems be be some sort of fanatical religious belief around here. You may in dedicated faith stick to it until after a long and happy life you die of old age in 2050 or for all I care 3050, but no belief of you will make Chas and Simon one and the same person. I really see no way to unite two individual blokes, who are not even blood-related, into one. But this Simon/Chas myth sure contributes to the amusement value of this extremely entertaining soap!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest Javis]

>But this Simon/Chas myth sure contributes to the amusement>value of this extremely entertaining soap!Yes,instigated,written and directed by one Jaap Verduin, who, sadly enough, seems the only one who thinks it has any amusement value. In any case, we all have to start somewhere, don't we, so let's not be too harsh on someone's first try to contribute anything to the FS community even if it hasn't any value what so ever. All beginnings are difficult. Since we're all here to help one another i do like to give Mr.Verduin some advice though : take your soap writing/conducting aspirations to Endemol, don't bother us with it anymore. Instead, install a simple paintprogram on your computer and try to draw a line. Don't give up, it's not as hard to do as it might look to you initially. You might get the hang of it in a day or so and maybe, who knows, a whole new world might open up for you. Looks to me as though you can really do with that. When you have finished your new accomplishment of drawing a line in your paintprogram please don't hesitate to make a screenshot of it and post it here in the Avsim Screenshot forum. I,for one, and probabely everyone else, will be eagerly looking forward to that because it will be ten times more interesting to look at then your conducted soap.Oh, and i herewith resign as an actor in your directed soap because i am extremely bored and have much better things to do.Looking forward to the screenshot of your first self drawn line !Jan

[Guest]

HI Jan,I've got an even better idea: After he has drawn the line he could come back here (or preferably somewhere else) and set up a thread of his own, and thoroughly enjoy arguing with himself, the idea being that in one post he could argue point A, then reply to himself with point B, ad infinitum. He could then beat his own world record of 35 (and still counting) posts in one thread, all saying the same thing.Rob