What happened to the MAAM announcement post?

[Guest IanP]

Thanks Tom... I now expect an e-mail, by the way, telling me which category you are including me in! :-hah ;-)Ian P.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Why, the most favorable one, of course. :-lol

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Ian P.!"(...) If a written agreement exists, it backs that instruction up, but the instruction was given and is legally valid (...)"What reason do you have to believe that, if a written agreement exists, it backs that instruction up? The remarkable reluctance of Rambow c.s. to produce said agreement, suggests that it might in fact do the exact opposite. We do not know what's in the agreeement, for the plain and simple reason that the MAAM crew refuses to tell us. Without them telling us, we have no way of knowing whether Roy has violated said agreement or not. But the reluctance to disclose the contents of the agreement speaks volumes."(...) before challenging what people know, find out who they are, first (...)"I know who you are. You are one of the faceless crowd who post on the internet without signing their full name.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest IanP]

It doesn't matter who I am, although I do know considerably more about this than you do. Look at a few other names (and easily identifiable nicknames) in this thread whose comments and statements you have ignored, then look in other threads and product manuals and see who they are.What reason do I have to believe what any written agreement says? Because I know the history and story here. Because I know the people involved here and what they do for a living. Of course, if you did a little research yourself, you would know that too. I suggest you start with Bill Rambow.I seem to remember you stating elsewhere that you were involved in politics. If that is correct, that might explain your insistence on sticking to a point that is, at best, minor, whilst ignoring the mass of facts presented before you. It's something that modern politics is absolutely apalling about. In the UK it is known as "spin" and it is exactly what you are trying to do with this thread, "spin" it away from existing evidence because you wish people to believe a different reality than the evidence shows.Ian P(earson).

[Guest IanP]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll believe you... I never did get to find out what your reply to me on the previous thread that you deleted was, though. I clicked on it as you deleted the thread... ;-)Ian P(earson, for Jaap's benefit)

[Guest Milamber]

Actually not totally true. What you just refered to is called "Actual Mallice" which states that not only must the statement be false but the speaker/author must also have exhibited a reckless disregard of the truth. So if he honestly believed in the statement and had no reason to believe otherwise, he is not guilty of any defamation. BUT "Actual Malice" only applies with public personas...Those that have thrust themselves in the public eye so-to-speak. For common individuals (and companies), a lesser standard is used. That being whether the statement was true or false, regardless of the belief of the speaker.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Greetings Ian!Well, it's good you know so much (that's not even sarcastic), for you might be able then to answer my never yet replied to question: why do Rambow and Strine keep refusing to produce the agreement that they claim Chaffin has violated? Right now it seems they want us to believe Chaffin violated the agreement because they (Rambow and Strine) SAY he violated the agreement. That's not good enough. In fact it is mighty suspicious. IF that agreement says what they say it says (that's a lot of says!), I cannot think of a good reason to refuse showing it to us. IF, on the other hand, it does NOT say what they say it says, then the reason to refuse showing it to us is evident! The MAAM crowd handles this issue in an exceedingly bad way. It's quite astonishing.Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

Stiff, my reply to you finished up in the original location. I guess I clicked on "Send" just before Tom move the thread to here. Oh, the intricacies of the digital universe (grin)!Jaap Verduijn.

[Guest]

I think that most here are really missing the true point of this whole affair. You can spout laws and statue's in the US, UK or elsewhere, to me thats not the real issue.When the MAAM B-25 project was started, who where the ones that wanted to do the Mitchell. I think it is very obvious that it was Russ and Bill. I think that if you go back thru all the previous post on this matter and other's, I do beleive you will find more in reference to the attitudes and action's of Roy Chaffin. Not the member's of the now MAAM-SIM. How many out there have enjoyed the other freeware aircraft that Jan and Bill have been associated with in the past. I don,t recall prior to Roy,s connection with Bill and Jan that he had donated much to this hobby. Yes he had some freeware panels, however you had to purchase some of the gauges for it's use. I might be wrong here, but I have been in this hobby on a daily bases for better then 6 yrs. Now back to the B-25, I think it is pretty darn obvious why Roy produced his freeware B-25, my belief is he fully and intentionally wanted to put the screws to the MAAM team. A lot of you that are making arguement that Russ and Bill are acting with emotion. Give me a break. If you guys can't see the motivation behind Roy's action's, then all I can say is somewhere you have lost the ability to regonize bad human nature. And from an individual that feels he has to have a wall of shame posted on his web site. Don't recall seeing that done anywhere else.Some will make the arguement that Roy continued with the B-25, because of the time he had already invested in to it. The problem is at the time of the split up and by his on admition he would have to start all over again anyway. So that brings up another question. Roy is a British subject (always liked that one, subject) so why the overwelming desire to model an American aircraft. Yes some where built in England, but it is still the work of the USA. I would think if I was a member of the UK I would be more inclined to model perhaps a Lancaster, Bristol Beaufort or a Wellington. We in the Flight Sim community are made up of a very huge mix of individuals. Different ages, sexes and from just about every country in the world. I think this alone makes this a very special group, the majority of the time we put away our religous and political beliefs and come together. Very rare indeed in these modern times. The fact is though where all members of humanity and for us to function like this there are unmentioned values we honor. To me the work that the members of the MAAM-SIM team is doing is a very noble thing. They are putting hundreds of hours of their time into projects that they do not profit from. Their work goes to restoring the actual aircraft the majority of us value, otherwise I don't believe we would have the interest we do in this hobby. You can argue this and that all day about laws and such. The raw fact of the matter is I believe that Roy Chaffin's motivation was to go against the very values that make our relationships work. And I feel that for the sake of the Flight simming community and the work that MAAM-SIM is doing, Russ was very wise in pointing out the obvious actions of Mr. Chaffin to harm the MAAM project. Am I emotional over this? D*mn right I am. I myself can do with out these types of individuals.Well I have said my peice and I know this will raise the hairs on the necks of all the "I am above that" individuals out there. So, I will say before hand that in my country we have the freedom of beliefs and speech and we extend that to all other individuals in the world. (All though all the country's don't have this freedom.) These are my beleifs and your welcome to have yours.MitchJackson, TNLong live the USA.http://forums.avsim.com/user_files/9468.gif

[Guest crashing_pilot]

"(...contents of that agreement were. For all we know the agreement might allow the exact thing Roy did (using parts of the work done by Rambow before the split-up) and the exact same thing Bill did (using parts of the work Chaffin did before the split-up). BOTH parties used part of the other crowd's work...)" all we (who read the MAAM article thoroughly) know is that:"(...Since Roy had told me he intended to finish the B-25 with his team, regardless of my choice, I wrote this in response. "I reserve all copyrights to all simulations, images, and other representations of its (MAAM's) aircraft and liveries to include its panels, interiors, furnishings, both interior and exterior, nose art, names, markings, serial numbers, logos and proprietary sound bytes as well as the trademarks and monikers Mid Atlantic Air Museum, MAAM, MUSEUM REVIEW, MAAM-SIM, and World War II Weekend. Use of any of these real or intellectual properties is expressly prohibited without written permission in the form of properly executed release by the Mid Atlantic Air Museum." I expressed my sincere appreciation for all of Roy's past contributions and the desire that we part with respect for each other. I asked that he therefore discontinue work on and intent to release his B-25 simulation.In his answer to my letter, Roy expressed surprise and assured me that my fears were groundless concerning the use of Briefing Time as a model for their B-25. He stated that their B-25 would be finished portraying a completely different aircraft, and declaring that "RCS is a professional organization and we fully understand intellectual property and copyright law".....").As this was written in an apparently saved email,that makes RCS a copyright violator imho.Also,we who READ this article,know this:"(...Roy stated that many of the photographs in the beta version of the B-25 were his and can not be used by MAAM-SIM without permission, which they did not have. He said, and I quote, "I personally guarantee that we will not use 'Briefing Time' material."...")so Roy WRITES that RCS is NOT going to use any "BRIEFING TIME" materials.then again,we,who have read the article,while our brains were actually capable of understanding what it said,see this:"(...Roy's authorship of the code is certainly not in dispute, and we have replaced it all with code written from scratch by Fred Banting....)"so,the guys from MAAM-SIM changed all the code written by Roy,for code written by Fred Banting.way to go.and while our brains are still at work,we read this:"(....Dear Roy: I have seen the screen shots you have posted on your web site regarding your upcoming B-25 freeware release. First of all congratulations are in order for your pending release. However the instrument panel photos that you have displayed are of my B-25, Briefing Time's instrument panel with some instruments moved around. I know this because there are specific items utilized in Briefing Time's actual panel which I personally crafted and which stand out very strongly in your work. Our agreement was that you would not use any photographic data from "Briefing Time" in your work. Very recently I personally gave Alan permission to use BT sound recordings for your B-25 release, however stipulated that MAAM be given proper credit for its use. That is all that may be used. IN accordance with your strong distaste for "piracy" against your own work, and, in accordance with our agreement I trust that you will not utilize the Briefing Time images in your release. Sincerely, Russ Strine....)"So,their agreement was NOT to use Briefing Time material.ah...and it is WRITTEN as well....hmmm...then,my by now mortally wounded brains read this:"(...That same day, Roy answered, saying "...we have honoured the agreement that you and I struck last year..." He went on to say that their package was NOT (his emphasis) Briefing Time or its panel and that it was modeled on a completely different aircraft. Roy stated that none of the graphics in the package were "rehashed photographs, but all hand drawn graphics." He claimed to have a "wealth of aircraft establishments that are only too happy to cooperate" and that theirs was a "generic" panel drawn from many different B-25's and instruments. Roy said that the copyright to the sound samples belongs to Alan, and that anyway they did "credit the source of the files accordingly". He also claimed that, "notwithstanding any agreement between you and I, the copyright of any photographs I took of BT also belongs to me, however as none of those photographs are contained in this product, it is not an issue."...)" well good golly,RCS writes it again:"we have honoured the agreement you and i struck last year."aha...so there is such an agreement...otherwise Russ would not say so right?.Or Roy,for that matter,right?and as we read above,it basically forbids Roy to use anything BT related.okay...then my stumped brains read this:"(... The RCS B-25 is not pirated from the MAAM-SIM B-25J 'Briefing Time' aircraft package. Read that again. Instead, it has been stolen, in large part, directly from the Briefing Time Beta Demo introduced by Bill and Roy at the 2002 World War II Weekend show. First we'll look at the aircraft...)"oh man....there it is... it says:READ THAT AGAIN.maybe you should do that.and then,maybe you could go back to politics...not that it helps any,but hey,that'll keep you out of this forum...on the other hand,there is little you can destroy here...and finally,you stated this:"(... part of the faceless crowd,that....)" i'm sorry,but the fact that you sign your posts with Jaap Verduijn,doesn't (to me atleast) mean that you ARE indeed a mr,oh sorry,no mr,just:Jaap Verduijn.you are as faceless as anybody else on this forum,including me.i sign my post with :Tom van der Elst.did anybody guarantee you that this is my real name?.don't think so.for all i care you could be that little (omitted fowl language) of a JP Balkenende,who vents off his bad bad negotiating days.that's about it.

[Guest Feek]

I've been chatting (via email) with Bill Rambow today.The agreement in question is all contained within an exchange of private emails between Russ Strine and Roy Chaffin.The reason that Russ and Bill haven't published it is because the exchange contains a written restriction from Roy prohibiting them from doing so.If Roy wishes to release them from that restriction then they will be published immediately.K.PS - In case you're wondering who I am, I'm not a faceless nameless person either. My full name is Keith Maton and I have known Bill Rambow for many years, and specifically been involved with the DC3/R4D project from literally day one which was quite a long time before Roy Chaffin was involved. I led the Beta Team for Briefing Time.

[gosta 0]

No, I did not refer to actual malice - and it does apply to everyone, not only public personas as you stated.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest jaapverduijn]

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.

[Guest Feek]

See my reply regarding the agreement further up this thread.K.

[rambow 0]

The falacy in that argument is that truth is the absolute defense in a slander or libel case, Jaap.The irony is, that because until we were forced into it by this brazen hijacking, we chose to take the high road and not respond to all the lies and misrepresentations that have appeared on the RCS site since Roy was booted from the team last year, now it is MAAM and me who are the ones seen to be guilty of telling lies by you and your ilk.Eventually, I believe the truth will come out and Roy will be caught in the web of his own lies, and ALMOST everyone will recognize it. How you and some others can take the word of a man who contradicts himself so often and lies so blatantly, is beyond me. The fact that everything the man says is designed to foster his personal fame seems not to have dawned on you. But I guess the man's initial's on the team name, the plane being named for him, the nose art being one of his tiger paintings, and the crew chief's name an anagram for Roy Chaffin, I guess it might be difficult to figure out there might be an over-inflated ego at work!Unlike Roy, I'm not a rich man, just a middle-rank, ready-for-retirement federal law enforcement officer of 33 years experience. So my nefarious scheme is to tell the truth while he lies, and at the same time, hope he decides to sue me. Because he will have to do that in a U.S. court, and I can't afford the cross-pond trip. Then my counter-suit will put me on easy street and I can buy the sailboat I'd really love to have. ;-)I'll tell you something else about me, Jaap. I am not a self-promoter and have told not a single lie in this matter, and neither has Russ Strine. None. Can you say that on Mr. Chaffin's behalf? (Roy - note to your lawyer: I called you a liar in a public forum. Please sue me.) Bill Rambow MAAM-SIM - Rambow, Visser, Banting, and Younghttp://www.fssupport.com/maam_sim/maamsim_logo.gif