Avenue Supplies using uk.d-i-y posts in their advertising

[:::Jerry::::]

No more than, for example, the Google groups feed is...

[:::Jerry::::]

thread

thread

No more, and probably less than, Google (groups newsfeed) do...

[:::Jerry::::]

wrote:

addressed

group if anyone

Has anyone at Google done so?...

[:::Jerry::::]

avenuesupplies DOT

thread

thread

The page I looked at, from the posted URL, most certainly did have the threads showing. OTOH, if there were messages missing, so what - it happens all the time with some nntp servers....

I accept there may have been a link to the next

looking for

So, in essence it's not much different to Google groups (were someone posts a URL to just one message) whilst your witch-hunt rants were down to nothing but your inability to use your web browser...

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:4D_ZZluoBzQJ:

> You notice that on the right of the page the single post appears with

wondering

page is

programmable

found

well.

addressed at

intended

addressed

whether

public or

BUT with a post about Honeywell CM-67 embedded in it.

[:::Jerry::::]

interests.

Which has been shown as being wrong.

[s--p--o--n--i--x]

It would have been so simple for them to say "Sorry all, we messed up, it won't happen again".

However, they haven't. That says an awful lot to me.

sponix

[John Schmitt]

No, it is asubsidiary definition

What about Merriam-Webster? while it is not UK English, you might be surprised how unchanged usages are more stable in US English than UK English. "Gotten" is regarded as a horrible neologism by the ignorant. In fact the Pilgrim Fathers were aware of the word.

I *am* a publisher both of internal documents and on our intranet. Got another word?

John Schmitt

[s--p--o--n--i--x]

So...let's say that you posted a clever idea or technique to this newsgroup and I took the info, turned it into an e-book and sold it for profit on ebay.

Would you honestly be happy with this? Would you protest that I had stolen your idea and was profiting from it?

sponix

[Rob Morley]

I don't think so.

[John Cartmell]

If it's in the full OED as a subsidiary definition and not in the Shorter or Chambers then you can be sure it's not a definition that you can use with expectations of clarity.

That's OK with words that don't exist elsehow. Words that do otherwise have a clear meaning are something else.

Over 300,000 in Chambers. That will do for starters. ;-)

[:::Jerry::::]

group if anyone

Have Google ever said sorry for copying messages and displaying then on their web page?...

I suggest you get a clue and then find a life!

[:::Jerry::::]

,

You think wrong then. And even if they were doing as you suggest they were doing no more than Google does when you enter a search string, they place targeted adverts on the search results pages!

[:::Jerry::::]

But that is not what they were doing.

So what would stop them just reading about your idea and then writing about it in their own words, why do you think companies don't write about their research and use non disclosure clauses in contracts?....

[Rob Morley]

Make a good case for your opinion and I might believe you ...

Actually they were doing it the other way around - they chose the newsgroup content to suit their advertising purposes. But you apparently don't appreciate the difference.

[manatbandq]

Copyright law does not allow you to copy a work in its entirity just because you acknowledge the copyright (unless you do so with the copyright holders permission). All you are allowed to do without the copyright holders permission is to use reasonable quotations (I don't know the exact terminology) from a copyright work in your own work. You still have to acknowledge the work. Thus, to take someone else' example, you cannot simply republish, say, a Harry Potter novel but you could quote extracts in the course of reviewing the novel. What would be reasonable, I leave to the lawyers.

If a work is entirely factual information in the public domain then you can freely copy the information but the presentation becomes copyright. For example, you cannot copyright phone numbers but a particular style of presenting phone numbers in a directory is copyright.

MBQ

[manatbandq]

Copyright law does not allow you to copy a work in its entirity just because you acknowledge the copyright (unless you do so with the copyright holders permission). All you are allowed to do without the copyright holders permission is to use reasonable quotations (I don't know the exact terminology) from a copyright work in your own work. You still have to acknowledge the work. Thus, to take someone else' example, you cannot simply republish, say, a Harry Potter novel but you could quote extracts in the course of reviewing the novel. What would be reasonable, I leave to the lawyers.

If a work is entirely factual information in the public domain then you can freely copy the information but the presentation becomes copyright. For example, you cannot copyright phone numbers but a particular style of presenting phone numbers in a directory is copyright.

MBQ

[manatbandq]

Companies keep stum about research because making public disclosures can have detrimental consequences for any future patent assertions.

MBQ

[manatbandq]

LOL! Better than "I'm losing the argument so I'll just tell him to FOAD, moron" as you did in an earlier post, Jerry.

MBQ