It appears that the wiki post has been updated:
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives
I'm glad to see that the post reflects John's position - I also believe
the acknowledgement validates John's assertions (both about ownership,
as well as his hope that anyone...subscriber or
John,
Well, I didn't do it, but I'll be more than happy to pull a
Bill Clinton,
and apologize for it.G
Don't worry. I doubt anyone believes you've had sexual relations with JVP.
Kristyne
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription
'
Subject: RE: Re He who must not be named...
John,
Well, I didn't do it, but I'll be more than happy to pull a
Bill Clinton,
and apologize for it.G
Don't worry. I doubt anyone believes you've had sexual relations with JVP.
Kristyne
[excessive quoting removed by server
Hi Kevin,
JVP simply doesn't want his content being used for a money-making
enterprise.
Hmm, I was under the impression that Rainer (that is, his company ISYS GmbH)
bought FoxTalk from Eli Research which would imply that Rainer has the same
rights to use the articles as Eli, Pinnacle, and
Oh, great. You've appointed yourself the JVP surrogate threat-meister.
I'm SO scared, and I'll just bet Steven Black is shaking in his boots
as we
speak as well.
Kristyne
I'm not making any threats - but what's a fact is the statement on the
Wiki misrepresents John's
Hmm, I was under the impression that Rainer (that is, his company
ISYS GmbH)
bought FoxTalk from Eli Research which would imply that Rainer has the same
rights to use the articles as Eli, Pinnacle, and all previous owners of
FoxTalk.
Christof
According to John, he has no recollection of
Kevin S. Goff wrote:
Just to set the record straight on the Wiki (on
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives)
I know for a fact that John Petersen (JVP) told Whil and Rainer that he
didn't have a problem if they made his old content available for free.
In fact, John stated
Hi Kevin,
But once again I'll ask - if Rainer felt confident about the issue, then
why the need for the Wiki post
The only persons who can answer this question are Rainer, Whil, and the
author of the wiki text. I don't know if any of them reads this list
regularly, so what about asking them by
I'll take a stab at this one ...
Even if Rainer's company has full rights to republish, long drawn out legal
battles can take a toll on anyone. I was falsely accused of poisoning my son
by me ex-husband and it took me over a year and a half to fight that battle
in the court system and tens of
On Mar 19, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Kevin S. Goff wrote:
A question for both Rick and Ed
Do you recall what year did you start writing for Pinnacle/FoxTalk,
and
in what year you signed your author agreements?
I would guess it was around '93 or '94.
-- Ed Leafe
On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Cathy Pountney wrote:
Even if Rainer's company has full rights to republish, long drawn
out legal
battles can take a toll on anyone.
I think that they must teach that the first day of law school. I have
been involved in several such cases in my days as
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Kevin S. Goff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A question for both Rick and Ed
Do you recall what year did you start writing for Pinnacle/FoxTalk, and
in what year you signed your author agreements?
Neither Rick nor Ed, but I first signed on July 27, 1992.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Ted Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither Rick nor Ed, but I first signed on July 27, 1992.
That, of course, was with Pinnacle, back in 1992. In 2003, I signed an
agreement with Ragan, one that was substantially different, an
all-rights agreement (yuck) with
John Harvey wrote:
I was referring to his apology for slavery.s
That's cheaper than reparations.
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list:
Kevin S. Goff wrote:
I'm not making any threats - but what's a fact is the statement on the
Wiki misrepresents John's statements to Whil and Rainer. Would you
personally want to wear the shoes of someone misrepresenting John?
The Wiki statement reads, as we were told by him that he will
I cannot say for sure and with absolute authority since I am not at home right
now. My first article
was printed in November 1994, but I don't see how this matters for John's
situation.
Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.
www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.swfox.net
www.rickschummer.com
Christof Wollenhaupt wrote:
The only persons who can answer this question are Rainer, Whil, and the
author of the wiki text. I don't know if any of them reads this list
regularly, so what about asking them by e-mail?
No, this is much more funNOT. Gawd, it's probably safe to say
Ed Leafe wrote:
This whole thing smells of personal vendetta. I wonder what the
potential for income would be for computer articles that are a decade-
plus old; my guess would be zero. I think that I'll steer clear of
this whole train wreck.
Absolutely...I would concur on all
Ted Roche wrote:
If anyone really wants to know how to make a 16-color (and blinking!)
ANSI color startup screen for their FoxPro DOS application, I'll be
glad to point them to the original article s.
ROFLMAO!!!
___
Post Messages to:
Maybe it is a personal vendetta, but so what? Would
you like your enemy to be republishing your work
illegally. Illegally is in quotes because I have no
idea whether it is or not.
What if you found one of your customers reselling your
software?
--- MB Software Solutions General Account
Michael Madigan wrote:
Maybe it is a personal vendetta, but so what? Would
you like your enemy to be republishing your work
illegally. Illegally is in quotes because I have no
idea whether it is or not.
What if you found one of your customers reselling your
software?
If the one party
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives
Note at bottom...
Bill
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
rofl
Bill Anderson wrote:
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives
--
Richard Kaye
Vice President
Artfact/RFC Systems
Voice: 617.219.1038
Fax: 617.219.1001
For the fastest response time, please send your support
queries to:
Technical Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet
I saw that this morning .. and just rolled my eyes. ;-)
Cathy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bill Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:27 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: He who must not be named...
He lives!
http
Bill Anderson wrote:
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives
Note at bottom...
That's made my day!
ROFLMAO
--
Cheers
Brian Abbott
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance:
Do I detect an air of cynicism here or what?
ROFLMA
Dave Crozier
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 19 March 2008 16:27
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: He who must not be named...
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll
Bill Anderson wrote:
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives
Note at bottom...
Bill
How childish. What possible rhyme/reason could one have for forbidding
their past contributions to be shared with those they could help in the
distant future.
btw -- that was a
Cathy Pountney wrote:
I saw that this morning .. and just rolled my eyes. ;-)
Cathy
Cathy --- welcome! Love your work/contributions to the community. Nice
to see you here, even if we can't actually see you! ;-)
___
Post Messages to:
IMO the only way to deal with someone who thrives on controversy is to
simply ignore him. Probably got another member banned on the UT...
A+
jml
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
Of Jean Laeremans
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
IMO the only way to deal with someone who thrives on controversy is to
simply ignore him. Probably got another member banned on the UT...
A+
jml
[excessive quoting removed
Ok - please explain. I saw that an individual did not want his articles
displayed though I cannot see any valid reason why not unless he hopes to
sell them a second time. Obviously this individual is well known to the
community - but not to me g
John Weller
01380 723235
07976 393631
Do I
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Cathy Pountney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I saw that this morning .. and just rolled my eyes. ;-)
Cathy
Welcome to Profox!
Everyone else -- We've got a newbie, drinks are on her!
Cheers! ;)
Bill
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:46 PM, John Weller wrote:
Obviously this individual is well known to the
community - but not to me g
Well, aren't you the lucky one! ;-)
-- Ed Leafe
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription
John Weller wrote:
Ok - please explain. I saw that an individual did not want his articles
displayed though I cannot see any valid reason why not unless he hopes to
sell them a second time. Obviously this individual is well known to the
community - but not to me g
Thank your stars.
Gil Hale wrote:
IMO the only way to deal with someone who thrives on controversy is to
simply ignore him. Probably got another member banned on the UT...
Yeah, but someone ought to tell JVP he is being ignored g.
Way to go, Gilyou weren't supposed to use the initials.jinx!!!
Account
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:34 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
Cathy Pountney wrote:
I saw that this morning .. and just rolled my eyes. ;-)
Cathy
Cathy --- welcome! Love your work/contributions to the community. Nice
to see you here, even if we
John Weller wrote:
Ok - please explain. I saw that an individual did not want his articles
displayed though I cannot see any valid reason why not unless he hopes to
sell them a second time. Obviously this individual is well known to the
community - but not to me g
A brilliant mind but
Hey .. don't pour the drinks on me .. it mess up my hair!!
Cathy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bill Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:52 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008
who must not be named...
Ok - please explain. I saw that an individual did not want his articles
displayed though I cannot see any valid reason why not unless he hopes to
sell them a second time. Obviously this individual is well known to the
community - but not to me g
John Weller
01380
Oh no, not you!G Welcome!
JH
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Cathy Pountney
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:08 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: He who must not be named...
Thanks for the welcome .. and the praise on my work
anyway g? heh-heh (plausible deniability)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MB Software Solutions
General Account
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
Gil Hale wrote:
IMO
Solutions
General Account
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
John Weller wrote:
Ok - please explain. I saw that an individual did not want his articles
displayed though I cannot see any valid reason why not unless
he hopes
On Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:43 PM Gil Hale wrote:
What? A capitalist pig? Perish the thought, not in our midst!
He is now a lawyer and I am not sure I would call him to be in our
midst. He is too good for us...
He used to post messages here even though he was not a member... Like I
said,
David Crooks wrote:
He is now a lawyer and I am not sure I would call him to be in our
midst. He is too good for us...
He used to post messages here even though he was not a member... Like I
said, he was too good for us...
...in legal circles, yes.
On Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:48 PM Michael wrote:
...in legal circles, yes.
He is too good for legal circles as well?
David L. Crooks
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
List'
Subject: RE: He who must not be named...
Oh no, not you!G Welcome!
JH
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Cathy Pountney
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:08 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: He who must not be named...
Thanks
Cathy Pountney wrote:
Yep .. it's me. You can run, but you can't hide. You know I'll find you
dear. I just can't resist your handcuffs officer! ;-)
Cathy
Cathy -- just so you know (before Mike slams you) -- there's a certain
level of discipline required in Subject posting[NF] means
Gil Hale wrote:
A brilliant mind but not used for the betterment of others in most cases
unless directly benefitting himself, imo.
What? A capitalist pig? Perish the thought, not in our midst!
It was much, much more then just that. I don't think anyone would care,
if it was just
How can anyone post messages without being a member? I thought you had to
signup to view/post?
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
___
Post Messages to:
On Mar 19, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Tracy Holzer wrote:
How can anyone post messages without being a member? I thought you
had to
signup to view/post?
That is only to trap spammers and prevent them from posting. If I get
a legitimate post from a non-subscriber, I can manually approve
Gil,
Yeah, but someone ought to tell JVP he is being ignored g.
Doesn't he already know all and see all?
Kristyne
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this
Solutions General Account
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:11 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
Cathy Pountney wrote:
Yep .. it's me. You can run, but you can't hide. You know I'll find you
dear. I just can't resist your handcuffs officer! ;-)
Cathy
Cathy
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Tracy Holzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can anyone post messages without being a member? I thought you had to
signup to view/post?
Hi Tracy,
Nice to see you here.
A+
jml
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Hi Tracy,
Welcome on board. Looks like my little comment about that other forum here on
ProFox pulled a few
people into checking out ProFox. Bonus! bg
I thought you had to signup to view/post?
Not at all. Anyone can read the archives too, including complete threads when
doing research, which
On Mar 19, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Rick Schummer wrote:
Not at all. Anyone can read the archives too, including complete
threads when doing research, which
is awesome and one of the reasons ProFox is such a valuable resource
in the Fox Community. So anyone
on the planet can read exactly what
Just to set the record straight on the Wiki (on
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives)
I know for a fact that John Petersen (JVP) told Whil and Rainer that he
didn't have a problem if they made his old content available for free.
In fact, John stated directly to Whil/Rainer that
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Kevin S. Goff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Welcome Kevin.
At least here you don't run the risk to get banned...s
As far as your post is concerned..let's say i leave the squabbling to
the in crowd.
A+
jml
___
Post Messages to:
Risk of getting banned for what...stating the truth? s
It isn't about squabbling - the information on the Wiki, in itself, is
very disturbing.
KG
Jean Laeremans wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Kevin S. Goff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Welcome Kevin.
At least here you don't run the risk
Ed Leafe wrote:
http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.foxpro.profox
The list is also archived in a much more readable format on Gmane:
Ed
I took a look at it but I didn't see anywhere to set a filter to exclude
[OT] in any of the several different viewing options. Otherwise, as you
say,
Kevin,
Whoever was responsible for this should be accountable and
should make a public apology to JVP.
I hope you're not holding your breath...
Kristyne
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance:
On Mar 19, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Paul Newton wrote:
I took a look at it but I didn't see anywhere to set a filter to
exclude
[OT] in any of the several different viewing options. Otherwise, as
you
say, it's a good, readable archive
It's an archive of the full list. Just avoid the
What's fair is fair. If JVP is being misrepresented,
they should reword it.
--- Kristyne McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin,
Whoever was responsible for this should be
accountable and
should make a public apology to JVP.
I hope you're not holding your breath...
Kristyne
Kristyne McDaniel wrote:
I hope you're not holding your breath...
Kristyne
Actually, if not corrected, one could make the argument that those
responsible for the statement on the Wiki should be the ones holding
their breath.
KG
___
Post
On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives
Note at bottom...
FWIW, that note is gone.
I'm curious: did the FoxRockX people buy the rights to the FoxTalk
stuff? Or are they using it without permission? If
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Ed Leafe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
He lives!
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchiveshttp://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki%7EFoxRockXArchives
Note at bottom...
FWIW, that note is gone.
On Mar 19, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
The note isn't gone, it was moved to the upper right hand corner of
the
page.
I stand corrected. I hit 'refresh', and the browser returned directly
to the bottom.
-- Ed Leafe
___
It's been moved to a box in the upper right-hand of the page (or at least it
was when I just checked).
-Original Message-
From: Ed Leafe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:27 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: He who must not be named...
On Mar 19, 2008
I'm curious: did the FoxRockX people buy the rights to the FoxTalk
stuff? Or are they using
it without permission? If they have the rights to the material, why shouldn't
they be allowed to
re-purpose it, just as Pinnacle did originally?
Yes, Rainer bought the FoxTalk archives lock stock
Tracy Holzer wrote:
It's been moved to a box in the upper right-hand of the page (or at least it
was when I just checked).
-Original Message-
From: Ed Leafe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:27 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: He who must
Kevin S. Goff wrote:
Risk of getting banned for what...stating the truth? s
It isn't about squabbling - the information on the Wiki, in itself, is
very disturbing.
What's disturbing on the fox wiki? Perhaps you could forward some links
to back that up.
Rick Schummer wrote:
snipped
I cannot say what other authors of FoxTalk signed, but the contract I signed
with each and every
magazine publisher including Pinnacle Publishing says they have the rights to
republish my work they
paid for in any form they want to.
Judging by the comment
On Mar 19, 2008, at 10:17 PM, Rick Schummer wrote:
I cannot say what other authors of FoxTalk signed, but the contract
I signed with each and every
magazine publisher including Pinnacle Publishing says they have the
rights to republish my work they paid for in any form they want to.
Kevin S. Goff wrote:
Just to set the record straight on the Wiki (on
http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~FoxRockXArchives)
I know for a fact that John Petersen (JVP) told Whil and Rainer that he
didn't have a problem if they made his old content available for free.
In fact, John stated
Kevin S. Goff wrote:
Actually, if not corrected, one could make the argument that those
responsible for the statement on the Wiki should be the ones holding
their breath.
lol...why don't you tell the fox wiki owner that.
___
Post Messages
Well, I didn't do it, but I'll be more than happy to pull a Bill Clinton,
and apologize for it.G
JH
At the very least, what was written on the Fox Wiki is very misleading.
At the most, well, with all the facts, you can draw your own conclusions.
Whoever was responsible for this should be
75 matches
Mail list logo
