Mods: Where did the thread on "Making Molds" go?
10-25-2010, 07:09 PM
#51
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
ORIGINAL: Gene Margiotti
Well guys I see that the MODS are not going to reinstate this thread - BUT that's OK since I received my EU-1A and UFO fuses from Don (frequent flyer) today!!!!!!!
Don thanks for the quick fiberglass work and now I have my winter building set as the EU-1A is up first.
Gene
Well guys I see that the MODS are not going to reinstate this thread - BUT that's OK since I received my EU-1A and UFO fuses from Don (frequent flyer) today!!!!!!!
Don thanks for the quick fiberglass work and now I have my winter building set as the EU-1A is up first.
Gene
10-25-2010, 08:44 PM
#52
RE: [Deleted]
Ok guys, you do deserve an explanation for the actions that were taken. Unfortunately when we remove a thread it is difficult, or impossible, for members to know why that happened. And in this case that is unfortunately a fact of the matter. So I am going to post this so that you are all aware of the situation and RCU's stance on this issue.
The thread was removed because of possible copyright violations of planes that were being sold through the thread. We were contacted by several people saying that their copyrights are being violated because copies of their planes were being sold through the thread. Please listen to my next statement carefully. At this time we are not saying either side of this issue is right, or wrong. This is a very important fact of the issue at this point in time. We all know there are always two sides to every story. If it turned out to be the case that these rights don't actually exist then we may rethink this position. But right now we only have the parties that own the rights that have contacted us. If these people do not have the rights to these products then that needs to be shown to us in order to resolve this issue.
However, until it is resolved RCU will choose to take the high road in this matter and err on the side of caution. And unfortunately for the thread in question that means it had to be removed. RCU has always been a fierce supporter of copyrights and those that hold those copyrights, so when a dispute like this comes up we are going to support those that own the rights to a product (unless it can be proven they don't own the rights, as I stated above). Trust me in that this isn't the only place we have taken such actions as it happens at times in many other forums on RCU, and the same action is taken in each case. We will remove the materials that violate the copyright. While there may be situations where we do this and it is proven to be the contrary, and in that case we will correct that situation. But as I said, we are going to err on the side of caution in a situation such as this. And unfortunately for this thread that means that we must remove the posts and materials that violate copyrights.
Ken
10-25-2010, 08:46 PM
#53
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Ok guys, you do deserve an explanation for the actions that were taken. Unfortunately when we remove a thread it is difficult, or impossible, for members to know why that happened. And in this case that is unfortunately a fact of the matter. So I am going to post this so that you are all aware of the situation and RCU's stance on this issue.
The thread was removed because of possible copyright violations of planes that were being sold through the thread. We were contacted by several people saying that their copyrights are being violated because copies of their planes were being sold through the thread. Please listen to my next statement carefully.At this time we are not saying either side of this issue is right, or wrong.This is a very important fact of the issue at this point in time. We all know there are always two sides to every story. If it turned out to be the case that these rights don't actually exist then we may rethink this position. But right now we only have the parties that own the rights that have contacted us. If these people do not have the rights to these products then that needs to be shown to us in order to resolve this issue.
However, until it is resolved RCU will choose to take the high road in this matter and err on the side of caution. And unfortunately for the thread in question that means it had to be removed. RCU has always been a fierce supporter of copyrights and those that hold those copyrights, so when a dispute like this comes up we are going to support those that own the rights to a product (unless it can be proven they don't own the rights, as I stated above). Trust me in that this isn't the only place we have taken such actions as it happens at times in many other forums on RCU, and the same action is taken in each case. We will remove the materials that violate the copyright. While there may be situations where we do this and it is proven to be the contrary, and in that case we will correct that situation. But as I said, we are going to err on the side of caution in a situation such as this. And unfortunately for this thread that means that we must remove the posts and materials that violate copyrights.
Ken
10-25-2010, 09:35 PM
#54
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Ken,
thanks for clarifying the situation as to why exactly the valuable and interesting thread was removed. Having said that and this being my first post on this thread, I have to comment that there is a bit of a conundrum with the statements that you presented.
If I understand correctly, RCU's stance is to err on the side of caution which means that material will be removed if there is a possibility of rights violation (i.e., proof or rights ownership need not necessarily be presented). This is understandable. However, the only way to disprove a persons or companies claim to ownership of rights, is, in a first instance, to have the knowledge of who is making the claim and what the claim to ownership is exactly. In the absence of that information, parties interested in recovering the thread have no recourse to be able to undertake a "proof of absence of rights". In other words, the third parties (mainly the members posting to this thread), are for all intensive purposes navigating in the dark with essentially no hope to be able to recover the thread of interest.
On the other hand, if RCU takes the stance to disseminate information on parties making rights claims (in order for others to be able to undertake a rights verification), then they are in the regrettable position of engaging parties in a dispute and thus become involved as arbitrators by necessity. These disputes would then presumably be the determining factor allowing RCU to take a final decision with regard to returning or withdrawing the thread permanently. This approach doesn't strike me as being particularly effective nor one that RCU would care to be involved in.
In short, it seems to me that the onus should be on the side of the parties making a claim to rights ownership. As you mentioned, rights are not taken lightly by RCU (nor should they) and it seems fair that if indeed someone does hold rights they should be assisted by RCU in making claim to them. In short, anyone making a claim to ownership of rights, should be able to supply proof to RCU if RCU is going to be taking action on said claims. This approach leaves far less doubts in the minds of members and it may lead to preventing threads like this one where members, businesses and RCU are engaged in controversy and dispute.
Finally, it also makes for the RCU decision process to be far less ambiguous and leaves them in the position to take positive effective action.
For what its worth, these are my thoughts on the subject matter.
David.
thanks for clarifying the situation as to why exactly the valuable and interesting thread was removed. Having said that and this being my first post on this thread, I have to comment that there is a bit of a conundrum with the statements that you presented.
If I understand correctly, RCU's stance is to err on the side of caution which means that material will be removed if there is a possibility of rights violation (i.e., proof or rights ownership need not necessarily be presented). This is understandable. However, the only way to disprove a persons or companies claim to ownership of rights, is, in a first instance, to have the knowledge of who is making the claim and what the claim to ownership is exactly. In the absence of that information, parties interested in recovering the thread have no recourse to be able to undertake a "proof of absence of rights". In other words, the third parties (mainly the members posting to this thread), are for all intensive purposes navigating in the dark with essentially no hope to be able to recover the thread of interest.
On the other hand, if RCU takes the stance to disseminate information on parties making rights claims (in order for others to be able to undertake a rights verification), then they are in the regrettable position of engaging parties in a dispute and thus become involved as arbitrators by necessity. These disputes would then presumably be the determining factor allowing RCU to take a final decision with regard to returning or withdrawing the thread permanently. This approach doesn't strike me as being particularly effective nor one that RCU would care to be involved in.
In short, it seems to me that the onus should be on the side of the parties making a claim to rights ownership. As you mentioned, rights are not taken lightly by RCU (nor should they) and it seems fair that if indeed someone does hold rights they should be assisted by RCU in making claim to them. In short, anyone making a claim to ownership of rights, should be able to supply proof to RCU if RCU is going to be taking action on said claims. This approach leaves far less doubts in the minds of members and it may lead to preventing threads like this one where members, businesses and RCU are engaged in controversy and dispute.
Finally, it also makes for the RCU decision process to be far less ambiguous and leaves them in the position to take positive effective action.
For what its worth, these are my thoughts on the subject matter.
David.
10-26-2010, 08:19 AM
#55
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
I tend to agree with Doxilla’s point. However, as far as the thread goes I believe there was one complainant that is referenced as “several; as in “contacted by several people”. Next, actually reading carefully, it is stated that “we are not saying that either side is right.” Then why take the side that has not offered up any supportive evidence? If it is indeed a “very important fact” with regard to the issue (and yes there are two sides to every story) then where is the evidence on the other side of the story that is claimed to exist?
Again, the claim by RCU is that only the “parties that own the rights” have contacted RCU, yet in the next sentence it is stated that “if these “people” do not have the rights” then it needs to be shown to RCU. Well, let’s see, it was a poster and not the forum thread itself that made the claims; however, it was obvious that proof of said claims was requested yet never produced on the forum. So at some point, we have one, two, or the stated “several” persons claiming ownership or copyright status who contacted the moderator(s) and requested/demanded the thread be removed? RCU acquiesces to the demand/request, in removing a beneficial thread, by taking the high road; in order to err on the side of caution?
The high road? Caution? On the notion of a possible copyright violation? Before that last question gets attacked, the opening sentence by RCKen is “The thread was removed because of possible…..” My apologies if I offend anyone; however, the action in response to the possible copyright violation reads more like censorship than caution. In retrospect, though both have dissimilar notions, this is not entirely unlike NPRs firing of Juan Williams for doing nothing more than “telling it like it is”; which after all, is what most of these threads are apt to do.
Last few thoughts, and I am in no way a lawyer, though I do deal with the CFRs and U.S. codes daily, but on the issue of copyright law the basics are (Rev 1 of Circular 1, 2008):
• It lives from the time the work is created in some fixed shape
• The property becomes the work of the creator/author immediately
• Only the creator/author or one deriving his/her rights through the author can lawfully claim a copyright
• Ownership itself of the work or a copy of the work does not give the holder/owner/possessor the copyright
• The transfer of title/ownership of any material that represent a protected work does not by itself transmit any rights to the copyright
• In general, copyrights need to be registered if one wishes to bring suit for infringing upon ones copyrighted material
If there truly is or was an infringement on ones copyrighted material/work, in reality, it would not appear to be all that difficult to pursue the proper course of action to protect it. First order of business would be to produce some evidence that the creator/author conveyed his/her ownership rights to you, the new owner. Without that, there is no apparent transfer through ownership, no ownership based on possession, and no reason to take the high road.
Hook (my .55 cents)
Again, the claim by RCU is that only the “parties that own the rights” have contacted RCU, yet in the next sentence it is stated that “if these “people” do not have the rights” then it needs to be shown to RCU. Well, let’s see, it was a poster and not the forum thread itself that made the claims; however, it was obvious that proof of said claims was requested yet never produced on the forum. So at some point, we have one, two, or the stated “several” persons claiming ownership or copyright status who contacted the moderator(s) and requested/demanded the thread be removed? RCU acquiesces to the demand/request, in removing a beneficial thread, by taking the high road; in order to err on the side of caution?
The high road? Caution? On the notion of a possible copyright violation? Before that last question gets attacked, the opening sentence by RCKen is “The thread was removed because of possible…..” My apologies if I offend anyone; however, the action in response to the possible copyright violation reads more like censorship than caution. In retrospect, though both have dissimilar notions, this is not entirely unlike NPRs firing of Juan Williams for doing nothing more than “telling it like it is”; which after all, is what most of these threads are apt to do.
Last few thoughts, and I am in no way a lawyer, though I do deal with the CFRs and U.S. codes daily, but on the issue of copyright law the basics are (Rev 1 of Circular 1, 2008):
• It lives from the time the work is created in some fixed shape
• The property becomes the work of the creator/author immediately
• Only the creator/author or one deriving his/her rights through the author can lawfully claim a copyright
• Ownership itself of the work or a copy of the work does not give the holder/owner/possessor the copyright
• The transfer of title/ownership of any material that represent a protected work does not by itself transmit any rights to the copyright
• In general, copyrights need to be registered if one wishes to bring suit for infringing upon ones copyrighted material
If there truly is or was an infringement on ones copyrighted material/work, in reality, it would not appear to be all that difficult to pursue the proper course of action to protect it. First order of business would be to produce some evidence that the creator/author conveyed his/her ownership rights to you, the new owner. Without that, there is no apparent transfer through ownership, no ownership based on possession, and no reason to take the high road.
Hook (my .55 cents)
10-26-2010, 08:59 AM
#56
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hernando, FL
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Copyright works the same for Music as it does for material object. (35 years in the music industry holding many copyrights and 6 CD's to my credit)
The only person that a copy rights to something, is the original creator. Copyrights and patents do not last forever either. If someone lays claim to something under copyright, those rights have to be transfered and official documentation needs to be filed. That is a contract that has to be binded by a monitary contract. The copyright forms have in them if it is a transfer, of a modification of a pre-existing registered copyright.
Bottom line is that this plane has not been kitted and is unavailable. Unless someone bought the original molds with a transfer of rights form, then the rights still belong to the original creator.
That is why copyrights for songs are bought such as the rights to the Beetles songs, known as catalogs. Also why bands that write music, transfer the rights to their music to the record label in exchange for points on sales and royalties.
Also at a certain point when the manufacture of something is discontinued, parts can be replicated by anyone. There really isnt any rights to keep someone from making parts to keep things in working order. Look at the auto industry, second hand parts are plenty. Think of an old corvette, parts are not made by the manufacturer, but substitutes are readily made (but very expensive). If Ibuy something Ican make as many copies of it for my personal use. My tiporare, I can copy the fuse so I have a spare in case I crash, especially since I can not get the original parts anymore.
As stated by Hook above, to have copyrights to something, the rights have to be registered.
The only person that a copy rights to something, is the original creator. Copyrights and patents do not last forever either. If someone lays claim to something under copyright, those rights have to be transfered and official documentation needs to be filed. That is a contract that has to be binded by a monitary contract. The copyright forms have in them if it is a transfer, of a modification of a pre-existing registered copyright.
Bottom line is that this plane has not been kitted and is unavailable. Unless someone bought the original molds with a transfer of rights form, then the rights still belong to the original creator.
That is why copyrights for songs are bought such as the rights to the Beetles songs, known as catalogs. Also why bands that write music, transfer the rights to their music to the record label in exchange for points on sales and royalties.
Also at a certain point when the manufacture of something is discontinued, parts can be replicated by anyone. There really isnt any rights to keep someone from making parts to keep things in working order. Look at the auto industry, second hand parts are plenty. Think of an old corvette, parts are not made by the manufacturer, but substitutes are readily made (but very expensive). If Ibuy something Ican make as many copies of it for my personal use. My tiporare, I can copy the fuse so I have a spare in case I crash, especially since I can not get the original parts anymore.
As stated by Hook above, to have copyrights to something, the rights have to be registered.
10-26-2010, 11:30 AM
#57
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: , CA
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
So from what I read. If someone claims the rights on an item,the thread gets removed in short? In that case I claim the rights to the words "Classic Pattern" Now remove this forum.
10-26-2010, 12:32 PM
#58
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
I have the feeling that the whole notion of thread removal based on breach of copyrights is flawed - nothing personal Ken.
If there was really an issue of breach of copyright and 2 or 3 parties felt that that was the case, then the issue would be irrelevant to RCU. The issue would really be between the rights claimants and those purportedly infringing them. The thread in itself was conveying information on the re-manufacture of models which are over 25 years old. I don't recall anything specific discussing sales or pricing directly on the thread. If that were the case, RCU would have probably pulled it much sooner and copyright infringement would have nothing to do with it - it would merely be a matter of RCU policy regarding advertising and sales on forums which is not condoned.
At this juncture, it seems to me that the true "high road" would be to re-instate the thread with appropriate moderator editing where content does not abide by RCU rules - if such exists. Otherwise, it seems to me that currently there is nothing more than someone(s) having commented to RCU that a breach of copyright is being referenced in a given thread. From what is mentioned by Ken, no copyright "proof" was or has since ever actually been offered.
Personally, I suspect that very few of these planes or molds still exist in a "copyrightable form". Suffice it to consider a Curare. How many manufacturers are producing and selling copies of it for a profit!? Exactly, many!. How many of these manufacturers actually obtained license from Hanno to replicate his model? Probably none. This doesn't take away from the fact that Hanno is the original copyright holder. When it comes down to it, were talking about one individuals profit over another. This, by nature, involves RCU in a biased decision to uphold one individuals profits over another.
With that said, I sympathize with the labor and production work undertaken by those parties interested in reviving the classics. It seems to me that the more people are involved in the manufacture, the more interest will be generated among modelers who are not necessarily from that generation and consequently more sales will be seen to keep everyone happy and healthy.
Further thoughts,
David.
If there was really an issue of breach of copyright and 2 or 3 parties felt that that was the case, then the issue would be irrelevant to RCU. The issue would really be between the rights claimants and those purportedly infringing them. The thread in itself was conveying information on the re-manufacture of models which are over 25 years old. I don't recall anything specific discussing sales or pricing directly on the thread. If that were the case, RCU would have probably pulled it much sooner and copyright infringement would have nothing to do with it - it would merely be a matter of RCU policy regarding advertising and sales on forums which is not condoned.
At this juncture, it seems to me that the true "high road" would be to re-instate the thread with appropriate moderator editing where content does not abide by RCU rules - if such exists. Otherwise, it seems to me that currently there is nothing more than someone(s) having commented to RCU that a breach of copyright is being referenced in a given thread. From what is mentioned by Ken, no copyright "proof" was or has since ever actually been offered.
Personally, I suspect that very few of these planes or molds still exist in a "copyrightable form". Suffice it to consider a Curare. How many manufacturers are producing and selling copies of it for a profit!? Exactly, many!. How many of these manufacturers actually obtained license from Hanno to replicate his model? Probably none. This doesn't take away from the fact that Hanno is the original copyright holder. When it comes down to it, were talking about one individuals profit over another. This, by nature, involves RCU in a biased decision to uphold one individuals profits over another.
With that said, I sympathize with the labor and production work undertaken by those parties interested in reviving the classics. It seems to me that the more people are involved in the manufacture, the more interest will be generated among modelers who are not necessarily from that generation and consequently more sales will be seen to keep everyone happy and healthy.
Further thoughts,
David.
10-26-2010, 02:30 PM
#59
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Greenwood,
IN
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
David,
The points that you presented were concise and straight to the crux of the matter. Thanks for everyone's input.
I am of the opinion that removal of the thread, its relevant information and pictures of various classic pattern models is not of benefit to either of the partys involved in this "so called" copyright issue. The exact opposite is closer to the truth: the more discussion about these classic airplanes provides a real boost to the sport of RC Model Airplanes. Just look at the release of the Phoenix 7 ARF.
In these days of ARFS you rarely see anyone building a kit and bringing it to the local club fields. Now look at what people are considering; people are building classic planes and showing them to an entire group of individuals who know next to nothing about them. These discussions just might spark interest in people to begin building again. They might even bring a friend into the hobby. I'm sure that the AMA would enjoy our efforts.
My 2 cents.
Gene
The points that you presented were concise and straight to the crux of the matter. Thanks for everyone's input.
I am of the opinion that removal of the thread, its relevant information and pictures of various classic pattern models is not of benefit to either of the partys involved in this "so called" copyright issue. The exact opposite is closer to the truth: the more discussion about these classic airplanes provides a real boost to the sport of RC Model Airplanes. Just look at the release of the Phoenix 7 ARF.
In these days of ARFS you rarely see anyone building a kit and bringing it to the local club fields. Now look at what people are considering; people are building classic planes and showing them to an entire group of individuals who know next to nothing about them. These discussions just might spark interest in people to begin building again. They might even bring a friend into the hobby. I'm sure that the AMA would enjoy our efforts.
My 2 cents.
Gene
10-26-2010, 06:53 PM
#60
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
I had a feeling if I brought up copyright the thread would turn in this direction. So let's talk about being "above board" since it now seems relevant.
For one to make false claims about owning the rights to produce the EU1 in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage certainly is NOT "above board". It's a deceptive practice that may further influence potential customers of the competitor to purchase from whom they believe "owns" the rights. It's also called fraud. Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
If one doesn't "own" the rights, seems like fraud to me. Now in the spirit of being "above board", again if this person doesn't own the rights, he should share the same outcome as the mold making thread. That's being removed from RC Universe. I'm sorry for being so harsh but we are trying to be above board right?
- Hook57 - I enjoyed your response on this thread. By the way, I sent you a PM about your Phoenix 6. Check it out if you have a chance.
For one to make false claims about owning the rights to produce the EU1 in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage certainly is NOT "above board". It's a deceptive practice that may further influence potential customers of the competitor to purchase from whom they believe "owns" the rights. It's also called fraud. Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
If one doesn't "own" the rights, seems like fraud to me. Now in the spirit of being "above board", again if this person doesn't own the rights, he should share the same outcome as the mold making thread. That's being removed from RC Universe. I'm sorry for being so harsh but we are trying to be above board right?
- Hook57 - I enjoyed your response on this thread. By the way, I sent you a PM about your Phoenix 6. Check it out if you have a chance.
10-26-2010, 07:40 PM
#61
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Gene,
that is a further good point. Ever noticed how clubs with lines outside are the ones everyone wants to go to? (not that I go much to clubs anymore...
)
The more hustle and bustle the better business tends to be.
Ken, what would it take for RCU to reconsider its position and re-instate the thread? Is there anything that those who wish the thread back can do? Is or will any proof be provided to support the claims which led to the removal?
David.
that is a further good point. Ever noticed how clubs with lines outside are the ones everyone wants to go to? (not that I go much to clubs anymore...
)The more hustle and bustle the better business tends to be.
Ken, what would it take for RCU to reconsider its position and re-instate the thread? Is there anything that those who wish the thread back can do? Is or will any proof be provided to support the claims which led to the removal?
David.
10-26-2010, 08:56 PM
#62
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
ORIGINAL: doxilia
Gene,
Ken, what would it take for RCU to reconsider its position and re-instate the thread? Is there anything that those who wish the thread back can do? Is or will any proof be provided to support the claims which led to the removal?
David.
Gene,
Ken, what would it take for RCU to reconsider its position and re-instate the thread? Is there anything that those who wish the thread back can do? Is or will any proof be provided to support the claims which led to the removal?
David.
Ken
10-26-2010, 09:38 PM
#64
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Ken
Would it not behoove RCU to inform the posters on that/this thread what RCU rules they, read we, violated? I'm fairly certain that no one here intentionally or otherwise sought to defraud or to infringe, even monetarily, on a so called copyright; if that truly is the case. Since wehave not been informed of the who, did what, where, when, and how, perhaps you would enlighten us with the specifics so that we could refrain from approaching it again. As Gene said and I agree, that would be above board; and the proper high road too.
Gene, sorry if I missed the second message, I'll get right to and reply tomorrow morning. The P-6 awaits your ruler, and she bea fine model for a mold too!
Mark
Would it not behoove RCU to inform the posters on that/this thread what RCU rules they, read we, violated? I'm fairly certain that no one here intentionally or otherwise sought to defraud or to infringe, even monetarily, on a so called copyright; if that truly is the case. Since wehave not been informed of the who, did what, where, when, and how, perhaps you would enlighten us with the specifics so that we could refrain from approaching it again. As Gene said and I agree, that would be above board; and the proper high road too.
Gene, sorry if I missed the second message, I'll get right to and reply tomorrow morning. The P-6 awaits your ruler, and she bea fine model for a mold too!
Mark
10-27-2010, 09:56 AM
#68
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
ORIGINAL: RCKen
Right now I'm not sure that the thread can be revived. However, we would consider letting the thread restart as long as the members participating understand that the rules or RCU will be followed in the thread.
Ken
ORIGINAL: doxilia
Gene,
Ken, what would it take for RCU to reconsider its position and re-instate the thread? Is there anything that those who wish the thread back can do? Is or will any proof be provided to support the claims which led to the removal?
David.
Gene,
Ken, what would it take for RCU to reconsider its position and re-instate the thread? Is there anything that those who wish the thread back can do? Is or will any proof be provided to support the claims which led to the removal?
David.
Ken
Well then, lets start it again.
10-27-2010, 04:07 PM
#69
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montreal,
QC, CANADA
Posts: 5,200
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Mark,
thanks for that post. It clarifies some fundamental issues.
Ken,
it is disappointing that the valuable information in that thread cannot be recuperated. Why, at this point, it is not clear.
We are still all in the dark as to what needs to be done or avoided in order to prevent infringing on this so called rights issue. Since no mention was made with regard to specific RCU rules being broken (unless the rights issue is among the rules - it may well be), my understanding was that the general topic was simply not considered acceptable. However, if we are now being allowed to resume the discussion in a new thread, I have to assume that the pull of the thread might have indeed been done a little hastily.
Don,
it seems like we'll all have to take our chances and resume the exchange in a new thread. Since the thread was yours, please do start another if you feel so inclined. No doubt the interested parties will all return and we can pick up where things left off.
David.
thanks for that post. It clarifies some fundamental issues.
Ken,
it is disappointing that the valuable information in that thread cannot be recuperated. Why, at this point, it is not clear.
We are still all in the dark as to what needs to be done or avoided in order to prevent infringing on this so called rights issue. Since no mention was made with regard to specific RCU rules being broken (unless the rights issue is among the rules - it may well be), my understanding was that the general topic was simply not considered acceptable. However, if we are now being allowed to resume the discussion in a new thread, I have to assume that the pull of the thread might have indeed been done a little hastily.
Don,
it seems like we'll all have to take our chances and resume the exchange in a new thread. Since the thread was yours, please do start another if you feel so inclined. No doubt the interested parties will all return and we can pick up where things left off.
David.
10-27-2010, 07:24 PM
#71
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
ORIGINAL: pitstop000
? Questions, PM Me for the ''SCOOP'' The New Location or LOOK for it, not here anymore due to one of our members that Objected ! Thank Him for the Loss !
? Questions, PM Me for the ''SCOOP'' The New Location or LOOK for it, not here anymore due to one of our members that Objected ! Thank Him for the Loss !
10-27-2010, 09:16 PM
#72
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Glad to be of any help David.
I tend to lean toward the plain language idea, define it and it keeps things on an even keel, thus:
claim: ask for as one's due (formally or legally)
civil law: the rights of private citizens
infringe: trespass, encroach, violate
judge: to hear and decide
just: fair, consistent, of sound reason
know: perceive, skilled, recognize, distinguish
lie: false, deliberately put forth as true
manacle: shackling, confining, restraining
mediate: resolve, seek to resolve through....
perspicuous: clearly expressed, lucid
ponder: weigh carefully
read: comprehend, determine, learnmeaning
seize: confiscate, sudden, forceful effect
testament: proof, evidence, legal disposition
ululate: howl, wail, lament loudly
verdict: finding, conclusion
verity: quality of truth, factual, real
well-founded: soundness of reasoning
yellow: color, hue, egg yolk, exploit, distort, exaggerate
My point? It took about five minutes to dig out Uncle Webster and confirm a number of words I had thought of to describe the inappropriate way (my personal opinion) that this was handled. It leaves me thinking that RCU passed judgement on us (as the thread) as the guilty party rather than to gather, judge, know, ponder, read, request evidence, and provide verity before censoring. Think about it, a small slice of the pie, but to many here itisan important one. Pity
Mark
I tend to lean toward the plain language idea, define it and it keeps things on an even keel, thus:
claim: ask for as one's due (formally or legally)
civil law: the rights of private citizens
infringe: trespass, encroach, violate
judge: to hear and decide
just: fair, consistent, of sound reason
know: perceive, skilled, recognize, distinguish
lie: false, deliberately put forth as true
manacle: shackling, confining, restraining
mediate: resolve, seek to resolve through....
perspicuous: clearly expressed, lucid
ponder: weigh carefully
read: comprehend, determine, learnmeaning
seize: confiscate, sudden, forceful effect
testament: proof, evidence, legal disposition
ululate: howl, wail, lament loudly
verdict: finding, conclusion
verity: quality of truth, factual, real
well-founded: soundness of reasoning
yellow: color, hue, egg yolk, exploit, distort, exaggerate
My point? It took about five minutes to dig out Uncle Webster and confirm a number of words I had thought of to describe the inappropriate way (my personal opinion) that this was handled. It leaves me thinking that RCU passed judgement on us (as the thread) as the guilty party rather than to gather, judge, know, ponder, read, request evidence, and provide verity before censoring. Think about it, a small slice of the pie, but to many here itisan important one. Pity
Mark
10-27-2010, 11:14 PM
#73
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Mark,
You are typing too much. Get to work on your model. I sent your decals, finally! They should pretty up your Kaos and UFO.
Chris...
You are typing too much.
Get to work on your model. I sent your decals, finally! They should pretty up your Kaos and UFO.Chris...
10-28-2010, 10:40 AM
#74
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Don,
it seems like we'll all have to take our chances and resume the exchange in a new thread. Since the thread was yours, please do start another if you feel so inclined. No doubt the interested parties will all return and we can pick up where things left off.
David.
[/quote]
Actually, Pitstop000 started the thread. But I can restart it again.
it seems like we'll all have to take our chances and resume the exchange in a new thread. Since the thread was yours, please do start another if you feel so inclined. No doubt the interested parties will all return and we can pick up where things left off.
David.
[/quote]
Actually, Pitstop000 started the thread. But I can restart it again.
10-28-2010, 02:30 PM
#75
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mods: Where did the thread on
Hey, great idea Chris! More productive too, and I'll be looking for those decals. Most of the BS stuff will be over next week so it will be back to completing the Tiger Tail III and refinishing an old scratch built Tiger Tail (a one I guess). Can't decide whether to go with the Rossi's or the Kraft powrplants though???? Going to put together a Spot-On 50 with a Saito 72 totry outthe current pattern flying too. Okay, back to the bench.
hQQk
hQQk
