Re: Expanded Oracle DBA Site

Um let's see, you setting the matter straight amounts to:

1. Claiming you are entitled to steal provided you do it in ignorance and do not get caught.
2. Claiming you have a right to libel the victim of the theft if the victim does not adhere to the standards of secrecy and etiquette you demand of others but do not demand of yourself.
3. Stating clearly and succinctly that you have no remorse, that you refuse to apologize and that an apology from you would be meaningless in any case.
4. Asserting that having experience as a programmer somehow gives you professional status as a publisher of web content regardless of your own ignorance of copyright, your own vindictive demeanour and your own tactless behaviour.
5. Putting words in people's mouths to further libel them publicly and to make you seem somehow less vile in comparison. (I made no assumptions. I did not make the allegations you claim I made. And Howard did not say what you attributed to him.)
6. Insisting that the victims of your theivery have a responsibility to maximize their costs for enforcing their property rights in order not to hurt your warped sensibilities--contrary to legal principles and to all common sense.

Did I miss anything?

Stanton Samenow had your number more than twenty years ago: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0812910826& itm=3
(Not that I think you are capable of self-examination or anything.)

"Jeffrey Hunter" <JeffreyH_at_comanage.net> wrote in message news:157A4D97A88D7143B80E43C1B000B6E83D67F3_at_comail1.comanage.net...
> Let me set the record straight here. Sometime ago, I ran across a
> well-written document titled "Oracle9i New Features". The article was
> authored by Howard Rogers and like he indicated, the copyright was noted
at
> the bottom of each page. Hosting this document on my site *was*, like has
> been said, an honest mistake. Nothing more. My intention for hosting this
> document was due to the rich, accurate and well organized content for
> newcomers to Oracle9i. Knowing that this document could not be hosted
> without his permission, is something I learned very recently. (Yesterday
to
> be precise). My understanding was that his name (and rightfully so) should
> remain intact in the document and could be posted anywhere (just as would
> linking it from one site to another). A lawyer I am not.
>
>
>
> One of Bob Badour's allegations on this thread is that I purposely missed
> the fact that this copyright notice existed and intentionally put the
> document on my site while knowing it was wrong! Also, that this should say
a
> lot about my character. Well, Bob you seem to think you are capable of
> knowing my intentions and my character. Also that I have no respect for
ones
> copyrighted and intellectual property. (More on you later Bob.)
>
>
>
> Upon finding his article being hosted on my site (and without his
> permission) Howard posted to the same news groups I used to advertise my
> website with its recently added content. I don't check and contribute to
> news groups on a daily basis. In fact, it was a friend that emailed to say
> that I was being "publicly accessed of stealing" and provided me with the
> appropriate links to these threads. After reading through the threads, I
> instantly removed the document and the link to it. Two things came to
mind:
> (1) Why hadn't Howard emailed me personally? I have two email addresses
> clearly marked on the home page of my site. (As well as the ISP hosting
the
> site). (2) Why were his first reactions to my intentions so rushed? Why is
> it that his first instinct is that I stole the document and was going to
> continue to use it without his permission?
>
>
>
> When I need to work with people, I take every means to contact them
directly
> and use tact when confronting them; always assuming that people mean well.
> Howard didn't think so. He assumed that I would be hanging out on the
> newsgroup waiting for a reply. When he didn't get a reply from the
newsgroup
> (me) in a time he felt sufficient, he continued to use a demeanor that was
> unprofessional, making my site look like an "underground rouge site that
> engages only on stealing content and calling it his own or publishing it
> with no respect to the intellectual property of the author". To the
> contrary, the information on my site is my own work as well as links to
> others. I post my email address and have nothing to hide. I would have
> apologized for my misunderstanding and all would have been completed. But
> that doesn't seem to be the temperament of several of the posters to this
> group nor would it have meant anything. Much of what is happening here is
a
> clear point that Gabriel was trying to make. People (although particularly
> this news group) talks simply to hear themselves talk or to simply blow
off
> steam.
>
>
>
> As for Bob's comments on this thread. You first indicate that me calling
> Howard "unprofessional" was because I wasn't allowing him to "exercising
his
> own right to his own intellectual property". Wrong Bob. I called him
> unprofessional for his demeanor, tact and failure to contact me directly.
> You next refer to me as a "disgrace" and a "rank amateur" - "Have you no
> shame". Well Bob, wrong again. I am far from a "rank amateur" in this
> profession. I have years of experience in Oracle as a programmer and Sr.
> DBA. Strong working knowledge of Java, JavaCC, C, C++, and Perl.
Successful
> in managing projects and team members. You then go on saying that I:
>
>
>
> "had no right to libel the man he stole from. The fact that he showed no
> contrition (not one bit) for stealing (regardless of intentions) says a
lot
> about the man's character. That he showed vindictiveness where contrition
wa
> s called for says even more about his character."
>
>
>
> Well, half right and half wrong. You are right; I didn't show penitence
for
> posting Howard's article. Had it been something I did while knowing that
it
> was wrong, this would not only be wrong but also reason to have the site
> shutdown. I had every right, however, to libel Howard for his attitude and
> knee-jerk reaction that I intentionally stole his work and assumed to keep
> it published without his consent. This is one reason Howard will not get
an
> apology from me.
>
>
>
> Bob, it seems very peculiar that you have "sealed by fate", "knew my
> intentions", "feel that I am a rank amateur", and say I "have no
character".
> Well, Bob, I'm not sure what type of imperialist you think you are. I have
> no idea who the hell you are and where you get off making these gross
> assumptions about me. This was obviously a chance for you to voice your
> opinion about me (again, knowing nothing about me), "shoot from the hip",
> and hear yourself speak. If you anything more to say on this thread Bob,
> pipe it to /dev/null.
>
>
>
> This will be my last response to this particular thread. Hopefully we can
> continue with the subject of this news group: "Oracle".
>
>
> -- jeff
>
> Jeffrey M. Hunter
> Sr. Database Administrator
> jhunter_at_idevelopment.info
> www.idevelopment.info
>
> "Gabriel Gonzalez" <no-spam_at_no-spam.com> wrote in message
> news:MxOdnTcP1ebiJAyjXTWcoQ_at_giganews.com...
> > > > Maybe it's just me, but I don't think in legal terms.
> > > Really? Then why did you make capricious demands for proof of
> uncontested
> >
> > Capricious? I was thinking more like "fair." Is capricious a legal
term?
> > :-)
> >
> > > facts? Isn't "proof" a legal term? Didn't you demand the "proof" for
> what
> > > you called my "allegations"? Isn't "allegations" a legal term?
> >
> > They common words that can be used in a legal context. Jeez!
> >
> > > Gabriel, you lack credibility. If you wanted things to get back to
> Oracle,
> > > you would stop posting such ridiculous nonsense with no return
address.
> >
> > I will, as once again I put myself into a flame-ridden situation where I
> am
> > not a principlal. I hate it when that happens because 1) it fuels the
> > flames, 2) it ain't my problem, and 3) people on newsgroups tend to be
> > waaaay to childish. It is also unfair to other people since I do not
take
> > it as seriously as others. For example, I do not know if you are really
> as
> > fuming with anger as your messages read... I hope not, because I am
> nowhere
> > near that seriousness.
> >
> > > Why do you so blindly jump to Jeff's defense? Are you Jeff or a friend
> of
> > > his or something?
> >
> > I was trying to not jump blindly into Jeff's prosecution team! To me
it's
> > just an innocent mistake. He did what I would have done, which is
remove
> > the content immediately.
> >
> > Anyway, anger is not warranted. Don't get too mad. I sure am not.
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 07 2003 - 22:55:09 CDT