Re: He who must not be named...

rofl Bill Anderson wrote: > He lives! > >

RE: He who must not be named...

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!

Re: He who must not be named...

Bill Anderson wrote: > He lives! > > > > Note at bottom... That's made my day! ROFLMAO -- Cheers Brian Abbott ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Mainten

RE: He who must not be named...

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!

Re: He who must not be named...

Bill Anderson wrote: > He lives! > > > > 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 -- t

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 can't actually see you! ;-) ___ Post Messages to: Pr

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 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox O

RE: He who must not be named...

OTECTED] Behalf 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 t

RE: He 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 John Weller 01380 723235 07976 393631 > > Do I dete

Re: He who must not be named...

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 --- multip

Re: He who must not be named...

On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:46 PM, John Weller wrote: > Obviously this individual is well known to the > community - but not to me Well, aren't you the lucky one! ;-) -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenanc

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 to > sell them a second time. Obviously this individual is well known to the > community - but not to me Thank your stars.

Re: He who must not be named...

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 . > > Way to go, Gilyou weren't supposed to use the initials

RE: He who must not be named...

ns General 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. Ni

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 to > sell them a second time. Obviously this individual is well known to the > community - but not to me > A brilliant mind bu

RE: He who must not be named...

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,

RE: He who must not be named...

PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: He 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

RE: He who must not be named...

Oh no, not you! 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

RE: He who must not be named...

eh... Um, who is JVP anyway ? 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:

RE: He who must not be named...

alf Of MB Software 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 > > dis

RE: He who must not be named...

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, h

Re: He who must not be named...

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. _

RE: He who must not be named...

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 OT-fre

RE: He who must not be named...

PM To: 'ProFox Email List' Subject: RE: He who must not be named... Oh no, not you! 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:

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 -- just so you know (before Mike slams you) -- there's a certain level of discipline required in Subject posting[NF] m

Re: He who must not be named...

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 i

RE: He who must not be named...

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: ProFox@leafe.c

Re: He who must not be named...

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

RE: He who must not be named...

Gil, > Yeah, but someone ought to tell JVP he is being ignored . 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 list

RE: He who must not be named...

tware 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 h

Re: He who must not be named...

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.co

RE: He who must not be named...

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! >> I thought you had to signup to view/post?<< Not at all. Anyone can read the archives too, including complete threads when doing research, whic

Re: He who must not be named...

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 wha

Re: He who must not be named...

Ed Leafe wrote: > >> The archive search is available here: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox >> > > The list is also archived in a much more readable format on Gmane: > > http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.foxpro.profox > > Wow...that's pretty cool, Ed...thanks! --- StripMime

Re He who must not be named...

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 h

Re: He who must not be named...

Risk of getting banned for what...stating the truth? 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

Re: He who must not be named...

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,

Re: He who must not be named...

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

Re: He who must not be named...

On Mar 19, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Bill Anderson wrote: > He lives! > > > > 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

Re: He who must not be named...

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! > > > > > > > > > > Note at bottom... > >FWIW, tha

Re: He who must not be named...

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 ___

RE: He who must not be named...

>> 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 s

Re: He who must not be named...

Kevin S. Goff wrote: > Risk of getting banned for what...stating the truth? > > 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. __

Re: He who must not be named...

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. > Judging by the comment

Re: He who must not be named...

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.

Re: He who must not be named...

"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 stat

Re: He who must not be named...

<< 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 o

RE: He who must not be named...

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

RE: He who must not be named...

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 tho

Re: He who must not be named...

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 ___

Re: He who must not be named...

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

Re: He who must not be named...

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, 199

Re: He who must not be named...

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)

Re: He who must not be named...

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

RE: He who must not be named...

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 -Origin

Re: He who must not be named...

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

Re: He who must not be named...

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 a

Re: He who must not be named...

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 . > > ROFLMAO!!! ___ Post Messages to: ProFox

Re: He who must not be named...

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 <[EM

Re: He who must not be named...

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

Re: He who must not be named...

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 non-su

Re: Re He who must not be named...

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... As far as your post is concerned..let's say i leave the squabbling to the in crowd. A+ jml ___ Post Messages to: Pr

RE: Re He who must not be named...

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: http://leafe.com/mailman/l

RE: Re He who must not be named...

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... > >

Re: Re He who must not be named...

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 state

Re: Re He who must not be named...

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 Mes

RE: Re He who must not be named...

Well, I didn't do it, but I'll be more than happy to pull a Bill Clinton, and apologize for it. 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 acco

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. Don't worry. I doubt anyone believes you've had sexual relations with JVP. Kristyne ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Main

RE: Re He who must not be named...

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 al

Re: Re He who must not be named...

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 stat

Re: RE: Re He who must not be named...

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 ___

RE: RE: Re He who must not be named...

Kevin, > 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. 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

RE:[OT ] Re He who must not be named...

Email List' 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. Don't worry. I doubt anyone believes you've had sexual relations with JVP. Kris

Re: [OT ] Re He who must not be named...

John Harvey wrote: > I was referring to his apology for slavery. > > 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: http://le