Jump to content


Photo

The new-look forum is here!


  • Please log in to reply
587 replies to this topic

#451 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 2,171 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 10 November 2013 - 21:26

This is fascinating to me.  Undoubtedly there are many, many people who would not touch Facebook with barge poles of varying lengths but I wonder if any of those people REALLY know why they feel like that?
 
If you join Facebook, the following facts are true:
 
1. You do not have to list ANY information about yourself that you do not want to.
 
2. You choose who to have as contacts (friends) - nobody forces anyone upon you.
 
3. Nobody other than the people you have as friends can see what you put on there, unless you are commenting on one of your friend's posts and then only that person's friends can see it.
 
4. You do not have to put on Facebook any photographs unless you wish to do so.
 
So, gentlemen, explain what you have against it.   :wave:


Since you ask, Barry, here's my way of seeing it: in ten, maybe twenty years, it will be a SIGNIFICANT advantage to have a Facebook-free CV, whether you apply for a new job or, especially, for a public posiion. Maybe not that important for old folks, like "us", but I would STRONGLY recommend younger people to stay away from "Faecebook"!

The following facts are undoubtedly true, also:

1. One of the most important functions of the human mind is the ability to forget. Facebook NEVER forgets a single thing!

2. The more contacts you have, the more you WILL lose control over what you reveal, and to whom - that is true in "real" life as well as in the virtual world. Facebook encourages you to maximise your number of contacts, it's their business model.

3. I know it's fiction, but if you've watched the movie "The Social Network", you may have noticed how the actors keep telling the audience "We don't know what it is yet, or what it will be. We only know it's cool..." Yeah, right. Hard-nosed businessmen invest hundreds of millions in a company that's just "cool", without any regard for the potential power and influence emanating from the fact that Facebook stores EVERYTHING that's ever been posted by billions of users FOREVER on their hard drives. You don't need the imagination of a Nobel Prize winner to think of scenarios where bits and pieces of this information could be useful to certain persons, and how much these people would be prepared to pay for that info. A sound business model, and investors are still forming a queue!

4. You chose your "friends" who can see your content for free; Facebook choses who can see your content by paying for it - and keeps the money!

5. If you think you can remain anonymous on Facebook, look up the word "naive" in a dictionary and see a picture of your mug next to it.

Advertisement

#452 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,920 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 November 2013 - 22:40

Interesting... as you can tell, I have not joined the stampede to Facebook! Do they post photos? And if so, does Artti use his prominent copyright watermark, and does he know that by posting there he has negated it?

 

Watermarks? not worth a pinch of......as protection unless you have the mind of a lawyer and/or deep pockets

 

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/17/512



#453 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 10 November 2013 - 22:47

Bright whiteness on TNF? There is far too much whiteness by area, I agree, but you can control whiteness and visual pain (bright light) for yourself. If you own a Mac, you can use Displays in System Preferences to sort it out. If you run Windows or Linux, there are third party control panels that allow you to control your screen. (I do not wish to discuss how consumer computers do not work.)

 

Black text on white background is very readable on paper. Black on yellow works too, as does yellow on black for racing drivers.



#454 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,343 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 November 2013 - 22:51

Charlieman: what you say is absolutely correct but why should we have to adjust screen brightness just because this forum appears too bright... then have to adjust it back for the rest of our internet viewing?



#455 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 November 2013 - 22:57

Particularly as the software being used readily allows a user to provide different 'skins'  if they wish


Edited by D-Type, 10 November 2013 - 22:57.


#456 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 10 November 2013 - 23:26

Watermarks? not worth a pinch of......as protection unless you have the mind of a lawyer and/or deep pockets

 

Okay, but that's not my point. I am curious about whether Artti, who (quite rightly) take measures to protect his copyright, posts his photos on FB and if so, whether he has any concerns about the claims they make on others' intellectual property.



#457 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 10 November 2013 - 23:46

Charlieman: what you say is absolutely correct but why should we have to adjust screen brightness just because this forum appears too bright... then have to adjust it back for the rest of our internet viewing?

 

Of course we should not be constantly tweaking our screen knobs -- physical or virtual --- to accommodate what looks good on screen to us. I suspect that the default setting is wrong on your operating system; it should be good enough for *almost* everything.

 

An early Formula Junior Cooper has multiple inboard pickup points for everything. You might tune that Cooper for any/every circuit. Chapman designed his Lotus more tightly; no big tweaks.

 

Similarly to a Lotus, you should expect to tweak your monitor once or twice. It should always be about right.



#458 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 November 2013 - 00:02

Sadly it isn't.  As many have said, when using a PC the presentation of the rehashed forum is simply too bright.  It is a fault of the forum, not of the computer's operating system!



#459 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 November 2013 - 00:34

Sadly it isn't.  As many have said, when using a PC the presentation of the rehashed forum is simply too bright.  It is a fault of the forum, not of the computer's operating system!

 

You might be right that this forum is ill tuned to the default settings of some computers. And we really should not have to faff around. 

 

For accessibility reasons, TNF should have a less white background. So that people who have not calibrated their monitor are not startled.

 

But if you do not calibrate your monitor, it is difficult to discern, say, shades of green in photos.



Advertisement

#460 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,920 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:00

Okay, but that's not my point. I am curious about whether Artti, who (quite rightly) take measures to protect his copyright, posts his photos on FB and if so, whether he has any concerns about the claims they make on others' intellectual property.

 

Ummm I think you need to learn more about computers, ISPs and Apps....Facebook is like any other forum or portal on the web....they are just about immune from prosecution because of the way all these sites have been set up



#461 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,727 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 November 2013 - 07:04

The irony of all this  - before they tampered with it  the screen appearance was very pleasant - no changes were needed or wanted



#462 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,695 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 11 November 2013 - 09:16

I can't recall whether either of the aforementioned post photos but I know I do and a certain Mr. W*******n posts loads!

 

I do post a lot of photos but I am selective and only post stuff I am happy to have on the internet. I have seen a lot of my other photos that I posted on this forum, & on the other place before I was banned, appearing on Facebook where they have been posted by third parties. However if you photos are 'lifted' and reposted you can always get Facebook to remove them.



#463 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 11 November 2013 - 12:58

Ummm I think you need to learn more about computers, ISPs and Apps....Facebook is like any other forum or portal on the web....they are just about immune from prosecution because of the way all these sites have been set up

You've missed my point again. Never mind.



#464 elansprint72

elansprint72
  • Member

  • 3,343 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 11 November 2013 - 14:48

Of course we should not be constantly tweaking our screen knobs -- physical or virtual --- to accommodate what looks good on screen to us. I suspect that the default setting is wrong on your operating system; it should be good enough for *almost* everything.

 

An early Formula Junior Cooper has multiple inboard pickup points for everything. You might tune that Cooper for any/every circuit. Chapman designed his Lotus more tightly; no big tweaks.

 

Similarly to a Lotus, you should expect to tweak your monitor once or twice. It should always be about right.

My monitors are calibrated for photo-processing; it would be a nonsense to upset them just to look at this forum! :(



#465 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 6,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 11 November 2013 - 15:02

I have to admit I struggled when viewing the new-look forum at first, but I've finally cracked it at last! :cool:

 

1dwn.jpg

Edited by Giraffe, 11 November 2013 - 15:03.


#466 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,057 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 11 November 2013 - 15:14

My monitors are calibrated for photo-processing; it would be a nonsense to upset them just to look at this forum! :(

Try f.lux. Can be switched on and off at will. I actually use it permanently, since I find backlit screens very tiring on the eyes.



#467 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 November 2013 - 15:47

You might be right that this forum is ill tuned to the default settings of some computers. And we really should not have to faff around. 

 

For accessibility reasons, TNF should have a less white background. So that people who have not calibrated their monitor are not startled.

 

But if you do not calibrate your monitor, it is difficult to discern, say, shades of green in photos.

Are you writing on behalf of Autosport, or as a forum user?

 

Either way, I'm not exactly computer-savvy.  Can you please explain in simple terms how I do that.  I am using a three year old bottom of the range Dell desktop running Windows 7 (or it may be Windows vista - how do I find out).

 

And, more importantly, if you do represent Autosport, can you explain why Autosport arrogantly say "You should adjust your equipment to match the set up we chose arbitrarily which is different from other forums and is therefore unfit for its purpose".  Coupled with the implied threat: "And if you complain we'll ban you!"



#468 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,057 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 11 November 2013 - 16:04

Duncan - see my recommendation of f.lux. Much easier to use than farting about with your screen settings in Windows.



#469 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 November 2013 - 20:14

Thanks Richard - that's better, far easier on the eyes.  Hopefully I won't go to bed with a headache tonight..

 

(But we shouldn't need to resort to installing freeware to view a forum, should we?)



#470 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,920 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 November 2013 - 01:02

You've missed my point again. Never mind.

 

Yep...I heard the sound as it whizzed over my head :-)



#471 PCC

PCC
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 12 November 2013 - 02:37

Yep...I heard the sound as it whizzed over my head :-)

Sorrry, I was in a big rush when I wrote my last comment. I didn't intend it to be as snarky as it sounded, and I apologize for that.

 

Both the principles and practicalities of protecting intellectual property (especially photos) on the net has been discussed at some length on other threads. For me, the point here was that Facebook was being suggested as a possible vehicle for the kinds of conversations we have on TNF. Because Arttidesco posts on FB, and also posts a lot of photos here, I wondered whether he was aware of the privileges they explicitly claim on intellectual property posted on the site, and whether that influenced his willingness to put photos there. The answer to that might inform people's opinions on the viability of FB as a pseudo-TNF. Artti himself is the only one who can answer my question (if we haven't already lost him!).



#472 king_crud

king_crud
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:23

I think a move to facebook would be bad for two reasons:

 

- you may not get passing traffic. I stumbled across TNF, and although I'm not a contributor I do read it reguarly and enjoy it very much

- facebook being blocked at many places of work. Many people look at these forums at their place of work, but facebook is blocked in a lot of work places, so again, you would probably have less traffic.



#473 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:37

Is there nobody who can explain to me why I can no longer post pictures?

 

When I compose my post and insert the URL of the picture, it appears immediately in the post composition box. But when I click POST, my text is there but not my picture.

 

This is exceedingly frustrating and in truth, is driving me rapidly up the wall!



#474 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 6,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:49

Leave your post, return to the forum & then go back to your post. You will find your image has posted, Barry. :wave:



#475 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:03

I think a move to facebook would be bad for two reasons:

 

- you may not get passing traffic. I stumbled across TNF, and although I'm not a contributor I do read it reguarly and enjoy it very much

- facebook being blocked at many places of work. Many people look at these forums at their place of work, but facebook is blocked in a lot of work places, so again, you would probably have less traffic.

 

Not sure that we really want or need "traffic", more "The right crowd and no crowding", quality not quantity.



#476 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 6,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:14

Not sure that we really want or need "traffic", more "The right crowd and no crowding", quality not quantity.

 

I would suggest that the vast majority of traffic on TNF is invisible, Rob. (ie "Lurkers").


Edited by Giraffe, 12 November 2013 - 11:14.


#477 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:16

Really?  I'll try that.



#478 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,057 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:20

Is there nobody who can explain to me why I can no longer post pictures?

 

When I compose my post and insert the URL of the picture, it appears immediately in the post composition box. But when I click POST, my text is there but not my picture.

 

This is exceedingly frustrating and in truth, is driving me rapidly up the wall!

Several of us have reported this, Barry. Giraffe's solution works, as does simply refreshing the page. The techies are apparently working on it, but there are seemingly several glitches in picture posting which affect all (or some) browsers and/or operating systems. It seems to me that fixing one sometimes causes another to break ...



#479 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:20

Yes! Thanks for that, Tony.



Advertisement

#480 RTH

RTH
  • Member

  • 5,727 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:47

Several of us have reported this, Barry. Giraffe's solution works, as does simply refreshing the page. The techies are apparently working on it, but there are seemingly several glitches in picture posting which affect all (or some) browsers and/or operating systems. It seems to me that fixing one sometimes causes another to break ...

We really do seem to have had a Bentley replaced by a Moskovitch



#481 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 11:58

I would suggest that the vast majority of traffic on TNF is invisible, Rob. (ie "Lurkers").

 

You're probably right, and if they find the site interesting, absolutely no harm in that, but it would help if more of them made an effort to contribute sensible content. Is there any way of finding out the actual numbers? Just about every other forum I've seen has this information at the foot of the home page, members logged in, number of guests etc, it might be educational to know this for TNF, especially since these numbers seem to have dwindled alarmingly since the somewhat botched re-vamp. I only visit two or three other forums regularly at the moment, but both of these seem to be a lot slicker and easier to navigate than what TNF has been turned into.

 

On the often mentioned "too bright screen" problem, surely it would only be the work of a moment to tone things down a little, though I have to say that once those black bars were reduced, it all looks perfectly OK on my monitor, if somewhat dull and uninspiring. The monitor is an IPS Dell Supersharp that like elansprint's I have set up for photo work, but I don't bother to change any of the presets for other activities. Surely those complaining of eye problems could tweak their brightness and contrast controls to tone things down slightly?



#482 king_crud

king_crud
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 12 November 2013 - 13:32

You're probably right, and if they find the site interesting, absolutely no harm in that, but it would help if more of them made an effort to contribute sensible content.

 

A lurker may lurk as they do not know the subject matter, and use the forum as an educational tool



#483 helioseism

helioseism
  • Member

  • 1,429 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 13:50

Not sure that we really want or need "traffic", more "The right crowd and no crowding", quality not quantity.

 

Right here is a succinct statement of what is wrong with this forum. A snobbish elitist attitude that drives people away.



#484 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 14:04

Right here is a succinct statement of what is wrong with this forum. A snobbish elitist attitude that drives people away.

 

Brooklands humour is clearly lost on you.



#485 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 13,133 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 12 November 2013 - 14:56

I certainly read your post, Rob, as being a nicely made humourous reference.

 

Personally, I would hate to see TNF become a facebook-only forum.  Most importantly, I don't think FB lends itself at all well to threaded discussion.  Subjects and the associated discussion would just get lost in rampant noise.

 

And this is coming from someone who has no problem with FB and is at times a fervent users, although I'm currently somewhat in a bored lull with it.

 

Neil



#486 Giraffe

Giraffe
  • Member

  • 6,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 12 November 2013 - 15:37

A remarkable number of people with various levels of profile in motorsport both now and in the past are regular viewers of TNF, but would never consider posting for a variety of good reasons. Somewhat remarkably, a number of them are happy to post & converse on facebook, probably because they are able to select who they converse with there, ie choose their audience wheras TNF is essentially an open forum.

#487 RVM

RVM
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: August 13

Posted 12 November 2013 - 16:10

Right here is a succinct statement of what is wrong with this forum. A snobbish elitist attitude that drives people away.

 

Actually, just exactly what was to be the intent of TNF was a bone of contention (and the source of many problems) from the very beginning. So, it was something of a hybrid or compromise literally from the start meaning that history and nostalgia were residing within an often uneasy proximity to one another. It should also be noted that its survival was never a given, especially in the early days. TNF was very, very different from the few other forums that were around at that time. While it has been often imitated, TNF has yet to be duplicated.


Edited by RVM, 12 November 2013 - 16:11.


#488 Peter Morley

Peter Morley
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 12 November 2013 - 17:05

We really do seem to have had a Bentley replaced by a Moskovitch

 

Maybe a Bentley with bodywork made in the old Trabant factory - as apparently happens these days.



#489 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 18:31

The advent of advertising on TNF doesn't bother me too much, it's fairly unobtrusive, at least with the anti-spam settings I have on my computer, but there is something that concerns me slightly. Do we all see the same ads? The reason I ask this is that went I clicked to open TNF some time this afternoon, the banner across the top of the homepage read in large-size text, "LADIES' RED KNICKERS", honest it did, cross my heart and hope to die, but did anyone else get this, of have they singled me out for special attention? I hasten to explain, this wasn't any kind of porno site, I opened the link, purely in a quest to examine the facts of course, and it was a perfectly ordinary site for conventional womens' undergarments of every description, but it's got me wondering. Are these ads targeted, has anyone else been as deeply shocked and offended as I was, or was this aimed at me, does it mean that my guilty secret is out at last?



#490 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,057 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 12 November 2013 - 18:49

The advent of advertising on TNF doesn't bother me too much, it's fairly unobtrusive, at least with the anti-spam settings I have on my computer, but there is something that concerns me slightly. Do we all see the same ads? The reason I ask this is that went I clicked to open TNF some time this afternoon, the banner across the top of the homepage read in large-size text, "LADIES' RED KNICKERS", honest it did, cross my heart and hope to die, but did anyone else get this, of have they singled me out for special attention? I hasten to explain, this wasn't any kind of porno site, I opened the link, purely in a quest to examine the facts of course, and it was a perfectly ordinary site for conventional womens' undergarments of every description, but it's got me wondering. Are these ads targeted, has anyone else been as deeply shocked and offended as I was, or was this aimed at me, does it mean that my guilty secret is out at last?

Depending on your anti-ad and anti-tracking settings, they're tailored to the recent browsing history on your computer. Have you - or someone else using the same computer - perhaps been on (for example) the M&S website recently?

 

Since I use AdBlockPlus and various other anti-tracking systems I never see adverts here - or anywhere else, come to that :lol:



#491 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Member

  • 14,307 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 12 November 2013 - 18:59

I'm getting the Red Knickers ad too, and the only clothes browsing I've done recently is for waterproof jackets, for which I'm now getting targeted ads from Amazon. My theory is that some of the ads I see on this forum are targeted at me based on my recent browsing, whilst the rest are just general ads for products/services I've not previously expressed any interest in.

#492 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 7,180 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 19:10

I'm getting the Red Knickers ad too...

 

What you get up to in private is your affair Tim, and yours alone. Your, or rather our secret, is safe with us.

 

Slightly more seriously in response to Vitesse's post, I strongly suspect some wifely browsing earlier today, after the battery went flat on her laptop. That's my excuse anyway...



#493 helioseism

helioseism
  • Member

  • 1,429 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 12 November 2013 - 19:17

Brooklands humour is clearly lost on you.

The tendency has been demonstrated many times, as with this exact post. It may simply be unconscious, which would be very sad. Or it is intentional, which is reprehensible.


Edited by helioseism, 12 November 2013 - 19:21.


#494 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 November 2013 - 19:29

Okay, but that's not my point. I am curious about whether Artti, who (quite rightly) take measures to protect his copyright, posts his photos on FB and if so, whether he has any concerns about the claims they make on others' intellectual property.

Thanks for your interest, yes my photo's contain the customary watermarks on fb, whatever they may claim fb has no right to intellectual copyright what ever their "conditions" and yes I'd be quite willing to take their trousers down if they were to missuse my images. The way to beat them at their own game is to take out legal insurance when one wants to go to court. That said I do keep the numbers of images I post on all platforms to a minimum simply through lack of time.



#495 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 11,695 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 13 November 2013 - 08:42

Not sure that we really want or need "traffic", more "The right crowd and no crowding", quality not quantity.

 

 

Right here is a succinct statement of what is wrong with this forum. A snobbish elitist attitude that drives people away.

 

 

Brooklands humour is clearly lost on you.

 

 

The tendency has been demonstrated many times, as with this exact post. It may simply be unconscious, which would be very sad. Or it is intentional, which is reprehensible.

 

There is nothing wrong with being elitist after all TNF is a select body and must be considered the best when it comes to the wealth of experience on-line. If people are willing to learn and to contribute to TNF then they are welcome. As for driving people away the vast majority of those who have appeared briefly on this forum tend to find their level on Racing Comments where their wild and incomprehensible twaddle is far more acceptable.

Finally may I add that there is nothing what-so-ever reprehensible about humour, that is unless you lack the sense to recognise it.

1233971_10151885666978560_867078246_n.jp



#496 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 5,662 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 23 November 2013 - 08:03

Thanks for your interest, yes my photo's contain the customary watermarks on fb, whatever they may claim fb has no right to intellectual copyright what ever their "conditions" and yes I'd be quite willing to take their trousers down if they were to missuse my images. The way to beat them at their own game is to take out legal insurance when one wants to go to court. That said I do keep the numbers of images I post on all platforms to a minimum simply through lack of time.

 

Seems like US Courts agree copyright remains with the copyright holder no matter what the small print social media claim.



#497 D-Type

D-Type
  • Member

  • 8,047 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 23 November 2013 - 08:55

 

The final line says

 

AFP had initially argued that Twitter's terms of service permitted the use of the photos. But Nathan found in January that the company's policies allowed posting and "retweeting" of images but did not grant the right to use them commercially.

 

 

I'm no lawyer, but I think this means the common practice of copying and posting images they don't own on Facebook, Twitter, forums etc is actually legal provided there is no commercial gain.  But that ruling applies to the USA and as we know copyright law is tighter in other parts of the world.



#498 helioseism

helioseism
  • Member

  • 1,429 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 23 November 2013 - 12:45

There is nothing wrong with being elitist after all TNF is a select body and must be considered the best when it comes to the wealth of experience on-line. If people are willing to learn and to contribute to TNF then they are welcome. As for driving people away the vast majority of those who have appeared briefly on this forum tend to find their level on Racing Comments where their wild and incomprehensible twaddle is far more acceptable.

Finally may I add that there is nothing what-so-ever reprehensible about humour, that is unless you lack the sense to recognise it.

1233971_10151885666978560_867078246_n.jp

 

 

Oh goody -- more arrogant twaddle from the elitists.



#499 David McKinney

David McKinney
  • Member

  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: November 00

Posted 23 November 2013 - 14:05

In what way is that "arrogant twaddle"?

You don't have to agree with everyone's views, but personal comments such as these comes close to breaching forum rules, and contribute nothing to debate

Advertisement

#500 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 1,034 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 23 November 2013 - 14:59

In what way is that "arrogant twaddle"?

You don't have to agree with everyone's views, but personal comments such as these comes close to breaching forum rules, and contribute nothing to debate

David, I have a lot of sympathy with Frank. There is sometimes an arrogant undercurrent to those supporting an elitist outlook on TNF.  For all those who 'find their level on Racing Comments', there are probably many more interested and interesting TNF lurkers/newcomers who we'll never see again.  They'll all be wary of making fools of themselves on our 'elitist' forum.  Perhaps we could try and be a little more welcoming, especially having already created fluff-free Historical Research.