| Posted on 06-Apr-2004 07:24 GMT by Christian Kemp (Edited on 2004-04-06 10:09:44 GMT by Christian Kemp) | 1057 comments
View flat
View list | |
I am currently being threatened by my former employer (they are "compelled [to] take action against [me]") for the way I am running ANN, and how this allegedly violates my employment contract with them ("interfere _in any manner_ with any business relationship between the Company and any of its customers or business partners"). This might entail drastic changes to the relative freedom of speech ANN has always allowed its visitors, or ANN might close down altogether. Updated 10:00 CET.
|
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 351 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 18:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 344 (Amon_Re):
> Don't need to, you are already back to argueing about shemantics.
No, I'm arguing facts. You attribute to me things I've never said or done. You are the one who is acting dishonestly, not me. You're hatred torwards BBRV makes you blind.
> What Bill said makes perfect sence judging past exchanges with you, you take a
> discussion, find something vague or twistable, and start argueing about petite
> or silly details, without willingness to accept that other people might have a
> different opinion/idea.
I perfectly accept other people's opinion, when they are stated as such. I totally dislike the way people like you talk, instead, that is by means of insults, slanders, unsubstantiated opinions given as facts, and so on and so forth.
> and if someone dares question you you react with arrogant lines like "get your
> head examined".
Please, define "quetion you". I'd not say that making unsubstantiated claims about the motives behind my words is "questioning me", that's just making unsubstantiated claims. Besides, at least I've got more class than you when I feel the need to say something harsher than usual.
> More snide remarks towards Christian,
It's a simple fact, not a remark. Christian is watching this saga without intervening. Can you really negate that?
> Christian isn't the bogeyman in this matter, he's the victim,
Sure, maybe. We don't know yet, we know only what he said. Oh, and I'm inclined to believe him on the fact that BBRV sent him a "threatening" email, and I've already stated what I think about this, and no it was nothing good. But somehow you decide to pick only the words of my posts that further your agenda, twist them and then say I said things I've never really said.
Dishonest, and nothing else. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 352 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 06-Apr-2004 18:08 GMT | In reply to Comment 305 (Fabio Alemagna):
@Fabio
> And slandering BBRV in what way helps ANN surviving?
It's only slander if it's a lie.
As for your other demand for an apology, you can wait until the cows come home. I've never been bothered about what others think of my credibility and I'm not about to now.
I don't know your exact reason, but you ARE defending Bill Buck's actions and you ARE playing games with semantics in order to deflect attention from the real issue: is it right for Buck to threaten ANN with legal action citing Christian's former obligations as an employee or not? If yes, was it right that the same Buck who now threatens legal action used (abused?) this same forum to throw insults at rival companies and individuals, not to mention make accusations against rival companies and their products?
Stop mincing words and playing games. Why don't you come right out and accuse Christian of lying, because that's what you've been implying all along. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 353 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JKD on 06-Apr-2004 18:15 GMT | WTF?
Saying no more until some facts are available. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 354 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Tigger on 06-Apr-2004 18:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 283 (Anonymous):
>>>>
Not at all they may have wanted Wayne not to have the domain, as the is associated with the brandname. That's not hard to imagine as the website at a time was more a Bill Buck propaganda site than an Amiga(TM) site.
>>>>
Get a grip on reality. First of all NASAU has owned the domain since before the demise of Commodore. Secondly Fleecies threats about the domain date back to June or July of 2000, which obviously was before your mythical conversion of the site and before Genesi existed and before Thendic and Amiga Inc signed a contract. It continued through last year when Wayne was no longer the webmaster, with Fleecy sending threats to moderators and members of the site when they posted things he didnt agree with.
-Tig |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 355 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 06-Apr-2004 18:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 307 (Fabio Alemagna):
@Fabio
> You really sound silly, don't you? I've never asked him to publish the email
> verbatim, I've asked him to tell the whole story, and to make names,
How do you know he hasn't told the whole story? Why do you assume there are details left out?
As for naming names, he has been quite clear in where the letter came from: "His former employer". How many of Christian's former employers do you know who would have reason to accuse him on the basis of ANN posts.
> none of which is illegal.
Uh, huh. And you are prepared to stake what on that fact? Your money? Your house? The future of AROS?
If Christian has ANY doubt at all about what might land him in hot water, he is right to protect himself in any way he sees fit.
> Give it up, bill.
I'm not the one accusing someone else of lying Fabio. YOU are. It would be nice if you substantiated that accusation, as a courtesy to the webmaster whose site you're using. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 356 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 18:22 GMT | In reply to Comment 351 (Fabio Alemagna):
I shouldn't really react to this but oh hell...
> Don't need to, you are already back to argueing about shemantics.
No, I'm arguing facts. You attribute to me things I've never said or done. You are the one who is acting dishonestly, not me. You're hatred torwards BBRV makes you blind.
How i feel about BBRV has nothing to do with how i relate to you or anyone else, if i allowed my opinion about BBRV affect my better judgement, i would not be capable of having intresting talks with people directly or indirectly involved with him/his company.
> What Bill said makes perfect sence judging past exchanges with you, you take a
> discussion, find something vague or twistable, and start argueing about petite
> or silly details, without willingness to accept that other people might have a
> different opinion/idea.
I perfectly accept other people's opinion, when they are stated as such. I totally dislike the way people like you talk, instead, that is by means of insults, slanders, unsubstantiated opinions given as facts, and so on and so forth.
Do i insult people? Yes, it happens, shoot me
Do i slander people? If slander = insults, see above
Do i state unsubstantiated opinions as facts? Nope, i don't
Your portret of me is completely screwed, and perhaps mine is completely out in the left field about you too, but nevertheless you are argueing shemantics and little details that aren't of any importance to the topic at hand, you are yet again focussing on a detail.
> and if someone dares question you you react with arrogant lines like "get your
> head examined".
Please, define "quetion you". I'd not say that making unsubstantiated claims about the motives behind my words is "questioning me", that's just making unsubstantiated claims. Besides, at least I've got more class than you when I feel the need to say something harsher than usual.
And here's the arrogance yet again, the elitist bullshit you tend to spew, i don't know if you do it intentionally, trying to get a reaction from people, but i don't give a flying crap neighter, here are some words of wisdom you might like "Nobody is better then me, but i'm no better then the rest".
As for "motives behind your words", i don't know what your motives are, but all you do is focus on minor, stupid things & drag it over the whole thread.
> More snide remarks towards Christian,
It's a simple fact, not a remark. Christian is watching this saga without intervening. Can you really negate that?
And you say others state opinions as fact?
Ever considered that Christian might be somewhere else?
You are (unwillingly?) undermining Christian's character
> Christian isn't the bogeyman in this matter, he's the victim,
Sure, maybe. We don't know yet, we know only what he said. Oh, and I'm inclined to believe him on the fact that BBRV sent him a "threatening" email, and I've already stated what I think about this, and no it was nothing good. But somehow you decide to pick only the words of my posts that further your agenda, twist them and then say I said things I've never really said.
Fuck my agenda, nothing i said in this thread has anything to do with "my agenda", you want to know what my agenda is? Getting my hands on OS4, that's it, nothing more, nothing less, shocking isn't? And my dislike of BBRV has shit all to do with that.
Fabio, pot - kettle - black
Cheers
Dishonest, and nothing else. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 357 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 18:23 GMT | In reply to Comment 352 (Bill Hoggett):
Sometimes Bill, i envy your eloqence ;)
Cheers |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 358 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 18:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 352 (Bill Hoggett):
> It's only slander if it's a lie.
Ok, so you won't mind if I say you're a bastard scumbag full of shit, right?
> As for your other demand for an apology, you can wait until the cows come
> home.
Good, guess that means you can prove that I am in any way loyal to bbrv, and that this loyalty comes from the fact that he gave a peg to the AROS team.
Come on, show the proof. Be a man, Bill.
> I've never been bothered about what others think of my credibility and
> I'm not about to now.
Oh, it really shows.
> I don't know your exact reason, but you ARE defending Bill Buck's actions and
> you ARE playing games with semantics in order to deflect attention from the
> real issue:
If you think that, then you REALLY have got problems. I'am NOT defending him. There's a BIG difference between defending someone and attacking someone else.
Bill, perhaps you didn't notice, but I am against both parties in this issue. I am taking no side, because all sides have their illnesses, this whole community is ill.
You show no respect for honesty, you want to jump to conclusions even before you know anything.
> is it right for Buck to threaten ANN with legal action citing
> Christian's former obligations as an employee or not?
I DO NOT NEED to restate what I've already stated more than twice. Do your damn homework before jumping to conclusions. READ what one writes, before criticising him. TRY, at least, to intertain an honest discussion.
> If yes, was it right that the same Buck who now threatens legal action used
> (abused?) this same forum to throw insults at rival companies and individuals,
> not to mention make accusations against rival companies and their products?
If Buck has insulted rival companies on his own will (that is not in responce to other, direct, insults), then that's wrong regardless of whether he's wrong now too. The fact you put the two things in relation, as if one depended on the other one, amazes me.
> Stop mincing words and playing games.
I AM NOT PLAYING ANY F***ing game, for Christ's sake, and not mincing any words! I'm just making points that the lot of you can't even grasp! Luckily someone could, which proves, if anything, that I've not gone crazy.
> Why don't you come right out and accuse Christian of lying, because that's
> what you've been implying all along.
See? You put words into my mouth. I've not implied anything that I've not explicitely written. The fact you want by force to pretend I'm implying something just means that you want to believe things are like you say they are, but you have no damn proof.
All I want is Christian making names and telling the whole story, before I give him any credibility. Is that too much of a request? |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 359 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 06-Apr-2004 18:32 GMT | In reply to Comment 356 (Amon_Re):
> I perfectly accept other people's opinion, when they are stated as such. I totally dislike the way people like you talk, instead, that is by means of insults, slanders, unsubstantiated opinions given as facts, and so on and so forth.
Is that fact or daily exercise after waking up, when you stand before the mirror? "I must accept other people's opinion, when they are stated as such. I must not totally dislike the way people like Fabio talk. I must not insult, slander and so forth." I can assure you: it is not yet working :) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 360 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 361 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 18:34 GMT | In reply to Comment 359 (Anonymous):
I didn't write that, Fabio did.
Cheers |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 362 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 06-Apr-2004 18:37 GMT | In reply to Comment 361 (Amon_Re):
> I didn't write that, Fabio did
Oops :) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 363 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 18:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 355 (Bill Hoggett):
> > You really sound silly, don't you? I've never asked him to publish the email
> > verbatim, I've asked him to tell the whole story, and to make names,
> How do you know he hasn't told the whole story?
Because he said nothing, for Christ's sake! I want to know - I have the right to, at this point! - exactly what happened. I want to know the exact names of the personalities involved. I want to know that from him and no one else, if he wants me to give him any credit.
> Why do you assume there are details left out?
Because there are no *details* put in!
> As for naming names, he has been quite clear in where the letter came from:
>"His former employer". How many of Christian's former employers do you know who
> would have reason to accuse him on the basis of ANN posts.
It's not my job to do any guesses, if he wants to me to give him support, he's got to be honest with me and tell me everything I need to know. I need to know who's involved in this issue, and I need to know the whole story. I don't have to do any guesses, it's his job to make names, not mine to make guesses. At making guesses one can also get it wrong, didn't you know? Then in the end he could say "well, I've never stated what you guessed", and then in the end the fault will be mine.
Before judging anything, I need to know all I have to know in order to make a judgment. SPECIALLY when it's something SO big.
> none of which is illegal.
> Uh, huh. And you are prepared to stake what on that fact? Your money? Your
> house? The future of AROS?
Provided that he says the truth, there's nothing illegal in that. I can stake everything on that, I fucking know what I'm talking about, unlike you.
> If Christian has ANY doubt at all about what might land him in hot water, he
> is right to protect himself in any way he sees fit.
In the meantime, he's caused lots of trobles to Genesi with this thread, with people that now are willing to boycott the company. Other fuel on the fire, a fire that has been lit under Christian's feet.
Only a dumb wouldn't see that.
> I'm not the one accusing someone else of lying Fabio. YOU are.
Sure? Tell me where. COME ON!
> It would be nice if you substantiated that accusation, as a courtesy to the
> webmaster whose site you're using.
_what_ accusation should I substantiate?! |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 364 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Darrin on 06-Apr-2004 18:57 GMT | In reply to Comment 363 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Because he said nothing, for Christ's sake! I want to know - I have the right to, at this point!
ROTFL!!! What an ego... "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO"!!!. LOL. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 365 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 18:57 GMT | In reply to Comment 363 (Fabio Alemagna):
> > You really sound silly, don't you? I've never asked him to publish the email
> > verbatim, I've asked him to tell the whole story, and to make names,
> How do you know he hasn't told the whole story?
Because he said nothing, for Christ's sake! I want to know - I have the right to, at this point! - exactly what happened. I want to know the exact names of the personalities involved. I want to know that from him and no one else, if he wants me to give him any credit.
No offence Fabio, you do not have the right to know, you can ask, but neighter BBRV nor Christian is obligated to tell you or us anything.
The problem i'm having with your posts in this very thread is that they give the impression that you are accusing Christian of lying.
Let me pound abit on the word impression, that's how i'm reading your posts, partly because you seem eager to break any credit Christian's word might have for other people. (again, note that i said you seem
> Why do you assume there are details left out?
Because there are no *details* put in!
Neighter side is talking, this is all we'll know for now
> As for naming names, he has been quite clear in where the letter came from:
>"His former employer". How many of Christian's former employers do you know who
> would have reason to accuse him on the basis of ANN posts.
It's not my job to do any guesses, if he wants to me to give him support, he's got to be honest with me and tell me everything I need to know. I need to know who's involved in this issue, and I need to know the whole story. I don't have to do any guesses, it's his job to make names, not mine to make guesses. At making guesses one can also get it wrong, didn't you know? Then in the end he could say "well, I've never stated what you guessed", and then in the end the fault will be mine.
Well then, stay out of the discussion, or say you'll await further details, it's as simple as that really.
<snipped the rest as i've run out of patience>
Cheers |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 366 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 18:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 360 (Christian Kemp):
> Did you get my email?
I did, but I hadn't noticed it, as the email I use here is full of SPAM...
I've replied. Thanks for your clarification, now everything makes much more sense.
And for all the others that are reading this: yes, you're helping ANN sink, right now, with this your behaviour. STOP IT NOW. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 367 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by James Carroll on 06-Apr-2004 19:00 GMT | In reply to Comment 358 (Fabio Alemagna):
All I want is Christian making names and telling the whole story, before I give him any credibility. Is that too much of a request?
Christian isnt telling everyone everything for a reason. It must be a good one. Do you want him to tell us facts that should have been left private (for legal reasons, I dont know) for us to suddenly realise that, yes, he should have kept the information to himself?
I believe he's hinted and told us what he possibly can at this stage. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 368 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 19:03 GMT | In reply to Comment 364 (Darrin):
> ROTFL!!! What an ego... "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO"!!!. LOL.
Unlike you, stupid little boy, I have a at least a bit of integrity, and I am not the type of person that judges people only on the basis of a few words and innuendo. If those are enough for you to start your holy war, well, they're not enough for me.
Yes, I have the right to know how things are for real, if I am asked to show support. If that's too difficult for you to comprehend, then I'm sorry for you.
Btw, I've now got the clarification I needed, and I stand correct in my warnings to you and the rest like you: STOP IT NOW. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 369 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by James Carroll on 06-Apr-2004 19:03 GMT | In reply to Comment 366 (Fabio Alemagna):
And for all the others that are reading this: yes, you're helping ANN sink, right now, with this your behaviour. STOP IT NOW
You've got to be kidding.. you've helped fuel this entire thread from the very first page of posts. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 370 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 19:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 367 (James Carroll):
> Christian isnt telling everyone everything for a reason. It must be a good one.
> Do you want him to tell us facts that should have been left private (for legal
> reasons, I dont know) for us to suddenly realise that, yes, he should have kept
> the information to himself?
No, I want to know those facts only if I'm asked to judge anyone.
> I believe he's hinted and told us what he possibly can at this stage.
And that's the problem, hinting can be worse than telling the whole story. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 371 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by z5 on 06-Apr-2004 19:09 GMT | There is no way i'm getting involved in this discussion :)
Just want to say to Christian: good luck for yourself and ANN. Everything will hopefully work out. I think it's safe to say that you have the support of many people on this one. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 372 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 19:11 GMT | In reply to Comment 369 (James Carroll):
> You've got to be kidding..
Not really, I'm quite serious.
> you've helped fuel this entire thread from the very first page of posts.
I've simply told people to avoid slandering bbrv. I will keep saying that as much as needed. Are there any other ways to make you understand the issue? |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 373 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 06-Apr-2004 19:13 GMT | In reply to Comment 363 (Fabio Alemagna):
@Fabio
Like I said, you ARE playing word games. You always do this rather than address issues. If Christian were to publish everything verbatim, you would scrutinise it looking for how you can justify BBRV's actions.
Let me turn this round: if the accusation is NOT true, why has there been no denial whatsoever?
As for your substantiation, you have accused Christian of lying by implication. You offer no reason beyond the vagueness of his post for your stance, and say that you know exactly what his legal obligations and liabilities would be. Considering that you have no idea whatsoever what the conditions are, and no idea what jurisdiction the alleged communique would fall under, I have to ask where your legal expertise comes from?
NOTE: while infringements regarding site content may fall under EU or Luxembourg law, the comminications between Christian's "former employer" and himself does not have to.
Yes, I would like more detail on what is goin on, but only if it does not prejudice Christian's position. I repeat: YOU are not in a position to decide what would and what would not imperil his position. Neither am I. Only a lawyer fully conversant with the situation can do that. Failing that, I am prepared to accept Christian's judgement on the matter, and until I see a claim to the contrary, I am prepared to accept his word. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 374 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by hooligan/dcs on 06-Apr-2004 19:14 GMT | | What an excellent day for our little communities. On days like these powermac doesn't sound so bad option after all. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 375 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Darrin on 06-Apr-2004 19:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 368 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Unlike you, stupid little boy, I have a at least a bit of integrity,
You have nothing but a set of blinkers on you that prevent you from seeing anyone elses point of view.
> and I am not the type of person that judges people only on the basis of a few
> words and innuendo.
No, you a spoilt child that's been screaming your head off for god knows how many posts.
> If those are enough for you to start your holy war, well, they're not enough for me.
Holy war? All I've done is voice support for Chris and inform you that your so-called point of view was crud.
>Yes, I have the right to know how things are for real,
You have no right to anything. That's a fact of life so deal with it.
> if I am asked to show support.
You weren't being asked for anything. All you had to do was read the "news".
> If that's too difficult for you to comprehend, then I'm sorry for you.
I understand. It's you that's failing to grasp what happened here, blown it out of proportion, and made a complete ass of yourself in the process.
>Btw, I've now got the clarification I needed, and
Oh goody. Now your temper tantrum has paid off and everything is clear.
>I stand correct in my warnings to you and the rest like you: STOP IT NOW.
If YOU say so. Get a life, you are correct how? Tell me, how are YOU correct in this? How do you justify your behaviour in this thread? Go on, try.
You owe a bunch of people here an apology, but you're not man enough to do it.
I hope you never become the offical spokesman for AROS. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 376 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 19:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 370 (Fabio Alemagna):
Fabio, i apologise for implying you were defending BBRV.
BTW, check your mail pls.
Cheers |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 377 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Darrin on 06-Apr-2004 19:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 374 (hooligan/dcs):
>On days like these powermac doesn't sound so bad option after all.
Days like this make "Windows ME" look appealing :-) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 378 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 06-Apr-2004 19:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 372 (Fabio Alemagna):
New AAN Poll - whose arse is Fabio up most? BBRV's or his own? |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 379 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 19:26 GMT | In reply to Comment 373 (Bill Hoggett):
Bill, I won't reply to you anymore until you read ALL of my posts on the subject, because you've clearly still not read them.
The only one making accusations here is you, in everyone of your posts, torwards me. I urge you to go read those posts now, or I won't reply to yours anymore. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 380 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Graham_nli on 06-Apr-2004 19:27 GMT | In reply to Comment 378 (Anonymous):
I think it is time that everyone went and had a nice cup of tea and went and watched Champions League highlights on TV or a light comedy. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 381 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 382 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JKD on 06-Apr-2004 19:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 353 (JKD):
Okay, done thinking.
Whomever this is (sure I'll buy into the anonymity for it's own sake) and whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on, surely does them sell significant harm if they were ever interested in marketing to ANN readers and posters. This will have a knock-on effect, recent news events are appearing outside the Amiga community, it's only a matter of time before this one does.
Everyone is best served if this kind of 'scare tactic' is avoided, no further action is taken and (in best of terms) an apology is issued.
Steve |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 383 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 384 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 06-Apr-2004 19:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 380 (Graham_nli):
> think it is time that everyone went and had a nice cup of tea and went and watched Champions League highlights on TV or a light comedy.
In comparison to this, Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be light comedy ;) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 385 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Graham_nli on 06-Apr-2004 19:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 383 (Christian Kemp):
Hmmm, you'd wake up one day and walk out and the light would catch the sand so that it looked red, then you'd look at the blue sky and scream! |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 386 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Christian Kemp on 06-Apr-2004 19:47 GMT | In reply to Comment 385 (Graham_nli):
I've witnessed two sunrises up there, and the prevailing colours are gold, black and blue. I've found that I was by far more concerned on how not to get too much sand in my shoes (or in my camera) than what those colours could possibly stand for. :)
(Oh, and not freezing to death was also a minor issue this January. Whoever's saying Death Valley is the warmest place on earth clearly hasn't been to the side valleys in winter.)
(If everything else fails, I might just start doing a travel and digital photography site as a hobby. Oh wait, I did. :) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 387 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Leif on 06-Apr-2004 19:50 GMT | In reply to Comment 386 (Christian Kemp):
So, are you going to clarify and take care of what you have been
creating here, or just pretend it is a thread about digital photography ?
:):( |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 388 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by hnl_dk on 06-Apr-2004 19:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 383 (Christian Kemp):
WOW I really like that picture :O)
Do you have one in a bigger resolution?
I would like it as a backdrop on my Windows platform... |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 389 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Leif on 06-Apr-2004 19:54 GMT | | ..That WAS a damn nice picture btw. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 390 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Matt Parsons on 06-Apr-2004 19:55 GMT | In reply to Comment 383 (Christian Kemp):
You should visit london again (In the summer this time) :-) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 391 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 20:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 383 (Christian Kemp):
That's abit drastic isn't it? :)
Cheers |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 392 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 06-Apr-2004 20:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 379 (Fabio Alemagna):
@Fabio
I HAVE read your posts. You demand that Christian give you chapter and verse or else retract his post because of the alleged damage it is doing to Genesi's reputation.
The suggestion that unless Christian spills the beans in gory detail he must be lying is implicit in the ferocity and adamant manner of your demands. Aside from the lack of exact detail, names, dates and quotes, you give no reason why Christian would be lying and why his post must not be believed.
You can hide with semantics all you want, but in the end no one cares about those except you. Your meaning is clear: "Christian is lying unless he provides irrefutable proof to your satisfaction".
Well, if he is, we'll soon know. In the meanwhile, given no other evidence or claims, I choose to put much more trust in his integrity than in your indignation. No one owes you anything. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 393 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Christian Kemp on 06-Apr-2004 20:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 388 (hnl_dk):
What size do you want? That particular picture is 3072x2048. Please mail me the details, or I might forget. (I'll be heading to bed now.) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 394 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Bill Hoggett on 06-Apr-2004 20:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 387 (Leif):
> or just pretend it is a thread about digital photography ?
You mean it's NOT about digital photography???
Ohmygosh!!! I take everything back... |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 395 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amon_Re on 06-Apr-2004 20:09 GMT | In reply to Comment 392 (Bill Hoggett):
Bill,
I've come to the conclusion that Fabio was not implying that Christian was lying, but that he was unwilling to support him without more info, info wich Christian supplied him (i guess, seeing his responce to Christian in this thread).
In this thread i suppose the problem is language, his posts were unwillingly implying that Christian must've been lying.
Cheers |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 396 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Christian Kemp on 06-Apr-2004 20:10 GMT | In reply to Comment 387 (Leif):
I whole-heartedly recommend the Canon Digital Rebel - in the right hands (and I'm still learning) it creates amazing shots.
(In other words: I won't read or comment any more today - I'll wait and see what happens the next few days. In general, I certainly won't let anyone intimidate or bully me, but I keep on getting struck with blows that are hard to stomach, so I hope everyone will understand if I'm not always able to explain everything, or handle everything in a perfect way.) |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 397 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 06-Apr-2004 20:12 GMT | In reply to Comment 243 (brotheris):
So following your logic the people who defected to QNX back when that was supposed to be the solution are also Amiga users today? |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 398 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 20:13 GMT | In reply to Comment 392 (Bill Hoggett):
> I HAVE read your posts. You demand that Christian give you chapter and verse or
> else retract his post because of the alleged damage it is doing to Genesi's
> reputation.
Bill, then you don't know how to read. I cannot help you with that, really. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 399 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 20:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 392 (Bill Hoggett):
> I HAVE read your posts. You demand that Christian give you chapter and verse or
> else retract his post because of the alleged damage it is doing to Genesi's
> reputation.
Bill, then you don't know how to read. I cannot help you with that, really.
When also Amon_Re acknowledged he attributed to me things that were not true, and when I've already exchanged 2 emails with Christian himself, where none of the things you attribute to me have been addressed and where the dialogue was quite friendly and the where we both showed to understand each other points, I think it's clear that you perhaps need to take off your eyes that stuff that covers them. |
|
| Legal threats? : Comment 400 of 1057 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 06-Apr-2004 20:16 GMT | In reply to Comment 395 (Amon_Re):
> his posts were unwillingly implying that Christian must've been lying.
I refuse to admit that i've implied anything like that, willingly or unwillingly. All I said is that I couldn't judge. |
|
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|
