View Full Version : I wonder if cyclingforums.com will archive this
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:
Does anybody know of a method of preventing
cyclingforums.com from archiving my messages, whilst still
allowing them to be archived by google?
The CF website does not include this in the FAQ, and there
appears to be no email address other than an advertising
one. I have tried support@ but with no reply.
Love and plagiarism from Rich x
--
Isn't it annoying when cyclingforums.com publish messages
that they haven't been granted permission to archive. In my
opinion it is as bad as software piracy.
> I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:
And you'll still not get the answer that you want.......
>
> Does anybody know of a method of preventing
> cyclingforums.com from archiving my messages, whilst still
> allowing them to be archived by google?
The easiest way to stop your messages from being archived
on cyclingforums is to totally stop posting messages on
the Internet.
Why do you have the need to be selective about the archiving
of your messages?
> Isn't it annoying when cyclingforums.com publish messages
> that they haven't been granted permission to archive. In
> my opinion it is as bad as software piracy.
No it's not and no, it's not.
Richard Bates wrote:
> I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:
>
> Does anybody know of a method of preventing
> cyclingforums.com from archiving my messages, whilst still
> allowing them to be archived by google?
>
> The CF website does not include this in the FAQ, and there
> appears to be no email address other than an advertising
> one. I have tried support@ but with no reply.
Can't you just post under a pseudonym? Anyone who really
wants to get in touch with me can use my (spam trapped by
Yahoo) e-mail address, but it stops future employers, etc.
seeing what I've been up to.
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 01:15:19 +0100, in
<c4kvmu$de6$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, "vernon levy" <not@home.net>
wrote:
>
>
>> I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:
>
>And you'll still not get the answer that you want.......
Actually I did :P I didn't get a reply at all last time.
Current urc atmosphere, and choice of subject line all
determine who reads a particular thread. And thanks to
email, I *did* get an answer which was helpful.
>> Does anybody know of a method of preventing
>> cyclingforums.com from archiving my messages, whilst
>> still allowing them to be archived by google?
>
>The easiest way to stop your messages from being archived
>on cyclingforums is to totally stop posting messages on the
>Internet.
>
>Why do you have the need to be selective about the
>archiving of your messages?
I'm very much a snob and I regard "genuine" urc folk to be a
lot more helpful/friendly to chat with. Judging by previous
threads, I am not the only one to have this opinion.
>> Isn't it annoying when cyclingforums.com publish messages
>> that they haven't been granted permission to archive. In
>> my opinion it is as bad as software piracy.
>
>No it's not and no, it's not.
As with google, cyclingforums obtain their funding by
advertising (cyclingforums less so at the moment). Using
other people's work to attract custom without providing an
opt-out is immoral in my opinion. I write music which is
used by an internet greeting card company. If another
company started using my music without permission I would
consider that breach of copyright. I don't see why an
archiving service is any different.
£0.02
--
Isn't it annoying when cyclingforums.com publish messages
that they haven't been granted permission to archive. In my
opinion it is as bad as software piracy.
Richard Bates wrote:
> I'm very much a snob and I regard "genuine" urc folk to be
> a lot more helpful/friendly to chat with. Judging by
> previous threads, I am not the only one to have this
> opinion.
I discovered URC via cyclingforums.com. If it hadn't been
for cyclingforums.com, I would never have discovered URC as
previous experiences with newsgroups had led me to avoid
them like the proverbial. Now I only use cyclingforums.com
to read URC while I'm at work and from that point of view
it's very useful (even if my boss would disagree).
Cyclingforums.com, like any internet forum (including many
newsgroups), does attract its fair share of weirdos (not to
mention bull**** merchants - see the current thread on
'highest ever speed'), but you just have to know which areas
of the boards to avoid - a lot of the posters are both
friendly and have interesting things to say.
d.
david kenning wrote:
> Cyclingforums.com, like any internet forum (including many
> newsgroups), does attract its fair share of weirdos (not
> to mention bull**** merchants - see the current thread on
> 'highest ever speed'), but you just have to know which
> areas of the boards to avoid - a lot of the posters are
> both friendly and have interesting things to say.
It doesn't seem that daft, assuming one had a steep enough
hill, long enough gears and crouched down. I've managed 40
down fairly steep hills and I'm not exactly robocyclist.
I think your kind of missing the point of Usenet. It is a
public medium - no-one owns the rights to the posts - not
even the posters themselves.
So I'm afraid you have no control over who reads or re-
posts anything you write. The only way to protect your
posts is to post them on your own website - then you could
copyright them.
Even posting to forums does not offer you any protection.
If you are not happy then don't use Newsgroups.
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:46:24 +0100, in
<rsxbc.27164$h44.3651971@stones.force9.net>, "Temp3st"
<temp3st@noharvest.lyspamtasticcos.co.uk.die.spam> wrote:
>I think your kind of missing the point of Usenet. It is a
>public medium - no-one owns the rights to the posts - not
>even the posters themselves.
>
>So I'm afraid you have no control over who reads or re-
>posts anything you write. The only way to protect your
>posts is to post them on your own website - then you could
>copyright them.
>
>Even posting to forums does not offer you any protection.
>
>If you are not happy then don't use Newsgroups.
Wrong, anything I create by myself is copyright to me. I do
not need to "register" a copyright. It simply exists. As
another poster stated: my shopping list is copyright to me.
I contribute to usenet on the understanding that my words
will be passed on electronically to the world over. But
when somebody is trying to make money out of it then I get
a tad annoyed.
Cyclingforums are a money-making affair, and they are
stealing other people's work. If they publicised a way to
prevent my work appearing then I would be a whole lot
happier. But they don't, and there is no email address I can
find which would let me find out. This is why I think they
are different to google.
It seems that you are happy for me to publish all your
posts in a weekly magazine which I'll sell over the
internet? I might aswell steal your bike too ... you won't
mind will you?
--
Isn't it annoying when cyclingforums.com publish messages
that they haven't been granted permission to archive. In my
opinion it is as bad as software piracy.
"Temp3st" <temp3st@noharvest.lyspamtasticcos.co.uk.die.spam> writes:
> It is a public medium - no-one owns the rights to the
> posts - not even the posters themselves.
This is, in fact, not the case. See
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html for the
standard guide to copyright myths as they apply to Usenet
(though note it's US-biased in places)
-dan
--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"
Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> writes:
> 'Copyright (c) [Your Name Here] 2004. Perimssion is
> granted to transmit this message via NNTP, to read
> this message, and to store this message for a maximum
> period of 30 (THIRTY) days.'
A little unfair on uucp users, dontcha think?
-dan
--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
