If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Remco Moedt" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:41:02 -0400, "Scirocco" > wrote: > > > <Snip all> > > You are so wrong! > > > Cheers! > > > Remco I most certainly am not - I knwo for a FACT that there are two posts that are both illegal and libelous on RSC about AutoSimSport and me personally - I also know for a fact (and have screenies to prove it) that mods at RSC have messed with the original posts. But yes, Remco, everyone else is definately wrong :-) |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Reid" > wrote in news:E7oOe.124386$E95.20724
@fed1read01: >> Where is the line drawn on illegal links? > > Appaently, it's only OK for the moderators to do this. > > One of them started a thread "NR2003 mods", that included > links to sites that had the NR2005 mod that RSC supposedly > banned. The NR2005 mod was later deleted from that other > site, but only because First / iRacing was threatening > every web site they could find to delete such mods. > > > > > > ding ding ding...now you have got it. You don't matter. I don't matter. We are users, they are providers. They make rules and they can bend/break rules. And I'm not hiding behind a 'it's my money so what I say goes..' Thats not hiding, thats cold hard truth. If I pay for something, you or God or a Monkey can't tell me what to do with it so long as it doesn't cause injury. Face it..you got a little swat to your behind and have spent all the time since making things worse. Too bad. But it doesn't make the RSC boys evil. I'm sorry you have had problems with RSC. But then my sorrow changes nothing either. Buck up, MOVE ON. Really I mean it this time...thread closed. ta ta. dave henrie |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
John DiFool > wrote in
: > > But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't > think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, > non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. > > John DiFool > I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED to be validated. dave henrie going ..going.. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:45:25 -0500, Dave Henrie
> wrote: >John DiFool > wrote in : > >> >> But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't >> think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, >> non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. >> >> John DiFool >> > > I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from >RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get >breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED >to be validated. > >dave henrie > >going ..going.. Straw man. My point was, that, as the most visible and most commonly visited sim site on the planet, that it doesn't show either them or the community in a good light if certain moderators engage in questionable behaviors. This is a likely route to either irrelevance or oblivion (for some community members, RSC has indeed started to become irrelevant). Imagine if an organization in a real-world community somewhere, an organization which has a very high profile there and is able to serve certain needs for its community, started to get all ****y and obnoxious in certain respects. You don't think the community members would have a right to be annoyed? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message . 97.136... > > ding ding ding...now you have got it. You don't matter. I don't > matter. We are users, they are providers. They make rules and they can > bend/break rules. And I'm not hiding behind a 'it's my money so what I > say > goes..' Thats not hiding, thats cold hard truth. If I pay for something, > you or God or a Monkey can't tell me what to do with it so long as it > doesn't cause injury. > Face it..you got a little swat to your behind and have spent all the time > since making things worse. Too bad. But it doesn't make the RSC boys > evil. > I'm sorry you have had problems with RSC. But then my sorrow changes > nothing either. Buck up, MOVE ON. Really I mean it this time...thread > closed. > ta ta. > > dave henrie You're a bloody drama queen henrie! |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Henrie" > wrote in message . 97.136... > John DiFool > wrote in > : > >> >> But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't >> think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, >> non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. >> >> John DiFool >> > > I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from > RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get > breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED > to be validated. > > dave henrie > > going ..going.. Well, the birds of certain feathers seem to be flocking together dont they? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Scirocco" > wrote in message ... > > I still don't understand how a warning could someone you any harm. Also, > I had nothing to do with the situation going past a simple yellow warning > for a week. Hell, I've had a yellow warning myself and never felt like I > was harmed or a victim of "defamation of character". > Speaking of hard to understand, that first sentence is a doozy. I, and many others, fail to understand the use of the warning. Some clown said you were basically using it just because it's there in the software - no need to follow in the footsteps of the fools who put it in there! What purpose does it serve exactly? It probably just makes that person more interesting if anything - they'd have to be more likely to post something good and juicy! I mean, what are other users supposed to do? Stay away from them? Not read their posts? Oh, I'd better stay away from his links else I might end up with some really good, free software? You must be off your ****ing head! > > More BS, the following is a copy/paste of what I said: > "Formula One Administrations Ltd should hold the copyrights on videos. If > you can show where FOA or another division in the F1 empire such as > Formula One Licensing BV has held and since then released the videos into > the "public domain", I'll lift the warning. Otherwise, it'll only be a > week and yellow isn't that bad a color, is it?" > > I have NEVER said the warning would stay for longer than 1 week or > demanded, or even requested for that matter, a letter from the FIA or > FOA.... > Ok, so anyone posting a link to anything needs to get a supreme court ruling that it is not copyrighted - no worries RSC policy - never give members the benefit of the doubt and pass up an opportunity to weild the big, yellow stick! |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:22:46 -0400, John DiFool
> wrote: >On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:45:25 -0500, Dave Henrie > wrote: > >>John DiFool > wrote in m: >> >>> >>> But as the most visible site in the sim racing community, you don't >>> think they shoulder a responsibility to be professional, impartial, >>> non-hypocritical, and non-confrontational? I do. >>> >>> John DiFool >>> >> >> I don't. So there. Where does this need for a big emotional hug from >>RSC come from. Alright. All you belly achers...which ones DIDN'T get >>breast fed as babies? There has got to be a logical reason for this NEED >>to be validated. >> >>dave henrie >> >>going ..going.. > >Straw man. My point was, that, as the most visible and most commonly >visited sim site on the planet, that it doesn't show either them or >the >community in a good light if certain moderators engage in questionable >behaviors. This is a likely route to either irrelevance or oblivion >(for some community members, RSC has indeed started to become >irrelevant). > >Imagine if an organization in a real-world community somewhere, >an organization which has a very high profile there and is able to >serve certain needs for its community, started to get all ****y and >obnoxious in certain respects. You don't think the community >members would have a right to be annoyed? And while I'm at it... My only point here is this: when someone in the community does something, does it benefit the community, or does it harm it? And the higher the profile/influence of the party in question, the greater their effect on things, for good or ill: In this vein I see the release of rFactor as being a very good thing. It will bring together racers who formerly probably never did anything together and had little in common. Likewise, all that First/iRacing stuff didn't do the community any good at all. To name just one thing, it was probably a contributing factor to the low number of people who signed up for the recently-canceled Nurby 24 Hours for the GTP mod (as a number of people have publicly said that the First fiasco turned them off to racing NR2003). Say someone visits RSC for the first time, lurks around and sees a huge flame war where the mods are just fueling the fire. His conclusion is likely that he won't be wanting to associate with ANYONE, on both sides-thus we just lost a potential member of our racing fellowship. JD |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|