Solvang Cyclist wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in
ps.com:

Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
myopic?


I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
would have been fine.

Affirmative on the copyright issue, but I thought you might have said,
as one well-intentioned outdoor recreationist to another: "thanks for
the tip; this issue might impact some cyclists and boaters. But,
really, you should be careful about copyright infringement when you
post the full text of an article this way." And gone on in more detail
if you wished, in a collegial, comradely kind of way.

'Course, even when I *was* a
cyclist, I thought most cyclists were assholes. You conform to my
stereotype.

Reading through this thread for posters with a hostile tone, I find the
quote above to be quite ironic.

Well, of course you have extracted this quotation from context. The
context was this: someone posted, in good faith (but poor judgement WRT
copyright infringement) an article calling attention to an
urban-planning issue that might be of interest to environmentalists,
cyclists, and boaters. But rather than glancing briefly to determine
that the content was of no use to yourselves, the two of you evidently
read it all, then complained because he posted it, though this
well-intentioned message might actually be of interest to other readers
of your newsgroup.

You try to imply that, because you used no specifically provocative
words or terms, your post and Werehatrack's post were not hostile.
This is wrong. I fell into rec.bicycles.* by the OP's crosspost, yet
the Usenet-wide ettiquette for newsgroup posting has been the same for
decades, regardless of different group subcultures: in unmoderated
newsgroups anyone who is interested in the topic may post to the group,
and anyone who is not interested in what that poster has to say...
ignores the message.

So... yeh, I think anyone who jumps up and starts railing against a
well-intentioned act that he can easily ignore is -- let me soften it a
bit -- *acting* like an asshole. And I'm sure I don't need to point
out that no-one from the boating newsgroup or the environmental
newsgroup was doing this kind of railing. So I jumped to a conclusion,
which you resent.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================