Message:

Subject: Re: this pawprint thing
Posted by Kim on May 25, 1998 at 15:14:28:

In Reply to: Re: this pawprint thing posted by Still Baffled on May 23, 1998 at 14:04:11:

: Of course, this was done by Terry AFTER the fact, which certainly suggests that he had no intent of ever acknowledging the sources UNLESS caught. Seems to me that if Terry didn't want to present original information in the areas where he used copied writing, maybe he should have had a "recommended reading" list in the first place. I for one would RATHER "go to the source." It seems to me that Pawprint WANTS to share their information and knowledge. After all, they do have a web site and go to the expense and trouble of publishing a newsletter (which I am on the mailing list for and think is great). They just don't want it re-used such as it has been here. What is really wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with not wanting your copyrighted work copied. I'm not sure how many more times we will have to type this... but I will do it again. There is nothing wrong with not wanting your copyrighted work copied.
There Is something wrong with approaching the issue in a threatening, non-compromising manner. Seems like pretty much everyone's biggest problem is that David came across as kind of a jerk. Maybe he isn't.. none of us know. Unfortunately, that is the only side of him he has let us see.

Kim

Follow Ups: