The message
from Judith Lea contains
these words:
In article , Jaques d'Alltrades
writes
The two nearest ones to me are still in use - on by a glider club and
the other for light aircraft. These two airfields (Tibenham and Old
Buckenham) were Liberator stations, and their CO was James Stewart.

Goodness, just down the road from me in Norwich.

We in East Anglia have proprietorial rights over Americans, you know.
They are 'our boys' just as much as the RAF aircrew, and accordingly, we
can dig at each-other as only good friends can.

It's true that we look on the American airmen/women as part of our own,
we had a wonderful American Memorial Library - before it was burnt down
a few years ago!

Yes. I believe they managed to salvage some of that before the fire and
water got it. Tragedy of major proportions, for all that.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:37:05 +0000, Victoria Clare
wrote:

Sacha wrote

I only took a brief glance at that forum to see what was going on
after Janet emailed me. I'd like to know why they're doing this and
if they get any financial gain from it. Some of the people who post
here are professional and might object to their freely given advice to
*URG* being used to benefit others.

Well I am certainly not a professional gardener, but I have no objection at
all to any of my postings being used by anyone, for whatever reason.

The site in question appears to be a digest arranged for those too dim
(or underserved) to check Google or read newsgroups. Google itself
(and others) might be similarly criticized for archiving and
presenting messages 2nd hand.

It would be annoying indeed (and probably copyright violation) to
abstract messages (or pictures) without attribution and reproduce them
out of context. However, this is just a conduit to readily available
information, and *with* the normal attribution.

The message
from Frogleg contains these words:

The site in question appears to be a digest arranged for those too dim
(or underserved) to check Google or read newsgroups. Google itself
(and others) might be similarly criticized for archiving and
presenting messages 2nd hand.

Google gives usenet posters the choice *not* to be archived there and
honours the "x-no-archive" post header. In addition, those who do appear
in the google archive can request ar any time, to have one or all posts
deleted.

It would be annoying indeed (and probably copyright violation) to
abstract messages (or pictures) without attribution and reproduce them
out of context.

That has happened here in the past. A regular poster to this group
lifted third-party material straight from it, without the writers'
knowledge or permission, and reproduced it without attribution on a
gardening website which was paying him to write original material for
it.

I've been approached several times by idle journalists (including
Americans) trawling the urg google archives to find ready-written
gardening material for the newspapers/magazines which employ them to
write it. Two asked me to waive copyright or settle for a byline and one
just informed me of the great honour he was about to confer. No prizes
for guessing who got paid for the reproduced article and who did not.

Goodness only knows how many self-styled journalists/researchers do
that without permission or notification...I saw an instance not long ago
in a national newspaper. The author was an urgler, the post was from
another usenet group, taken out of its context, without their knowledge
or consent, and published along with their name.

Others may find such behaviour acceptable, that's fine for them. Those
of us who don't would just like our clearly-indicated choice to be
respected, and that's what this American website refuses to do.

Janet.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:21:30 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

The message
from Frogleg contains these words:

The site in question appears to be a digest arranged for those too dim
(or underserved) to check Google or read newsgroups. Google itself
(and others) might be similarly criticized for archiving and
presenting messages 2nd hand.

Google gives usenet posters the choice *not* to be archived there and
honours the "x-no-archive" post header. In addition, those who do appear
in the google archive can request ar any time, to have one or all posts
deleted.

It would be annoying indeed (and probably copyright violation) to
abstract messages (or pictures) without attribution and reproduce them
out of context.

That has happened here in the past. A regular poster to this group
lifted third-party material straight from it, without the writers'
knowledge or permission, and reproduced it without attribution on a
gardening website which was paying him to write original material for
it.

IPC boat magazines do the same trick.
--
Martin

"Nick Wagg" wrote in message
...
Frogleg wrote:

How can people from a an area half the size of
California with more regional accents than France has cheeses believe
there's such a thing as an 'American' mode of speech?

The fact that most of us can spot one a mile off means that this
must be the case, even if we often think that Canadians are
Americans too - well strictly speaking they are.
--
Nick Wagg

Coming late to this discussion - well, I've been in Cyprus for two weeks
complaining about the weather (I take it all back) - many is the time when
stopping in an hotel in the US that I've been told by the staff "Hey, there
are some of your guys over there" only to wander over and find they are
Aussie/Kiwi (occasionally SA).

Anyone speaking recognisable English and not US/Canadian seems to be grouped
as a Brit!

And of course all the Portuguese/Spanish/etc. speakers down below the narrow
bit are also American.

Big continent, after all.

Cheers
Dave R

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:27:17 -0000, "David W.E. Roberts"
wrote:


"Nick Wagg" wrote

Frogleg wrote:

How can people from a an area half the size of
California with more regional accents than France has cheeses believe
there's such a thing as an 'American' mode of speech?

The fact that most of us can spot one a mile off means that this
must be the case, even if we often think that Canadians are
Americans too - well strictly speaking they are.

Coming late to this discussion - well, I've been in Cyprus for two weeks
complaining about the weather (I take it all back) - many is the time when
stopping in an hotel in the US that I've been told by the staff "Hey, there
are some of your guys over there" only to wander over and find they are
Aussie/Kiwi (occasionally SA).

Yep. You all sound the same. From Steve Irwin to Tony Blair. All
talking English 'funny.' :-)

My original point was that I was 'complimented' for "not sounding
American" which was a puzzle. AFAIK my speech is consumately (US)
American, fashioned early by New England parents and then long periods
living in New Mexico, California, and Virginia.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:21:30 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

from Frogleg contains these words:

The site in question appears to be a digest arranged for those too dim
(or underserved) to check Google or read newsgroups. Google itself
(and others) might be similarly criticized for archiving and
presenting messages 2nd hand.

Google gives usenet posters the choice *not* to be archived there and
honours the "x-no-archive" post header. In addition, those who do appear
in the google archive can request ar any time, to have one or all posts
deleted.

In that case, it would be useful to know if this site is simply a
gateway to Google or one that tracks and abstracts usenet msgs on its
own.

The message
from Frogleg contains these words:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:21:30 GMT, Janet Baraclough ..
wrote:

from Frogleg contains these words:

The site in question appears to be a digest arranged for those too dim
(or underserved) to check Google or read newsgroups. Google itself
(and others) might be similarly criticized for archiving and
presenting messages 2nd hand.

Google gives usenet posters the choice *not* to be archived there and
honours the "x-no-archive" post header. In addition, those who do appear
in the google archive can request ar any time, to have one or all posts
deleted.

In that case, it would be useful to know if this site is simply a
gateway to Google or one that tracks and abstracts usenet msgs on its
own.

All my post headers are marked x-no-archive,so posts from me don't
appear in google's archive. But they do appear on the website. Therefore
the website is not a portal to google's archive.

Janet

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Chris Boulby
wrote:

In message , Nick Wagg
writes
Frogleg wrote:

How can people from a an area half the size of
California with more regional accents than France has cheeses believe
there's such a thing as an 'American' mode of speech?

The fact that most of us can spot one a mile off means that this
must be the case, even if we often think that Canadians are
Americans too - well strictly speaking they are.

Ignorance is bliss

So was Mabel, where ever she came from.
--
Martin

In article , martin
writes
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:48:01 +0000, John Rouse
wrote:

In article , martin
writes
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:19:27 +0000, John Rouse
wrote:

I suggest you read up on the law of copyright. What is written here
remains the copyright of the author, unless assigned to another.

If that was true, it would be impossible for a newsgroup to propagate
messages.

Why?

because it involves copying what you wrote a billion times.

That doesn't stop you owning the copyright. Indeed once someone finds a
way to collect I'm going to be rich.

John
--
John Rouse