From: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: CNET Info
Date: 8 Nov 92 07:05:02 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

tdietz@tcedge.mi.org (Tom Dietz) writes:
>In an article, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>
>>No matter how good Excelsior may be, i certainly don't like the attitude
>>it's authors have *PUBLICLY* taken.  A mud slinging campaign that puts bush
>>to shame.
> 
>Attitude of the authors?  Whens the last time you got a hold of a BBS 
>programmer, voice?  Not too soon I may add.  You buy EXCELSIOR! you can call 
>us on the 800-line (thats TOLL-Free) if you run into a problem.  If you ask 
>any EXCELSIOR! sysop, I even urge them to.  I want to give as much support as 
>possible for the BBS program as you have paid for it.  I think the user is 
>entitled to that.  Not just leaving some post on a BBS and hoping someone will
>reply.

What does this have to do with your public mudslinging of Ken in a forum he
doesn't even frequent?  You totally ignored what i was saying, and go off on
this tangent of support?  I don't get it.

The issue here is that you are publicly slandering someone, who doesn't even
have a chance to respond to your accusations.  THAT is what i call a bad
attitude.

>Well, as you obviously havent really been understanding what you have been 
>reading.  Mudslinging?  I am sick and tired of being woken up in the middle 
>of the night only to find its Ken Pletzer and his friends screaming and
>swearing at me on the 800 line, and then people posting: "It couldnt be Ken"
>Then calling me(us) the instigator(s) or mudslingers.

Fine, but why do you have to post about it here?  Why do you insist on
slandering someone in a forum where they can't respond?  Why must you continue
to harass people that make an innocent statement about Excelsior and C-Net
having similar interfaces? 

>>shame, posting of priveledged source code (of which Ron Kushner should
>>watch out, having had access to Cnet source can make him liable for
>>copyright infringement and look and feel suits, since copyright includes
>>derived
>
>Impossible.  Why do you choose to accuse someone of something like that?
>Its totally ignorant.
>
>    1.  Ron has no priviledged source code.  
>    2.  There is no "look and feel" as it may be rumored.
>    3.  Ken has used so many others ideas both public and private that it
>        really would do no good.  Keep in mind, I am not condoning this, just
>        placing it on the level of you argument (err acusations).

A couple of months ago, in another slander fit, Ron tried to prove that ken is
a bad coder.  He posted an edited version of the 
C-Net Conference module.  This is not publicly available code, and he posted
it publicy, escentially breaking copyright by distributing source to a
copyrighted program without the authors permission.

Take for instance, The Apple Clone Roms.  Apple has a ground for suit if
anyone involved in the project had access to Proprietary Apple code (including
a dissasembly).  You and Ron have written a conference module that is very
similar to C-Net's, and it's been proven (by Ron's posted article) that he has
had access to C-Net's conference source code.  This can be very bad if ken
were to sue.

>Oh, its been said before so I have no idea why you show hypocrisy.  
>Take a look at the the CNAux-Handler, its copywritten by someone else.  And I
>know everyone is sick and tired of hearing that, some choose to ignore it, 
>fine.  But dont accuse us of something your BBS software is clearly in 
>violation of.  We take the time to write our own code.

This is irrelavent, and not part of the argument.  Two wrongs don't make a
right, especially when you're being so hypocritical by calling Ken a thief,
and then turning around posting confidential source code to the net.

>>Joe Vasher, on the other hand, claims that the Visual Editor (which has
>>been in Cnet since 1.0) was stolen out of excelsior?  I don't understand that
>>one..
>
>Again, you should read exactly what is posted.  Joe Vasher said he wrote the 
>noises for CNet Amiga and received no credit.  That is between Joe and Ken.
>However, Joe wrote a visual editor door for EXCELSIOR! which is distributed
>with the BBS package.  Ken took the "look and feel" and ideas and put it in
>CNet, fine, but its still hypocrisy for the unjust accusations.

I wasn't talking about the noises, and as you said, that's between Joe and Ken
(as this should be between you and ken, not you, the net, and ken).  Joe
stated that Ken stole his visual editor and put it into C-Net.  The Visual
Editor for C-Net is escentially the same as it's been for 2+ years.  Sure,
there have been enhancements, but it's hardly a stolen product.

>I hate having to defend the BBS's image each time someone claims "rip-off".  
>If you have seen our BBSDEMO program, you can clearly see that CNet has taken 
>many many ideas, including his new point and click config, which the ideas for 
>it were taken from EXCELSIOR!, we have had one since day one.  I have no 
>complaints with that.  Ideas are ideas.  I have said this many times before.  
>But the Cnet die-hards refuse to acknowledge it.  All I am asking is next time,

Bob Maple used the term rip-off merely as a term to show that they were
similar, not to infer any legal impropriety.  However, you jump off the handle
and start reaming him across the net.  Not a nice thing.  As a matter of fact,
every time anyonefrom Excelsior opens their mouth on the net, it's accusing
someone of some wrongdoing.  You, are the ultimate in hypocricy.

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| UUCP: {crash tcnet petrus quest}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | Amiga, IBM, and any  |
| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil             | system you let me    |
| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org                       | get my grubby mind   |
|------------------------------------------------------| into.                |
| Programmer at large, employment options welcome, inquire within.            |