After all this crap with UltraSpeedUSA and Daniel Pearson's claims that he wasn't responsible for paying me for the work I did for them, and after Jordan's claim he sent me a check like a month ago (which I never got), I offer to help a person on this board with a sign up script. Well, this guy sends me the scripts to modify them, and I see that these are scripts that I WROTE and some that I modified for UltraSpeedUSA that Dan and Jordan both stated that they didn't use or distribute! I had already heard that these scripts were running on the USUSA servers, but now I see this README files that come with these scripts as saying "Welcome to the VenturesOnline Automatic Account Order Form Setup ReadMe"!!

WTF DAN and Ventures online? I stated that these were NOT paid for, you stated you were NOT running or distributing them and you are doing just that! You DO NOT have permission to run or distribute these and you know it! Granted that most of it are quick hacks and customizations but my idea and implementation nonetheless. You SOB's are continuing to screw the web hosting community with your bad business and this just takes the cake! Another clear indication of the VO business practice! Will this thread be deleted because I post this fact? Is this considered "off topic" or not important? Dan, I'm surprised you have left my name in the header in one of the scripts I did create and the other that I modified to work with that Cpanel nightmare of a script. Perhaps these aren't the greatest scripts and you wanted them in a rush, so I didn't have time to code proper one's, but the principal of this says a lot! You were aware of the fact that I was never paid for any of the work I did for yourself and Jordan and you go and claim this for venturesonline.com now too? Yeah, real great service you're running there, Dan!

This was never about money, this was about the way you treat people and this goes further to show this fact. Your client's and employee's and people in general! I hope that one day people realize how very little you know about system administration and how unimpressive it's *not* to simply buy servers and sell them for such a low price that even you don't make money. That's not difficult to make people happy with the service, but those of us that are aware of the way you operate. Where you get the arrogance is beyond me!? I can get along with anyone, if they are reasonable and at least make some effort to be honest and not deceitful. I even get along fine with the people at VDI, after all that mess. What exactly drives you to do this, knowing how wrong it is? Are you going to use the excuse that you "didn't know what happened" and blame it on Jordan and a "partner that is a minor"? Tell you what Dan, why don't you stop continuing to distribute code that I wrote or worked on and remove these from people's servers and have them email me for permission to run them? Why don't you explain to them what you did and the person you are? People ought to know about you.

In the meantime, perhaps you can send me an email and let me know when you'll be paying me for my work, finally, or is your big LLC company unable to pay a measly grand? You know, I've continually let this go, and I don't complain about people without good reason. What is up with you? How dare you, do you go out of your way to do this? Try being honest for once, Dan! I'd appreciate it if this post doesn't get locked or trashed, or I don't see the point to this board at all if we have to hide these things! In the meantime, I'd like to apologize to Bill at VDI for ever considering anything Dan has told me (Do you need to guess about the images URL?) and to the WHT board for bringing up another "controversial" *gasp* issue, but come on, this is definitely relevant to people needing to know about this company's business practices.

[Edited by Tim_Greer on 03-06-2001 at 01:32 AM]

So are you mad???

I would be if I where him.. Jebus..

Originally posted by cbaker17
So are you mad???

Thanks for the constructive comment, Charles. I know you are friends with him, but there's no need to try and make me look like i'm just ranting or any call for sarcasm, please. Thanks.

Nifty, I see Venturesonline.com is not only having their resellers use and distribute this script, but they are running it on their main site as well:

https://www.venturesonline.com/Virtual_Hosting/signupscript/signupscript.htm

Great bunch of people.

Whoh Tim,

I had no idea that this happened, and i promise you that Daniel or anyone at Ventures online never made a penny of of this, I simply asked kindly if there was such as script to allow me to setup accounts automatically, and they were able to comply, even though they expressly said this script is not a commercial script and I could not turn around and sell it, which i have no idea of even giving it out to anyone.

Now, its one thing if they sold me it for $$, but they didnt. I think you should take this offline and talk to Daniel or Venturesonline without the course that you've taken putting this on WHT, where it doesnt belong.


If you would like to take this offline, i think both of us would be able to work something out in terms of making it a better script and you possibly selling it to the public to recoup that grand


[Edited by PepsiCoke on 03-06-2001 at 02:13 AM]

Now I only know what I've read here; However I would be interested in hearing what Ventures/Ultraspeed has to say about the issue.

I am a programmer myself, and am definitely aware of the risks involved when making a transaction such as Mr. Greer did with Ultraspeed. However, you can generally count on the company having the dignity to pay for the services rendered.

Perhaps in this situation there was a misunderstanding as to who was responsible for payment. I know there was some "fishy" business going on with Ultraspeed and many people ended up leaving the company. However the fact still remains (according to this post) that Ventures Online is using the programs which Mr. Greer wrote, and was never paid for.

If nobody wants to pick up the bill then that's fine. However... if that's the case, then nobody should be using the programs. That's my take on it at least.

Dan, Paul, Jordan? Anyone care to comment?

Regards,
Matt

Originally posted by PepsiCoke
Whoh Tim,

I had no idea that this happened, and i promise you that Daniel or anyone at Ventures online even made a penny of of this, I simply asked kindly if there was such as script to allow me to setup accounts, and they were able to comply, even though they expressly said this script is not a commercial script and could not be sold for $$

Now, its one thing if they sold me it for $$, but they didnt. I think you should take this offline and talk to Daniel or Venturesonline without the course that you've taken putting this on WHT, where it doesnt belong.


If you would like to take this offline, i think all three of us would be able to work something out

I appreciate your efforts to try and resolve this, but Dan specifically knew and was told to not run these. He's gotten a lot of work from me that he never paid for my services and flat out said he never did and never will run the software. By visiting their site, they are clearly making money off of these scripts, since they run them for their own account activation, which is what draws some people there. Further, they even offer this instant activation as a part of their reseller package. I have saved all the pages that specify this. They are certainly making money from this, since it's a feature they offer.

Further, I have tried to talk to Dan about this and he's running these scripts and offering them as features on the reseller packages. Please don't tell me this doesn't belong here, because it exposes Dan and venturesonline for what they are and continue to be. This is a fact, this is not your fault either. I can appreciate the loyalty of a customer, but you needn't try and defend them or tell me this doesn't belong here. Dan intentionally did this, knowing he was in violation. Obviously reasoning with him did not work and he did this after being told not to. This is important an does belong here. No one blames you. I knew the scripts were running on UltraSpeedUSA servers, but this is a new company of Dan's and this is a higher insult. I've made my attempts and he flat out violated the conditions anyway. Nay, this definitely belongs here. Please, this isn't just out of anger, this is and has been ongoing and is not my fault.

Acually, I am not trying to defend them at all, and i understand your crusade, but you put me right in a postion where i have to defend myself, I am now right in the middle of something i knew nothing about. I even sent you a email a few minutes ago, recommending that i am willing to pay for the script itself, with some adjustments made, If you see the original post, my words speak for themselves

Originally posted by PepsiCoke
Acually, I am not trying to defend them at all, and i understand your crusade, but you put me right in a postion where i have to defend myself, I am now right in the middle of something i knew nothing about. I even sent you a email a few minutes ago, recommending that i am willing to pay for the script itself, with some adjustments made, If you see the original post, my words speak for themselves

I'm on ICQ with you now. :-) Hey, it's not a problem. You're not in the middle of anything. If there was something Dan shouldn't have given out or used, that's not something you should have to be blamed for. After all, he never told you this. It's cool. You're okay.. I have no reason to be upset with you and Dan definitely doesn't. You asked me to help you modify a script, which I will still do for you. You needn't pay for or try and resolve an issue that is with Dan. This is just one of many things with him, and I've just had it.

I mean, this was an obvious and simple thing to avoid, but he did it anyway, fully knowing. Just very wrong and I think if he's going to do this, I'm going to force him to compensate me, since he's using and has been using said scripts. I spent a lot of time working for Dan and Jordan for UltraSpeedUSA making them happy and trying to get things done for them and their client's. It'd be one thing if he couldn't pay or didn't use them, but that's no longer an option. The damage is done. I will contact them and demand payment. For the record, this user did not inform me of anything and had no idea -- so don't hold it against him or give him problems, Dan. Not that this user thinks you would give him problems, but we'll all keeping an eye out.

Well, obviously I'm upset.. But, let's see if Venturesonline is going to do something more decent than just panicking and deleting that from their site or claim it's not the script(s) in question. Dan, Paul, Pat, other VO LLC people, what solution do you offer, other than the current violation or simply deleteing them after they've been used for so long? I'll email the proper contacts now at VO... let's see what the outcome is. I'd be very embarrassed if I was VO (not that I assume everyone at VO knew, but Dan definitely does and did).. this is what upsets me.

Tim,

A) You never said anything to me about not running them but thats beside the point.

I asked you several months ago when I was @ USUSA to write the script as a favor to see if you were qualified enough to write a control panel for USUSA/UK.

You agreed and we went along as planned however after the script was done a lot of things went on , which have been explained in various posts where you were gone for over a month etc, I have no clue what jordan said or stated about money to be paid but that was never part of any of my discussions with you.

As you said, it would be a simple script, and then as USUSA/UK gained the funds it would hire you to write a control panel, that never happened and I'm not even going to place blame for why it didn't. However, I don't see why your trying to turn a favor into some script that costs $, because nowhere in ANY of our origional conversations did you ever ask for $ for the script.

I'm not trying to be rude to you Tim. But fact is that script was a freebie, nothing more nothing less.


Side Note:

"but Dan specifically knew and was told to not run these"

That I was never told nor even attempted to be told. Just to clarify.


[Edited by DanielP on 03-06-2001 at 02:43 AM]

I will add this.. Tim you come on here posting stuff about VO stole something that you say you wrote then in your last post you said you would email us about it why did you not do this to start with?

I can tell you Vo pays there bills you can ask anybody we deal with about that including Matt at site5 as we have his bill admin.

If you feel your owed for something we use the best way to handle this is by contacting us not posting stuff about I am pissed off.

If you was to handle this the correct way then this issue could be resolved, but I have yet to see and email from you.

If you wish to resolve this why not contact us?

Emailed to Ventures Online contacts:

------------------
Subject: Software Violation/Invoice...

Atten: Ventures Online, LLC.

I have an important matter to bring up with your company, that you may or may not be aware of. Your partner, Daniel Pearson was a former employer of mine when he was involved in the UltraSpeedUSA division of UltraSpeedUK. He had not paid me the amount that himself and his partner Jordan Gross had promised to compensate me for the services I had rendered to them. They seem to blame each other of whom promised what and whom is responsible, etc. Nonetheless, the issue at hand...

I informed Mr. Pearson that he was not to run any of the programs or scripts I had coded or modified for their company, since I was never paid for the service. Some are original scripts, and some are modified. This does not include any other services I provided that I was never paid for doing. However, Mr. Pearson had decided to leave the UltraSpeedUSA company by IPO-ing to Mr. Gross and therefore denying any responsibility for any debts or the like.

Now, the issue comes into play with your company, as your company has been running these scripts and distributing them to resellers to use as well. These scripts automate the set up process for virtual hosts on the servers in question and email the user their information. Some parts are complex and other's are simple. However, Mr. Pearson was informed again after this partnership dissolution with Mr. Gross that he was not to run or otherwise distribute these scripts, which he flat out denied ever doing and stated he is not and will not be running or using them in any manner. I once again told him he does not have my permission to do so, being that I've never been paid. Obviously this is not true and Mr. Pearson knowingly violated this. You can imagine my surprise and anger about seeing the scripts "README" file clearly specifying this as a "Ventures Online" product, clearly marked for distribution under said name. I illustrate this with the top line of the README file which reads; "Welcome to the VenturesOnline Automatic Account Order Form Setup ReadMe".

This upsets me very much and I will not tolerate this. Mr. Pearson was made fully aware of these issues and to what extent. Still, Mr. Pearson knowingly violated this condition. Obviously, since your company has been running these scripts and has therefore made money by using them, this is a problem. For many reasons, including the fact that venturesonline.com runs them as well. Certainly I don't assume that yourself, John, or yourself, Pat, are aware of this issue, nor even Paul. However, Dan most certainly is and was. This script has been running for a while, as have there been server owners running them. The damage is done, I haven't been paid to date by either Mr. Pearson or Mr. Gross. Mr. Pearson has had no authorization from me, and has not been told that Mr. Gross has paid me either.

Clearly, not an oversight or mistake or misunderstanding. I don't believe that simply removing the scripts will resolve this issue, since the damage is done. I'm not going to seek any restitution, other than to demand payment for the sum agreed to for my services that resulted in said scripts that your company is currently using and has been using, which has been and remains in violation. I ask that I be paid the agreed to sum of $1,000.00 USD for the services I have previously rendered that are the direct result of the program your company has been running. I don't wish to seek a legal remedy, but I will if I must. I've been pushed enough times by Mr. Pearson's actions thus far, to not tolerate this in any other manner.

I simply seek payment for the work I have rendered and nothing more. You are then free to run, distribute or destroy the scripts in question. I hope that your company can see the fairness in this request and demand, and we can agree on the terms I have outlined above as per price. I think we can both agree, that your company's reputation is at stake here and it's in both of our best interests to get this resolved in an honest and decent manner, which Mr. Pearson had adamantly been refusing to do. Again, this was no mistake on his part.

Thank you for your time and concern on this matter, I look forward to resolving this as soon as possible and regaining confidence in your otherwise fine service, I'm sure. I ask for your understanding and to look at this from my point of view and I sincerely hope this doesn't lead to another disappointing result. Once again, thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Many ears await the result and outcome.
--
Regards,
Tim Greer: chatmaster@c-zone.net | Tel: (530) 247-1749
Programming: CGI, Perl, C/C++, ASP, SQL, PHP and more.
Server & network administration, security, consulting,
Installation & configuration. Unix/Linux/FreeBSD & NT.
------------

"Now, its one thing if they sold me it for $$, but they didnt. I think you should take this offline and talk to Daniel or Venturesonline without the course that you've taken putting this on WHT, where it doesnt belong."

I actually believe it does belong here, but thats getting ahead of myself. Wether or not they sold it, is not the issue. They could do what they are doing and no doubt tell you to not sell it, as if they owned the script and thereby illuding the consumer into thinking this, and because many are honest, will follow the rules.
Things like these do indeed belong on a board like this, seriously, if we consistantly censor ourselves and overlook issues, then why do we have a message board?

"Acually, I am not trying to defend them at all, and i understand your crusade, but you put me right in a postion where i have to defend myself, I am now right in the middle of something i knew nothing about. I even sent you a email a few minutes ago, recommending that i am willing to pay for the script itself, with some adjustments made, If you see the original post, my words speak for themselves"

Actually from reading everything, I didn't feel you were in the middle of it, until you said so just now. As a reader, I didn't even know you were involved until you said something.

At any rate, I didn't post to attack, I just am pointing out the above and to say that I cannot trust venturesonline simply by who (even IF it's 50% of the whole, and we don't know the other 50% yet, they could be just the same) runs the company.

There are now two levels of newbies. The oblivious ones that go with the '*****s', and then those that don't quite learn enough from their ***** fiasco; Yet feel they learned enough to ignor common sence and fact. So much so that they go with the venturesonline type companies.

Now, lets look at it from a different point of view. Venturesonline, ran by two people originaly. Decided to do a webhosting company. Domain doesn't quite fit the service, but thats another story. Needed a little extra help, somehow Paul and Dan got involved. Now if it were any other two people I may have considered going with them. However, this situation (in referance to plethoras of posts in the past) happened and opened my eyes. You can trust very few server/website hosts. Just as you can trust very few banner sponsors now.

I can personally vouch for Tim Greer. He is working on several things for me. He has gone above and beyond what I needed, asked, or paid him to do.

If you owed him money for the script, it should have been paid upon completion and never gotten this far, correct Paul? If VO paid all it's bills on time, this discussion wouldnt be happening.

Daniel, you said he wrote the scripts to show you his qualifications. That didnt give you ownership of his work. Per copyright laws, work done for you is not owned by you unless written in an agreement between the parties. Otherwise, the author retains copyrights. He may not have said anything about their use, but common sense tells you to get his explicit permission before freely distributing it.

Truthfully it all sounds like you told him to write the script to show his skills while never actually intending to hire him. Once you had the script, you had no more use of him. I'm not saying that's what happened, but this is sure what it's sounding like. I'm sure he has good reason for bringing it to the board. I'd say lack of payment is a good enough reason. It was agreed by someone, Dan or Jordan in the last thread over this matter, that the payment would be made...and it wasnt. I believe it was also agreed that till payment was made, the scripts would not be used. Not sure. I do remember one thing for sure though, it was clearly stated that the scripts were not being used, and now Tim finds that that is false.

He has excellent reason to be pissed considering the last agreement that everyone here saw take place here on a public forum. Considering that, the best way to end it is to simply pay up. $1,000 is pocket change, and the scripts are in use.

Though I have nothing to do with this conversation I have to say this as a programmer. I've programmed for 4 years now, and have been screwed over plenty of times. But I have to say that you handled this the most unprofessional way I have EVER seen. If you have a situation with someone or some business, then you either discuss it with them, or discuss it with your lawyer. What's more, if you didn't sign ANY kind of contract then you don't even deserve the money they owe you (if they owe you anything, which by your attitude and how you handled the situation is a very BIG IF). If you are a reasonable programmer, don't go do a job with only an oral agreement no matter who it's with.

Posting comments about a company, on a public board only shows your lack of professionalism, bashing VO is only an attempt at making them look bad. As a reseller for VO, I'd have to say your attempt at slandering them was a failure, especially since Paul and Daniel handled themselves in a very decent manor. You should take some lessons.

BTW: "Yeah, real great service you're running there, Dan!"

That quote should be taken literally, so far Daniel and VO have run a better service then any other hosting provider I've EVER been too. So yeah, I'd have to say that Dan is running a real great service.

Originally posted by DanielP
Tim,

A) You never said anything to me about not running them but thats beside the point.


I did specifically state this and you denied it. This is a fact and proven in this board's very message archives from a month ago. And this is entirely the point.


I asked you several months ago when I was @ USUSA to write the script as a favor to see if you were qualified enough to write a control panel for USUSA/UK.


This is also not true. I was to be paid for my services, as yourself and Mr. Gross had both stated. I have AOL Instant Messanger logs of this, and the conversations where we had outlined the details of the function of said scripts.


You agreed and we went along as planned however after the script was done a lot of things went on ,


This is not true at all. I would not agree to work for free, especially for the duration of this so-called employment I was never paid for. How can you dare to say this is true?


which have been explained in various posts where you were gone for over a month etc,


This was all covered before, no posts outlined this, other than in general, which was also what you had apologized for. You had also told Mr. Gross that you had repeatedly attempted to email and call me, although there was never one email or call from you. I had no other problems with any other emails that were sent while I was off-line due to my system dying, and my phone always worked, as well as my answering machine. You made no attempts and deleted the site's I had running on your system. You apologized and said you'll put them back, which I wasn't interested it at that point.

Further, that has nothing to do with the fact that i was told repeatedly I was to start working, and being paid a steady wage for your company, which continued to be pushed back months at a time, all while I was doing work. Moreover, this is irrelevant to the fact that I was promised to be paid for the work I had done up to that point, which never happened. The fact I didn't end up being employed full time with your company, is of no consequence, nor my system's downtime. This was an issue of not being paid for the work I had done, and moreover, the fact that you clearly knew you were not to be using these scripts that weren't paid for and are doing so up to this very moment.


I have no clue what jordan said or stated about money to be paid but that was never part of any of my discussions with you.


That's ludicrous! You were told to not run these scripts, you were told I wasn't paid for the work I had done. You did it anyway. it's that simple. Enough with saying you were "confused" or that you don't know what "Jordan" said. That is completely irrelevant to the fact that YOU (not Jordan) are in violation, fully aware.


As you said, it would be a simple script, and then as USUSA/UK gained the funds it would hire you to write a control panel, that never happened and I'm not even going to place blame for why it didn't.


We have no reason to hide why it didn't. I was promised to start working and being paid, all while I was doing more work waiting for that to happen. This is why I was told I'd be paid for the work I had done up to to that date, which was what you two could afford to pay at the time, which I did out of a favor for the price.. not for no charge. I didn't get the job, because there was no job to be had. History indicated that clearly. My system died and I was off-line for many weeks, yes. My information to call you, was on my drive which I couldn't access due to my board's demise. Therefore, you'd not wanted to hire me anyway, due to lack of my contacting you, which is fair. I don't argue that.. and never have.



However, I don't see why your trying to turn a favor into some script that costs $, because nowhere in ANY of our origional conversations did you ever ask for $ for the script.


This is not true. You were fully aware of this fact and it's evidenced by your very own posts in this discussion board's very own archive. I have full backups of the posts, in case they were ever deleted at the time.


I'm not trying to be rude to you Tim. But fact is that script was a freebie, nothing more nothing less.


It's not a "freebie" because you wish to claim it is.


Side Note:

"but Dan specifically knew and was told to not run these"

That I was never told nor even attempted to be told. Just to clarify.


Not true at all. You are dishonest and I despise these blatant fabrications and contortions of the facts and truths. Again, I reference the fact that these posts you've made a month ago, are ARCHIVED! People were witness to this fact. Be honest, Dan. Don't try and pull this off, do the right thing. I don't want to have to deal with this mess, but I don't want to have to see you abusing my rights either. I created those scripts and you are using them and have been. I created them and there was no agreement that it was free. In fact, it's quite the opposite! Further, this instantly means that any original code of mine is copyrighted by me. You've been gathering revenue due to this. Pay up, Dan. This is fair and decent to do. I don't want to seek legal action, but I will due to all this headache I continually get from your camp. That is where I will leave this, all the proof is there.

Originally posted by mysitehost
and then those that don't quite learn enough from their ***** fiasco; Yet feel they learned enough to ignor common sence and fact. So much so that they go with the venturesonline type companies...

... Now if it were any other two people I may have considered going with them.

That's interesting, so "newbies" go with venturesonline type companies, and yet you might have had it not been Paul and Daniel? What's that make you? Sounds like you have a problem with VO and Paul and Daniel more then anything. Real smart. If you have a problem trusting "server/website hosts" then either start reading, or get out of the business.

Originally posted by Paul L.
I will add this.. Tim you come on here posting stuff about VO stole something that you say you wrote then in your last post you said you would email us about it why did you not do this to start with?


Because of the fact that I knew I'd get the reaction from the VO camp that I just did. It's better to not give someone the "head's up" about it, so to speak.


I can tell you Vo pays there bills you can ask anybody we deal with about that including Matt at site5 as we have his bill admin.


I didn't say VO didn't. I was speaking in reference to Dan. I don't expect you'd have had knowledge about this. My apologies if I gave anyone that impression. I will state for the record that I don't hold VO completely responsible for this. I'm not saying VO stole is, but is involved and therefore in violation as outlined in the email I have sent. I was actually having connection problems and that delayed me. I will also admit to being caught up in the moment of anger about discovering this. Please understand this reaction.


If you feel your owed for something we use the best way to handle this is by contacting us not posting stuff about I am pissed off.


You're right. It might not be best, but again, with the history of Mr. Pearson, it's shown, as did his latest, fabrication of a post, indicated, clearly, that he would not resolve this issue. Perhaps I should have been more clear about where the violation lies and how VO is involved? I agree that could have been done, but Mr. Pearson speaks loudly and carries a big stick. I didn't assume it would accomplish anything, which in that realm, it did not.


If you was to handle this the correct way then this issue could be resolved, but I have yet to see and email from you.

If you wish to resolve this why not contact us?


I have done so and I apologize if I've somehow misrepresented the VO company, but Mr. Pearson is basically part of or the company, and therefore, you can perhaps understand my initial reaction, especially considering his response which was entirely untrue and unsympathetic. I hope that has cleared it up. I hope you take my email seriously. I await a response. I know I'd like to see a positive and fair outcome. Eyes are watching... waiting...

(sometimes it is just too tempting...)

Ok Mr. advocate, you caught me. Yes you caught me. Had it been any other two people IN THE WORLD, venturesonline would not have been a 'secondary newbie' service. But because of circumstances that have been presented, and situations that have played out, the recruiting of these two individuals have made venturesonline automatically classified in the now coined 'secondary newbie' classification.

Wait, so does that mean we agree?

Originally posted by comphosting
Though I have nothing to do with this conversation I have to say this as a programmer. I've programmed for 4 years now, and have been screwed over plenty of times.


Irrelevant. You also have vested interest in this and you're definitely biased from the get go.


But I have to say that you handled this the most unprofessional way I have EVER seen.


It wasn't my intention to accomplish anything, but posting the situation and truths about this. I'm sorry you can't handle that.


If you have a situation with someone or some business, then you either discuss it with them, or discuss it with your lawyer.


And, if you are traumatized by simply reading someone's understandable initial anger that isn't trying to hide anything about the facts or their feelings, then you ought to save the stress and not read it. My posts clearly indicate that I have indeed attempted to "discuss" this with Mr. Pearson. His (not so professional, nor yours for that matter) response, clearly indicated this is an ongoing issue and attempting to "discuss" this privately, would result in more refusal to cooperate.


What's more, if you didn't sign ANY kind of contract then you don't even deserve the money they owe you (if they owe you anything, which by your attitude and how you handled the situation is a very BIG IF).


I see... So, if someone didn't protect themselves in writing, then the fact that they might have been "screwed over" (as you say), is irrelevant to the nature of the person in question? I don't buy it. Further, you don't know how long or well I thought I knew Mr. Pearson before this situation arose. You're certainly right about me being a fool to help out, but that's the kind of fool I am sometimes. I only get cold after the fact. Nonetheless, this does in no way grant him the right to use or distribute said code.


If you are a reasonable programmer, don't go do a job with only an oral agreement no matter who it's with.


A 'reasonable programmer' would do well at their job. This has nothing to do with what they tolerate that is a violation. Oral agreements are binding and the logs of the agreements provide evidence to this fact.


Posting comments about a company, on a public board only shows your lack of professionalism,


Then as it does in your case as well. I'm the type that doesn't keep silent about some things. Simply because you aren't the kind of person that gives a damn about anything but what specifically affects you, doesn't invalidate my reasons. I'd be sure that if you were 'screwed over' (once again, as you say) by a company, you'd be more than happy to share it with the group, especially since this is the purpose of the forum. To suggest and warn people to their online business stays secure, stable and non threatened in any way.


bashing VO is only an attempt at making them look bad.


It's an attempt to "expose" the situation. If that situation is "bad", that's not my fault. Exactly what attempt are you claiming to make in your very own response to me? Please, be realistic.


As a reseller for VO,


Obviously...


I'd have to say your attempt at slandering


Careful there with your words, unless you know what they mean. Slander is a defaming and untrue claim. I stated nothing that wasn't true. If someone borrows $2,000 from you and doesn't pay you back and you have them on video tape robbing your home. It's neither slander, nor out of line to post and warn the neighbors.


them was a failure,


Failure, in your opinion. But you're free to ignore the facts and other posts here by other people.


especially since Paul and Daniel handled themselves in a very decent manor.


Paul, sure. Daniel? Hardly! Excuse me for reacting, just as you have, even though this at least involves me.


You should take some lessons.


May I suggest you at least practice what you preach, if you want to pretend to be the voice of reason? Let's turn down the volume and relax a little, okay? Let's try and stay on topic, not send goons in to do the dirty work.


BTW: "Yeah, real great service you're running there, Dan!"

That quote should be taken literally, so far Daniel and VO have run a better service then any other hosting provider I've EVER been too. So yeah, I'd have to say that Dan is running a real great service.


Although I'm not wishing to be your best friend at the moment, I'm glad to hear it's going well for you. I don't expect people to care about or get involved in things that don't personally affect them. But, if you do, at least use a little common sense and don't just immediately and mindlessly attack the bearer of the bad news. Okay? I applaud your efforts though, but I shouldn't comment otherwise, or I risk looking *very* "unprofessional". :-)

Originally posted by comphosting
Originally posted by mysitehost
and then those that don't quite learn enough from their ***** fiasco; Yet feel they learned enough to ignor common sence and fact. So much so that they go with the venturesonline type companies...

... Now if it were any other two people I may have considered going with them.

That's interesting, so "newbies" go with venturesonline type companies, and yet you might have had it not been Paul and Daniel? What's that make you? Sounds like you have a problem with VO and Paul and Daniel more then anything. Real smart. If you have a problem trusting "server/website hosts" then either start reading, or get out of the business.

Your loyalty to the Darkside is strong, my son. Okay, just kidding, but let's keep this on topic.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Irrelevant. You also have vested interest in this and you're definitely biased from the get go.

Well that may be true, but are you saying you aren't?


It wasn't my intention to accomplish anything, but posting the situation and truths about this. I'm sorry you can't handle that.


I can handle it just fine, all that I am saying is that your "truths" about this situation are unproved claims.


And, if you are traumatized by simply reading someone's understandable initial anger that isn't trying to hide anything about the facts or their feelings, then you ought to save the stress and not read it. My posts clearly indicate that I have indeed attempted to "discuss" this with Mr. Pearson. His (not so professional, nor yours for that matter) response, clearly indicated this is an ongoing issue and attempting to "discuss" this privately, would result in more refusal to cooperate.


Traumatized? No your anger is understandable, if your statements have ANY truth to them, which they don't. I am simply pointing out the obvious. What's more, I don't represent VO at all, so my professionalism has nothing to do with it, which I personally don't feel was out of hand. And even Paul said that you didn't contact VO, you obviously only attempted to contact Daniel alone.


I see... So, if someone didn't protect themselves in writing, then the fact that they might have been "screwed over" (as you say), is irrelevant to the nature of the person in question? I don't buy it. Further, you don't know how long or well I thought I knew Mr. Pearson before this situation arose. You're certainly right about me being a fool to help out, but that's the kind of fool I am sometimes. I only get cold after the fact. Nonetheless, this does in no way grant him the right to use or distribute said code.


It's irrelevant if you just insist on posting bottomless jibber-jabber (yeah that's a word). It really doesn't matter how long you knew the "Person" behind it. This was a job for a BUSINESS, whether USUSA or VO, you have to protect yourself at all times. But at this point, you don't have anything prooving that you were offered $1000 for the said code (as you say).


A 'reasonable programmer' would do well at their job. This has nothing to do with what they tolerate that is a violation. Oral agreements are binding and the logs of the agreements provide evidence to this fact.


I do agree with your first statement. As well as I do know that Oral agreements are binding. However, as far as I know, instant message logs do not substanciate as an oral agreement. Logs are easily edited.


Then as it does in your case as well. I'm the type that doesn't keep silent about some things. Simply because you aren't the kind of person that gives a damn about anything but what specifically affects you, doesn't invalidate my reasons. I'd be sure that if you were 'screwed over' (once again, as you say) by a company, you'd be more than happy to share it with the group, especially since this is the purpose of the forum. To suggest and warn people to their online business stays secure, stable and non threatened in any way.


I would warn people of a bad business deal, but I would not just rant and rave and not substanciate my claim in any way. I do give a damn about more things then what just affects me, but as of yet I've scene nothing to concur with what you have to say, other then a lot of hearsay "Well I know [Enter Name] really well so what he says must be right". Other then that it's just a bunch of people with a vendetta against a company. You can't please everyone.


It's an attempt to "expose" the situation. If that situation is "bad", that's not my fault. Exactly what attempt are you claiming to make in your very own response to me? Please, be realistic.


My response was simply pointing out that you turned a bad situation even worse, and probably lost any chance of getting to a realistic settlement at all. I think you need to be a little more realistic. "Demanding" that they pay you won't do a dang thing.


As a reseller for VO,


Obviously...



I'm not saying that VO is perfect, I'm simply stating that my business relationship has been good. Had I not said I was a reseller, it wouldn't have been so obvious.


Careful there with your words, unless you know what they mean. Slander is a defaming and untrue claim. I stated nothing that wasn't true. If someone borrows $2,000 from you and doesn't pay you back and you have them on video tape robbing your home. It's neither slander, nor out of line to post and warn the neighbors.


Silly boy.. you proved my point. I know exactly what slander is, and unless you can prove the conversation and oral agreement took place (with more then text logs) then it IS slander. Where's your video tape of the conversation?


Failure, in your opinion. But you're free to ignore the facts and other posts here by other people.


Most of them either had a vendetta against VO or they knew you and don't know VO. Didn't you say I was bias?


Paul, sure. Daniel? Hardly! Excuse me for reacting, just as you have, even though this at least involves me.


I have a business relationship with VO, slandering them (yes SLANDERING) them makes me look bad (as a programmer have you ever heard of a thing called TRACEROUTE?


May I suggest you at least practice what you preach, if you want to pretend to be the voice of reason? Let's turn down the volume and relax a little, okay? Let's try and stay on topic, not send goons in to do the dirty work.


"OKAY, I AM F*&^ING P!SSED!!!!!!! Venturesonline.com"
enough said.


Although I'm not wishing to be your best friend at the moment, I'm glad to hear it's going well for you. I don't expect people to care about or get involved in things that don't personally affect them. But, if you do, at least use a little common sense and don't just immediately and mindlessly attack the bearer of the bad news. Okay? I applaud your efforts though, but I shouldn't comment otherwise, or I risk looking *very* "unprofessional". :-)

I have plenty of common sense, but honestly, the bearer of the bad news didn't approach the situation the best way he could have. I have plenty of common sense, but the name of your thread may prove something about yours.[/B]

Tim. VenturesOnline was under the impression that the software in question was not subject to any copyright or limitations of use. We specifically reviewed the code and there are no restrictions and/or copyrights included in the documentation or the script itself.

There also are specific references in the code referring to another program this program was based upon, which may add further confusion over ownership and copyrights of the script.

I would also like to say for the record we do respect the work programmers do and have always met our obligations regarding the agreements we have. It is our policy to clearly negotiate ownership of code whenever we enter into a development agreement, and we always meet our financial obligations.

I would also like to point out that your posting here is the first notice we had indicating that you have a concern regarding the ownership of the script.

We would like to work out an acceptable resolution to this, but we have a policy to keep all legal discussions confidential and therefore will not be using this public forum for negotiating pricing and/or use of the script.

We will be in contact with our legal representatives tomorrow to assist us with the determination of ownership and/or negotiations for payment and/or use of the script. We will be in contact with you within the next week directly.

Please communicate any further concerns and/or comments directly to me at john@venturesonline.com.

Regards
John

Originally posted by Paul L.
I can tell you Vo pays there bills you can ask anybody we deal with about that including Matt at site5 as we have his bill admin.

So you guys are going to have BillAdmin? When can we see this?

Originally posted by Burnsy
Tim. VenturesOnline was under the impression that the software in question was not subject to any copyright or limitations of use. We specifically reviewed the code and there are no restrictions and/or copyrights included in the documentation or the script itself.

There also are specific references in the code referring to another program this program was based upon, which may add further confusion over ownership and copyrights of the script.

I would also like to say for the record we do respect the work programmers do and have always met our obligations regarding the agreements we have. It is our policy to clearly negotiate ownership of code whenever we enter into a development agreement, and we always meet our financial obligations.

I would also like to point out that your posting here is the first notice we had indicating that you have a concern regarding the ownership of the script.

We would like to work out an acceptable resolution to this, but we have a policy to keep all legal discussions confidential and therefore will not be using this public forum for negotiating pricing and/or use of the script.

We will be in contact with our legal representatives tomorrow to assist us with the determination of ownership and/or negotiations for payment and/or use of the script. We will be in contact with you within the next week directly.

Please communicate any further concerns and/or comments directly to me at john@venturesonline.com.

Regards
John

That's a pretty good answer if you ask me....

Originally posted by Burnsy
Tim. VenturesOnline was under the impression that the software in question was not subject to any copyright or limitations of use. We specifically reviewed the code and there are no restrictions and/or copyrights included in the documentation or the script itself.

There also are specific references in the code referring to another program this program was based upon, which may add further confusion over ownership and copyrights of the script.

I would also like to say for the record we do respect the work programmers do and have always met our obligations regarding the agreements we have. It is our policy to clearly negotiate ownership of code whenever we enter into a development agreement, and we always meet our financial obligations.

I would also like to point out that your posting here is the first notice we had indicating that you have a concern regarding the ownership of the script.

We would like to work out an acceptable resolution to this, but we have a policy to keep all legal discussions confidential and therefore will not be using this public forum for negotiating pricing and/or use of the script.

We will be in contact with our legal representatives tomorrow to assist us with the determination of ownership and/or negotiations for payment and/or use of the script. We will be in contact with you within the next week directly.

Please communicate any further concerns and/or comments directly to me at john@venturesonline.com.

Regards
John

I have no further comments. I hope I've made my statements clear and in what aspects. Thanks for the response, I await a reply via email.

I was relieved to see such a great end to this *reserves comment* thread, by John (Burnsy).

[Edited by Chicken on 03-06-2001 at 05:11 AM]

THIS POST IS MEANT TO BE FUN, DON'T STRESS. :-)

Originally posted by comphosting

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Irrelevant. You also have vested interest in this and you're definitely biased from the get go.

Well that may be true, but are you saying you aren't?


Well, of course. But it was relevant to my intentions and concerns. Your's were nothing more than an attempt to counter attack, based on your biased opinions which you have no personal reason or proof to feel one way or the other, whereas I do.



It wasn't my intention to accomplish anything, but posting the situation and truths about this. I'm sorry you can't handle that.


I can handle it just fine, all that I am saying is that your "truths" about this situation are unproved claims.


They are not unproved. Firstly, there is no denying that the scripts I mentioned were not paid for. There is no denying that those scripts have been running. If you BOTHERED to look in the archives here and what people have been saying, you'd see that Dan specifically said he wasn't and will not be running the scripts for the reason of me not being paid. What exactly is the "unproved" aspect that gets you so hostile? The fact that the *one* thing about him not admitting to saying I was to be paid? That's hardly the issue anyway, since I brought this to light and pointed out how he violated, knowingly, these terms of a portion of code that *is* copyrighted by me, unless he can prove otherwise -- which even you know he can not. That is what deems it as a payable service, the intentions and violations thereof, even if you don't see any indication that I should have been paid before, or was told so. So, your hostile and unfriendly and irrational attitude is what I was speaking of being as an invalid, pointless and non valuable contribution to this thread. You can't argue that, knowing this now.



And, if you are traumatized by simply reading someone's understandable initial anger that isn't trying to hide anything about the facts or their feelings, then you ought to save the stress and not read it. My posts clearly indicate that I have indeed attempted to "discuss" this with Mr. Pearson. His (not so professional, nor yours for that matter) response, clearly indicated this is an ongoing issue and attempting to "discuss" this privately, would result in more refusal to cooperate.


Traumatized? No your anger is understandable, if your statements have ANY truth to them, which they don't.


Does this just say it all though, about your attitude towards me? --> "No your anger is understandable, if your statements have ANY truth to them, which they don't." You're saying there's no truth, when you, out of all the people here, have less of an idea than I do, Dan does or anyone else that was involved. Nothing was denied here today, other than the initial promise of the money. I explained how the fact that he was told he doesn't have permission to run or use or distribute the scripts, does validate a charge anyway. This is how ridiculous you're being and you are acting like you aren't. It's that simple.


I am simply pointing out the obvious.


No, you are not. You are simply pointing out the way you want to see it. I've proven everything I've said, other than the promise of the initial payment. Even if that was the case and even if this past use of said scripts at VO were not a reason to become upset or seek restitution, why would someone refuse to pay someone for their work? Someone, (Dan) would acknowledge a great misunderstanding on his part and apologize for the mistake. However, I once again CLEARLY point out to you, that my demand he not run or use these scripts was ARCHIVED of him acknowledging this fact. Still, he did it. Now tell me how this isn't clear? Tell me how that's not wrong, having nothing to do with that I claim was promised? You can't realistically state this.



What's more, I don't represent VO at all, so my professionalism has nothing to do with it,


Exactly and the same goes for me.


which I personally don't feel was out of hand.


Well, we have a difference of opinion.


And even Paul said that you didn't contact VO, you obviously only attempted to contact Daniel alone.


No, I emailed every contact, other than "sales". I explained the delay in why I didn't email and why I didn't have much confidence that it would resolve anything anyway. Nonetheless, I never stated that I didn't post first, I was hot about it, and specifically because Dan was told. (once again, as archived). Please don't argue these facts. I'm glad you're happy with them.



I see... So, if someone didn't protect themselves in writing, then the fact that they might have been "screwed over" (as you say), is irrelevant to the nature of the person in question? I don't buy it. Further, you don't know how long or well I thought I knew Mr. Pearson before this situation arose. You're certainly right about me being a fool to help out, but that's the kind of fool I am sometimes. I only get cold after the fact. Nonetheless, this does in no way grant him the right to use or distribute said code.


It's irrelevant if you just insist on posting bottomless jibber-jabber (yeah that's a word).


And that's a blatantly false statement by you. I've made sense and covered the aspects throughout my posts. I don't miss a beat. I could do this stuff for a living and have been even encouraged to argue the law -- which I've done successfully with company's that are far larger than VO will ever be (and that's not a petty remark, unless they ever get to be worth 500+ million) and have successfully presented my case and argued points with legal panels, myself, over emails to seek remedies which I have claimed. I think I can handle this small issue without leaving anything out, even if I'm not always clear. But either read what I'm saying, or don't make things up, or elaborate on exactly where my flaw lies so I can explain it in a way you can understand. As for anything irrelevant, it only took that path when pointless posts were made by other parties that added nothing of value, other than to try and help evade the issue at hand, by trying to make me defend myself, which backfired.


It really doesn't matter how long you knew the "Person" behind it.


Yes, I know. It's the same type of thing where you figure the worst that will happen, is someone doesn't pay you. But, at the time it doesn't matter. I didn't agree to do it for free, but I wasn't worried so much about it, until I was lied to and deceived by Dan about this, wherein giving me reason. Simply, it's human reaction, none of us are immune to it, no alike in our actions with it.


This was a job for a BUSINESS, whether USUSA or VO, you have to protect yourself at all times. But at this point, you don't have anything prooving that you were offered $1000 for the said code (as you say).


My proof, is in logs and through conversations via voice as well. I don't have undeniable proof for you today, no. How could I give YOU that on a web board? And, in reference to my previous statements, the fact of what I was previously promised is not the issue so much, but the fact that a fee has occurred, which is a result of said violation, which is archived.



A 'reasonable programmer' would do well at their job. This has nothing to do with what they tolerate that is a violation. Oral agreements are binding and the logs of the agreements provide evidence to this fact.


I do agree with your first statement. As well as I do know that Oral agreements are binding. However, as far as I know, instant message logs do not substantiate as an oral agreement. Logs are easily edited.


Certainly, but oral agreements aren't provable anyway, really, unless they are recorded. The fact that people engage in the presumed agreement by their actions of hiring on, working for, etc. indicate that an agreement was reached and outlined. The fact that a service was rendered proves it to a point. I don't expect that to be considered solid, undeniable proof, not here on this board. Of course, for the 4th time, that's not even the issue at hand (once again, in reference to my previous statements in this very post).



Then as it does in your case as well. I'm the type that doesn't keep silent about some things. Simply because you aren't the kind of person that gives a damn about anything but what specifically affects you, doesn't invalidate my reasons. I'd be sure that if you were 'screwed over' (once again, as you say) by a company, you'd be more than happy to share it with the group, especially since this is the purpose of the forum. To suggest and warn people to their online business stays secure, stable and non threatened in any way.



I would warn people of a bad business deal, but I would not just rant and rave and not substanciate my claim in any way.



And, because you choose to assume or claim this, means nothing. I substanciate it more, by covering each issue brought up, which is why I'm responding to you in the first place. I haven't failed to cover the issues you brought up, and if you consider it ranting for me to respond to the aspects you mention, perhaps you ought to just give up?


I do give a damn about more things then what just affects me,


Okay, PROVE it. Heh, heh...


but as of yet I've scene nothing to concur with what you have to say,


Untrue and I've covered this in this "rant" I'm submitting now to you in response. See, that's how it works. Again, I reference the fact that everything was admitted to, other than the initial agreement of if I was to be paid or not. So, obviously "something" validated those claims of mine. Try and look at it in a whole.


other then a lot of hearsay "Well I know [Enter Name] really well so what he says must be right".


I never said that, but that is all you've basically done for VO anyway. Why, I have no idea?


Other then that it's just a bunch of people with a vendetta against a company. You can't please everyone.


Ridiculous and untrue. None of those people that posted have any problems with VO or Dan, other than maybe one person, which didn't really offer any support for myself or Dan or VO.



It's an attempt to "expose" the situation. If that situation is "bad", that's not my fault. Exactly what attempt are you claiming to make in your very own response to me? Please, be realistic.


My response was simply pointing out that you turned a bad situation even worse,



And my point was, that as far as my point of view, and actually knowing the situation, it was about as bad as it was going to get. Nothing improved and things became increasingly more "bad", hence my reaction. You said yourself that you can understand my anger, if it was true. I've pointed out how everything's true, other than the one thing I can't prove just yet. However, that "thing" is irrelevant at this point anyway. So, what's your point?



and probably lost any chance of getting to a realistic settlement at all.


My point being, it seemed the only way to get anyone's attention to seek any type of settlement. My point was about the person/reason and how I felt about it. I covered that well and fine.


I think you need to be a little more realistic. "Demanding" that they pay you won't do a dang thing.


Neither will poor grammar, but that's another issue. Asking doesn't work, you demand resolution or seek another alternative.



As a reseller for VO,



Obviously...



I'm not saying that VO is perfect, I'm simply stating that my business relationship has been good. Had I not said I was a reseller, it wouldn't have been so obvious.



I'd have guessed it, actually, even if I was perhaps wrong.



Careful there with your words, unless you know what they mean. Slander is a defaming and untrue claim. I stated nothing that wasn't true. If someone borrows $2,000 from you and doesn't pay you back and you have them on video tape robbing your home. It's neither slander, nor out of line to post and warn the neighbors.



Silly boy..



Mommy?


you proved my point.


You're not as "witty" as you obviously would like to believe. I've not strayed at all from my points or issues.


I know exactly what slander is,


No, you do not. If you had, you'd know that it's exactly *not* a written form of defamation. "Slander" is an oral form of defamation. Had you known this, you'd have used the word "libel". Quite obviously, you don't "know exactly what 'slander' is". Don't worry though, I knew 'exactly' what you meant to say.


and unless you can prove the conversation and oral agreement took place (with more then text logs) then it IS slander.


Incorrect, there was acknowledgment by the other party of everything I said, other than two things. One of which (my demand he not run the scripts) is archived. Further, an oral agreement isn't a chat log, is it? So, what didn't you 'get' about "oral agreement"?


Where's your video tape of the conversation?


Where's his? He has to prove I'm wrong or lying with the knowledge and intent to harm his name or business. I don't believe he can do that, if we can't prove it with logs or no recording of an 'oral agreement'. Actually, let's stop using the word "oral", before I decide to change my last name to "Clinton". ("I did not engage in oral agreements with that woman.")



Failure, in your opinion. But you're free to ignore the facts and other posts here by other people.



Most of them either had a vendetta against VO or they knew you and don't know VO.



Where do you get that from? Most of them? Who? Why? Where's *your* proof? Please, do really explain whom though.


Didn't you say I was bias?


Correct, I did.



Paul, sure. Daniel? Hardly! Excuse me for reacting, just as you have, even though this at least involves me.



I have a business relationship with VO,


Right.


slandering them (yes SLANDERING) them makes me look bad


And libel probably would too. However, the burden of proof is on Mr. Pearson then, legally speaking, now isn't it? If you actually want me to bring you up to speed on the legalities, let me know. Libel is a very difficult thing to prove, and less of an issue if both parties have equal opportunity to state their cases in the same forum and medium. Now, if I had a news paper and printed a bogus story about you, and you proved I intentionally lied to harm your name, you could seek a settlement. However, if you are exchanging claims on an Internet web board and the other party has as much opportunity to state their case and counter my statements, it becomes increasingly more difficult. Of course, I'm not going to try and side-step the issue or legalities, I have no reason to. Bad arguing makes you look bad... not the small details that can't be proven in addition to the other 95% of the claims that have been. People aren't generally that insane.


(as a programmer have you ever heard of a thing called TRACEROUTE?


Well, "trace route" has nothing to do with programming, but as a "system administrator", I'm surely familiar with this basic tool that everyone learns in the first hour they get online. However, exactly WHAT in the heck does "traceroute" have to do with this conversation, at all?


[QUOTE]
May I suggest you at least practice what you preach, if you want to pretend to be the voice of reason? Let's turn down the volume and relax a little, okay? Let's try and stay on topic, not send goons in to do the dirty work.



"OKAY, I AM F*&^ING P!SSED!!!!!!! Venturesonline.com"
enough said.



Again, you completely failed to make sense. This is a good comedy act, if nothing else. I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am... I'm serious, I'm not being sarcastic. I have nothing against you.. I may even start a fund for you!



Although I'm not wishing to be your best friend at the moment, I'm glad to hear it's going well for you. I don't expect people to care about or get involved in things that don't personally affect them. But, if you do, at least use a little common sense and don't just immediately and mindlessly attack the bearer of the bad news. Okay? I applaud your efforts though, but I shouldn't comment otherwise, or I risk looking *very* "unprofessional". :-)


I have plenty of common sense,



And I have been promised something I never got and the person didn't care at all and used my scripts anyway.


but honestly, the bearer of the bad news didn't approach the situation the best way he could have.


Neither did the guy that responded.


I have plenty of common sense, but the name of your thread may prove something about yours.


It proves that I'm not concerned with what every single person thinks that doesn't take time to care to read the posts properly and gets hostile and doesn't comprehend them, it seems. I am not currently and never will be a follower, mindless or ignorant to the facts and make foolish, uninformed comments that add no value to the conversation. So, in the spirit of that ideal, I'll leave you to it and not respond to you again... not unless you choose to face the facts and stop acting this way. The audacity of some people! I'm attacked because you don't see proof of the very last thing that isn't proven beyond any doubt? Who are you anyway? Either have equal doubt, or just admit you're looking to argue. Well, that's my last post to you, it was fun while it lasted. I'll leave you to your 'stuff' now... :-)

[Edited by Tim_Greer on 03-06-2001 at 06:12 AM]

Originally posted by Chicken
I was relieved to see such a great end to this *reserves comment* thread, by John (Burnsy).

[Edited by Chicken on 03-06-2001 at 05:11 AM]

Yes, it's over... Let is stand as it, I say.. I'll keep people updated if a resolution is agreed on (although I won't discuss the details out of respect for the company, if such an agreement is reached). Hopefully, the last posts will be fun to read an clear up any misconceptions. Thanks for understanding everyone.

I just have to have my say on one item of this thread:

comphosting - If Tim wrote a script that is in use (Both of those facts are clear) and profit is being made (Again proven) and he has not been compensated for it then he is entitled to compensation for the script unless their is a written agreement either: transfering the copyright to another party or an agreement to say that no payment is required. Without either of those Tim is entitled to compensation as he invested time in writing the script.

Copyright belongs to the author unless they are doing the work as an employee of a company (on payroll) or they are doing the work as a work-for-hire and there is a contract specifying the transfer of copyright.

Jeez you boys type fast.. I bet you're using all eleven fingers for that :)

I was away for maybe an hour or so, and come back to see three pages of large posts in this thread. If I'm not going to be impressed by the content, I'll sure be impressed by the volume *lol*

Greg Moore

ooooooooooooookkkkkkk boys.. funs over.
The problem has been solved.

Thread locked.