www.flyertalk.org
 

It begins . . .

Should get interesting.

I would guess this is NJDavid?
[This message has been edited by gleff (edited Nov 26, 2003).]

Nothing new here.

www.flyertalk.de
www.flyertalk.us
www.moremiles.org

Concept's been around the block a few times. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

FewMiles..

It is now required that ALL registrars have their customers provide acurate and correct registration information. Failing to do so results in suspesion of the domain name, followed by terminating account and marking domain available for purchase.

All you have to do is notify his / her registrar that the info is incorrect and they will send an update request. If the update request is ignored or still incorrect after update, account begins suspension period.

If registrar takes no action, complaint to ICAN would be expected and the do act on them.

Yep,

That last pathetic one was a doozy.

Not as pathetic as one like http://www.flyertalk.com run by Randy Petersen that would hand CameraGuy as lifetime suspension on May 8, 2001 (later commuted to time served), right?

[This message has been edited by OttoGraham (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

I am not at all certain the founders of www.MoreMiles.org would all appreciate your constant reference to their idea and investment as "pathetic" ??

These Flyertalkers include well known folks such as:

AnnaS, auh2O, BlondeBomber, Catman, dgolds, essxjay, TropicalFlyer, Punki, Geo1004, Old Gold, Rudi, SVPII, Travelcrazy, and many more.

You have at least four times just in the past week in this Forum referred to that Bulletin Board as "Pathetic". You have at many other times ranted on about its policies. You were an active member of that board during the time you were unable to post on FT, and you clearly know who founded it.

Randy has made it clear in the past he has no problem with that site and wished it success.

I might be alone in this, but I consider it extremely rude and thoughtless and churlish to be regularly bagging any other site in this Forum.

Does that bagging assist or advance Flyertalk in any way?

--------------------------------------------------------


[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozstamps:
I am not at all certain the founders of www.MoreMiles.org would all appreciate your constant reference to their idea and investment as "pathetic" ?? [/QOUTE]

They should have thought of that before they circled the wagons around biased anonymous moderating.

So what? In history there are many instances of good people making mistakes.

Again, so what. I was invited to a board that was touting "Proper Moderation". I was sold a lie.

Again, so what. Randy may or may not know all of the facts.

I find it extremely rude and childish for FT members to constanty whine about the moderators or the Talk Board. We are all entitled to our opinions, as long as they do NOT violate the TOS.

When anyone involved in biased moderation makes suggestions/complaints about the moderating policies on FT, I will speak up. In MY opinion, shining the light on hypocritical suggestions/complaints helps FT.

I was handed a DESERVED suspension of my posting priviledges. During that time I RESPECTED Randy's wishes and did NOT post under another handle.

About a year later. Randy reinstated my posting priviledges. Since that time, I have NOT been suspended, nor have I been warned.

I am PROUD of my posts since I returned from my suspension. Since the fact that I was suspended is no BIG SECRET, I am not the LEAST BIT embarressed when you go off-topic and mention it.




[This message has been edited by CameraGuy (edited Nov 23, 2003).]

Back to the topic at hand,

There will always be competing web sites, there will always be ONLY ONE FT.

Including the (unedited) one in the past half hour made at 6.23pm? Wow.

I would have thought it'd be funnier to have it go to a porn site, a la whitehouse.com...

If you mean the one where I defended myself from your attack, YES.

I hate padding my post count; but have to agree with the above quote from the man in Boston. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

Careful what you wish for http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Regards,
Alex

That would be super sweet. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

.

[This message has been edited by ScottC (edited Nov 24, 2003).]

I actually implied a POSITIVE meaning.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by flamboyant 1 (edited Nov 25, 2003).]

So, why would anyone imply any negative motive for reserving a url?

I can remember back when certain participants, all of whom are mentioned in this thread, reserved www.flyertalk.com and then gave it to Randy as a surprise gift of appreciation. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Here is another alternative to www. flyertalk.com. FFP community site of http://frequentflier.com/

[This message has been edited by Patron (edited Nov 24, 2003).]

If memory serves, it was none other than NJDavid who did this. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Yes, memory does serve correctly, he did it together with Catman and Rudi if I am not mistaken.

I can understand his anger and desire to create a new board, but to do so by taking advantage of the "brand name" Flyertalk seems a little uncreative...

As we are back by NJDavid.

Gleff, looking at your contribution about the registrant and your association to NJDavid do you consider a name as private information?
[This message has been edited by Patron (edited Nov 25, 2003).]

I love all websites associated with travel and miles and point and airlines! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Is there any doubt that Randy is the frequent-flyer guru?

I think not!

Actually, I do not have any association with NJDavid. I have never met him and I have never spoken with him and I do not have any access to private information about Flyertalkers.

I simply speculated that the owner of the site in question was NJDavid because the owner's first name was David, a fake address was listed in NJ, and the administrative contact email was at nonepass.com which AFAIK is a project of NJDavid -- something publicly discussed on these boards many times.

So I was taking publicly available information on Flyertalk, combined with publicly available whois data, and connecting the dots.

No private information or communication involved.

If the information that ScottC edited was due to the Personal Information clause, then the information in the post by Gleff should be edited too.

What I edited was after a very polite request and me not having realized well enough that it was in violation of the TOS to publish it.

I don't think I've posted anything inappropriate in so far as the addresses and phone number are obviously bogus. As far as I know I haven't And unlike ScottC, noone has asked me to edit my post. TOS or no, privacy or no, I would tend to think that I would edit a post referencing any individual where such an individual sends me an email and asks me to.

[This message has been edited by gleff (edited Nov 25, 2003).]

I am looking for consistency.

If ScottC's post was a violation, then so is yours.

Period.

No, there isn't inconsistency if the cases are different.

1. ScottC edited his thread on request (presumably of the person named?). No such request was made of me.

2. The information I posted is all bogus, hence no privacy violation. The information in ScottC's post may have been accurate?

As I've said, if anyone involved is uncomfortable I'd naturally edit. Or if any FT Admin folks are uncomfortable.

But perhaps we could, say, not go looking for TOS violations? In other words, let's start with bad conduct and see if it's a violation of the rules instead of starting with rules and finding a way to shoehorn conduct into them.

1. There is a REAL name in your post.

2. I'm not saying that your's or ScottC's posts are in violation. I don't honestly think they are.

3. I am just looking for consistency. Both of the posts contain(ed) real information. If one is a violation, then so is the other. By the same token, if one is not, then neither is the other.

I have no beef with you at all. My beef is with the fact that someone e-mailed ScottC about his post, but did not e-mail you. Unless that someone is Randy then I honestly think that ScottC erred.

Then perhaps you should drop it?
I disagree. I have backchannel conversations with other FTers all the time. If someone ever asked me to edit something that I had written, and they had a legitimate reason (note, this has nothing to do with the TOS) I'd probably edit it. That's just a courtesy. Nothing wrong with doing a courtesy for a fellow member. Period.

I clearly see the usual inconsistent actions being taken here. That is why I do not drop it.

ScottC clearly states that he edited it due to someone pointing out that his post was a TOS violation.

So, the bottom line is that either ScottC erred, or your post should be edited.

Or someone had a concern. Legitimate or not with respect to the TOS.

But if there's little substantive benefit to a post, and someone is uncomfortable with it, why not edit it? Seems like basic getting along kind of stuff to me.

I take it ScottC was basically being a gentleman rather than conceding a violation of the rules on his part.

In any case, I don't think anyone is worse off for ScottC's personal decision.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I see a double standard. Someone asked ScottC to edit his post, but did not ask you to edit yours.

As I stated earlier, my beef is not with you. My beef is with the double standard.

Nope, no doubt in my mind on that one either. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif

I have never seen Randy criticise or bag ANY other flyer bulletin board in the past. Or EVER attempt to stifle or censor discussion on them.

I guess he knows the Flyertalk is soooooo far ahead of the rest of the bunch that the track record clearly speaks for itself. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

It is like eBay. Get in first with a model that works and stays working, and the 20 wannabe start-ups that want to take you on all vanish without trace. No matter who is behind them.

And I suspect any new Flyer board anyone may commence will have such a minor impact on FT that you will need a micrometer to measure it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif


------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from UA 747-400 exit row 15A near you SOON!

I find it VERY hard to believe that going on to the second page of this topic, after all the whining about the terms of service violations and issues with moderation, that NOBODY has edited the second post to remove the private information posted there. I refer specifically to an individual's name.

This is a disgrace.

I urge gleff or Randy (or the other administrators) to do so at once!

Since I have also met everyone who is either discussing this or being discussed I also feel the the personal name should be removed.
In fact in other fora moderators have asked that unless you have been asked or permitted to use their proper name they prefer that you do not.

I think that's going a little bit overboard, but as I said if there was a concern or request for me to edit, I would do so.

I've never met NJDavid or spoken with him, so I actually still don't know whether the last name posted was his or not. Since all the other information was clearly made up, I thought it likely that the name was made up too.

For what it's worth, we post news stories all the time which quote Flyertalkers. We often identify the Flyertalkers by handle. And of course the stories almost always include the person's real name.

Quote a news article with a persons name it seems to me is no different than quoted a whois query with a persons name.