CF6-80 failure ravages American 767-200ER

[Kingfisher]

General Electric is investigating the cause of an apparent uncontained
engine failure that caused extensive damage to an American Airlines Boeing
767-200ER at Los Angeles on 2 June.

The 19-year-old aircraft (N330AA) was undergoing a ground run-up of the No 1
(left) engine when the problem occurred. The CF6-80A was being tested after
the crew bringing the aircraft in from the New York reported abnormal power
response from the engine.

Reports say the engine was at more than 90% power when the failure occurred,
either in the shaft or the high-pressure turbine (HPT) area. It appears an
HPT disk ruptured, puncturing the fuel tank in the wing near the trailing
edge, slicing partially through the aircraft’s belly and damaging the keel
beam. The No 2 engine was also damaged by exploding debris and the fuel tank
on the right wing punctured.

The wing puncture also caused fuel to be spilled on the tarmac, and that,
along with a fuel line rupture, caused a major fire, which engulfed the wing
and the rear fuselage. The damage to the wing trailing edge, flaps, aft
fuselage, fuel tanks on both sides and the keel beam makes it likely the
aircraft will be declared a write-off.

The CF6-80 has been hit by similar issues in the past, and as recently as
January 2003 was the subject of a US Federal Aviation Administration
airworthiness directive (AD) calling for inspections of the HPT disc. The AD
was prompted by an incident on 8 December 2002, when a 767-200 equipped with
CF6-80A series engines experienced an uncontained failure of a first-stage
HPT rotor disk during climb.

The FAA said at the time the “results of the investigation indicated that
the Stage 1 HPT rotor disk failure was the result of a crack that initiated
in an aft corner edge of the bottom of a dovetail slot. The crack propagated
in fatigue to critical crack size, and subsequently resulted in disk rupture
and separation.” The FAA also notes that, in September 2000, a US operator
experienced a similar uncontained failure of the Stage 1 HPT rotor disk
during a ground maintenance run of a CF6-80C2 engine.

[B]

Post by Kingfisher
General Electric is investigating the cause of an apparent uncontained
engine failure that caused extensive damage to an American Airlines Boeing
767-200ER at Los Angeles on 2 June.
The 19-year-old aircraft (N330AA) was undergoing a ground run-up of the No 1
(left) engine when the problem occurred. The CF6-80A was being tested after
the crew bringing the aircraft in from the New York reported abnormal power
response from the engine.

<snipped>

Here's a pic of it -

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0164292/L/

[Joe Curry]

Post by B
Here's a pic of it -
http://www.airliners.net

Linking to images without the photographers permission could be
breach of copyright.

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry

Post by B
Here's a pic of it -
http://www.airliners.net

Linking to images without the photographers permission could be
breach of copyright.

Rubbish. A link cannot do this, if the picture in question is posted on
any *public* site, irrespective of jurisdiction. An assumption is made
that putting up a picture in a public place (just like putting up in the
street) means you want people to see it. Copying it elsewhere is, of
course, a copyright violation, but a LINK is not.

If you do not wish people to view your pictures, hide them in private
forums.

[Joe Curry]

Post by John Reid
Rubbish. A link cannot do this, if the picture in question is posted on
any *public* site, irrespective of jurisdiction. An assumption is made
that putting up a picture in a public place (just like putting up in the
street) means you want people to see it. Copying it elsewhere is, of
course, a copyright violation, but a LINK is not.

Source for your 'judgement' please?

[Kingfisher]

Well a media website could be regarded as a public site too. They obviously
want people to see their news items and pictures. if they did not want
people to copy pictures or news items they would ensure the items could not
be downloaded or copied. To make them downloadable and copyable means they
want people to have this stuff. I think a case could be made for that.

Post by Joe Curry

Post by John Reid
Rubbish. A link cannot do this, if the picture in question is posted on
any *public* site, irrespective of jurisdiction. An assumption is made
that putting up a picture in a public place (just like putting up in the
street) means you want people to see it. Copying it elsewhere is, of
course, a copyright violation, but a LINK is not.

Source for your 'judgement' please?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Joe Curry]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:43:58 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Well a media website could be regarded as a public site too. They obviously
want people to see their news items and pictures. if they did not want
people to copy pictures or news items they would ensure the items could not
be downloaded or copied. To make them downloadable and copyable means they
want people to have this stuff. I think a case could be made for that.

Yes indeed, if they want to retain copyright why make them accessible
to Internet 'freeloaders'.?

[Kingfisher]

Indeed. The obligation is on them to stop distribution if they do not want
people to have this stuff. If they make the stuff available they are saying
they don't mind it being distributed.

Post by Joe Curry
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:43:58 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Well a media website could be regarded as a public site too. They obviously
want people to see their news items and pictures. if they did not want
people to copy pictures or news items they would ensure the items could not
be downloaded or copied. To make them downloadable and copyable means they
want people to have this stuff. I think a case could be made for that.

Yes indeed, if they want to retain copyright why make them accessible
to Internet 'freeloaders'.?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Joe Curry]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 18:26:49 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Indeed. The obligation is on them to stop distribution if they do not want
people to have this stuff. If they make the stuff available they are saying
they don't mind it being distributed.

Yes indeed, why make it availble in the first place?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry

Post by John Reid
Rubbish. A link cannot do this, if the picture in question is posted on
any *public* site, irrespective of jurisdiction. An assumption is made
that putting up a picture in a public place (just like putting up in the
street) means you want people to see it. Copying it elsewhere is, of
course, a copyright violation, but a LINK is not.

Source for your 'judgement' please?

There are numerous sources (and its not a "judgement"), for basics try
here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

And also here

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/questions

To address the question of links directly

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/1998_2/athanasekou/

Where you will see a comprehensive analysis of why a link cannot be
considered as copyright in itself (although the material linked to can,
of course, be considered copyright)

There are a selection of further works on this subject linked from that
last article.

Can I help you with any further research on copyright, as you seem to be
very unclear about it.

[Joe Curry]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:49:02 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Where you will see a comprehensive analysis of why a link cannot be
considered as copyright in itself (although the material linked to can,
of course, be considered copyright)

Which arguably is a charade?

Post by John Reid
Can I help you with any further research on copyright, as you seem to be
very unclear about it.

It's you old chap that seems unclear.. Perhaps you can give details
of any actual judgments?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:49:02 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Where you will see a comprehensive analysis of why a link cannot be
considered as copyright in itself (although the material linked to can,
of course, be considered copyright)

Which arguably is a charade?

Post by John Reid
Can I help you with any further research on copyright, as you seem to be
very unclear about it.

It's you old chap that seems unclear.. Perhaps you can give details
of any actual judgments?

Yes, I can. Not to you though, as (a) I have done enough research for
lazy people this week and (b) you are saying one thing here, then doing
another elsewhere, so you are pretty clear on the issues I feel, as your
two faced behaviour in usenet illustrates.

For clarity, if you *really* believe what you are saying here, then you
should be posting full stories. For some reason, you don't do that,
leaving it instead to your friend.

PS The actual rulings on this matter are easy to find, although some of
the UK ones were settled out of court.

[Jim Mason]

In article <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>, ***@nospam.demon.co.uk
says...

Post by John Reid

Post by Joe Curry
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 15:49:02 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Where you will see a comprehensive analysis of why a link cannot be
considered as copyright in itself (although the material linked to can,
of course, be considered copyright)

Which arguably is a charade?

Post by John Reid
Can I help you with any further research on copyright, as you seem to be
very unclear about it.

It's you old chap that seems unclear.. Perhaps you can give details
of any actual judgments?

Yes, I can. Not to you though, as (a) I have done enough research for
lazy people this week and (b) you are saying one thing here, then doing
another elsewhere, so you are pretty clear on the issues I feel, as your
two faced behaviour in usenet illustrates.
For clarity, if you *really* believe what you are saying here, then you
should be posting full stories. For some reason, you don't do that,
leaving it instead to your friend.

JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very early
age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others to do
things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more so when
they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Jim

[John Reid]

Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very
early age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others
to do things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more
so when they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Yes Jim, continuing as ever. He and Mr Fisher making comments to the
side, with sniping being carried on me by Mr Curry (with Fisher
ostensibly being unable to "see" my posting as *I* am banned on his ISPs
news server.

I think it is easy to guess that both of them are operating under some
kind of issue with the ISPs that they use, and that I am an easy target
for the vitriol. Their behaviour is the classic behaviour of bullies
thwarted, saying one thing whilst doing another is how bullies behave. I
have disliked it since my school days.

[Jon Simpson]

Post by John Reid
Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very early
age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others to do
things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more so when
they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Yes Jim, continuing as ever. He and Mr Fisher making comments to the side,
with sniping being carried on me by Mr Curry (with Fisher ostensibly being
unable to "see" my posting as *I* am banned on his ISPs news server.
I think it is easy to guess that both of them are operating under some
kind of issue with the ISPs that they use, and that I am an easy target
for the vitriol. Their behaviour is the classic behaviour of bullies
thwarted, saying one thing whilst doing another is how bullies behave. I
have disliked it since my school days.
--
John
Mail sent to the reply address will be binned automatically.

Hi John. I have a couple of hours spare this afternoon and I'm more than
happy to divert the idiots for a while. Dead easy and they take the bait
every time.Think of a topic and I'll use it.

Regards
JRS

[Kingfisher]

I am not saying my ISP is stopping Mr. Mason's posts, I am downright sure of
t. No posts from Mason or Simpson are showing up here. I have not
killfiled them, and it is Mr. Mason and friends who are the bullies, not me.
Using three or 4 people to attack one person is the height of bullying. I
am just one person, how can I bully anyone?

I am sure you have guidelines for posting in the glasgow group, and if I
defy those guidelines, I am sure Mr. Mason would soon be reporting me to
whomever he chooses.

Mr. Reid has already reported me to my ISP, is that not bullying too? Just
so he can get a few more measly pounds from his employers?

Post by John Reid
Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very early
age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others to do
things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more so when
they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Yes Jim, continuing as ever. He and Mr Fisher making comments to the side,
with sniping being carried on me by Mr Curry (with Fisher ostensibly being
unable to "see" my posting as *I* am banned on his ISPs news server.
I think it is easy to guess that both of them are operating under some
kind of issue with the ISPs that they use, and that I am an easy target
for the vitriol. Their behaviour is the classic behaviour of bullies
thwarted, saying one thing whilst doing another is how bullies behave. I
have disliked it since my school days.
--
John
Mail sent to the reply address will be binned automatically.

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:01:09 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Using three or 4 people to attack one person is the height of bullying. I
am just one person, how can I bully anyone?

Hit the nail on the head there Kingfisher, the backslapping is so
obvious..

[Kingfisher]

The cowards are Reid and Co. They have to back themselves up in order to
attack myself, and also you. Its disgraceful the way they disparage you.
The cowards can be seen for who they are, the copyright mafia.

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:01:09 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Using three or 4 people to attack one person is the height of bullying. I
am just one person, how can I bully anyone?

Hit the nail on the head there Kingfisher, the backslapping is so
obvious..
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:05:34 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
The cowards are Reid and Co. They have to back themselves up in order to
attack myself, and also you. Its disgraceful the way they disparage you.

Let's get thing into perspective here, Joe Curry is a near 70 year old
pensioner, only cowards would pick a soft target like that?

[Kingfisher]

Yes indeed. But then soft targets is all these cowards can take on.

Reminds me, as Mr. Reids posts are coming through again, I must contact
Verizon and see what the position is. If they are restoring posting
privileges of all the Reid gang, then I will have something to say about it.

Get back to you later.

:))

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:05:34 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
The cowards are Reid and Co. They have to back themselves up in order to
attack myself, and also you. Its disgraceful the way they disparage you.

Let's get thing into perspective here, Joe Curry is a near 70 year old
pensioner, only cowards would pick a soft target like that?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Kingfisher]

Just spoke to Verizon, they are going to check into it. They said the
matter had been referred to them.

Post by Kingfisher
Yes indeed. But then soft targets is all these cowards can take on.
Reminds me, as Mr. Reids posts are coming through again, I must contact
Verizon and see what the position is. If they are restoring posting
privileges of all the Reid gang, then I will have something to say about it.
Get back to you later.
:))

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:05:34 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
The cowards are Reid and Co. They have to back themselves up in order to
attack myself, and also you. Its disgraceful the way they disparage you.

Let's get thing into perspective here, Joe Curry is a near 70 year old
pensioner, only cowards would pick a soft target like that?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:17:17 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Just spoke to Verizon, they are going to check into it. They said the
matter had been referred to them.

I wonder if that will 'work' with Google?

[Kingfisher]

I doubt it,. Google have there own servers I think.

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:17:17 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Just spoke to Verizon, they are going to check into it. They said the
matter had been referred to them.

I wonder if that will 'work' with Google?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Kingfisher]

MMMMMMM!! Sorry I was a bit dense there, you mean would Google stop there
posts too? Well we could ask them.

Post by Kingfisher
I doubt it,. Google have there own servers I think.

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:17:17 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Just spoke to Verizon, they are going to check into it. They said the
matter had been referred to them.

I wonder if that will 'work' with Google?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:35:52 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
MMMMMMM!! Sorry I was a bit dense there, you mean would Google stop there
posts too? Well we could ask them.

One can post a no archive request if they don't wish Google to hold
the message in their archives.

I have never felt the need. :-)

[Kingfisher]

How do you do that?

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:35:52 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
MMMMMMM!! Sorry I was a bit dense there, you mean would Google stop there
posts too? Well we could ask them.

One can post a no archive request if they don't wish Google to hold
the message in their archives.
I have never felt the need. :-)
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Kingfisher]

Anything wrong with the edinburgh group? Just posted something on their it
has'nt shown up, no posts have today so far.

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:49:17 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
I think it is easy to guess that both of them are operating under some
kind of issue with the ISPs that they use,

For goodness sake..out with it..what are these issues? PROOF/EVIDENCE
please.

[Kingfisher]

I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy with me.
I am very satisfied with them too.

"I think it is easy to guess that both of them are operating under some
kind of issue with the ISPs that they use, and that I am an easy target
for the vitriol. Their behaviour is the classic behaviour of bullies
thwarted, saying one thing whilst doing another is how bullies behave. I
have disliked it since my school days"

Post by John Reid
Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very early
age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others to do
things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more so when
they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Yes Jim, continuing as ever. He and Mr Fisher making comments to the side,
with sniping being carried on me by Mr Curry (with Fisher ostensibly being
unable to "see" my posting as *I* am banned on his ISPs news server.
I think it is easy to guess that both of them are operating under some
kind of issue with the ISPs that they use, and that I am an easy target
for the vitriol. Their behaviour is the classic behaviour of bullies
thwarted, saying one thing whilst doing another is how bullies behave. I
have disliked it since my school days.
--
John
Mail sent to the reply address will be binned automatically.

[John Reid]

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy
with me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

[Jim Mason]

In article <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>, ***@nospam.demon.co.uk
says...

Post by John Reid

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy
with me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

You just couldn't make it up!

Jim

[John Reid]

Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
says...

Post by John Reid

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy
with me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

You just couldn't make it up!
Jim

I don't think I would even try!!!

[B]

Post by John Reid
Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
says...

Post by John Reid

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy
with me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

You just couldn't make it up!
Jim

I don't think I would even try!!!

And all this because I post a link to an American Airlines 767 at GLA
;-) Like a red rag to a fool..

B

[Kingfisher]

No not because of that, at all.

If I am a fool, then I am happy in my foolery.

Post by B

Post by John Reid
Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
says...

Post by John Reid

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy
with me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

You just couldn't make it up!
Jim

I don't think I would even try!!!

And all this because I post a link to an American Airlines 767 at GLA
;-) Like a red rag to a fool..
B

[Kingfisher]

I see you are chiming in with your friends. I thought you said you were'nt
involved with the Reid gang.

Post by B

Post by John Reid
Jim Mason wrote in message

Post by Jim Mason
says...

Post by John Reid

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy
with me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

You just couldn't make it up!
Jim

I don't think I would even try!!!

And all this because I post a link to an American Airlines 767 at GLA
;-) Like a red rag to a fool..
B

[Joe Curry]

Post by B
And all this because I post a link to an American Airlines 767 at GLA
;-) Like a red rag to a fool..

Why did you wave it?

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:10:10 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid

Post by Jim Mason
You just couldn't make it up!

I don't think I would even try!!!

Why bother replying then?

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:47:40 +0100, Jim Mason

Post by Jim Mason
You just couldn't make it up!

The Jim, John. Jon, Blimpie alliance?

Agreed..

[Kingfisher]

Yes, I am seeing your messages, I did think you had been blocked too. Seems
not. For a while there messages from you were not coming through.

Post by John Reid

Post by Kingfisher
I have no issues with my ISP at all. They have said nothing to me, no
investigations, letters, emails, or anything. They are quite happy with
me. I am very satisfied with them too.

I am very please to know this, however it seems that that there is a
problem with them as you are, in fact, still seeing my messages when you
told everyone that your provider was removing them from their server.
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.
--
John
Mail sent to the reply address will be binned automatically.

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:42:23 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

John, do us all a favour and take this somewhere else? WE want to talk
aviation..

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:42:23 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Clearly they are not, as you have replied with direct references in the
header to postings of mine in this thread.

John, do us all a favour and take this somewhere else? WE want to talk
aviation..

You are the one asking for replies in this thread, not me. You have
posted precisely *zero* aviation posts in the this group today, and at
least *eight* containing whinges or disparaging comments about me or
others, so take your own advice please, and stop the abuse.

PS *Volume* is one way ISPs judge abuse - PM gave you some advice about
not *needing* to reply to everything. I'd take his good advice.

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:56:50 +0100, Jim Mason

Post by Jim Mason
JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very early
age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others to do
things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more so when
they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Let me see. You are with ukonline and you post via individual.net?

Let's stick to aviation please and nail this stupid vendetta of yours
for good.?

[Kingfisher]

Well said Joe.

:))

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:56:50 +0100, Jim Mason

Post by Jim Mason
JC still continuing his cowardly ways John? Personally from a very early
age I have always took a dim view of anyone who encourages others to do
things that they aren't brave enough to do themselves - even more so when
they incite others whilst not posting through their `choice` ISP.

Let me see. You are with ukonline and you post via individual.net?
Let's stick to aviation please and nail this stupid vendetta of yours
for good.?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:02:54 GMT, "Kingfisher"

Post by Kingfisher
Well said Joe.

It's getting really stupid..who cares about individuals, their
agendas, hang-ups, vendettas? Life is too short, if folk want to slag
others off they should go into a 'slagging' forum.?

[Joe Curry]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:44:58 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Yes, I can. Not to you though, as (a) I have done enough research for
lazy people this week and (b) you are saying one thing here, then doing
another elsewhere, so you are pretty clear on the issues I feel, as your
two faced behaviour in usenet illustrates.

Oh dear..the obligatory abuse. :-(

Post by John Reid
PS The actual rulings on this matter are easy to find, although some of
the UK ones were settled out of court.

You are the one being questioned..provide the judgements?

No point in saying something and then refusing to strengthen you
point?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:44:58 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Yes, I can. Not to you though, as (a) I have done enough research for
lazy people this week and (b) you are saying one thing here, then doing
another elsewhere, so you are pretty clear on the issues I feel, as your
two faced behaviour in usenet illustrates.

Oh dear..the obligatory abuse. :-(

Point out the abuse please. I have said you are lazy and a liar, both of
these are facts in relation to this thread.

Post by Joe Curry

Post by John Reid
PS The actual rulings on this matter are easy to find, although some of
the UK ones were settled out of court.

You are the one being questioned..provide the judgements?

What's the question mark for, re-read the final link I sent the facts in
this matter are all in there and I see no need to provide more.

Post by Joe Curry
No point in saying something and then refusing to strengthen you
point?

I am happy to strengthen my point but as you produced no argument to
refute mine I don't see the need.

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:45:04 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
I am happy to strengthen my point but as you produced no argument to
refute mine I don't see the need.

You don't have any judgements?

[Kingfisher]

He has no judgement personal or otherwise.

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:45:04 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
I am happy to strengthen my point but as you produced no argument to
refute mine I don't see the need.

You don't have any judgements?
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:45:04 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
I am happy to strengthen my point but as you produced no argument to
refute mine I don't see the need.

You don't have any judgements?

I've already replied to your abuse. I suggest you read the thread again,
if you can find it inside all the chit chat between you and your abusive
friend.

[Joe Curry]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:41:19 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
I've already replied to your abuse.

Please repost my 'abuse'?

[B]

Post by John Reid

Post by Joe Curry

Post by B
Here's a pic of it -
http://www.airliners.net

Linking to images without the photographers permission could be
breach of copyright.

Rubbish. A link cannot do this, if the picture in question is posted on
any *public* site, irrespective of jurisdiction. An assumption is made
that putting up a picture in a public place (just like putting up in the
street) means you want people to see it. Copying it elsewhere is, of
course, a copyright violation, but a LINK is not.
If you do not wish people to view your pictures, hide them in private
forums.

You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -

'URL (link) to this photo:'


B

[Joe Curry]

Post by B
You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -

How many pics are then used without permission? There have been lots
of instances.

Folk who post links to pics without stating the copyright are guilty
surely?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry

Post by B
You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -

How many pics are then used without permission? There have been lots
of instances.

Yes lots of them so if you don't want them copied either enforce your
copyright through legal action, protection within the pictures,
watermarking, or other devices for making sure others cannot reproduce
them. Alternatively do not post them in a public place without
protecting them.

Post by Joe Curry
Folk who post links to pics without stating the copyright are guilty
surely?

No. Links are "facts", the copyright should be on the page linked to OR
within the article or picture being copyrighted. It is easy to protect
your pictures or at least embed your copyright. As it appears to me most
aviation photographers do a lot of image manipulation (as do our house
photographers) it would be simple to add copyright and watermarking at
that stage. Also every reputable site I have looked at makes reference
to the pictures being copyright.

PS You are a fine person to complain about copyright when you openly
support those who abuse the copyright of others.

[Jim Mason]

In article <rcDa+***@nospam.demon.co.uk>, ***@nospam.demon.co.uk
says...

Post by John Reid
PS You are a fine person to complain about copyright when you openly
support those who abuse the copyright of others.

Indeed. But not still brave enough to practice what he preaches. The
ultimate hypocrite? I wonder how Kingfisher can possibly respect such an
individual? It looks like Kingfisher is about to become the new William
Forsyth.

Jim

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:00:18 +0100, Jim Mason

Post by Jim Mason
Indeed. But not still brave enough to practice what he preaches. The
ultimate hypocrite? I wonder how Kingfisher can possibly respect such an
individual? It looks like Kingfisher is about to become the new William
Forsyth.

You being the original? Do you know what you guy's attacks on posters
who refuse to join your gang must sound like to onlookers?

Think about it?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:00:18 +0100, Jim Mason

Post by Jim Mason
Indeed. But not still brave enough to practice what he preaches. The
ultimate hypocrite? I wonder how Kingfisher can possibly respect such an
individual? It looks like Kingfisher is about to become the new William
Forsyth.

You being the original? Do you know what you guy's attacks on posters
who refuse to join your gang must sound like to onlookers?
Think about it?

Why not address the original question - why do you support copyright in
respect in yourself and not others? Rather than abusing someone else.

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:51:17 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Rather than abusing someone else.

Oh dear..Proof of this abuse please? Your accusations
require PROOF!

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:41:54 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
PS You are a fine person to complain about copyright when you openly
support those who abuse the copyright of others.

I'm still waiting for you to post' copyright judgements and proof of
my abuse toward yourself?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:41:54 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
PS You are a fine person to complain about copyright when you openly
support those who abuse the copyright of others.

I'm still waiting for you to post' copyright judgements and proof of
my abuse toward yourself?

You'll wait a long time then. How about telling us why you have this
inconsistent attitude then? No? I thought not, pure greed for yourself
I'll venture, another bullyboy attribute.

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:52:24 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid

Post by Joe Curry
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:41:54 +0100, John Reid
I'm still waiting for you to post' copyright judgements and proof of
my abuse toward yourself?

You'll wait a long time then.

Your accusations of 'abuse' were unfounded?

[John Reid]

B wrote in message

Post by B
You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -
'URL (link) to this photo:'

No I certainly could not make up someone so single minded and
prejudiced, but it seems that such people really do exist. Nearly all
web site owners are (just as you say) delighted with people coming to
view whatever they have on the site, and with linking they see it as
intended by that site. The odd thing is that he posts links himself and
yet questions the copyright status of them. I imagine he thinks he is
being clever because he knows that many recent cases have settled out of
court (all in favour of the copyright owners I might add). The main
point about copyright is that the principles are very well established
and it is established in law that links are treated as "facts" (because
they like signposts) and facts are not copyrighted.

As for Mr Fisher, he is simply an expatriate who has taken his new
mother country's reputation as the "land of the free" a little too far.

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:01:17 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
The odd thing is that he posts links himself and
yet questions the copyright status of them.

Links to photographers pics by myself now carry copyright
to photographers.

Links to webpages/articles carry sources/authors.

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:01:17 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
The odd thing is that he posts links himself and
yet questions the copyright status of them.

Links to photographers pics by myself now carry copyright
to photographers.
Links to webpages/articles carry sources/authors.

Why bother? You don't believe in copyright as you consistently support
the abuse of copyright in this newsgroup.

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:53:08 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Why bother? You don't believe in copyright as you consistently support
the abuse of copyright in this newsgroup.

Prove it, word for word?

[John Reid]

Post by Joe Curry
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:53:08 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
Why bother? You don't believe in copyright as you consistently support
the abuse of copyright in this newsgroup.

Prove it, word for word?

Here's the sample (and there is plenty more, just browse this group),
this is a posting of yours made on 13 June in this group

Post by Joe Curry
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.
de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.airports.uk.humberside
Subject: Re: Driver douses fire, averts crisis at Sanford airport
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:42:22 +0100

Post by John Reid
Kingfisher old bean, I have no intention of commiting copyright theft,

The eyes of the beholder?..I have yet to see any copyright holders
complaining in this or ant newsgroup..
If you were so concerned with 'rules' why flout those in the newsgroups
you obviously want to disrupt?
----------
--
www.edinburghairport.org.uk
The web portal for Scotland's
most convenient/accessible airport.
http://www2.germanwings.com/en/images/edinburgh_en.gif

Where you are advocating posting complete stories, because " you have
yet to see anyone complaining". I can inform you I have complained, here
and in other groups about people abusing copyright. There are many other
examples in the last four weeks, let alone last year. Stop trying to
argue black is white.

[B]

Post by John Reid
B wrote in message

Post by B
You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -
'URL (link) to this photo:'

No I certainly could not make up someone so single minded and
prejudiced, but it seems that such people really do exist. Nearly all
web site owners are (just as you say) delighted with people coming to
view whatever they have on the site, and with linking they see it as
intended by that site. The odd thing is that he posts links himself and
yet questions the copyright status of them. I imagine he thinks he is
being clever because he knows that many recent cases have settled out of
court (all in favour of the copyright owners I might add). The main
point about copyright is that the principles are very well established
and it is established in law that links are treated as "facts" (because
they like signposts) and facts are not copyrighted.

And once you click on the link you are informed -

"This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way
without proper permission."

B

[John Reid]

B wrote in message

Post by B

Post by John Reid
B wrote in message

Post by B
You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -
'URL (link) to this photo:'

No I certainly could not make up someone so single minded and
prejudiced, but it seems that such people really do exist. Nearly all
web site owners are (just as you say) delighted with people coming to
view whatever they have on the site, and with linking they see it as
intended by that site. The odd thing is that he posts links himself and
yet questions the copyright status of them. I imagine he thinks he is
being clever because he knows that many recent cases have settled out of
court (all in favour of the copyright owners I might add). The main
point about copyright is that the principles are very well established
and it is established in law that links are treated as "facts" (because
they like signposts) and facts are not copyrighted.

And once you click on the link you are informed -
"This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way
without proper permission."
B

As is totally correct and proper. Nearly all of these photo sites have
those repeated on every page and next to every image. There is no need
to state it further. What then happens is you protect the copyright. He
can do that apparently but for me it is wrong. Go figure (for the US
audience).

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:54:53 +0100, John Reid

Post by John Reid
As is totally correct and proper. Nearly all of these photo sites have
those repeated on every page and next to every image.

Those posting links should credit the photographer in that link.

If only to exonerate themselves for copyrigh breach?

[Jim Mason]

In article <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>, ***@nospam.demon.co.uk
says...

Post by John Reid
B wrote in message

Post by B

Post by John Reid
B wrote in message

Post by B
You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who
uploads to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that
photograph gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every
Airliners.net pic has this above it -
'URL (link) to this photo:'

No I certainly could not make up someone so single minded and
prejudiced, but it seems that such people really do exist. Nearly all
web site owners are (just as you say) delighted with people coming to
view whatever they have on the site, and with linking they see it as
intended by that site. The odd thing is that he posts links himself and
yet questions the copyright status of them. I imagine he thinks he is
being clever because he knows that many recent cases have settled out of
court (all in favour of the copyright owners I might add). The main
point about copyright is that the principles are very well established
and it is established in law that links are treated as "facts" (because
they like signposts) and facts are not copyrighted.

And once you click on the link you are informed -
"This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way
without proper permission."
B

As is totally correct and proper. Nearly all of these photo sites have
those repeated on every page and next to every image. There is no need
to state it further. What then happens is you protect the copyright. He
can do that apparently but for me it is wrong. Go figure (for the US
audience).

Virtually every commercial web site that contains text also has a copyright
reminder displayed discretely - reminding any readers that the content
cannot be displayed elsewhere without the permission of the copyright
owners. This permission is unlikely to be granted in full unless payment is
received. JC was reminded of this by Zetnet when it was pointed out to them
and the Scotsman group - that he was stealing their content. To his credit
after this he changed HIS posting behaviour. Perhaps HE can explain why now
HE is encouraging others to behave in a manner that he was forced to stop
doing so himself? If he wants to encourage people to breach copyright then
he should lead by example and take the consequences instead of being a
coward. Then again he may simply trying to use those who are slightly
disadvantaged in his bizarre crusade against anyone who questions his
viewpoint. Does anyone else see similarities to the way he used William
Forsyth?

Jim

[Joe Curry]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 19:09:09 +0100, Jim Mason

Post by Jim Mason
This permission is unlikely to be granted in full unless payment is
received. JC was reminded of this by Zetnet

Absolute rubbish..You have proof of this?

You guys had better give this up or provide proof of your allegations.

[Joe Curry]

Post by B
And once you click on the link you are informed -
"This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way
without proper permission."

You should therefore obtain permission to use the link...

[Jon Simpson]

You really couldn't make him up, could you. Every photographer who uploads
to Airliners.net is more than delighted with every 'hit' that photograph
gets, it's the very reason they upload them! In fact every Airliners.net
pic has this above it -
'URL (link) to this photo:'

No I certainly could not make up someone so single minded and prejudiced,
but it seems that such people really do exist. Nearly all web site owners
are (just as you say) delighted with people coming to view whatever they
have on the site, and with linking they see it as intended by that site.
The odd thing is that he posts links himself and yet questions the
copyright status of them. I imagine he thinks he is being clever because
he knows that many recent cases have settled out of court (all in favour
of the copyright owners I might add). The main point about copyright is
that the principles are very well established and it is established in law
that links are treated as "facts" (because they like signposts) and facts
are not copyrighted.
As for Mr Fisher, he is simply an expatriate who has taken his new mother
country's reputation as the "land of the free" a little too far.
--
John
Mail sent to the reply address will be binned automatically.

John. He's not an ex-pat. He's on a visa. Have a look at historical 'Tyler"
stuff.

Sock puppet and attention seeking. Shame he can't see these words as we are
both blocked by his ISP. I for one miss his wisdom so much.

JRS

[John Reid]

Jon Simpson wrote in message

Post by Jon Simpson
John. He's not an ex-pat. He's on a visa. Have a look at historical
'Tyler" stuff.
Sock puppet and attention seeking. Shame he can't see these words as we
are both blocked by his ISP. I for one miss his wisdom so much.

Thanks for that Jon, I thought he was naturalised from the behaviour
being exhibited, as he seems to feel completely secure in his abuse,
which is usually how someone with nothing to loose operates.

Apparently we are no longer being blocked by his ISP. Didn't last long
that arrangement did it? He has called them about the fact that the full
horrors of our postings are being seen by him. Indeed he even has made
two direct replies to posts of mine in the last couple of days. Amazing
what attention seekers will do sometimes.