And for that matter, it completely leaves the realm of objectivity because there are *grey* areas that might never occur to average minds in which otherwise good people can be accused of doing something illicit. If that were the case, then your witch hunt would be just as much of a crime as the alleged incident.

Sam
the coolest guy on the planet

Thanks

arZan

Sorry for the disorgranized info… some thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

Back to this Creative Commons thing: I noticed Darren also licenses ProBlogger under CC. I like the “Share Alike” clause and will be changing my license to include that.

However, I’m wondering if the blog that took my post, referenced in my previous comment, may be all right in doing so. CC says:

You are free:

* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to make derivative works

as long as you attribute and it’s non-commercial. This blog that took my post has no ads on it.

Another question: Is it relevant that I have my blog licensed under Creative Commons?

Last time I checked, for a pro blogger, there blog IS a BUSINESS. And Darren is giving out tips how to make money from your blog. So of course, the majority of posts here will be concerned with that.

Like Darren says, stay on topic, that’s what he’s doing.

Personally, I don’t mind blunt and I think it’s important to hear how things really are because the real world is not pretty or kind to fools or thieves.

Darren calls it like it is, simple as that. Can’t ask for much more.

P.S. And before someone tells me I’m being an apologist for Darren, I’m working from what I’ve learned from my own blogging and how people react. I can tell you that very few people are as generous with their time and advice as Darren is.

Whilst I don’t think everything has been resolved (see my final, final post on this matter at my blog!) I thank you, Duncan, for doing this.

That’s all I wanted!

All I’m saying is that there were AP stories printed in full. Though some would say otherwise, I see this as a valid point of discussion oon a topic about referencing / use of other’s content.

I really didn’t start this out as a personal vendetta against anyone in particular. All I did was highlight an area where I believe someone did a very similar thing to that which they were complaining about.

I don’t use public forums to pick personal fights for their own sake. It’s not me that has brought irrelevant issues into this important argument. I asked a simple question (deleted from source) which got someone’s back up. All it needed was a simple answer.

Certain sections talking about ‘relevance deprivation syndrome’ is just a joke.

PS: while I’m here looking at Post #36 .. was that manually posted in here? Or, is there some wordpress script that retrieves posts that links this permanent link? It’s been driving me nuts for a few days :-\

I’m talking about taking complete Associated Press stories from other sites (who have the right to reprint).

m not going to link to the twit who’s calling me a racists because he is desperately suffering from relevance deprevation syndrome

OK Duncan if you say so.

You still haven’t answered the charge made against you, or your guest blogger John.

I have no problem with articles recommending best practice for writing, and exposing content misuse; Darren’s post is fine. I do take issue with people who angrily oppose such practices yet do the same things themselves.

I won’t split hairs here over ‘racism’ etc. as it’s not relevant (funnily enough) to the actual issue. I’d be happy to debate at length in a more appropriate forum such issues.

And I don’t expect links Duncan. I didn’t ask for them in the first place, and as you’ve culled my comments, it shouldn’t be an issue for you.