[Arm-netbook] pyra computer

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

apologies i am going to keep this brief, i am on the clock, an
extremely limited amount of time for this visit to the UK... which
this is causing massive problems for me to have to deal with.  so
please STOP taking up my time.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:09 PM,  <ronwirring at safe-mail.net> wrote:
> Regarding moderator approval. I ask you to display this email
> on the emailing list.

 you can ask, but i go by its contents NOT by whether you have asked.
you are still in moderation because you're pissing everybody off.

>> you seem to believe that you have the right to do whatever you want: you don't.
>> every time i have asked you to respect my authority you have ducked
>> or ignored the question.
>
> I think you are as happened before exaggerating, and misrepresenting
> what previous disputes we have had.

 no... i haven't.  you fail, plain and simple, to state clearly that
you respect the rules that are set.  this is why you were placed into
moderation for several months, and you have STILL failed to clearly
state that you intend to respect the rules that i set.

> About what follows I have not searched for documentation in previous
> posts and emails. Because I am not going to do the
> effort.

 well, that's just plain fucking rude and is directly contrary to
every single netiquette rule covering interaction with people on a
mailing list for about 30+ years.  why the fuck should WE do YOUR work
for you when you can't fucking well be bothered to do your own
research.

 we're not your "lackeys" ron, helping you to "suck on the great
documentation tit in the sky".


> First one.
> On another forum I made some critical posts about the pc card
> crowdfunding. I did so because it can be
> beneficial for the owner of a project to get more angles
> on his work and everyone should be scrutinized.
> My main critique was including the pc card laptop housing
> in a crowdfunding.

 _great_.  and that's the only reason why people are now tolerating
you.  you're pissing everyone off, ron.

> My point of view was that for a one
> person enterprise that would be to big a task. It would
> require a frictionless course. It turned out I was right.
> No usable parts have been manufactured so far?
> Instead I would have concentrated on getting more people
> to buy the pc card.
> If lkcl wanted to shut me up or not, I do not know.
> He could not. It was not his forum.
> Lkcl accused me of sabotaging the crowdfunding.
> Said I could make the crowdfunding fail.

 no, you could undermine the entire EOMA68 project by killing someone
through your incompetence and unwillingness to listen to advice.
which is much much more serious.


> Second one.
> When posting emails on the arm netbook emailing list,
> I wanted to keep all previous posts unedited in
> my next post. Lkcl told me, that is not how it is done.

 actually several people did.  you can't decide what rules YOU want to
follow.  you have to follow the rules of interaction that suit
EVERYONE.

 NOT your own fucking PERSONAL and SELFISH needs.

> And he explained how I should edit posts and
> importantly why I should edit. One argument was,
> he had to read a high number of emails and edited
> posts were time saving for him.

 AND EVERYONE ELSE ON THE LIST.

> I have to accept that my english writing skills are
> limited.

 great.  this is progress.

> My answer to him may have been unclear.

 ... actually, you evaded the question "will you follow the rules, yes
or no".  *that* is why you were placed into moderation.  it was your
unwillingness to LISTEN.

> The content of my answering post was, every
> email list member should decide for himself
> how to edit a post.

 absofuckinglutely NOT.  there are FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY OTHER PEOPLE
YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ron.


> But I accepted his arguments
> about editing posts and told him I would concur.

 actually... you didn't.

> Then lkcl misread my post. Believing I would not
> concur. Therefore lkcl told me, I had to make a
> specific declaration about complying to the rules
> about posting.

 ... which you did... for about a day.  and then stopped.


> To my knowledge from that point none of my
> postings have not complied to rules about posting.
> At some point, not on me request, I got off the
> moderator list.

 yes... because despite you NOT having actually explicitly agreed to
.... you know what?  this is taking up far too much of my valuable
time.  i am under a LOT OF PRESSURE right now, i cannot be dealing
with this.


> I mentioned my free speech in a post. It resulted
> in several rubbish comments.

 no... you pissed a lot of people off... and you've now indicated that
you don't give a shit about what other people think, ron.

 this is not a good sign.

> Lkcl, since you are in favor of straightening things
> out and not dodge, answer these questions about
> your emailing list:
>
> Should your emailing list aspire to grand the
> highest level of free speech?

 fuck no.

> Do you adhere to the principle of equal matters
> must be dealt with equally?

 when it comes to my obligations under the Certification Mark, i am
*required* to be "FRAND" (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory).

 outside of that legal obligation, FUCK no.

> Do you adhere to the principle of proportionality?

 don't know what it means.... don't really care at this point.  all i
can say is: when it comes to my obligations under the Certification
Mark, i am *required* to be "FRAND" (Fair, Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory).

 basically i follow the "Bill of Ethics" as written by Bob Podolski.
i'd say "go look it up" but you've already indicated that you don't
give a fuck about following people's recommendations.


> Because you own this emailing list, you can do
> whatever you want. I am not questioning that.
> The question is should you do whatever you want?

 an interesting point.... governed by the Bill of Ethics and the goals
that i have set.


> How you manage your email list tells a tale about
> you. If your answer to my 3 questions are no, then I have
> misread you as a person and you do not have to
> unsubscribe me. I do it myself.

 that's your right.

> When I wrote 'Has lkcl' you managed to infringe on all
> 3 principles. There are no strong reasons, other than
> your vanity, to prohibit such phrasing. I cannot write
> third person. You write profanities, masked or not.
> If using third person is an infraction, it is a minor.
> Calling in the moderator approval list is an
> overreaction.

 not at all.

> Part 2.
> Lkcl has thrown into the air that I may be
> infringing on one or more laws and maybe a license or
> certification. I have no overview on this matter.

 you're required to respect the law.  in this case, copyright law.
which you've indicated that you can't be bothered to research and read
up on.  which makes you DANGEROUS to the project.

>>  do you, ron wirring, accept that i am the SOLE EXCLUSIVE Copyright
>> Holder of the EOMA68 Standard?
>> please answer simply yes or no.
>
> I am not going to answer yes or no until I know what
> I am answering yes or no to.

 well, it's real simple: if i am the copyright holder of a work, and i
make that clear, i'm asking, "do you respect Copyright Law and my
rights AS a Copyright Holder?"

 it's REAL simple, ron.


> First I want to say, I have never read the standards.

 whoops.  that's not a good sign.

>  I have no
> idea about the purchase agreement. Which laws apply.
> Which certification. Which licenses. The reason is the
> pc card is to me no more important than buying a mixer.
> If I get a pc card, fine. If not, it was a nice initiative.
> Lkcl will probably blame me for this approach. Does
> not matter. I am not going to put an effort into getting
> knowledgeable on these matters for an item which
> may not get shipped and due to what it
> costs.
> In wanting to make the asus eeepc accept pc cards I can
> have done a lot of infringements not knowing it.

 ignorance of the law is no excuse.

> Lkcl
> suddenly shouting about trademarks and copyright came
> as a surprise to me.

 well of course it's fucking well copyrighted, what did you expect!!
Copyright Law applies to EVERYTHING for fuck's sake!


> Am I not allowed to make a pc card housing?

 i've already explained this to you that there are two conditions, one
where you do NOT make mention of "EOMA68" - anywhere - in which case
you can do whatever you like.

 but if you mention "EOMA68" *ANYWHERE* you are NOT permitted to do
ANYTHING without my EXPRESSED AND EXPLICIT APPROVAL.

 come on, ron, this isn't hard.


> Is
> this what it is about? Then why would you
> participate?
> You demanded to get to approve the battery hardware
> setup. On which I agreed. So did picugins, what more
> are you asking for?
> Can you display the law text in question I am
> infringing on?

 fucking well look it up for yourself!  fuck me, i'm not your mother
for fuck's sake.  do your own fucking research!!!  stop making
everyone else your lackey!

 jaezuss.

>> also if you do not answer "yes" i will NOT grant you permission, AS
>> IS MY RIGHT UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW, to utilise the word "EOMA68" in ANY
>> way, shape or form.
>
> I do not have any intention on utilizing the word eoma68.

 GOOD.  i am going to hold you to that.  it's the only reason why i've
let this message get through to the list.  you are also not permitted
to mention EOMA68 on any documentation that you write and release
publicly.

 WHEN you are mentally ready to understand the implications of what
you're doing - and have actually fucking well bothered to read the
EOMA68 Standard - THEN we can talk about compliance *WITH* that
Standard, and IF and ONLY if you conform FULLY with the Standard will
i grant you the right to put EOMA68 on "stuff".

 this is *basic* stuff.

> What exactly are you referring to? That I will put an eoma68
> sticker on the computer?

 just like "Bluetooth Low Energy" (BLE) or "HDMI" or "RYF Hardware
Endorsed"... on the computer, on public documentation, on public web
sites, on *anything*.... yes.


> That I may not publish a picture of the computer and a text
> saying, this is a computer which accepts eoma68
> pc cards?

 that's absolutely correct.

> Is that it?

 with the above additions and corrections... yes.  the absolute last
thing that is needed is for you to make a mistake (because you didn't
fucking well read the Standard) and end up being responsible for
KILLING someone.... oh and the investigators find the word "EOMA68"
and start blaming *ME*.  that would be... apart from the loss of life
being.... i can't even find the right words here.

> If so no problem. I will not.

 _great_

> Explain what you are
> asking for?


> You should have anticipated someone would want to
> do their own pc card housing.

 i did.  years ago.  there just haven't been any people who've
DISAGREED with or fundamentally questioned my rights and
responsibilities as the Copyright Holder and Guardian of the EOMA68
Standard as you have, ron.

 everyone else i've talked to has implicitly understood it and gone,
"ok i get it".


> On your website you should
> make a page displaying what you can and cannot do in
> regards to a pc card housing. It should show what law
> texts are into play. Show certifications.

 yes.  i know.  if i am honest, i have been kinda avoiding doing that.
it's down to the huge responsibility.  i don't *want* to tell people
"no you can't", i want to EMPOWER people rather than DISempower
them... and saying "no"....  *sigh*.

 ok enough.   too long taken already.

 one of the main reasons i tolerate you, ron, is because you are
actually extremely useful.  you *do* pick up on the "things that are
missing".  yes, i really should have a section on the Standards page
saying "EOMA68 is a Certification Mark".  this is actually required by
law.

 *sigh* if anyone can help with that, it would be really apprecaited.
both the elinux.org standards page *and* the rhombus tech wiki.

l.