SillyDog701

[JayGarcia]

> and you missed the UFAQ.org's traffic gain from sillydog701.org.

You're right, I did .. Add 28 more hits. Probably less because those aren't unique IP hits which means that the same person hit the site more than once.
I know I did and so did you. So maybe it's just you and I that contributed to this big gain. Did you buy anything while you were there?

Do you now see why this is getting so silly (pun intended). You're talking all these huge gains for UFAQ when it's really a freckle on a gnats beehind !!

Jay

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050512 Netscape/8.0

[Antony]

Do you now see why this is getting so silly (pun intended). You're talking all these huge gains for UFAQ when it's really a freckle on a gnats beehind !!

I can't recall the word "huge" I used. I will check my printed copy. I was talking about the "moral", which using sillydog.info, sillydog.us and sillydog701.org for UFAQ.org is completely unethical. How much was your actual gain is another issue.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[JayGarcia]

Oh, so GAIN is now another "issue".

On 08-May-2005, you said:

"They are clearly using SillyDog701's popularity to gain traffic."
"SillyDog701 condemns such dirty tactic to gain traffic"
"SillyDog701 condemns UFAQ.org's dirty tactic to gain traffic by using SillyDog701's popularity."
"Using domain names "sillydog.info", "sillydog.us" and "sillydog701.org" pointing to their website (read: driving traffic)"
- Note "driving traffic - same as "gain".

And On 09-May-2005:

"The intention of diverting traffic from SillyDog701 ( sillydog.org ) is bluntly clear." - Note: "diverting" = GAIN
"drive people from SillyDog701" = GAIN
"with clear intention driving SillyDog701 users to UFAQ.org" = GAIN

Lot more instances. So, you're convinced that my intention was to GAIN users by diverting traffic from Sillydog to UFAQ? With only 28 + 57 TOTAL hits as opposed to 60,000+ daily hits? Where's the GAIN?

So now we're back to the "ethical" issue are we. We're done with the GAIN issue now.

This whole ETHICAL issue began with YOU registering UFAQ.NET and only after registering it did you redirect it. Was your intention to redirect it BEFORE you registered it? The fact that you registered it in the first place casts suspicion. Redirection came later. If you had a genuine concern then why didn't you contact me so I could have registered it?

The offer on the table is to swap domains, yes or no? Doing so will put an end to all this nonsense. As far as I am concerned, it's over, I have no more to say.

Jay

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050512 Netscape/8.0

[Antony]

Oh, so GAIN is now another "issue".

Please read carefully.
I said "actual gain" (as in amount or the quantity in any form) is another issue.
I did not say "gaining of traffic or any benefits" is another issue.

Lot more instances. So, you're convinced that my intention was to GAIN users by diverting traffic from Sillydog to UFAQ?

I said it was unethical (and hence unacceptable) to use "sillydog" for UFAQ.org's traffic.

This whole ETHICAL issue began with YOU registering UFAQ.NET and only after registering it did you redirect it.

Began with ME?
Gee. I did not use UFAQ.net for any of SillyDog701's benefits. Unlike you, used 3 domains for UFAQ.org, then even demanded me to apologise.
I don't think you are qualified to lecture me on moral education after evidences that you used 3 domains unethically.

Was your intention to redirect it BEFORE you registered it?

There's nothing up my sleeves.
The registration of UFAQ.net was planned for different use, the plan was scrapped, hence the UFAQ.net was doing nothing. Then, I kindly provide you free redirection.
There's no secret about that.

The fact that you registered it in the first place casts suspicion. Redirection came later.

The registration of UFAQ.net is not a secret.
However, unlike your registration of sillydog701.org, sillydog.info and sillydog.us, and you used those three domains for your UFAQ.org.

The main difference: I don't use it, so I send traffic to your UFAQ.org as a courtesy.

The offer on the table is to swap domains, yes or no?

How?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050519 Netscape/8.0.1

[JayGarcia]

JayGarcia wrote:
The offer on the table is to swap domains, yes or no?
How?

Domain Transfer

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[JayGarcia]

I sent a test email to one of my other mail accounts on my server and it came through just fine from this board.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050519 Netscape/8.0.1

[JayGarcia]

Antony, you want to swap domains? Yes or No? It's very easy to do. Email me from this board, it works just fine.

Jay

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050519 Netscape/8.0.1

[JayGarcia]

Ok, so much for that idea.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050519 Netscape/8.0.1

[Ron Williams]

I see it as a copyright violation. Antony really should speak to a legal expert.

I know this quote above is from page 3 but I would like to point out that this is not a copyright violation but a trademark violation.

There is a common law trademark right which will build up over time when a distinctive word or logo is used to identify the product in the course of trade or if the appearance of the product (trade dress) becomes distinctive. You don't have to pay for any of these, although you can apply for registration of trademarks which will give you prima facie evidence of an exclusive right to use the mark or trade dress in commerce effective from the date of registration.

Since antony has been using the words SillyDog 701 for as long as I have been a member, he technically could sue over this for trademark infringement. I do not know what the law in australia is but since you have been operating under Sillydog701, you should check into this if this domain transfer does not go over well. HOLYCOW Search and HOLYCOW (when pertaining to High Order Linguistics Yields a Completely Orginized World), have trademarks in my name as described above, since HOLYCOW has been operating under this since 1995.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[JayGarcia]

Since antony has been using the words SillyDog 701

I have been using "UFAQ" since 1998 as a registered domain name and before that the name UFAQ was used by another Netscape Champion since 1995 in reference to the Netscape Unofficial Frequently Asked Questions.

What Antony needs to do is to add a superscript TM to SillyDog701 and add a line to his disclaimer in reference to the name.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[Ron Williams]

Having a Trademark symbol on your names that you use in no way increases your rights to a work. If you choose to add this i say "good for you", If you dont I say "good for you". In no way does adding TM to your work make it trademarked more than just displaying it. If you have it registered with national and international trademarks, it is suggested you display a statement somewhere to inform people of this.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[JayGarcia]

Well, my wife the Attorney (retired) says that SillyDog701 is not a Trademark or Service Mark and at best is a "logo" used to identify the web site owned and run by Antony Shen. And out of fairness, the same goes for UFAQ.

And BTW, the domain SILLYDOG.ORG is now Antony's to do with whatever it is he wants to do with it. I might add that UFAQ.NET is still in Antony's hands and no effort has been made as of this writing to transfer the domain to me.

Jay

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[Ron Williams]

sillydog.org has been in antony's hands for as long as I can remember. I joined Nov 25, 2003.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[Ron Williams]

With you wife being a so called retired attorney, Unless she specialized in copyright, trademark, and patent legalities, many attorneys have any idea what the laws are because it is a specialized case.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[JayGarcia]

First of all I meant SILLYDOG701.ORG not SILLYDOG.ORG .. my error.

And just what do you mean by "so-called" Attorney?? I hope you didn't mean that in an offensive way!!

As a matter of fact my wife is a retired IRS Collections Attorney that dealt mainly with Corporate entities. She knows Trademark law enough to have survived over 20 years with the IRS. And yes, you are correct about attorneys not being involved directly with Trademark and Copyright law. But it doesn't take an attorney to know what a Trademark is and what isn't.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4