I have questioned whether Doug's continual shilling for another company falls with the guidelines of fairness as described in the rules. but most of that has also been done via private emails to Damir and phone calls to Wayne.

I beg of Damir... to put up in constext just one example of where I provoked an attack on Doug...

it won't bee found.

Thanks for your voice of moderation.

Instead I've had posts yanked down simply becauee they apparently contained a typo... which could only bee but the flimsiest of reasons obscuring some other motives or agenda.

msl

::::The contest of your posts, your questions, even your "typos" have some goal.::::

this is almost laughable. my typos have some hidden meaning? not just simple typos? Are you Damir the seer?

of course my posts have some goals... to make a contribution.

:::Is your goal building E-linear "Merlin" amp, designed by Douglas - or is it something else?:::

So the group build forum is a shill vehicle for Douglas' Merlin amp?
In order to participate one must actively be seeking to build just this one amp?

No... I made many positive posts... including some complete grid chokes that I put in the public domain and which you said you were thankful for. I'd invite anyone to go over there and read my posts... and see for themselves what I've contributed or not contributed.

Sorry if I haven't shilled for Doug's Merlin amp.

msl

Dougie had put up a post again calling his transformer a Peerless S-265-Q. I put up a very polite post... the content is quoted below...

Posted by MQracing [ 141.151.13.134 ] on December 21, 2005 at 19:18:29:

**********************************************************
In Reply to: Pentode front end posted by PakProtector on December 21, 2005 at 19:02:42:

Doug wrote:

:::E-Linear modified Peerless S265.:::

Just a polite reminder and request to not use
our trademarks. The transformer mentioned above
is not a genuine nor an authorized Peerless. Lest
anyone be confused as to it's authenticity.

thank-you,

msl

**********************************************************

in reponse... Doug comes back and uses the opportunity to shill his product and Heyboer... by stating that his version is "better" than the original and etc. It was just a pure and simple plug for his and heyboer's co-operative venture. And it was allowed to stay up by Damir...

I then ask Doug to just simply refrain from "riding on our coattails".

Guess who's post got yanked?

So a guy steals our design, uses it for a project on Group Build, exploits our trademark and our goodwill for his own personal gain... time and time again... day after day... and there is nothig deemed wrong with that approach? But if you point out that your the legitimate owner of that property and that trademark then your post gets yanked down and your labeled a "troll" by the moderator?

This... after this issue had been discussed on the Dungeon and seemingly an agreement made that such use of another's trademark and goodwill would not be permitted.

Finally... I see that the entire thread appears to have been taken down only... better late than never that the moderation policy be enforced impartially.

msl

And for the record... at least one of the founding members of ART... asked my why this pakprotector guy was so "off his rocker"...

I told him that some guys are babe magnets... and others kook magnets... that it was the second time in 17 years that I had a net-kook hanging on to my coattails and nipping at my ankles.

msl

:::You just said the worst things about the forum - you didnt like it at all. But you posted many messages per day. Why? To make it better?:::

Tried to do just that, yes. Non-judemental posts. Posts with technical content... and yet giving ample room for alternate views... even when a seeming criticism was made of the choke you bought... I also allowed and noted that the company might have some insights or reasons of their own and that they were under no obligation to disclose anything.

Again... even excepting for the purely technical posts of mine which you yanked down... anyone can go there and see what I contributed.

:::This "game" continued too long, but now it`s the end. You lose.
Byebye.:::

yes... that's your anger showing as it has shown on several posts in this thread. And you have power to use or abuse.... your choice.

:::P.S. And yes, you can post your long tirades here, no moderation... What a happiness for you...:::

well... at least it doesn't suffer from capricious moderation.

msl

::::He thinks that he have right to say that his OPT is modified old S265Q "Peerless" design,::::

There was a long discussion of this issue months ago on the Dungeon.
And here is what the outcome was... or what was supposed to be guiding us as regards Doug's wish to misuse our trademarks.

In message number 1440 written by Wayne Parham he stated in part;

:::As for aknowledgement of trademark rights by AudioRoundTable.com or me personally (or anyone else in America for that matter), the litmus test is actually pretty clear. First use in commerce. That's what determines who owns trademarks, and that's what ART recognizes because that's what trademark law says.:::

further, in a later message #1450 that same day Wayne Parham stated in part;

"...on the matter of the trademark, I think Mike has clearly shown he owns the registration for the "P" and the stylized logo. I think he also makes a reasonable argument that he has been using the Peerless name in commerce for several years and that it identifies his products."

"So I think we should probably respect their longstanding use of this name to identify their products."

and, yet, you have allowed Doug to abuse our trademarks and the goodwill of our trademarks for his personal gain.

I was operating under the assumption that this issue had been discussed and that an agreement was reached respecting he use of another's trademarks and the goodwill which it represents.

Yet you have chosen to take Doug's word... that he has a "right" to use our name... absolutely not.

And you know better as well. And yet allowed it to continue unabated even after I wrote to you privately asking you to follow and implement the agreements that had been reached.

We would not have had any strife whatsoever if you had simply done your job as a moderator.

msl