JoSch

I dont care anymore. Just go on objectively asserting your point of view on bullying as the truth. I dont want to deal with this moving the goalposts all the time. See you not so soon.

The issue is definitely not disagreement as such.

I have archived my RespeQt repo. As of now, I will cease to work on RespeQt. While it lasted, it was fun and fulfilling, but the camel's back is broken. I hate to leave, but I stand this forum anymore. I don't know, whether I will come back or when. But now, I'm done.

Yes, I did quote you. It was an entry point in my argument. Then I gave the example, jaybird wanted. That my argument is wrong is purely your point of view, which you can't be bothered to OBJECTIVELY point out. To address your points: 1.) I did. But I was ridiculed. 2.) Oh you mean, because I don't know this intent, I have to let slide his attacks on me? What can be misunderstood with "no more utter dribble from JoSch"? 3.) In this thread almost nobody was arguing WITH me. Everybody else argued against me. You always fall back on "objectivity". Objectively, nobody of us is a copyright lawyer. Everybody here argues their subjective point of view of copyright laws with all our (mis-)understandings of it. What you call objectivity is just the little window each of us has in such a complex matter as copyright laws. But I guess, you also won't get my argument.

You don't get it. I know, that people disagree with me. That is not my point. I object to the way, many issues were raised against the book and not against the raising issue in the first. And what I also object to, is that people are sacrosanct of criticism if only they raise an issue. If one has the right to criticise, then I also have the right to criticise that person for their criticism. It also cuts both ways. The bullying - in my opinion anyway - is threefold: 1.) Unfair, overbearing and "This is the way it can play out" criticism against the book and Greyfox. 2.) Raising issues, that were already discussed at nausea, again and again. 3.) All against me, because I had the audacity to criticise the criticiser. Accusation and insunations against my person. Again and again backtracking to stating that it's legitimate to raise issue, while ignoring my repeated statement, what my objections are. I'm listen to you all, Mclaneinc. I don't see any of you listening to me. Not wanting "no more utter dribble from JoSch" is exactly an example for bullying. Wikipedia has the following to say about relational bullying: "This is any bullying that is done with the intent to hurt somebody's reputation or social standing which can also link in with the techniques included in physical and verbal bullying." I never (at least that I remember) accused anyone of "utter dribble" or calling them names. I always tried to argue.

Yeah, you are correct: The bullies are above criticism and call out the victim for the back lash.

The silent majority has nothing to say. I'm fighting alone against a overwhelming group. My will is drained. I concede. You were totally right, I was totally wrong.

I don't mind at all, if all of you reimplement RespeQt on the platform of your choice. I just think, it would be wasted efforts.

You could do that. But I wouldn't like a timeout in the middle of daisy-dot print job, which can take some time. I think about that feature, but it takes a back seat, since I'm working on other things.

First, I read his comment not like this: He wrote "With wanting to make this the best possible presentation for Atari fans, If people are uncomfortable with the front book cover of the book, I am open to suggestions in this regard." and then "I have already begun preparing something of a new cover that removes all traces of the previous design with it being 90% changed and no Plagiarism to be seen,...". Doesn't sound like an admission of guilt. Second, I always thought a copyright violation is always a copyright violation, even when the reader doesn't know it. Can you give a source for your sentiment? Also, the Wikipedia article on Fair Use states that "A key consideration in recent fair use cases is the extent to which the use is transformative." That is clearly the case in this cover, because it is not the same cover. That was always my argument: It is a transformation, so it can classify as fair use.

You won. You were all completely right to thrash the project, Darren, me, whoever, just because I pointedly chose to use "all" instead of "most". Silly me. How could I know? Because of most of them very pointedly and repeatedly said so in this thread.

I'd rather spend my time on RespeQt actually adding features to it than rewriting it completely. That's what it will come down to. If it's about resource management, there is probably something to be done. I applaud your idea, but don't count me in. I'm juggling too many balls already.

I don't want to be right. I want to you to stop thrashing the project.

I don't see anybody else. It's just ebiguy and me, at the moment. Also, I don't see how dropping Qt makes RespeQt any better, just because others move to other frameworks. Over there in the OS/2 world, it's a sesnsation, that Qt5 is gettng ported. So, no. I don't want it.

It is never wrong to state the issues. I object to the way, it is done in this case. Repeatedly so.