CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Friday, February 1, 2008

With a lot of support

I had deleted this blog because of conflict with photos and some articles. But with some support from the people who's information had been used without permission from a 'supposed' friend who was sending them to me, I've reopened the blog. This time I'll make sure just exactly where any information is coming from and give credit correctly. To those that gave support, and permission to share their website to give credit if I use something from there... thank you.

Since everything is gone, let me start this blog with the fact that DJE was in an article in the Vancouver TV week magazine for Feb. 2-8, 2008. Here is a link to anyone interested in reading it and seeing the photos:

http://www.voy.com/206212/

10 comments:

ForDJEfans said...

Whoo-Rah! JD.

Nancy said...

You go, girl! Glad you decided to put the blog back up!

Maria said...

Oh good grief! I love receiving your alerts, always-new information about a wonderful actor.

I have an extremely busy life and do not have the time to "surf the net", so the Google alerts are a major blessing! Not once did I question your source as a 'supposed' friend. I cannot believe someone would actually question it and politely call you a "liar". Geesh, what happened to the days of 'a matter of trust'?!

I'm glad you put your blog back up, JD. I have my quick and easy source for DJE information back!

Though I have to ask - Did the person who "shared" the article on the site where your friend "took it" from ask permission to reproduce it from the people who actually *own* the copyright? Probably not because that would just take too long. Makes me sick when people do videos and slap their name all over it as if they own it... when in fact, they don't even have permission to reproduce it to begin with. Why go through the red tape when you can cut through it?!

My philosophy is, don't cry in your pity pot and "call the kettle black"! There are plenty of people out there that do it and "slap the hand" of others who "follow suit".

I rambled on long enough... glad to see your blog is back, JD. Always a pleasure to visit even though I don't always have the time to post a reply.


Maria

Nancy said...

The difference is that the person took the time and trouble to save the information to the net and posted it originally. No, they didn't have permission, but it's only common courtesy to thank that person for their time and trouble by not simply reposting willy nilly without giving some credit where credit is due.

JD said...

Cindy, Nancy, and Maria... thanks for the support! Maria, when someone bought the magazine with their own money and then posted it to share with friends, then I can understand that credit should be given to the original poster as well as to the magazine that posted it in the first place. I guess that's going to continue to be a grey area on the Internet forever. I know when I first started using the internet, I was under the impression that it was public domain, that anything posted anywhere was 'free' to post elsewhere... but it does come down to common coutesy. The lady who'd posted the magazine article, for example, credited where she had gotten it but the person who'd sent it to me never told me that. They led me to believe they had purchased the magazine themselves and scanned the article for me to post. And apparently she'd done that with some other photos that I had posted on here... that's why I deleted the blog in the first place. Too much misinformation... but do keep watching, cause I'm all over different websites checking for new info. about DJE!!! Thanks again everyone!

Maria said...

Nancy,

I really don't want to start an argument on JD's blog, but I have to say and disagree with you that there is *no* difference.

You already said nobody required permission to reproduce and post whatever wherever. There is no 'original' work when you're reproducing without permission... Where's the common courtsey in that?! There is none!

Maria said...

JD,

I understand your comments and you're very welcome for the support.

Now, I must say that you shouldn't have had to ask permission, courtesy or not. Nancy already said permission wasn't granted from the start, so why should you have to ask the person doing the sharing?

I believe Nancy is indirectly calling the kettle black and that right there is wrong.

I'm not going to apologize for my opinion. As I've told my niece over the years... piss or get off the pot! I've done that on this subject and now getting off the pot.

Maria

Nancy said...

Okay. So if you went to the trouble to spend your own money to get something, scanned it, and posted it to the net, you'd be okay with everyone and their cousin simply posting it without giving you credit?

Fine. I'm dropping it as well.

Glad you brought the blog back, JD.

JD said...

Thanks, Nancy, for the support!

Maria said...

Well, my niece's best friend had something similar happen to her and the circumstances was different, but not that much.

Knowing what I do about that incident, *yes* you're definitely, indirectly, calling the kettle black. Nope, you're definitely not alone in the boat either.

Now, I'm going back to drooling (did this ol' lady just say that?) over a marvelous picture my niece sent me. Surprised my niece didn't give me a stroke or a heartattack over it.

Speaking of pictures, JD. When are we going to see those marvelous photos you previously had on your blog?

 
Custom Search