PDX Forumers Meet-up - Page 4

65MAX · #61 Posted **Mar 17, 2007, 7:39 PM**

^^^^
Besides his usual libertarian/objectivist crap, he posted several articles from CPI or CPI-type rags without attributing their source or authors (as if they were his own words). That's called plagiarism. Bu-bye.

PDX City-State · #62 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 12:57 AM**

Quoting a source with attribution is against the rules of a blog?

kvalk · #63 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 1:28 AM**

Yeah, that would be really funny if he got booted for plagarism on a blog. heck there are images posted on this site everyday without crediting the source. Many of which come from copyrighted websites.

65MAX · #64 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 2:32 AM**

The images can be tracked back to their source. Just right click on the image and select "Properties", you'll get the web address that it's linked to. You can't do that with words, unless you specifically state a source. He repeatedly posted text as his own words without attribution.

PDX City-State · #65 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 5:23 PM**

Sorry--that's ridiculous. Like kvalk mentions: We swipe photos from web sites all the time. In fact, sometimes photos appear that weren't intended for the public rhealm. Should I be nervous about posting photos on this site that I've obtained through professional contacts? If so, it makes me not want to do it.

Perhaps urbanpdx works for the CPI.

65MAX · #66 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 6:35 PM**

Yeah, I'm sure he's a member of CPI, if they have any members...

Photos that companies post on the internet are already in the public realm. Attaching a photo here from an architect's or developer's website doesn't violate anything, or they wouldn't have posted it in the first place. The weblink just takes you to there own website.

Now if you're getting clandestine pictures that they want to keep private, whoever provides you with those pics could get into trouble for giving them to you, but you're not obligated to keep them secret once you already have a picture. They could ask you where you got it, or to please take it offline, but if there's no legal contract between you and the architect/developer, you're not obligated to do squat.

PDX City-State · #67 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 6:59 PM**

I've been posting on this forum for more than two years, and let it be said that urbanpdx getting banned is petty and just damn lame.

pdxman · #68 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 7:05 PM**

Are you standing up for him? I for one am glad hes gone...he was an agitator. All he wanted to do was stir up shit and argue.

PDX City-State · #69 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Are you standing up for him?

It's not about that. It's about coming up with stupid reasons to ban someone just because you don't agree with that person. It violates what these types of forums should be about. Urbanpdx is way off most of the time, but he's not completely unreasonable. Personally, I think he makes it interesting. His views aren't that uncommon in Portland and even among developers--other than the three or so developers in Portland in bed with PDC.

Judging by his comments and based on my own experience, I'm guessing he comes from the appraisal/feasibility world. Most of those guys aren't really visionaries, but they know a lot about the business.

This is a forum after all and all opinions--unless someone is being unkind--should be up for debate. It's good for all. Remember...some of us here are a lot closer to the action than others.

Drmyeyes · #70 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 8:08 PM**

PDX City-State, you're exactly right about receptivity to other opinions. Opinions representing the expression of a sincerely felt belief made without intention to harm anybody in particular are worthwhile to hear and be aware of.

You seem to be right about urbanpdx in some respects. He has a certain grasp of numbers and statistics representing a particular viewpoint about transportation and development that's contrary to the majority opinion on this blog.

There's nothing especially wrong with that, except for some of urbanpdx's other tendencies that seem to go along with the disemination of that viewpoint; He has tried to use material supporting his viewpoint, not just to discuss and offer perspective, but to drown out other opinions. In making his viewpoint known, he's been sloppy providing and attributing material. Finally, he's been just rude on some occasions.

Of course, we all make mistakes. Me too, but I like to think that a person can pick up a few positive points fom other people if they stick around long enough enduring the bricks and brats. I really kind of think urbanpdx was showing some improvement, but if people really can't stand to have him around, that's kind of the end of the story, or at least this chapter of the story. Of course, someone could still invite him to your afternoon soiree. I'm sure he'd be delighted.

65MAX · #71 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 8:13 PM**

I could care less if he's here or not, I can handle differences of opinion just fine. In fact, if everybody agreed with me, it'd be a very boring world. Peaceful, but boring. However, I don't think plagiarism is a "stupid reason" for banning someone from here. I don't even know if that's the only reason, I'm just speculating like everyone else.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he banned once before, then allowed to come back? Maybe he'll be back again. Hell, he could be at our meet-up in April, he's more than welcome to join us. I'm sure he's reading all of this.

65MAX · #72 Posted **Mar 18, 2007, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drmyeyes

Of course, someone could still invite him to your afternoon soiree. I'm sure he'd be delighted.

OK, I'll do it.

UrbanPDX, we'd love to have you join us in April. No need to RSVP, just surprise us.

MitchE · #73 Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDX City-State

It's not about that. It's about coming up with stupid reasons to ban someone just because you don't agree with that person. It violates what these types of forums should be about. Urbanpdx is way off most of the time, but he's not completely unreasonable. Personally, I think he makes it interesting. His views aren't that uncommon in Portland and even among developers--other than the three or so developers in Portland in bed with PDC.

Judging by his comments and based on my own experience, I'm guessing he comes from the appraisal/feasibility world. Most of those guys aren't really visionaries, but they know a lot about the business.

This is a forum after all and all opinions--unless someone is being unkind--should be up for debate. It's good for all. Remember...some of us here are a lot closer to the action than others.

I agree. I may not agree with UrbanPDX all the time but I think it was really lame he was banned.

MarkDaMan · #74 Posted **Mar 19, 2007, 3:08 PM**

Keep in mind many comments were removed by mods before the majority of the board had a chance to read many of them. When urban took his rant to the larger board in city discussions, he drew more flack from a broader section of the forum, he was asked to moderate himself and became more an agitator. Hence he's gone. If mods were asking me to moderate my comments, even suspending me for a few weeks, and I continued to push, I'd expect to be banned too.

alexjon · #75 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:19 AM**

Bump!

James Bond Agent 007 · #76 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:43 AM**

You guys are copying us.

MarkDaMan · #77 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:54 AM**

^hmmm, I think our thread was created first!

MarkDaMan · #78 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:55 AM**

yep, our was created on 3/7 yours on 3/12 even mentioning our thread...haha...its all good.

alexjon · #79 Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:49 PM**

lol, I think he's joking. The first post in the seattle thread mentions this one

westsider · #80 Posted **Apr 1, 2007, 6:24 PM**

I think that was pretty shitty to push UrbanPDX out too. If you can't handle a little disenting opinion on a forum, how do you live every day without crying about your hurt feelings all the time?