My goldmine find

[UtterPiffle]

rmad said:

Meet Anabelle (RIP ) another scary item from the world of scrapingscrap. He actually used to drive that thing! ;D

Ah, Annabelle... She was my daily driver for about 6 months. I used to commute once or twice a week from Guildford to Cambridge in it at a top speed of 45mph. Lets just say it was characterful! Like most things, I snapped her in the end. Sigh.

The rusty picture taken by our Darren is an Austin A152, where as mine was a Morris J2. Like most things Austin/Morris at the time, they just changed a few things (grill in this case) and rebadged them.

My friend Pete has the oldest known example of a Morris J2 (1956). He has recently completed a 6 inch roof chop and installed a fully tweaked Rover v8 complete with tube chassis and 15x15 MT's at the rear. It is going to sit very low, and should be finished next season. Annabelle lives on in spirit, as Pete's van will take her (LFF518) identity.

[spiny]

ScrapingScrap said:

Ah, Annabelle... She was my daily driver for about 6 months. I used to commute once or twice a week from Guildford to Cambridge in it at a top speed of 45mph. Lets just say it was characterful! Like most things, I snapped her in the end. Sigh.

The rusty picture taken by our Darren is an Austin A152, where as mine was a Morris J2. Like most things Austin/Morris at the time, they just changed a few things (grill in this case) and rebadged them.

My friend Pete has the oldest known example of a Morris J2 (1956). He has recently completed a 6 inch roof chop and installed a fully tweaked Rover v8 complete with tube chassis and 15x15 MT's at the rear. It is going to sit very low, and should be finished next season. Annabelle lives on in spirit, as Pete's van will take her (LFF518) identity.

yup, i remember seeing pics of the J2 ages ago - lordy lordy! I so wanted that van

don't suppose you have any 'in progress' pics of the roofchop one ?

cheers, Phil.

[Revolution 9]

wagoneer said:

Now he ought to be reported for posting images of that nature without warning. It's far more offensive, and possibly illegal, to show images like that than it is to link to other peoples images. T*sser.

For a start he's committing deception, and on top of that he's a sick weirdo who needs help, considering he has access and uses sick twisted porn, and boasts about it!


And what's wrong with Scammells?

[igbandy]

nothing wriong with Scammels at all, my favourite lorry make of all time, brutally simple, and brutally tough. ;D

[UtterPiffle]

spiny said:

don't suppose you have any 'in progress' pics of the roofchop one ?

I don't but Pete did promise me some. Best I give him a nudge then...

[richy]

Talking of Scammels, did anyone else go to Great Dorset this weekend?

[rmad]

Those of you following the 'stolen' images saga might be interested in this email I received this morning:

Hi,

Having come across your comments in a forum where I found someone stealing my bandwidth, I am rather surprised that as a owner of a web site yourself you condone bandwidth theft. My site uses a great deal of bandwidth, currently it costs me £235 per annum for commercial web space used by the site. If I tolerate bandwidth theft, I would have to pay more and fund the
extra cost by advertising, I really do not wish to go down the advertising route and really can not justify spending more on a site that gives me zero cash return, unless I deal effectively with bandwidth theft I will have
little choice but to withdraw the site altogether.

While I agree that the images in the Hall of Shame are pretty vile, and despite the fact that I say no warning will be given, if I am able to find an email address for the hotlinker before taking any sort of action I send
them an email such as that below sent to the user of your forum who has posted one of my images to it. In most cases such messages seem to fall on deaf ears or the response is to tell me to perform some sort of difficult, if not impossible sex act on myself. As you might have noticed I do use .htaccess files in an attempt to protect the images, sadly they only work
depending on how the users PC is set up, not everyone will see the replacement image which you can see here:
www.planefacts.co.uk/bad.gif

Given that and the warnings in the copyright section of the site and the fact that nothing else I have tried seems to solve the problem, I am left with little choice when people dig their heels in by refusing to remove an
image when requested, but to take action that embarrasses the hotlinker into action, even that does not always work, perhaps you have a better idea? If
someone wishes to display one of my images using their own resources I have yet to refuse a request. Even without them requesting permission, if they
use their own resources I would only be bothered about it if the image was used for commercial purposes.

If the hotlink in your forum is taken as an example in the 3 days since the image was posted it has been viewed 140 times, the file size is 31,448 which would equal 4,4027,200 bytes in one month, as there are always at least three or four people hotlinking, unchecked the problem would soon become
unsustainable.

While I agree with your statement that the internet is all about sharing, and I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with having to pay for people to display what they have taken from me without as much as a by or leave, if that makes me a weird sicko so be it.

Richard H Huelin.


Message sent to [e-mail] Forum User:
retrorides.proboards29.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&username=revolution

While checking my web stats it has become apparent the either you or another user posting as REVOLUTION#9 has posted this image: scammell1_jpg.jpg from my web site to this page:
retrorides.proboards29.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1094131738&start=0 of the Retrorides forum.

As it clearly states in the copyright section of my web site I do not tolerate either copyright or bandwidth theft, the latter has become a huge problem, your hotlink alone has resulted in 140 extra hits to my site so far this month (4402,720 bytes), such abuse is likely to result in my having to withdraw the web site or to fund the extra bandwidth used by hotlinkers with advertising, neither solution appeals to me but despite warnings on my site people like yourself are likely to leave my with little alternitve.

You should be aware that I am able to change the image to one which might cause you embarrassment, rather than do that I would prefer that we settle
this matter amicably by you removing the link. Sadly had you asked to use and display the image using your own resources permission would not have been refused.

Richard H Huelin.

www.planefacts.co.uk


Er, thanks Richard.

Richard can be found at your local bookshop signing his new book 'Farm Machinery of the Mid-twentieth Century' sometime soon. (although he will be signing the cover only...as opening the book would conflict with his privacy and the copyright of his images. Should you open the book against his wishes he'll cut out the picture of the tractor and replace is with a explicit close-up image of two men engaging in a sex act)

I'm sure that we at Retro-Rides can live without any of Richard's images...either of his classic trucks or his 'personal' pictures, and as such I've deleted the 'stolen' images from this thread.
Richard, if you're reading - thanks for your email, I am happy to comply...can you leave us real classic enthusiasts alone now though, and ride off on your single seater band(width)wagon.
Richard, Have you considered not having a website at all?

[spiny]

rmad said:

Er, thanks Richard.

Richard can be found at your local bookshop signing his new book 'Farm Machinery of the Mid-twentieth Century' sometime soon. (although he will be signing the cover only...as opening the book would conflict with his privacy and the copyright of his images. Should you open the book against his wishes he'll cut out the picture of the tractor and replace is with a explicit close-up image of two men engaging in a sex act)

I'm sure that we at Retro-Rides can live without any of Richard's images...either of his classic trucks or his 'personal' pictures, and as such I've deleted the 'stolen' images from this thread.
Richard, if you're reading - thanks for your email, I am happy to comply...can you leave us real classic enthusiasts alone now though, and ride off on your single seater band(width)wagon.
Richard, Have you considered not having a website at all?

the guy is obviously an idiot. if he's bothered to setup .htaccess to redirect linked pics to his 'warning' he might as well just stop the pics appearing in the first place.

I guess some people are just so far up their own arses theres no reasoning with them.

[reallyloud]

Cheers for putting that email up here Rmad. Astonishing is the word that comes to mind. Should we all post Richard a cheque should we want to view his site? I'd understand his concerns if he was making money from it.

As you pointed out we are here not for profit, but to share, learn and have a bit of fun. I have designed dozens of websites over the years, some for well known companies, and never have I experienced this kind of po-faced arrogance.

I'm sure we will leave Richards site well alone in future and leave him to his little world of bitterness.

[Revolution 9]

Surely enough the creep sent me an email, the tone of which I found more militant than he has a right to be. I warned him that he should drop the attitude towards me, and never email me again, or he could find himself in some trouble. Lunatics like that don't deserve acnkoweledgement, I won't be bothered to look at his site in future. And 140 extra hits because of one picture? I suggest our friend Mr Huelin is lying through his teeth. (Or talking out of his ar*e!)


Militant fascist little swine.

[Revolution 9]

Would you believe our mutual friend insists on mailing me with insults? I have told him again that if he attempts to intimidate me again I will take this further, and I have no wish to talk to militant condescending fools. Plus I've blocked and reported his address as spam and junk, so I won't be hearing from him again.


It was nice knowing him! ;D ;D ;D

[rmad]

He wouldn't let it lie!

More from Richard:

In regard to your comments, both here and in the Forum. If you did not tolerate a culture of theft our paths would have never crossed. As for not having a web site at all, continued bandwidth theft is likely to result in that happening sooner rather than later. I have only ever replaced an image with another where I have been unable to get an image removed by any other means. As that never happened on your forum I rather resent the fact that you accuse me of having replaced my own image with another. Perhaps if your
own site ever becomes popular and you find that you have to pay out to display what has been stolen from you will feel less inclined to support theft. While you have insulted me in every way possible and ridiculed me in your forum, you have not come up with any constructive way of dealing with the problem. If 5 gigs of bandwidth used each month is a "single seater
band(width)wagon" perhaps you would like to contribute to the extra cost for more so that you and the "real classic enthusiasts" you seek to protect can
continue freeloading rather than put their hands in their pockets for their own bandwidth.

Richard H Huelin.


Richard if you're reading this is for you:

GO AWAY, LEAVE US ALONE...WE DID EVERYTHING YOU ASKED, THE 'THEFT' WASN'T INTENTIONAL...IT WAS JUST A PICTURE OF A SCAMMELL.
DON'T BOTHER EMAILING ME AGAIN, I'M NOT INTERESTED.

[thehostingguy]

I don't understand why you've felt it necessary to try and make out that Richard is in the wrong by posting private emails to the forum and inviting abuse.

If you want people to see a picture on another site, it's polite to provide a link to the page so that people can see the picture in context with the rest of the site or ask the owners permission to take the picture and upload it to your own site.

Hotlinking is unacceptable and no amount of insults and group abuse will ever make it right. If you'd removed the images when asked rather than make a public issue out of it then it would have been better for everyone.

If you want an example of what hotlinking does, consider this. If I hotlink one of your images to one of the sites that I manage your site will be hit with about 250,000 image downloads per day. That would probably result in your site being closed down within the week. Even if your host could cope with the traffic and you could afford it your web stats would become meaningless.

Please respect the rights of other internet users.

[rmad]

We all know there are some sites that don't allow hotlinking...good on them, I don't have a problem with that. I think Richard should definitely look into that.
Hotlinking between enthusiast sites is one of the great ways of sharing on the internet...the images in the Retro-Rides gallery all have a border advertising the site to encourage people who have seen the picture to visit.

To deliberately link to a picture to 'bring a site down' is obviously wrong...to link to a picture so other form users can see a Scammell truck doesn't seem the same to me...however you put it.

People keep talking about insults, but I've not seen that many...references to what appears to be (IMO) a bizarre attitude towards sharing on the web, yes. Insults, no.

I stand by my 'sicko' comments...the porn pictures that Richard has used as 'punishment' in the past that he boasts about have no place on any part of the internet that I frequent...that sort of behaviour shows a far, far greater lack of respect for other internet users.


Here's my website: www.rmad.co.uk
It's an enthusiast site...if someone likes a picture of one of my cars and posts it on a fellow car fans forum so be it. That's what's great about the internet: like-minded people can see the kind of stuff their interested in.

I respected Richard's rights to his images right from the start, as soon as I saw the replaced image (the 'theft' logo) I checked out his site, read his 'copyright' and 'bandwidth' pages and then deleted his image from my post. What more could I have done? What more did you/he want? Even though I think your views are silly I complied...would you kindly respect ours now and LEAVE US ALONE.

[thehostingguy]

If sites allow hotlinking then fine, if they don't then be aware of that and if you've hotlinked images and are asked to remove the hotlink then do it without a fuss.

Richard has had serious problems with massive amounts of traffic being used for images that have been taken without his agreement. Yes, his final approach to stopping the hotlinking is extreme but it's only used when all other methods have failed.

My example of hotlinking was not given with the intention of taking a site down but purely to demonstrate the effects of one or more sites hotlinking images.

Thank you for respecting Richards request to remove the images. As I've said in the previous post, I'm sure he'd be more than happy for you to post the site address/page link so that visitors can see the images in the context of the site.

As an asside, it's nice to see a site with an active forum and something interesting for once. Have fun!

[HoTWire]

Funny you should complain about bandwidth "stealing" as I'm about to foot the bill for the excessive amount of bandwidth the picture gallery uses because of external linking.

However I believe by putting the web address on the images it encourages other enthusiasts to visit the site and positively contributes to the online classic vehicle community. I hope everything is now settled (this is an old message (I was on holiday)), and no harm has been done.

-David
Retro-rides.com webmaster/bill footer