|
Thanks for chiming in.
1. At the time, I felt like the guy was trying to scam people, listing one price and charging another. That pissed me off. If someone listed a rod for $300 and then charged you $400, you might not like that so much. Now, I don't think he was trying to scam... he's just not able to change his website. I've offered to build him a new website with updated information for free. The guide/outfitter contacted me, said he agreed the site was misleading and offered me the original, listed price.
2. Secret info... right...
People do ask me for sites on the McCloud and the Upper Sac... and I tell them. I don't buy into the whole "secret spot" thing for a moment. Fewer people are fishing now than 5 years ago and than 10 years ago. Sure, everyone shows up on the Trinity, but all that means is that some other water has fewer folks. There are people that buy into the secret idea. I don't. It is a philosophical difference.
3. I was looking for info... that isn't how they roll. I was up-front about it.
4. True... I like the magazine, thought the board would have anglers with a depth and breadth of experience and message boards are often where people go to get advice and to share their experiences. It turns out the Drake is not so hot on the first part of that. I walked in ignorant of that and, I'd say, paid the price.
5. I actually didn't have my blog listed anywhere.... not my profile or signature. They found that in about 5 minutes though, posted it and the rest is history.
6. I posted a link to the thread about the Bahamas back on the Drake's site. I didn't take the thread and re-print it. The guy was pissed because the Drake post has pictures of his dad. He put the pictures of his dad on that site... a site that gets thousands and thousands of hits and then complained that I linked to it (his dad's pic wasn't on my site)... my site that gets very little traffic. That is just a mock complaint. That's just being angry to be angry. It is hollow and doesn't stand up to more than about a minute of critical thinking.
As for the F&S article with the copyright... I've asked them if I could use it, they have not responded, probably because they could give two dumps about it and probably also because they know that the whole notion of Fair Use gives me a pretty clear line to use the material in the way I did. A little tour through Wikipedia should wrap that up for you. I ask for permission when I can... like with the piece from the New York Times, I actually talked to the author, as I did with Charles Rangley-Wilson and lots and lots of others.
To say I'm stealing anything is not true. You may think it is unethical to use published material that way, but that is your personal perspective, not a legal truth and not a perspective shared by all. Some people think split shot is unethical, some say jigs are.
Hope that helps.
Merry Christmas.
|
Favoured: 0
