Public Forums 71,145 posts

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#266751

<em>@markb1439 75214 wrote:</em><blockquote>Tom,

Here we go again. Once again you berate and insult people who actually expect to receive the number of templates clearly advertised when they signed up. Legal precedent has established that if terms (such as quantity) are not explicitly stated in a contract, then the advertised quantity prevails. In other words, if someone signs up for something based on an advertised premise, there is a reasonable expectation to get what was advertised.[/quote]
And once again you chime in with your obsessive need to argue with me. There is NO EXPRESS CONTRACTUAL AGRREEMENT DENOTING A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF TEMPLATES PER MONTH/YEAR WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT – PERIOD, END OF STORY, THANKS FOR PLAYING.

Furthermore, the JA owner has given the club membership MORE THAN A YEAR’S NOTICE of the change. This is more courtesy and/or considerationt hat you will get from most businesses int he world – most of whom would simply make the change adn THEN advise the customer base.

markbBut the point is not whether these people are right or wrong for feeling this way. The point is that it’s their opinion. It’s how they feel, and they are entitled to feel that way whether you agree or not.[/quote]
No, the point is that the person above went beyond expressing his opinion and started making demands and naively threatening malicious legal action.

markbIt is reprehensible for you to put people down (for example bombarding them with a “rolling-the-floor-laughing” smiley) just for expressing their feelings.[/quote]
Again, it went beyond simply expressing feeleings.

markbYour behavior is abusive, and I am sure it prevents free expression of opinion in these forums.[/quote]
Really … How so? How is my expressing MY opinions preventing others from expressing theirs. Clearly I haven’t prevented YOU from chiming in and jumping all over my back every time I express my opinion. Let’s try not so exert such a double-standard here, eh Mark?

markb Many people probably don’t express themselves because they don’t want to be the brunt of your insults.

Since when are you the spokesperson for “many people?” I must have missed that general election.

TomC wrote:

You should be banned. But, of course, JA wouldn’t ban their number one fanboy, even though they probably don’t realize you are actually doing them a tremendous disservice by being so rude to their clients.

So, again – though you seem to take issue with MY opinions – you have no problem displaying the very kind of abusive commentary that you accuse me of. What’s more, you take it a step further by calling for my being “banned” – as if you have either the justification or position to do so. By virtue of the logic you emply in your responsive rants against me, I could use the same in calling for your being banned. However, I would not do so because – unlike yourself – I understand that you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to mine.

The difference, you want to have banned anyone whose opinions you don’t like.
(You’re not a registered Democrat by any chance, are you?) 😉

TomC wrote:

I truly pity you.

I neither need nor value your “pity.”

TomC wrote:

rI can’t imagine going through life with such a combative attitude, feeling the need to belittle anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion.

2 users say Thank You to TomC for this useful post

1. reachthesky
2. mj1256

[reachthesky Friend reachtheskyJoin date: July 2008Posts: 134Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 14 Thanked: 19 times in 10 posts]

#266757

<em>@amejat 75047 wrote:</em><blockquote>STOP !!!!!

And JA olivine is… just a shame !!! Nothing new. More than basic ! Equivalent to any free template around !

And now I read that you plan to implement a licensing system with “call home” systems in the template ???!!!
</blockquote>

I would love to see free templates as versatile and useful as JA are. haha..with all due respect, I don’t think you’ve really got far enough to know the difference of a website versatility.

<blockquote>
I completetely change my mind and ask to be reimbursed or at least compensate immediatly.

We are NOT talking about an open source community where everyone contribute here. We talk about a professional service we PAID for. And the initial contract was clear and mentioned a certain number of templates accessible before the end of the membership. Moreover, it indicates NO licensing or “call home” system. </blockquote>

If you read the TOS you will see the following to lines

8. REFUND POLICY: Since JoomlArt is offering non-tangible irrevocable goods we do not issue refunds after the membership is made, which you are responsible for understanding upon purchasing membership at our site. All license fees are non-refundable.

9. SUPPORT: JA templates and products are delivered ‘as is’, with no implied meaning that they will function exactly as you wish or with all 3rd party extensions/products. Further, we offer no support via email or otherwise for installation, customization, administration of Mambo/Joomla etc. Private customer forums are available at our Forums. JoomlArt.com does not commit to monitor these forums, but we reserve the right to respond and answer questions.

<em>@tcraw1010 75194 wrote:</em><blockquote>Really …. Please feel free to post the exact, unaltered excerpt form the membership contract indicating such.

If you had bothered to read through this thread (which I know you have not), you would see that the changeover will not take effect until September 2009 – that is over a year from now. So stop crying and get to site designing. After all, THAT is why you joined this club – to utilize offered templates to create websites – right?

</blockquote>

But honestly, as tcraw says JA is doing a good job setting this one year ahead from now. If you DONT want to be part of this community even if a Paid community, don’t renew… because if you’ve read GOOD ENOUGH, you were going to realize than, 1.JA doesnt offer any kind of Reimbursement and most problably your license will expire just as mine before august 2009. so stop complaining, and just dont renew. Pple with attitude will do ourselves a favor by not even being in here. I support a warning system when, towards attitude like yours and many other users, JA could refuse to renew your membership.

As TOS state, this might be contract but contracts are not subject to only what is written but also what is implicit. if JA had a robot search system for a license domain, they are able to change that in order to keep working on their end purpose which is licensing domain (originally menctioned in TOS) and as long as it doesnt break any of their other TOS rules. Now, I don’t like the function originally menctioned, but I cant do nothing to avoid or prevent them for doing it since they can as it will assist to keep their main purpose. Thou, I think a line to state that TOS might be subject to change will be a good addition.

2 users say Thank You to reachthesky for this useful post

1. TomC
2. mj1256

[bossep Friend bossepJoin date: April 2008Posts: 262Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 50 Thanked: 15 times in 3 posts]

#266758

Hey guys, can’t we stay away from this? Please us the PM if you have to go at each other’s throat or use some other way.

BosseP

[markb1439 Friend markb1439Join date: August 2008Posts: 124Downloads:0Uploads:1 Thanks: 14 Thanked: 34 times in 11 posts]

#266814

I am willing to drop this, but first I do want to address the latest accusations made against me by Tom.

In general, my complaint against Tom is that he is indeed very abusive. Instead of respecting people’s opinions, be berates them and resorts to personal attacks quickly. In our recent discussions it didn’t take him long to insult my business sense, call me a liar, say I don’t understand simple concepts, and insult the political views he incorrectly thinks I may have. He tries to force his opinion down the throats of others very vigorously in my opinion, and berates people who don’t share his view.

A perfect example is the issue of one vs. two templates per month. Some people signed up on the basis of two templates, and the change is an issue for some of those people. It may not be an issue for him, but he shouldn’t be so forceful about putting down people who don’t think the same way. One person felt slighted by that and said he should get what he thought he was paying for, or he would consider legal action. That is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but Tom accused him of threatening “malicious” legal action. There was nothing malicious about it. The user had a valid concern, offered JA a chance to cure the situation, and said he would consider JA guilty of false advertising if it didn’t. That is the person’s opinion, and it’s a reasonable one but Tom called it something it wasn’t.

Tom can quote all the contract verbiage he wants to, but the advertising clearly led many people to expect two templates a month, and that played a role in some people’s decision to join. And courts have upheld the concept that in the absence of specific terms in a contract (e.g., the number of templates per month), the client can reasonably expect the terms that were advertised when the purchase was made. Whether Tom agrees or not, courts have ruled that way on numerous occasions.

My exchanges with anyone else in these forums have been cordial, and I am only less-than-cordial with Tom in response to the way he treats me and others. Suggesting the banning of an abusive user like him is not in itself abuse. And defending myself vigorously against his tactics does not make me guilty of the same…at least that’s my opinion. I may be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion. I respect Tom’s right to his opinions, but not his abusive way of responding to anyone who doesn’t think the way he does.

And with that, I pledge not to interact with him again.

[mfcphil Friend mfcphilJoin date: September 2007Posts: 2866Downloads:3Uploads:218 Thanks: 211 Thanked: 388 times in 133 posts]

#266827

Regarding Post getting closed.

<em>@mfcphil 75088 wrote:</em><blockquote>Its a shame the posts are closed, but its understandable when members turn other people posts into petty arguments.</blockquote>

This is the type of post I was talking about

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#266828

<em>@markb1439 75307 wrote:</em><blockquote>I am willing to drop this, but first I do want to address the latest accusations made against me by Tom.[/quote]
Apparently you’re not willing to drop this, otherwise we wouldn’t have been “treated” to your latest soliloquy above.

markbIn general, my complaint against Tom is that he is indeed very abusive.[/quote]
This is your opinion. Many agree with my comments, opinions and responses.

markb In our recent discussions it didn’t take him long to insult my business sense, call me a liar, say I don’t understand simple concepts, and insult the political views he incorrectly thinks I may have. He tries to force his opinion down the throats of others very vigorously in my opinion, and berates people who don’t share his view.[/quote]
All of which you have done yourself – again demonstrating a double standard hypocritical positioning.

markbA perfect example is the issue of one vs. two templates per month. Some people signed up on the basis of two templates, and the change is an issue for some of those people. It may not be an issue for him, but he shouldn’t be so forceful about putting down people who don’t think the same way. [/quote]
You mean as opposed to berating the JA Administration for making such a decision, making unreasonable demands and/or threatening legal action (when, in fact, there is not a legitimate course of action on which to base such an effort in frivolity).

markbOne person felt slighted by that and said he should get what he thought he was paying for, or he would consider legal action. That is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but Tom accused him of threatening “malicious” legal action. There was nothing malicious about it. The user had a valid concern, offered JA a chance to cure the situation, and said he would consider JA guilty of false advertising if it didn’t. That is the person’s opinion, and it’s a reasonable one but Tom called it something it wasn’t.[/quote]
I most certainly did not, I called it for exactly what it is – a frivolous and malicious threat based on little more than a personal dissatisfaction with a perfectly valid announcement made in good faith OVER A YEAR IN ADVANCE by the JA Administration concerning a valid and rational business decision.

TomC wrote:

Tom can quote all the contract verbiage he wants to,

Just as you can ignore all the CLEAR AND CONCISE contractual TOS verbiage you want . . .

TomC wrote:

but the advertising clearly led many people to expect two templates a month, and that played a role in some people’s decision to join. And courts have upheld the concept that in the absence of specific terms in a contract (e.g., the number of templates per month), the client can reasonably expect the terms that were advertised when the purchase was made. Whether Tom agrees or not, courts have ruled that way on numerous occasions.

Again, as previously requested (but not provided) – please cite the court decisions to which you refer.

TomC wrote:

My exchanges with anyone else in these forums have been cordial, and I am only less-than-cordial with Tom in response to the way he treats me and others.

And vice versa.

TomC wrote:

Suggesting the banning of an abusive user like him is not in itself abuse. And defending myself vigorously against his tactics does not make me guilty of the same…at least that’s my opinion. I may be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion.

As I am entitled to mine – something you don’t seem to want to accept.

TomC wrote:

I respect Tom’s right to his opinions, but not his abusive way of responding to anyone who doesn’t think the way he does.

Once again, the feeling that I am “abusive” is a personal opinion of yours – and you do not speak for anyone else but yourself on this matter. No one asked you to come to their rescue, nor has it ever been required, requested or expected. You have taken it upon yourself to respond as you do – frequently in the very disrespectful and “abusive: manner of which you accuse me. Again, if you are going to levy assertions and accusations, please be sure that you are not guilty of engaging in the very behavior of which you accuse.

TomC wrote:

And with that, I pledge not to interact with him again.</blockquote>
I suppose time will tell.

😉

[cgc0202 Friend cgc0202Join date: August 2007Posts: 2244Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 206 Thanked: 262 times in 1 posts]

#266836

Hi Mark,

I thought I will rest,, as far as this thread is concerned, but I keep on getting sucked into it. Anyway, if you read my prior post to amejat, I can be very harsh. I criticize Joomlart a lot, when I think they deserve it. At the same time, when someone goes into histrionics, as I thought amejat did, I can be sarcastic too, to drive a point.

To be frank, I am not too happy either with most of the templates of Joomlart — a position I think is also yours, that of amejat, and many customers. But, I knew that even before I joined. However, I joined because I saw enough templates, even the old ones that I like, and that is more than enough for me. I try to hold my own opinion that many of the templates are just moving of parts. And, if others like them, who am I to question their taste. More than likely, others would not like my liking Olivine, either.

Like you, I am also against the “Call Home” function, like many posters here. So, from what I have read about your posts, we havea number of issues where we are on the same side i and quite a few where we disagree.

So here’s how I see your position, we already know that more than likely Tom will criticize anyone who will not like Joomlart, if he sees an opening. And he will bait people, as he has baited me a number of times. The first time he did, I responded, but I put a stop to it after I had my say. I have no interest to engage in a neverending — this is what you stated you are mistaken and I know I am correct.. No you are not, I am correct, you twisted my words.

That is how I read your exchanges in this thread.

If I have to guess many who have read Tom’s posts already have a good sense of his position, or at least they think they do. Only Tom will know what his positions are and what motivates him to do as he does..

For the sake of argument, and having a starting point, let us agree that Tom is a critic of most anyone who criticizes Joomlart. Read your reaction, to his sense of superiority, you have taken it upon yourself to be a critic of all that Tom stands for.

You both go from one thread to another.

So, you state that Tom is rude and is affecting how people react. Tom in turn maintains that he is doing just right. Who is right and who is wrong? More than likely until the day one of you leaves Joomlart, you will never see eye to eye. Don’t you get it, Tom finished law (if I am not mistaken revealed from your bearing of your qualifications in this thread)?

Being the expert, Tom is sure he will beat you in any argument. Just give up. 🙂

My question to you is this: Would you rather spend your precious time arguing with Tom until you score a point? Will you be happy and feel content when some people will join you and state also that Tom is rude and intimidates people?

Should you instead consider focusing your attention and efforts at the bigger picture?

Like everyone here, Tom is just one of the more than 22,000 very satisfied customers of Joomlart.. Our negotiation is still with Hung and Joomlart — not with Tom, not with you, not with me, and not with any other members.

If you consider your goal to be persuading Hung and Joomlart to understand your position, why not try to rally those who share your views and see if you can have the power of numbers so that your voice will be heard by Hung and Joomlart? Not Tom, not you, not me, nor anyone else will make the decision for Joomlart. It will be Hung and whoever controls the string in Joomlart.

The decision of Joomlart to reconsider the “Call Home” function is a testament to the power of numbers.

Can;t you realize that the collective rally against the “Call Home” function has not gained steam until your neverending side discussion with Tom finally lost its steam? Earlier efforts got burried between your exchanges.

If I can help you realize this, I hope you just have your last word with respect to whatever your opinion of Tom and his opinions. After having made your peace with yourself, as to how you will take Tom and his opinions, if you will not have a heart attack trying to refrain yourself, please avoid getting baited by Tom again — no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Instead, I hope you focus your attention in trying to find a compromise, if that is possible: How can we avoid a “Call Home” function to protect us and our clients (for the developers among the group), and at the same time find a way that will also protect the interest of Joomlart as creators of the templates that we use.

The latter part is what we forget sometimes.

Cornelio

<em>@markb1439 75307 wrote:</em><blockquote>I am willing to drop this, but first I do want to address the latest accusations made against me by Tom.

In general, my complaint against Tom is that he is indeed very abusive. Instead of respecting people’s opinions, be berates them and resorts to personal attacks quickly. In our recent discussions it didn’t take him long to insult my business sense, call me a liar, say I don’t understand simple concepts, and insult the political views he incorrectly thinks I may have. He tries to force his opinion down the throats of others very vigorously in my opinion, and berates people who don’t share his view.

A perfect example is the issue of one vs. two templates per month. Some people signed up on the basis of two templates, and the change is an issue for some of those people. It may not be an issue for him, but he shouldn’t be so forceful about putting down people who don’t think the same way. One person felt slighted by that and said he should get what he thought he was paying for, or he would consider legal action. That is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but Tom accused him of threatening “malicious” legal action. There was nothing malicious about it. The user had a valid concern, offered JA a chance to cure the situation, and said he would consider JA guilty of false advertising if it didn’t. That is the person’s opinion, and it’s a reasonable one but Tom called it something it wasn’t.

Tom can quote all the contract verbiage he wants to, but the advertising clearly led many people to expect two templates a month, and that played a role in some people’s decision to join. And courts have upheld the concept that in the absence of specific terms in a contract (e.g., the number of templates per month), the client can reasonably expect the terms that were advertised when the purchase was made. Whether Tom agrees or not, courts have ruled that way on numerous occasions.

My exchanges with anyone else in these forums have been cordial, and I am only less-than-cordial with Tom in response to the way he treats me and others. Suggesting the banning of an abusive user like him is not in itself abuse. And defending myself vigorously against his tactics does not make me guilty of the same…at least that’s my opinion. I may be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion. I respect Tom’s right to his opinions, but not his abusive way of responding to anyone who doesn’t think the way he does.

And with that, I pledge not to interact with him again.</blockquote>

[mfcphil Friend mfcphilJoin date: September 2007Posts: 2866Downloads:3Uploads:218 Thanks: 211 Thanked: 388 times in 133 posts]

#266856

Can you point me towards the CALL HOME info, I must have missed all this while on my hols

[questbg Friend questbgJoin date: May 2008Posts: 1912Downloads:0Uploads:1 Thanks: 146 Thanked: 339 times in 197 posts]

#266859

Hi mfdphil

I believe the CALL HOME discussion all happened in this very thread!

Start about page 10 and read from there (you’ll have to ignore quite a few posts of petty arguing). I don’t think there was ever a seperate thread about it.

Cheers
Chris

[TomC Moderator TomCJoin date: October 2014Posts: 14077Downloads:58Uploads:137 Thanks: 948 Thanked: 3155 times in 2495 posts]

#267015

<em>@cgc0202 75329 wrote:</em><blockquote>
I thought I will rest,, as far as this thread is concerned, but I keep on getting sucked into it. [/quote]
By YOUR choice – no one else’s.

cgc0202So here’s how I see your position, we already know that more than likely Tom will criticize anyone who will not like Joomlart, if he sees an opening.[/quote]
Absolutely not the case whatsoever . . . like yourself, I choose to voice my opinion on specific issues where I feel them to be unjustifiably presented. Again, opinions are not the issue – everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, presentation of opinions is an issue … and I take issue with those who choose to be non constructive, disrespectful and/or threatening in their chosen presentation(s).

Seems that you didn’t waste much time in criticizing me when you “saw an opening.”
So, how does that make your opinion any more valid or justifiable than mine?

cgc0202 And he will bait people, as he has baited me a number of times.[/quote]
Really? … Please feel free to provide your evidentiary substantiation of how I have “baited” others and yourself.

TomC wrote:

For the sake of argument, and having a starting point, let us agree that Tom is a critic of most anyone who criticizes Joomlart.

You and Mark can harbor your own opinions as to whatever you like – regardless of how incorrect and libelous they may be. I do not now nor have I ever “criticized anyone who criticizes Joomlart.” Again, in your quick-to-judge compulsion to “criticize anyone who criticizes,” you have chosen to ignore the fact that I, myself, have expressed my concerns and dissatisfactions with JoomlArt on a number of issues on a number of occasions – thus rendering your naive accusation of me both inaccurate and moot. Again, I criticize (sometimes – as yourself – sarcastically so) when I feel that the presentation of the criticism and/or opinion is non-constructive, disrespectful and/or outright rude.

TomC wrote:

Read your reaction, to his sense of superiority,

My sense of superiority? . . . . I think, perhaps, you should reexamine such an accusation when you, yourself, often times comes across as a guy who fancies himself a gift to oration in your often drawn out responses in lieu of a clear and concise answer/response to an issue.

I do not consider myself “superior” to anyone . . . such an accusation or belief is yours, not mine.

[bossep Friend bossepJoin date: April 2008Posts: 262Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 50 Thanked: 15 times in 3 posts]

#267025

Dear Fellowes of this Forum and this read,

Could we please try to keep to issue, please!

I know that this is a long tread and a lot of water has been flowing under the bridges since Hung stated this tread. It has been calm at times but mostly pretty turbulent. A lot has also been achieved here in my opinion. But the REAL topic has started to fade away.

Just to remind all of you:
This tread was started in relation to this post by hung.
http://www.joomlart.com/forums/showthread.php?p=72516#post72516

Ware he is making this statements:

Important changes to the JA Templates Club

I. Number of templates released per month

From August of 2009 - JoomlArt will release 1 template per month.

II. Licenses & Domains management.

From September 2008 (or earlier), a new license & domain management system will be introduced. You will not have to add domains to the license system. It will automatically be registered once you install the template.

III. Impacts of changes to current members.

I suggest that we go back and read this before posting anything here.

Bosse

[narezina Friend narezinaJoin date: January 2007Posts: 4Downloads:0Uploads:0]

#267037

:cool::cool::cool:

[2Patrick Friend 2PatrickJoin date: July 2008Posts: 256Downloads:0Uploads:19 Thanks: 74 Thanked: 11 times in 1 posts]

#267450

Hi

How does the new template license system work if we are testing templates under a local host ( ie Personal PC ) .We have not loaded onto a domain host yet .

Some of us are still undecided on what template( s) to use so we need extensive testing etc . Will the license kick in even if we have loaded it to a local host and are testing it ?

Also, what happens if we load onto a domain and then we change our mind and want to use another template ?

Some clarifications would be most welcome

Thanks

[mj1256 Friend mj1256Join date: June 2007Posts: 1473Downloads:10Uploads:35 Thanks: 84 Thanked: 225 times in 118 posts]

#267451

they have decided not to implement the new licensing, so there is nothing to worry about for now

1 user says Thank You to mj1256 for this useful post

1. 2Patrick

[cgc0202 Friend cgc0202Join date: August 2007Posts: 2244Downloads:0Uploads:3 Thanks: 206 Thanked: 262 times in 1 posts]

#267452

<em>@mj1256 76066 wrote:</em><blockquote>they have decided not to implement the new licensing, so there is nothing to worry about for now</blockquote>

Not true. If people behave by the rules, your license limit is still three (3) commerical) domains and unlimited “nonprofit” domains for a one year membership. From the discussions in this thread though, it appears that a few customers may have chosen to ignore this license limits — without a good way for Joomlart to find out who the violators were. That was why Joomlart has tried to implement the “Call Home” function and I can’t blame them. The “Call Home” function though was just a bad solution to a legitimate problem.

<em>@2Patrick 76065 wrote:</em><blockquote>Hi

How does the new template license system work if we are testing templates under a local host ( ie Personal PC ) .We have not loaded onto a domain host yet .

Some of us are still undecided on what template( s) to use so we need extensive testing etc . Will the license kick in even if we have loaded it to a local host and are testing it ?

Also, what happens if we load onto a domain and then we change our mind and want to use another template ?

Some clarifications would be most welcome

Thanks</blockquote>

It is best to test your sites online. There are those who tested their installation in their computer, but when they moved them online, problems occurred. The hosting service you use, and the system softwares can impact your result.

The way to do this is to test your stuff in subdirectories or subdomains. You can have a million of subdirectories

1. http://yoursite.com/telineII/
2. http://yoursite.com/avianII/
3. http://yoursite.com/olivine/
4. http://yoursite.com/template4/
5. etc. — all more than 50 of them if you like

or subdomains,

1. http://telineII.yoursite.com/
2. http://avianII.yoursite.com/
3. http://olivine.yoursite.com/
4. http://template4.yoursite.com/
5. etc. — all more than 50 of them if you like

provided they belong to one domain, all count as one of your three (for a 1-year) membership.

What is good about subdirectories, is that you can just move the one you like best to the root directory, and change the configuration.php for the paths, and you are all set for your chosen template in:

http://yoursite.com

Cornelio

[Author]

Posts