Some stuff I need you to know

Arguably the point of this blog is not to summarise the news or even simply to broadcast my opinion, well it is really but let’s pretend for a moment I have a soul. Part of the main reason I set up this blog was to create Drama. There I said it, Happy now?

Hear me out ok because it’s not as bad as you think it is.

However dirty a word “Drama” may be it is something of a miss-understood term in our internet society originally used to describe arguments fought with mass numbers of people that took the terms of the arguments original logic to the extreme levels of insanity.

Drama today basically means inconvenience. Opinions spoken aloud in public are statements, statements require facts and/or clearly thought out logic to back up and when a person obtains neither but makes their statement known anyway the reaction of others, specially those with different opinions or who know better, tends to be less than a hail of agreement. Which is what the statementee was looking for anyway. So naturally when the opposite happens and people start to disagree the intended recepiant goes on the defensive, either by repeating what they just said and attempting to dis-credit their counter-parts to make their position seem stronger or ,in most cases, by screaming “Drama!” and storming off.

The latter seeming to be the most common.

This in turn is enforced by the never-ending ranks of people ,who never seem to participate in the SL Aviation Group’s non-dramatic discussions but, feel the need to immediately scream Drama, complain about the management of the Community, mutter something about how it never used to be like this (which is Bullshit of the highest degree) and then dramatically storm out. Often ,in more cases than one, causing more drama than the original statement.

This has led to some pretty odd occurrences around SL Aviation in that “Drama Avoidance” seems to have become something of a top priority for several Group owners and actual Community Leaders (not those fake CL’s we’ll be talking about next article) which means there are numerous SL Aviation satellite and copycat groups set-up purely as Drama Free discussion zones.

Even in SL Aviation Group itself the idea of Drama has become such a terrifying thing that avoidance measures have been considered and even a discussion on Rules was set-up as if Drama was some sort of plague or natural disaster that must be prevented at all costs.

Of course I believe that Drama, that is to say Over-Dramatical Arguments beyond reason should be avoided. But regular old Drama, that is to say Debate, arguments, discussions. They need to happen.

I’ve already pointed out the benefits of Open Debate in “so then this happened” so let me just re-iterate my point. Drama, that is to say discussion of ones opinions, is a good thing. It lets us see a multiple range of opinions as well as assist in creating an idea of what really happened in any situation and exposes people from trying to turn the situation to their political advantage by manipulating and changing the story.

We live in a Community where disagreeing with someone’s opinion is discouraged in order to prevent Drama. Something I can’t help feel is very 1984 Orwellian and wrong. of course No-Drama rules is a comfort to people who do not like having their opinion challenged, who believe that they’ve already thought long and hard on the subject, come to an intelligent solution so no further input from anyone else is required and anyone who disagrees has either clearly not thought things through or is just trying to cause drama.

Of course if everyone agreed with everything we said then how would we ever learn? Disagreement and challenges to our thought process encourages us to change our opinion and the way we view the world around us, letting us develop as a people. Forcing people to agree with everything is not only dictatorial but only encourages  sheep-like behaviour, where we never challenge authority and believe everything we are told.

Into that steps this weird ass blog that you are currently reading so don’t complain. By providing alternate viewpoints and careful explanation on why some people are obviously trying to manipulate things to their advantage I hope to breed a generation of people that do not simply take the easier sheep route of agreeing with everything they hear (and then complaining about Drama when others disagree) but questions what they are being told. not necessarily going out of their way to investigate or antagonising people over it, but simply remaining sceptical and keeping an open mind to alternate viewpoints.

Essentially not allowing themselves to be manipulated. Question things, if someone tells you something, question it, think it over, question the logic, question yourself, question me, keep an open mind and never think for a moment anyone who claims to be doing it “for the good of the community” actually means it.


With that in mind I want to talk about McDonalds.

Sometime ago you may have seen this picture.


The now infamous Pink Goo video showing something which was credited as being “What McDonalds chicken nuggets are really made from”. Newspapers, blogs, journalists and opportunistic freaks leapt on it, the story was everywhere and McDonalds received endless complaints, bad press and suffered a 5% drop in sales.

It was so bad that McDonalds actually produced a series of video’s explaining that this Pink Goo was in no-way related to them. We’re going to look at one of them:

In this video we see two people, one is a Manager for McDonalds so we’ll ignore her and instead concentrate on the other person Sheri N. from Saskatoon.

Sheri is blonde, pretty, easy on the eye and carries off everything with a slightly confused but innocent tone. In the four and a half minute video we are shown the two discussing the Pink Goo scandal and are told, several times, it’s nothing but nonsense and to prove it we’re going to look at a Chicken Nugget under a microscope.

The team head off to the nearest McDonalds restaurant and pick up some packs of frozen McNuggets as well as several cooked ones then zip off to a laboratory that immediately states it is not affiliated with the McDonalds corporation under any circumstances.

So the team look at a McNugget under a Microscope and surprise surprise, no pink Goo. They conclude it is indeed made from 100% chicken breast and so ends the video after a brief conclusion where Token Blonde confides she is happy with the news because she goes to McDonalds and eats Nuggets.

To the Layman pretty convincing stuff, I mean we saw the Nugget under a microscope and that’s top quality science right there and it was direct from their restaurant and verified from an independent lab so McDonalds couldn’t have interfered in anyway, could they?

If you’ve learned anything then yes, you should be questioning this video and the logic it claims. Firstly chicken is Pink when uncooked, not white, so the fact that when saw under a microscope there is no visible pink stuff is because in both cases of the cooked and frozen nuggets the chicken as already been cooked to some degree and thus wouldn’t be shown as pink.

The Laboratory shown as being “an independent lab” basically means they are a lab for Hire and were most likely hired by McDonalds to show exactly what they wanted to be shown or do you honestly think Sheri from Saskatoon, Canada can afford to pay for the services of a Private Laboratory and all it’s support staff for two weeks?

Next we must look at the logic given by the Labs QA Manager Susan Bigg. She states that the meat in the Nugget was consistent with showing the same results as they would expect in Chicken breast. Note this does not mean it is chicken breast, just showing the same results.

her reasons for this are as follows

  1. The Iron content of the Meat was Low. Good that means it’s not Pork. Doesn’t mean anything, chicken is low in Iron. In this same reason she also states that you’d find a lot of Iron in blood. Note she repeats the line that the iron was “quite” low. Quite is not a unit of measurement and what is she comparing it too? After all in comparison to a Human you’d find “quite” a bit less blood in a chicken, but in comparison to a Stone “Quite” a bit more. She also never states that NO blood was found.
  2. Titanium Dioxide was not detected: Ok so they don’t whitening the meat? No they don’t whiten the meat with Titanium Dioxide. There are other products on the market (available wholesale) that do the same job Azodicarbonamide for example which you’ll often find in Dough and cereal or Benzoyl peroxide which is found in Toothpaste and is used to treat Acne. But at least there is no Titanium.
  3. There was a higher level of Calcium in the Nugget. Uh Oh, you think they’ve found something here naughty naughty, too much calcium suggests…nothing, the Lab concludes the breading is the reason for the High Calcium, besides calcium is good for you, even an idiot knows that, you find it in milk, it’s good for children and great for developing strong bones, you need a lot of calcium. So this “red flag” is actually a win for McDonalds, they just got away with claiming their food is healthy for you.
  4. The Bone Particle test: In 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service concluded that bone particles less than 1 cm are not a safety hazard: Note she states “Nothing detected” which is not the same as “No Bones detected” in fact she moves on very quickly from this. “Nothing detected” could equally mean nothing Hazardous detected which means the test could have found bone but nothing above the 1cm rule. In fact the test commonly used in these types of situations cannot physically detect anything below 7mm in length and accurately identify it as bone. So again this means nothing.
  5. Microscopy came next. Again rather than directly state the results she says “everything found in the Nugget you’d expect to see in the Breast meat of chicken” thus proving the chicken is not ground up. Right? Wrong. Never once are we given an example of what you’d actually expect to see in chicken breast. In Britain for example “Parts of the carcase” is still considered “Chicken Breast” so long as it doesn’t take up more than 15% of the product. So (in Britain at least) 15% of the chicken used in McNugget (not 15% of the entire nugget) could contain egg shells, bones, gristle, fat, eyes, face or whatever before it became anywhere near “Inconclusive” with chicken meat.

And so ends the video. At no point are we told the differences between chicken breast meat or meat you’d find anywhere else on a chicken and ,though their testing sounds scientific, the way the results are explained leave a lot to be desired. Certainly if Susan Bigg stood up at a serious Food Science conference and delivered results in the same manner she did in the video she would be laughed out the room.

Keep in mind there was never anything conclusive ever going to be produced from taking Nuggets to a Lab. had they gone to the factory where nuggets were made and shown the process, things could have probably been more conclusive.

So that leaves us with the question. Is the pink goo really a McDonalds Nugget?

Probably Not. The image is supposed to show what is called Re-conditioned chicken (essentially what you hose off the abattoir floor at the end of the night and compress into a small cube) but in most countries, specially in Europe McDonalds would have to declare that their chicken is from re-conditioned meat and since they don’t then the pink goo is most likely not their product.

Also keep in mind the multiple health and safety violations seen in the picture. Health and Safety laws regarding chicken, most specially raw chicken, are so strict that an entire restaurant can be closed down if it breaches even just one of the minor ones. If the above picture was indeed ever chicken, pouring it into a carboard box to be made ready for consumption would have the factory shut down before the picture had even finished uploading.

McDonalds produced several other video’s including one where they visit a McNugget factory. if you really want you could look these out and discover yourself where the fallacies lie. Or even if there is any and the whole thing is simply an act of Hysteria.

Regardless these video’s do show a great example of how Propaganda works. Not by feeding you false information but by presenting what appears to be credible information that plays on your ignorance to go and check up on exactly what they are talking about, removing parts of the full story that would show them in a bad light and presenting strengths as thinly disguised acts of admission.


With all that in mind it is time to Experiment.

Firstly you know my mission is to change SL Aviation’s Sheep into thinkers. To prevent them from being easily manipulated by the “Community Leaders” I seemed to have waged a personal war against. You know I incite Drama, you know why.

You also know how to identify a common case of Propaganda and how people try to abuse the fact that the average person won’t check facts too thoroughly or be fooled answers which satisfy the “sounds about right” logic.

So this time rather than present an argument, my opinion on it and inviting you to state your opinion via the comments we’re going to play a small experiment called do it your fucking self.

Basically I want to see how successful I’ve become in turning people into thinkers.

This is Tam McGregor’s Blog. One of several pop-up blogs that appeared in the wake of Tig’s Crop Duster plane issue. Tam’s third article details Tig’s MD-900 being a download and his evidence seems pretty conclusive. Tig has suffered a lot from this article, daily harassment, abuse and ,rather ironically, a blockade proposed by the Pro-Dani crowd.

So rather than me explaining things to you I want to see if you can work it all out by yourself. I’ve given you the tools, you have the smarts. Now put them together. I think McGregor is an idiot, he thinks he is right. One of us is wrong, you work it out and we’ll discuss this next time.


Pass Go.



35 thoughts on “Some stuff I need you to know

  1. mcgregortamm says:

    so your asking readers to question my methods of showing people the evidence i found but funny i and others remember that same method was used by you and self appointed mesh police to expose others doing the exact same thing . your playing a tail chasing game here


    • question did you even take the time to read the TOS of 3dcadbrowser? Let me make it easy for you

      Lets see what we fine when we read not skim.

      ooh a section that says “Use of downloaded materials” lets read that!

      All of the downloadable resources available in 3D CAD Browser catalog may be used free in your own or commercial projects. Downloaded resources may not be sold individually or provided for free to another parties.

      Sense we now see your reading powers are sub par you ability to read is let me pull out the important part.

      All of the downloadable resources available in 3D CAD Browser catalog may be used free in your own or commercial projects.


      Liked by 1 person

      • mcgregortamm says:

        if there is any trolling it is you from you and a few others in world as proved in group conversations when certain names are mentioned but lets get back to facts as stated on s&w mp page about the MD900 (Model & Textures created by Sylvira (sylviramaus) Owner of .: Virtual SYL Design :.) so it may well be ok to use it but why make out its made by sylvira when its NOT .i see nothing giving credit to the original creator who did all the hard work so its sold giving customers the impression its made by S&w and if any one cannot read its you as i put this in my blogs comments a while ago . and yes my investigations find quite a few makers in SL use out scourced models .some under licence ,some not but if doing it legit its not that hard to credit the original creator instead of grabbing the glory them selves for it


        • Karl Reisman says:

          Aactually, Sir, you have a good point. The original source should be attributed.


          • Rebecca Rathbone says:

            Karl, I like you, but that isn’t necessary.
            From what has been posted, a credit isn’t even necessary. That is up to the person using the model.


            • There’s a difference between not giving credit and claiming credit for oneself. The first seems to be the status quo on using purchased models. The second is wrong no matter what the terms of use are. The second is what’s going on.


            • MeganAnn Mills says:

              I think we’re WAY past what is “necessary” or technically legal at this point. Full; disclosure is necessary to restore the confidence in the industry that has been poisoned by the issue, and those who did the poisoning should take the lead. Especially if they want to keep the moral high ground.


    • 3dcadbrowser has a very nice page outlining there terms of service. you can find it here.

      on that page you will find nice little sub headings (remember reading textbooks in school?) one of them is important to this mater it reads “Use of downloaded materials.”

      lets read that together. “All of the downloadable resources available in 3D CAD Browser catalog may be used free in your own or commercial projects. Downloaded resources may not be sold individually or provided for free to another parties.”

      Lets look at this further and break it down into statements lets call them the “Elements of the License”

      Element 1 All of the downloadable resources available in 3D CAD Browser catalog may be used free in your own or commercial projects.

      MD-900 is in fact a commercial project. are we in violation yet?

      Element 2 Downloaded Downloaded resources may not be sold individually

      Yes this may seem contradictory to Element one but this is the way legal things are By “Downloaded resources” they are referring to the raw file that can be loaded into a 3D program. This element keeps the items on the site OPEN and FREELY AVAILABLE to everyone Are we in Violation yet?

      Element 3. or provided for free to another parties. They want the raw 3D models downloaded from their site to maintain the purity of there License. This element does not pertain to this case but once again are we in violation yet?

      As we can clearly see the Model in Question is legitimately under License.

      You are either trying to fool you with smoke and mirrors or you cant read which one is it ?


  2. Ultimately I don’t care if Tam is right or not. I don’t own an MD-900 because I don’t like it’s appearance and that’s primarily what I go off of with Tig’s copters because I already know how it’s going to fly. I do own the Air Tractor and like it. I’ve said before I don’t give a rat’s ass where Dani’s models come from and I’ll say the same in this case. If it’s allowed on the grid, I make a choice based on whether I like it or not. Happy? The same people who decried that stance before would probably be ok with it when it applies to a maker they like.

    I don’t agree with those harassing her over the issue any more than I agree with those who’ve harassed Dani and his customers. I certainly don’t agree with any attempts to get airports to bar her aircraft. I don’t believe barring aircraft based on the creator of said aircraft is good for SL aviation no matter what the reason.

    That said, If you’re going to going to be actively part of a group that’s slagging another maker over something you don’t like, you’d better make darn sure you are squeaky clean in regards to that same issue. That’s another issue many of the makers who are against Dani’s aircraft have, they’ve done exactly the same things with textures, logos, and in a few cases even models and that pretty much removes any right they have to be listened to on the issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Crim do not believe this guy’s bluster he is a manipulator of fact as my Links in my replies to him show. The fact is he is trying to build a case to set up a equivocation fallacy however his case fell upon the assumption that no one would fact check him. and so far he is batting 0 for two. the only response he has earn from any of us. is a quote from Gene Wilder’s Interpretation of Willy Wonka.


  3. Dan Pevensey says:

    Crim I whole heartedly agree with you 100% if its allowed in SL and I like it I will fly it I don’t jump on anyone’s bandwagon can tell by the amount of aircraft and helicopters I have in my inventory. just because someone says something about a creator doing things. doesn’t mean it is so these so called haters need to suck it up because they are just a huge part of the problem in the flight community

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Enkô ga tsuki wo toran to suru ga gotoshi.


  5. Erick Gregan says:

    Usually i do not enter into debate. We can not say that I spam the discution space SL Aviation.
    But the atmosphere that reigns at this moment, disgusts me to no end.

    So, if i could ask a question, it would be : they existed, all these super-creators, before the option to download the mesh? I’m not against some competition, But in respect and honesty
    Obviously, now, with the mesh it’s so much easier to download all done some great items and kill the market. In fact this is not the market that is boring to watch, it is the death of desire all of designers to do things for aviation.

    For an airplane, it is necessary to create the mesh, texture, create or retrieve sound, scripting and trying to bring some new. It can be estimated that to build a dignified aircraft of the name, it takes a month, working 10 o’clock daily (It’s the minimum), .
    the calculation is simple, if you sell 100 planes L $ 2500 each (that’s a lot of aircraft), this gives ~ $ 1000. The result is $ 3.00 per hour
    Personally, I have no desire to spend several months behind my computer to create an aircraft that it pays peanuts. Fortunately I’m not doing this for a living, but there is a minimum, despite everything.

    So before shouting your “wonderful truths” and” beautiful thoughts”, you must meditate and think of the one who has to screw up his neuronnes to try to satisfy YOU.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Ghosthunter Torrance says:

    For myself, as an SL aviator, I am getting more then a bit sick and tired of the “downloaded it from the net” issues.. Like Dan and Erick, if I like the way it looks and enjoy flying it, I am gonna buy it. I have a meager 50 odd aircraft in my inventory. A mixture of fixed and rotary winged as well as several “humorous” aircraft and I fly a large percentage of them. Yes, some of them dont fly or dont fly well, some of them look awful and some of them are simple cheapies that fly like a housebrick. But with all this, I buy what I enjoy flying and to be honest, the creator is someone I only contact if I have an issue or wish to upgrade or repaint that particular aircraft. Now, personally, and not being any kind of builder, i believe that as long as something is not a direct copy of another creators work, why worry ??.. Yes I know that it is difficult to check wireframes in mesh products and a great many of them look like direct copies but all in all, most creators tend to stick with certain types of aircraft. Tig is well known for her rotary winged creations and as such, I own several BECAUSE they look good and fly very well. There are other creators inworld that have the same models BUT, they dont look as good or they dont fly well for whatever reason ( how many of us have a cheap model that stops in mid air if you shut the engines down??) and this is why I prefer demo models FIRST before purchase. So, as one who has watched and read a great many of the debates regarding copybotting, wireframe downloads and scripting issues the answer seems to me to be, IF ya like it and it flies well for you, has the bits you want and fills a purpose for you, BUY IT !!!!
    This continued debate is, for me, part of what is killing SL Aviation. I fly in SL because I want to, i enjoy it and I simply would never get a chance to fly a particular aircraft in RL. Yes, I know SL is not RL but even adults can dream and fantasize whilst logged in..
    So, why not simply allow the pilots and users of aircraft in SL decide with their purchases.
    I for one will continue to purchase aircraft which I like and enjoy flying and lets face it, some of the creators in SL have the skills to get things right and some, well not so right..
    I refuse to be told who i can buy from and where i am allowed to fly it.
    If there really is an issue, then put all the evidence to LL and let them decide if a TOS or IPR infraction has occurred but dont start slagging off a creator in group chat just because you think or believe that someone may have copied something from another model or another web site,Its childish and i have seen quite a few “drama queens” make themselves look very foolish.
    So thats my twopenneth, from an SL aviator that doesn’t usually get involved with ” drama”.
    And lastly, well done Mal, Love the articles, the humor and the information contained within them.. Keep it up..


  7. Blackhawk Hird says:

    All of the drama and the harassment of various content creators lately has brought to mind an article published recently that I read about gossip and bullying behavior.

    I find that many of the personality traits listed in this article to be a perfect description of the negative actions plaguing Second Life Aviation.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Capt. Rebecca S. Rathbone says:

    I hate the fact that I’ve probably started this mess with some ill-timed and ill concieved posting, but with this and a long talk I had with Tig about this very thing… with facts that Kimiko put up… I feel at least a bit better about things.

    Particularly with the fact that there is a distinct difference between a legitimate, permission given through a contract download, and a illegal rip.

    I don’t feel dumb no more as now there’s ammo in this fight… sweet, sweet armor-piercing ammo.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. It all comes down to the Law of Parsimony (also known as “Occam’s Razor”) – if you have to believe something, believe the thing that doesn’t require you to believe many other things that aren’t where you can see them for it to be true.

    Soooo…. granted, that a sufficiently motivated person can pick holes in ANY explanation, if you tear a Chicken McNugget apart and find cooked white meat, you have to pull alternate explanations for what that white meat could be (apart from chicken breast) from a very dark, smelly place.

    And the “pink goo” hypothesis epically fails for the same reason – when chicken’s almost the cheapest and most profitable thing McDonald’s sells, why would they risk blowing a known money maker away by substituting “pink goo” for cheap chicken? For any answer but “They wouldn’t”, you have to pull it out of that same dark, smelly place.

    But let’s consider empirical (you can see it for yourself) evidence. I’ve cooked a lot of pork, and while it’s advertised as the “other white meat”, the whitest pork chop on Earth isn’t as white, inside or out, as the darkest chicken breast. Which seems to blow the “pink goo” hypothesis out of the water.

    You’re welcome.


  10. Why would Tig rip a McDonnell-Douglas M-900 series copter, when she’s made so many more difficult to shape and well-detailed copters (one of which, the UH-72 Lakota, I own and enjoy)!

    I also own the MD-500 that Tig and Wingtips gave away free. It had a lot of stuff that didn’t come with a CAD file, like a nicely scripted control panel, and all the good scripts you associate with Tig’s copters and aircraft.

    It’s another case of Occam’s Razor – to believe Tig ripped this, you’d pretty much have to believe she’d want to tear down a terrific reputation to make a very few Lindens, as well. I just don’t see that happening.


    • Sue Ravensworth says:

      I’m glad that you try to reason on it, everyone should. The Occam’s Razor is useful, the problem is that it isn’t a secret that Tig outsources her models. As we have seen, her models come from various authors, and from different sites too. Comparing her different vehicles shows mostly the different skills of the various authors. So this doesn’t apply. About the reputation, you have to assume Tig was aware. If Tig instead trusted the person she commissioned to deliver a 3D model, she may have genuinely believed that (Sylvira, in this case) was the author of the models she provided, with no reason of fearing for her own reputation. Back to Occam: it’s easier that Tig made it up all this to credit Sylvira as author and risking her own reputation, or that she believed Sylvira? Of course the irrational paths of the human minds can be so intricate, complex and vary and different from each other, that can surprise anyone who expects something logical and predictable from other people. It can be easily all misunderstood, even more with someone you don’t know really well. Anyway I won’t reasoning on the *assumption* that Tig was aware of that and of the risk on her reputation. But what should concern her reputation anyway?

      Using models from someone else is totally fine, as long as it respects the rights and license of the author. Some people (I don’t mean you) don’t get the difference: indeed believing that legit download and ripping are the same thing is a complete fallacy. So Tig can have models coming in a legitimate way from whatever website and that’s fine.
      In the case of the tractor, the legitimacy was argued (ShareCG website, Usage Rights of that model: “Non-commercial use only”), and a new model was uploaded. Here the problem is: did Sylvira really made a new one from scratch in just a couple of days, and if she is so fast and good at it, why she didn’t do that from the beginning, instead of importing one from ShareCG? Or did she simply hide the evidence from the wireframe, instead, by elaborating the original model she got from the site, as someone thinks? If you want to try the Occam’s Razor here…
      The MD-900 looks like a different story. Tam McGregor doesn’t seem to call it a rip, at least, although he attempts to argue that “permissions of use are not very clear from the site” (really? [1]). He doesn’t specify and to me it looks like a legit use of that MD-900 model (unless I’m missing something), so who cares about all those checking? It’s legit. I’d accompany McGregor to the door at this point, enough of wasting time, if it was just that.
      But his point is: “the issue here is its being sold as designed and built by a second life builder which its clearly not”. Indeed it shouldn’t be attributed to Sylvira (sylviramaus), but to the original author. I agree (as well as Karl) with this point.

      2 cats + 2 dogs = 4 animals. If you mistype 2 + 1 or you don’t see a dog, what happens? Even if you calculate well, you get a correct calculation, but the wrong number of animals (3 instead of 4).
      Feed a correct reasoning with partial or wrong data, and it still returns wrong conclusions. So don’t believe something is true just because it seems logical. The ingredients are correct thinking and getting/seeing the good info.

      If one wants to see things as they are, it is important to be honest, don’t be attached to our egos, in order to try to avoid bias, and too see the whole picture as better as we can. And since nobody is omniscient, as new info come, we can improve our conclusions, rather to cling on it.
      Honest people can do mistakes of course. Mistakes don’t make you dishonest. But those who are honest with others and themselves recognize their own mistakes, they do their best to fix it, and they will improve themselves; other people instead will just cover their ears screaming “Lalalala!” or “you can’t change me!”, when someone points out at things and facts, and they would never learn from their own faults and would never change, clinging on what they like to believe, even turning the table and manipulating others. Maybe nobody can be 100% objective, but someone doesn’t even try it.
      So there is also intentions. Someone does a mistake unaware or unintentionally or stumbles upon an unexpected situation that she or he doesn’t know how to handle well (happens to everyone), but he or she is sorry and admits she or he could have done it better. Someone else keeps to manipulate others intentionally and maliciously.
      Thus we have more ingredients: honest intentions, humility, being kind with each other, some empathy…

      But maybe the recipe is too much idealistic. People is as it is.
      There is always popcorn.
      /me handles you some


      [1] The TOS states: “All of the downloadable resources available in 3D CAD Browser catalog may be used free in your own or commercial projects. Downloaded resources may not be sold individually or provided for free to another parties.” To me that means that you are free to download and to use them as components of your own products, for personal or commercial use; what is to not do is to sell or to distribute just the model.

      Liked by 1 person

      • At the end of the day, Tig got the MD-900 model from a place whose TOS allowed her to take it and use it for her own purposes, as long as she made them part of a new work with her own changes and modifications. What she was enjoined from doing was just giving the unaltered model – which she didn’t do.

        The language of the TOS (thank you for reproducing it in your footnote) is clear, and parallels “full perm” terms here in SL with which most of us are very familiar – when you buy/accept a full perm item, you can’t just turn around and distribute the unaltered item for free or profit.

        Years ago, I set a store up in Marketplace to sell shapes of my own design, many of which I bundled with what I thought were original, free-and-clear skins provided by someone else. She told me she got the skin templates from Marketplace, and we were clear to sell the skins she made with them.

        It turns out that those templates were ripped (I believe by the person who sold them through Marketplace to my business partner) and a DMCA notice was filed – which caused Marketplace to pull each and every bundle off the market. It happened when I was overwhelmed with other things in both SL and RL, and I let my business die when LL abolished magic box delivery (oh, it’s dormant, really, but my heart’s not in reviving it yet).

        So I know about accusations of ripping. The burden of proof for such things ought to be high and solely on the accuser. And you shouldn’t have to bare your RL soul to fight them the way LL requires you to, should you choose to contest a DMCA notice. But that’s just my opinion.

        I don’t think Tig did anything wrong. And I can’t look at the accusations and see anything but gleeful malice.


  11. Blackhawk Hird says:

    I have an idea that we could all only dream of.
    When the new Second Life V.2 (Sansara) opens up, both the sailing and aviation community join together and create our own “main land” in the new world for people that enjoy flying and sailing.

    Yes we can all grasp tightly at what we all know and are comfortable with right now.
    One day we will be forced onto the new platform and it would be nice if everyone could put aside their differences and create a new Utopia for everyone when that day arrives.


  12. Starbuckk Serapis says:

    One thing I have observed is that SL Aviation group seems to have calmed down since recent changes were made. I even saw someone that appeared to be new to the group utter the word “Dani” without getting boiled. They were respectfully told to seek help in Dani’s group for their issue (as it should be for most any issues with creators that have their own support groups anyway) and everyone went on their merry way without opening fire on each other.

    Could it be some progress has been made toward restoring civility? Lets hope so.


  13. […] example if you cast your mind back to “Some things I need you to know” I showed you a video where the McDonalds corporation took you to a laboratory that […]


Leave a Reply (Please use your Second Life name. Anonymous posts will be deleted)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: