> The admins are discussing this at the moment, but I'd suggest holding back > from re-posting any more content until we're totally clear on the rules and > their implications. Craig is a lawyer, so confident we'll get to the bottom > of it.
So are you saying that what is said here is irrelevant because the “ admin” or "moderators" are "talking about this over email"? Why should she hold back and refrain? It just wastes valuable time! Why aren't these so-called "admins" posting here so we all can see? If they’ve got something to discuss... well bring it up! Who the hell are they to be talking about this behind our backs. My uncles only brother’s only son is a lawyer and I’m calling him because I believe that listening and then talking about what was said (in email) is plain and simple a form of cutting and pasting. And into a conversation that is not even on the INTERNET! A private conversation! An “un-moderated” conversation. How dare they! I hope that that are not actually talking literally about what we say. Between themselves? Without us? Cutting our words and pasting them into their private conversation - sneakily - instead of leaving them in the public on their blogs?! On the INTERNET! Our words...in public where WE PUT THEM! Taking them private there's the harm. Sneaky little devils eh what? Excuse me if I am slightly sane Alice but aren’t you saying she cut un- copyrighted material out of one place ON THE INTERNET and pasted them into another place ON THE INTERNET? But then, no use in us "discussing it". Because the *moderators* are "talking about this over email".... ahhh... the moderators...the admin. Glad I am not in a group that is actually political. I'd be scared. In fact, I am getting a little frightened right now...yes... I can feel the fear... way down there... oh there it is... yesss... now I am getting scared. How about you, Molly. Aren't you "scared"? Just a little? How's it feel when "they" cut you out of the herd. Can't you just feel the predation? Can you describe what it felt like to see those posts... little like seeing a rattle snake? Aww common you can work up some fear can’t you? A rattlesnake with a green polyester leisure suite and a toupe? Listen to the tone in this post: "Molly, I have mentioned this before. My words are clear. You accept them or you don't." “You accept them.... or....” You... um... er... accept them.... or .... well Molly dearest... he did say .... “or you don’t”. Kind of sneaky the way the slip that principle of non-contradiction in subliminal like no? “Either you accept them or you don’t” That phrase....its either the principle of non-contradiction itself or else its a threat. What do YOU think? Here’s my opinion. Forget the words, listen to the tone. It is what betrays them all the time. What you are witnessing is a primate threat display. Oh yes, it’s veiled as it always is. It’s actually quite modern. Couched in reasonableness and authority. It’s practically an archetype. You, dear, are being threatened! Now it would be a little less hilarious, (and I would have a little less trouble maintaining my fearfulness, I am trying, for the sake of the play you see), if we could just see what they are threatening you with and what they are threatening you for and how they can sustain their seriousness in the face of this hilarity. But its so much better this way no? Sort of Kafka for Shirley Temple? A harmless charade....Nicht vahr? Now listen to your tone Molly! After all you are not guiltless! Copying! Pasting! You bad little girl! You should have used a typewriter... Here is what you are guilty of: Molly:“I do not make money on it and have not received complaints until now. It does no harm, is not a secret, and I am told, is interesting and sometimes helpful.” (Really Molly, READ Alexander Soljenitsyn. Really READ him: Gulag Archipelago. The chapter on being arrested. “It must be a mistake!” Did you know that when he was arrested his captors got lost and he led them back away from enemy lines! “There must be some mistake!” “I was just....” Forget the words, Molly, hear the tone. And Soljenitsyn, like they all did, and like you are, apologizing and insisting there must be a mistake... because they did nothing wrong! Just don’t play with them dear. It’s not whether you did something wrong at all. It’s about how they establish dominance. No need to apologize. None at all. Really. None. No need to even sound like you are apologizing or even hint that you could...one cold day in hell...maybe... After all “There might be something I could have done but I am a good person....bla bla bla”...the pattern! Look at the pattern!) Try something like: “I have done nothing wrong and if you insinuate that I have that is slander”... then quote a link that defines the legal meaning of the term. Way.... way... too submissive dear. You should have come out fighting....”Sometimes” its helpful? Better to write something like “The world depends on my Blog! Hell, lots of people would not have read what is written here if they didn’t read it on My blog! Are you crazy! Do you want to stop the culture of the world! Its critical that I get the word out! EVERYONE knows that!” (Use the first person singular as often as possible, its stronger than the first person plural. Puff yourself up like when you meet a bear in the woods!) That word “sometimes”.... "sometimes"?... and.... "your are told"?... "its useful"...It is just too submissive, Molly. Say: “It’s damn useful!” Curse a little. Here is a better phrasing: Bug off! (I left the –ger off of Bug out of respect for your positiveness Molly, - you are so positive and kind- but really, if YOU had said it with the –ger in there it would have been so much better.) BUGGER OFF! Nimwit! GadZooks Pinhead! Are you stupid! Are you crazy? Don’t you know I HAVE to cut and paste! I don’t have TIME to type it all in! (Strawman them a little) There is so little TIME and I have so much to DO! So “pleeeassseee” go play on a beach, and pound sand, or something. Now that’s the tone Molly. No conciliation there! (But you lack the instinct for the jugular, dear. More of a dear deer than a wolf! A deer in the headlights. But no real car headed your way behind those headlights!!!! That's the great thing here! Eh! Its all just a play! A little sideshow! We don’t even have to be careful!) Although I have to admit you scored by showing your understanding of fair use etc. But really? When was the last time someone copyrighted some material and then published it on a Google group for God’s sake? I mean...GOOGLE... really! Have to be an idiot.... You are accusing her of WHAT! Cutting out of a group and pasting into a blog?! Lions and Tigers and Bears OH MY! “I’ll get you and your little dog too!” (To the moderators I typed that. I did not cut it out of the movie and paste it here so don’t come get me... ok... I hardly know her. ) I think you should sue just for the insinuation. Criminal false insinuation or something. Compounded by a wanton lack of clarity and a failure to take things .... seriously.... Lets all start copying as much as we can out of this news group and post it all over the place...!!!!! Ha! Ich bin ein Molly! Power to the light bulb! REVOLUTION! "Oh my God I am sorry, my backspace key is broken I didn't mean to say that...(but my copy and paste key are still working though....) I didn’t really say that. I’m sooooo sooorry. Scuse me. Is anyone "scared"? I am. You never know, what the "admin" is going to do.... And all of those “moderators” and “administrators” are all connected too....into one big moderator force... like ants.... they are ....the “un-human”. But think about it .... anyone who would bother to pay attention to a group like this .... THIS IS THE MOST HILARIOUS THING I HAVE HEARD IN AT LEAST 20 YEARS! Can you believe this?! Kafka in leotards. I just got a great idea! Let’s have a virtual stoning of Molly! Burn her at the stake! Press her. Then she can dust her hands off and we can get on with it all.... Frankly, things like this makes me long for the grave. I know better. But they just do. Its so depressing. ITS MOLLY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. READ HER POSTS. Where is Alice? She fell through the hole in the Mind’s Eye. Post Script: this is from the Google groups link: “By way of example, and not as a limitation, you agree that when using the Service, you will not: defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;” My opinion is you are harassing her and are getting a little to close to that... libelous word... know what I mean?...Don’t want to look over that cliff....Gotcha! Besides. You are invading her privacy by telling everyone what she published on her blog. I mean I can drink the Kookaide too! Now if they even insinuate that you have done something illegal or unethical, Molly, then they better be able to prove it because you are a writer and reputation has bearing on income for you and that means that the case for damage can be made fairly easily. So if I were you guys... oh, I don’t mean Google the company... they are blameless... its you guys personally ... acting outside of the protection of Google’s legal umbrella... and dealing with a situation that could be argued, in a court of law, as .... well lets exaggerate a little and pretend this all isn’t a play....real damage... I’d consider the risk. Never know when a nice submissive kind blameless woman just might turn around and “Gotcha!” Never know! Forgive the rant...apologies in advance if you are just trying to help Ian....Now there I go apologizing again... On Jul 24, 9:30 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > Molly, > > I'm afraid it appears that whoever told you that you did not need permission > to reproduce Mind's Eye posts without specific permission from the actual > poster(s) has over-stepped their powers. See article 7 here: > > http://groups.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.... > > The admins are discussing this at the moment, but I'd suggest holding back > from re-posting any more content until we're totally clear on the rules and > their implications. Craig is a lawyer, so confident we'll get to the bottom > of it. > > Ian > > 2009/7/23 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > This is no secret, Orn, as you well know. When I began participating > > in Minds Eye in 2007, I asked members directly for permission to > > include these posts in the same discussion on this blog. After some > > time of that, the admin told me that I no longer needed to to this as > > it is a public forum and permission not necessary. FYI - posts from > > several forums on the internet are included on this blog. I do not > > make money on it and have not received complaints until now. It does > > no harm, is not a secret, and I am told, is interesting and sometimes > > helpful. > > > But we have been through this before and I am not sure why you keep > > bringing it up, especially when it disrupts a thread and has no > > relation to it. As I said, if you (or anyone) care enough to email > > me, I will be glad to discuss it with you further. For now, I break > > no rules and am indeed following instruction from 2007. > > > On Jul 22, 8:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chris, in most instances of Molly starting a topic and ending with > > > "What do you think?" here at Mind's Eye, it is directly associated > > > with and copied from her personal webpage/blog: > > > >http://cblegacy.blogspot.com/ > > > > You can check the history here. This has been the case for years. > > > Those of us who reply at Minds Eye have our responses echoed on her > > > website with, as far as I can tell, no attribution to Mind's Eye at > > > all. I have mentioned this in the past and so far am merely stating a > > > personal opinion that I see it as deception. Others may not agree. > > > > On Jul 22, 12:48 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your words aren't clear to me, Orn, in response to Molly's post. Will > > you > > > > clarify them for me? > > > > > I see her post covering a topic, discussing several authors who have > > written > > > > about the topic, and linking to a Wikipedia (public web page) about one > > of > > > > the authors. From what I can tell, your response seems to have zero > > > > relevance to her post. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM, ornamentalmind < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > Molly, I have mentioned this before. My words are clear. You accept > > > > > them or you don't. > > > > > > On Jul 22, 10:28 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > please explain. > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 1:09 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that posting to a Google group (Mind's Eye) and then > > linking > > > > > > > the discussion to a personal website, giving the impression it is > > the > > > > > > > locus of attention, is a deceptive practice. > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 7:29 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are we in control of ourselves, our lives, our families, our > > worlds? > > > > > > > > Or are we just aware and knowing what one can do if something > > > > > > > > unpredictable happens? > > > > > > > > There are many explanations for why we do what we do. For > > example, > > > > > > > > Thomas Metzinger's new Book, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the > > Mind > > > > > > > > and the Myth of the Self, seriously questions whether there is > > even > > > > > an > > > > > > > > "I", let alone a "we." And Douglas Hofstadter's book, I Am a > > Strange > > > > > > > > Loop, contends that the "self" is a recursively > > self-referencing > > > > > > > > memory loop. > > > > > > > > > Hundreds of experiments by Benjamin Libet and others tend to > > > > > > > > conclusively confirm that our brain prepares to execute our > > decisions > > > > > > > > before we are even aware that anything is being decided. It > > alerts us > > > > > > > > to our decisions only in time (a split second) for us to veto > > them. > > > > > > > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet, as well as > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > Libet's book, Mind Time, and Walter J. Freeman's book, How > > Brains > > > > > Make > > > > > > > > Up Their Minds. > > > > > > > > > It is quite likely that we have no so-called "free will" other > > than > > > > > > > > veto power over our specific actions. Our free will may consist > > > > > > > > instead of 1) being mindful about any ill-serving subliminal > > > > > > > > intentions and tendencies that inform our actions so that we > > are > > > > > > > > accordingly prepared to veto any action that they > > correspondingly > > > > > > > > inform, and of 2) programming (or reprogramming) our subliminal > > > > > > > > intentions to be more productive of the experiencing that we > > most > > > > > > > > desire. > > > > > > > > > Do we have the power to create our realities? Are we in > > control? > > > > > > > > What do YOU think?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
