I'm sorry but I have some strict feelings on this matter- about authorship rights/royalties=bread and butter and plagiarism. China and its knock-offs. Students writing their papers based upon Cliff Notes or the internet. It seems insincere to enter a forum and have your thoughts whisked away by someone to their blog- even with recognition. Or the threat of e-mails landing elsewhere. It chokes trust and blossoms suspicion.
On Jul 25, 8:37 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, if someone thought my words were worth repeating, and did > so under the circumstances being debated here, I would consider it > more as a compliment, than an infringement. If one does not want their > words copied, the open internet is the last place they should be > posting them. At least Molly isn't uploading nude video taken > surreptitiously, as per Erin Andrews. Although not a moderator (with > no ambition to be such), I see no problem with her activity > whatsoever. > > Another issue that seems to be prevelant here is staying on "topic". > The matter being debated now is not relevant to the thread, but is > definately an important issue. I personally don't mind straying of the > straight and narrow on occasion, and not just to debate moderator > issues as we are now. > > This is not a chat room, but some communicate with the friends > developed here on occasion. As the debated posts are flying back and > forth, a simple agreement post is made, or even welcoming somebody > back who hasn't been here for awhile. If we had to create a new thread > for every "secondary" issue or subject that arose, we would be > responding to threads 10 pages deep when we log in. > > I personally like the chit chat on occasion. Some prefer an atmosphere > that is more formal. To me, the displays of friendship remove the dust > from the library setting, and reveal the joy of fellowship between > like minded, or not, humans. Since this is not a journal or blog, the > merriment is a nice aside to the ongoing topical debate imo. > > My opinion on another curent issue is that I don't mind moderators > speaking amongst themselves, but think that once a decision has been > made on a moderated issue, a log of the decision should be available > to members, which could then be open for debate within the Eye, after > which with we could even vote on the issue, which of course could be > vetoed by the room owner. ;-[ > > Just my three cents worth. > > On Jul 25, 6:56 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Control is frequently closely related to power, and then politics is > > never far away and things like the sublimation of aggression and likes > > and dislikes which involves stuff like the competitive use of rules to > > win dominance games. > > > Factually, the situation is quite simple: the group belongs to Craig > > and he can decide whatever he likes. Although we disagree about nearly > > everything, I still trust his rationality and basic common sense. > > > The sad thing about this whole issue is that it's completely > > unneccessary. If ornamentalmind has a problem with Molly reproducing > > some of his contributions here on her blog (which, incidentally, is > > also a google-owned application) all he has to do is to ask her to > > desist from this. I can hardly imagine her refusing to do so and > > instead telling him that she will in future print his posts on tissue- > > paper and use them to wipe her ass. There is no need to make it a > > matter of principle. For all we know, there may be hundreds of college > > students cutting and pasting stuff from our posts and using it to > > obtain better grades in their term papers. Does it really matter to > > us? > > > The question of freedom and control on the internet keeps coming up > > and it IS important. My feeling is that control and regulation should > > be held as minimal as possible (how's that from a European social > > democracy tending sort of guy? :-)). The information revolution is > > forcing all sorts of areas from the music business to the publishing > > industry to reconsider what copyright and intellectual ownership > > actually mean - an ongoing process, in which many still seem to be > > trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. > > > I tend to support Justin's call to the moderators to carry out their > > discussion openly (without suggesting that they are obliged to do this > > - nobody here is really obliged to do anything). Molly is not chazwin. > > > Minds Eye is not broken. There's no need to fix it. > > > Francis > > > On 25 Jul., 03:35, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
