Yes- do no harm- if possible. Am thinking of a husband who read the comments from a Xmas card of another neighbor to point out its stupidity and hurt feelings- a traversty- and I never trusted him or his wife again. Actually- it was just another nail in their coffin for they had exhibited an un-holy delight in other people's misfortunes. Happily they moved along with my gift of a painting which I hope has exploded over their fireplace! :-) Probably my best work it depicted their living room as a take-off on Wallace Steven's "Sunday Morning" with "paintings" of Matisse and the Van Gogh exhibit cover done with a 0001 brush.//One does many strange things to protect ones children in a neighborhood or school till they learn to protect themselves.//Gates would disagree and one of his gripes has been about the pirating of software and technology though that came later on. Wisdom belongs to the wise person who thought it. You can sign away your rights in a contract- for instance music composed for a theater.
On Jul 26, 4:42 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > Passing on personal emails is one thing, but I think we have all > quoted somebody on occasion. Although I do not know the quote being > debated, I am sure it was not of a personal nature that could somehow > cause harm to the author. If the quote was a few words of "wisdom", > why not pass them on? > > On Jul 25, 4:08 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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!” > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
