Yes, and I am sure nothing like that took place here. Ah well. Do you have any digital copies of your art work? That you share that is?
On Jul 26, 9:03 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
