Archytas - having a background in inventions and patented things, I came across the origin of "the real McCoy" expression some years ago. It seems that shortly after railroads began they were having a problem with the rail car axle bearings overheating. They had to oil them at each stop, but sometimes they'd go too far and a bearing would overheat to the point that it set the car on fire. A fellow, McCoy, came up with a way to automatically lubricate the bearings, and it worked great. Others tried different ways, but they didn't work as well, so railroad people insisted on "the real McCoy." The expression grew popular and was applied to many other situations. Jim
On Jul 29, 7:27 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm an ugly bustard Molly, but I get told my breakfasts are cute. The > good news is that we may well soon be able to overload ourselves with > the excellent fodder and not get fat by taking citrus-based extract in > overload too. They already have it working for mice and rats. Men of > conscience like Francis will still not be able to indulge of course, > on various grounds from the Earth's starving poor to global warming. > Back on target, I have never posted anything ever written in this blog > by anyone else anywhere else. I wait for the day I see enough sense > in any of it to bother passing it on. Part of my novel is based on > someone else's ramblings in a group, and sooner or later Craig will > make money from someone challenging on such grounds. I saw the phrase > 'the real McCoy' being linked to whisky imports from Scotland during > the speakeasy days last week, but surely there are earlier versions of > this one. Originality surely has more dubious origins than a page in > a google thread! > > On 28 July, 13:29, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well if you want to, it is on the menu at the Nine Fine Irishmen in > > the hotel New York, New York, Las Vegas. A fine Italian served it to > > me but he was cute so I didn't quibble. > > > On Jul 28, 3:02 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Actually the best one I had was deep fried dill pickles, had it in a > > > little > > > restaurant in Bannak Mt at robbers roost. It was when my wife and I went > > > to > > > see my kids on vacation. > > > It was different and it had a different taste. Would I have it again? not > > > sure. > > > Allan > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > He may just opt to join us in a fried Mars Bar. > > > > > On Jul 27, 11:52 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Molly - US copyright law says that the act of fixing your expression > > > > > in a tangible medium invokes copyright protection. Nothing more need > > > > > be done for the author to own the copyright in the expression. Thus, > > > > > posting a comment on Minds Eye results in the writer owning a > > > > > copyright in the posted text. Of course, there is also fair use, about > > > > > which I've written you earlier. I'm interested in what Google's > > > > > counsel says about all this. Jim > > > > > > On Jul 27, 6:11 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Molly, > > > > > > > As far as I know, posting something to the group doesn't > > > > > > automatically > > > > > > enshrine it in copyright law. In my experience, some other kind of > > > > action > > > > > > would usually be needed. I don't know this for sure with regards to > > > > > > the > > > > > > Internet, however. Outside of my expertise. > > > > > > > As I've said, it's your responsibility to make the decision. > > > > > > > There may be a complication, however. Given that your blog is Google > > > > > > Adsense-enabled and carries Amazon AWS advertising -- and hence you > > > > > > are > > > > > > profiting from content you did not write -- I think Vam and Fran's > > > > > > talk > > > > of > > > > > > wanting to see some kind of return for their contributions may need > > > > > > addressing, no? :) > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > 2009/7/27 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > For clarity, can you site us some copyright law that tells us > > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > that as soon as we post something in this group (no matter what > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > we are posting under, and whether or not we have a legitimate > > > > > > > profile > > > > > > > to match it) we own a copyright to it without actually applying > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > copyright with the office of the country of our citizenship? This > > > > > > > would certainly be of interest to me and go a long way in > > > > > > > clarifying > > > > > > > the concerns we are all voicing now. Last I checked, copyright > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > something you applied for and were awarded after (in the US) > > > > > > > paying > > > > > > > for the privilege. There is, on the internet, creative commons > > > > > > > copyright, but as that is not in use here, it does not apply. > > > > > > > > Do you think that googles terms and conditions were referring to > > > > > > > material that may actually have a copyright? This is probably the > > > > > > > case, and reminds me that I should be listing the copyright info > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > I post things from my books in these groups. But it doesn't > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > matter anyway, because copyrights only come in handy if I can > > > > > > > prove > > > > in > > > > > > > court that I obtained mine at a date prior to the publication of > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > material under someone else's name, in which case, I might be > > > > > > > awarded > > > > > > > damages if someone made money using my work as theirs. > > > > > > > > It is all only points of interest. Going forward, I will only use > > > > the > > > > > > > posts from Minds Eye from folks who have given permission, and as > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > said, this won't really change things much. Each post is > > > > > > > accredited > > > > to > > > > > > > the author under their fictitious name or, if I can ascertain it, > > > > > > > their given name on my blog. I do this because I believe that we > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > all adults and prefer to use adult names. I'm glad to clear > > > > > > > things > > > > up > > > > > > > and hope for further clarification on the copyright issues. > > > > > > > > The issue of how far we need to go to control our words has indeed > > > > > > > become an interesting topic. Neil's image of perusing the > > > > > > > internet > > > > > > > for info on Darwin to formulate a response to the Darwin thread is > > > > > > > poignant. How many original ideas do we have? How deeply do > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > writers words effect us on levels that we don't recognize as our > > > > words > > > > > > > are coming out of us? In my opinion, it isn't the words, but the > > > > > > > logos that moves between us as we are exchanging the words that > > > > > > > expands our awareness. Therein is the true treasure. Can we > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > control that on the internet and why would we want to? I think > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > more we try to hold on to control in these ways, the smaller our > > > > world > > > > > > > becomes. There are lots of groups on the internet. This one is > > > > great > > > > > > > because of the level of exchange between members. The internet is > > > > > > > great because it gives us immediate access to information and > > > > > > > ideas. > > > > > > > It expands our world - in direct proportion to how we allow. > > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 5:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Google's terms and conditions are clear: you may not reproduce > > > > posts > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > permission of the copyright holder (the author of the post). > > > > Legally > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is no discussion to be had on this point; neither in public nor > > > > private. > > > > > > > > Philosophically, as Francis has alluded to, there's probably > > > > > > > > quite > > > > a lot > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > discuss. > > > > > > > > > Where there is a legal discussion is on what the moderators do > > > > about the > > > > > > > > fact that one of us has previously given Molly permission to > > > > reproduce > > > > > > > posts > > > > > > > > made to Mind's Eye on her blog. The question is what we do about > > > > this > > > > > > > (given > > > > > > > > that this permission was apparently not ours to give). This > > > > discussion > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > relates to the indemnity of the Moderators and has nothing to do > > > > with the > > > > > > > > actual group. Ultimately Molly may choose to carry on > > > > > > > > reproducing > > > > posts > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > her blog, but, in my opinion, the Moderators should not be > > > > complicit in > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > As a writer I value the protection of copyright laws, even if > > > > others do > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > I_D Allan- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
