Barely TV is a good way to put it. Love the commercial, so high tech.
On Aug 6, 4:34 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Molly - oh, yes. There are those Real McCoys too. I didn't know they
> were on YouTube. I thought they barely made it to TV. Jim
>
> On Aug 5, 11:56 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrttRW4RAlY
>
> > On Aug 5, 4:07 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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 -
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
