Ordinarily I wouldn't have brought out a dictionary, but two statements were made about a definition. Statements: a) The true definition of that word is not the definition of that word. b) This completely unrelated definition is the real definition of that word.
If I were to state that beef is not really the flesh of an animal and then I assert that it is instead an iron and nickel alloy, I would expect a dictionary definition to be introduced. She didn't simply try to " approaches words in our own unique way" she told someone that used the word correctly that they were wrong and introduced a completely unrelated and irrelevant definition. On Jan 16, 9:24 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > It is all too common to resort to dictionaries in groups like this…it > happens a lot here too. However, to keep away from less productive > chatter, as apparently irrational as it may appear, often we just > accept that each of us and do > our best to empathize with others and how they use the language too. > > This in no way is meant to suggest that apparently improper use of > terms should not be pointed out…I think they should. It’s more to > point out what is a deeper goal than just reading dictionaries. The > truth is that almost all words have countless meanings and often lead > to misunderstandings…when used by one in a specific way and heard by > another as a different definition. > > I just attempt to decode…read between the lines…etc. doing my best at > getting to the ‘heart of the matter’…that which in fact is intended > rather than arguing about term usage. But, that is only me. > > On Jan 16, 7:34 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And regardless has absolutely nothing to do with love without > > expectations of a return. > > > On Jan 16, 6:54 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Detachment is also used in love relationships and is very much a part > > > of al-anon tactics when dealing with a drunk or druggie. > > > > On Jan 16, 4:35 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That is not detachment. > > > > > de·tach·ment (d-tchmnt) > > > > n. > > > > 1. The act or process of disconnecting or detaching; separation. > > > > 2. The state of being separate or detached. > > > > 3. Indifference to or remoteness from the concerns of others; > > > > aloofness: preserved a chilly detachment in his relations with the > > > > family. > > > > 4. Absence of prejudice or bias; disinterest: strove to maintain her > > > > professional detachment in the case. > > > > 5. > > > > a. The dispatch of a military unit, such as troops or ships, from a > > > > larger body for a special duty or mission. > > > > b. The unit so dispatched. > > > > c. A permanent unit, usually smaller than a platoon, organized for > > > > special duties. > > > > > If you notice, indifference is indeed a part of detachment when > > > > involving relationships, not love. > > > > > On Jan 16, 2:19 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Detachment is not indifference. Detachment is love without expecting > > > > > anything in return and without self importance > > > > > > On Jan 16, 12:24 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This is what you do - fair enough for now. > > > > > > > I don't believe that ignorance is a bliss, though. > > > > > > > On 16 Jan., 17:56, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't worry about it. > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 10:41 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't know but found articlestree.com on the wiki site and > > > > > > > > went > > > > > > > > there to discover the YouTube issue. > > > > > > > > > I think internet piracy and infringement is going to take place > > > > > > > > because we are in International waters where anything goes and > > > > > > > > establishing liability, initiating prosecution procedures that > > > > > > > > culminate to a satisfactory end are highly unlikely. Its not > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > different from the phishing scams originating out of foreign > > > > > > > > countries. What are we to do about someone in Nigeria pirating > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > work, zilch! > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:59 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The above citation was (as referenced parenthetically) from > > > > > > > > > the last > > > > > > > > > thread on the subject, and the words were gruff's, not mine, > > > > > > > > > and I am > > > > > > > > > not sure where he got the legal sitings. > > > > > > > > > > I do not use any comments when a participant has requested > > > > > > > > > that I do > > > > > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The unauthorized use of text content can be a form of > > > > > > > > > > copyright > > > > > > > > > > infringement. It is common on the world wide web for text > > > > > > > > > > to be copied > > > > > > > > > > from one site to another without consent of the author. > > > > > > > > > > Roberta Beach > > > > > > > > > > Jacobson criticizes the misappropriation of writers' work > > > > > > > > > > by websites > > > > > > > > > > in her article Copyrights and Wrongs. This article was > > > > > > > > > > added to > > > > > > > > > > articlestree.com[8] on November 27, 2001; ironically, it > > > > > > > > > > has since > > > > > > > > > > been copied to hundreds of websites,[9] many of them > > > > > > > > > > claiming > > > > > > > > > > copyright over the work or charging money to access it. > > > > > > > > > > > 8 ^ Jacobson, Roberta Beach (2001-11-27). "Copyrights and > > > > > > > > > > Wrongs".www.articlestree.com.http://www.articlestree.com/copywriting/copyrigh....... > > > > > > > > > > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > > > > > > > > > 9 ^ "Results 1 - 10 of about 371 for "Roberta Beach > > > > > > > > > > Jacobson" > > > > > > > > > > "Copyrights and > > > > > > > > > > Wrongs"".www.google.com.http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Roberta+Beach+Jacobs....... > > > > > > > > > > Retrieved 2007-04-07. > > > > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Text > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't an intention to establish lawsuit but merely a > > > > > > > > > > cease and > > > > > > > > > > desist declaration. "Potentially" a compilation of copied > > > > > > > > > > texts can > > > > > > > > > > form a published work with all copyright reservations > > > > > > > > > > thereby > > > > > > > > > > rendering it as having monetary value. You could easily > > > > > > > > > > compile (not > > > > > > > > > > implying intent) the copied ME posts and put together any > > > > > > > > > > form of > > > > > > > > > > marketable material. Establishing reserved rights to my > > > > > > > > > > personal work > > > > > > > > > > gives me the opportunity to compile my own work for > > > > > > > > > > integration within > > > > > > > > > > another body of material, therefore the work does have > > > > > > > > > > monetary value > > > > > > > > > > when considering authorship aside from the what you have > > > > > > > > > > labeled as a > > > > > > > > > > diminutive value of personal ego. The laws are complex and > > > > > > > > > > subject to > > > > > > > > > > a myriad of interpretations adding to the difficulty of > > > > > > > > > > establishing > > > > > > > > > > laws concerning electronic information and the copying and > > > > > > > > > > exchange of > > > > > > > > > > such information. Who would buy books if they were just so > > > > > > > > > > easy to > > > > > > > > > > copy from some Internet site? This is the crux of the > > > > > > > > > > matter. > > > > > > > > > > > Consider YouTube's use of and distribution of material and > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > implications. (scroll down for the article) > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.articlestree.com/Legal/youtube-could-be-liable-for-copyrig... > > > > > > > > > > > Again it is simply a cease and desist declaration not a > > > > > > > > > > prelude to > > > > > > > > > > legal remedies for infringement nor is it a complaint as > > > > > > > > > > perceived by > > > > > > > > > > Twirlip in the post above. I think you understand that. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 6:54 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > To be completely accurate, I began at Minds Eye asking > > > > > > > > > > > individuals for > > > > > > > > > > > permission, was told by the Mods that was not necessary > > > > > > > > > > > because the > > > > > > > > > > > posts here were public domain, so stopped. Sometime > > > > > > > > > > > later, the public > > > > > > > > > > > domain issue was challenged, and copyright/fair use laws > > > > > > > > > > > concerning > > > > > > > > > > > cross posting and copying the Minds Eye posts were > > > > > > > > > > > discussed again. > > > > > > > > > > > Truth is, there are many sites that pull these > > > > > > > > > > > discussions with an rss > > > > > > > > > > > feed and are used only for advertising. My blog is > > > > > > > > > > > different than > > > > > > > > > > > that, I make no money from it, and use it to create > > > > > > > > > > > discussion and > > > > > > > > > > > develop ideas. I change fictitious names to real names > > > > > > > > > > > when I know > > > > > > > > > > > them with permission and in respect because I think we > > > > > > > > > > > are all adults > > > > > > > > > > > with adult names in the discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Twirlip, for your permission. > > > > > > > > > > > > Applicable fair use and copyright law (taken from our > > > > > > > > > > > last discussion > > > > > > > > > > > as referenced by the members here - thanks again) > > > > > > > > > > > > 17 USC Sec. 102 holds your answer. TITLE 17 - > > > > > > > > > > > COPYRIGHTS, CHAPTER 1 > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT, Sec. 102. Subject > > > > > > > > > > > matter of > > > > > > > > > > > copyright: In general > > > > > > > > > > > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with > > > > > > > > > > > this title, > > > > > > > > > > > in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible > > > > > > > > > > > medium of > > > > > > > > > > > expression, now known or later developed, from which > > > > > > > > > > > they can be > > > > > > > > > > > perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, > > > > > > > > > > > either directly > > > > > > > > > > > or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of > > > > > > > > > > > authorship > > > > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > the following categories: > > > > > > > > > > > (1) literary works; > > > > > > > > > > > (2) musical works, including any accompanying > > > > > > > > > > > words; > > > > > > > > > > > (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying > > > > > > > > > > > music; > > > > > > > > > > > (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; > > > > > > > > > > > (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; > > > > > > > > > > > (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; > > > > > > > > > > > (7) sound recordings; and > > > > > > > > > > > (8) architectural works. > > > > > > > > > > > This is the raw law. Let me point you > > > > > > > > > > > tohttp://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C1.txt > > > > > > > > > > > which along with the above law also has the historical > > > > > > > > > > > and revision > > > > > > > > > > > notes which describe what the law is intended to > > > > > > > > > > > encompass and how it > > > > > > > > > > > should be interpreted. > > > > > > > > > > > n top of the above is what you can do if the copyright of > > > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > > of which you have been the original author is violated -- > > > > > > > > > > > about all > > > > > > > > > > > you can do is send them a cease and desist order, which > > > > > > > > > > > if they > > > > > > > > > > > snubbed you could go > > ... > > 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.
