Since the distinction seems difficult for you to grasp: She was not using the word creatively, neither in prose nor poetry. She told someone else that they were using the wrong definition. IN OTHER WORDS you should have addressed this to the person telling others that they are wrong, not the person responding to the person that wrongly did so. She was not "using the word as she wished," she was telling someone else that they used a word incorrectly. Here let me help: From vam to molly: >It was quite within liberties we each have in using > words as we would, in the manner we would, in order to express what we > wish. > > In fact, personally, I prefer people who have the capability to use > words creatively ! I consider them far more evolved, endowed and > intelligent, balanced and proportionate, than the bloke who roots for > the puritan.
On Jan 17, 10:15 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " ... introduced a completely unrelated and irrelevant definition." > > I believe you are taking things too personal and too far. Words mean > less and and less as how they are defined by the dictionary, unless it > keeps up to date with their usage, as what people mean when they use > them. > > No, I did not find Molly's usage of the word as " completely unrelated > and irrelevant." > > On Jan 17, 10:57 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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) > > ... > > 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.
