Creationist admits to lying 'for the greater good'
Jason
I'd be lying if I said I didn't *really* enjoy this. A guy whose email header
identifies him as "Matt K" started a thread today in talk.origins with a
subject of 'Interesting Stuff'. You should be able to find it easily at
http://groups.google.com. In said post, he included a link to some creationist
propaganda, which he is apparently responsible for in some capacity:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1.htm
in the ensuing thread, a quote from Darwin appearing on this site was
posted in context, showing that the site both misquotes him and takes the
quote completely out of context.
I sent him a private email informing him that a quote on his site was proven
to be erroneous, misleading, deceitful, whatever you'd like to call it.
I asked if he'd be removing it in light of the fact that it's been shown to
be wrong.
I got this really interesting reply:
------------
Did you know evolution is tax funded? If you didn't you haven't been
studying enough. If it wasn't tax funded it would altogether die. Did you
know that I DON'T want this shit taught in public schools? Many would agree
with this statement. But let us not forget the lowly evolutionist who
demands it's undeniable truths. I am outraged! I suggest you pick up a Bible
and start reading it. If you can't match two and two together than I feel
sorry for you.
------------
to which I replied:
------------
so you intend to keep intentionally misleading readers with Darwin (and other)
quotes taken out of context? perhaps *you* should pick up a bible. I suggest
you start with passages dealing with lying. Would you like me to suggest
some? Oh, wait, I think I see: Lying for the greater good. Am I getting
warm?
------------
and finally, he replies with the icing on the cake:
------------
I am forgiven. How about you?
Bye.
------------
not that this really comes as a surprise to anyone, but it's the first
admission I've seen that a Creationist is knowingly and intentionally
deceiving readers.
Discuss.
--
Jason
Herb Huston
Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
}I sent him a private email informing him that a quote on his site was proven
}to be erroneous, misleading, deceitful, whatever you'd like to call it.
}I asked if he'd be removing it in light of the fact that it's been shown to
}be wrong.
}
}I got this really interesting reply:
Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
Aron-Ra
Jason <bitb...@jnj.org> wrote in message
news:zX6w7.51449$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
I wish I had kept all my private emails. I talked to a YEC who continued to
preach elsewhere in public forum that there was absolutely no evidence for
evolution, *after* admitting to me privately that there was so much of it,
that it must be correct. Its not hard at all to get them to buckle in
private. Public opinion is all that matters to them.
Aron-Ra
Jason
> In article <zX6w7.51449$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
> }I sent him a private email informing him that a quote on his site was proven
> }to be erroneous, misleading, deceitful, whatever you'd like to call it.
> }I asked if he'd be removing it in light of the fact that it's been shown to
> }be wrong.
> }
> }I got this really interesting reply:
> [excision]
>
> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person conversation
in which s/he admitted same?
--
Jason
Gyudon Z
Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Jason
>>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
>>
>>No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person conversation
>>in which s/he admitted same?
>
> Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
>
netiquette schmetiquette. When you put up a big ol' website designed to spread
lies, all bets are off.
I'd post his mailing address if I had it :P
--
Jason
Herb Huston
Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
}Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
}>>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
}>>
}>>No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person conversation
}>>in which s/he admitted same?
}>
}> Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
}>
}
}netiquette schmetiquette. When you put up a big ol' website designed to spread
}lies, all bets are off.
It's not just a matter of netiquette; he also holds a copyright on the
e-mail that he sent you.
Reed A. Cartwright
news:9pr0k1$gqf$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> In article <Qv7w7.51762$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
> }Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> }>>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
> }>>
> }>>No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person
conversation
> }>>in which s/he admitted same?
> }>
> }> Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
> }>
> }
> }netiquette schmetiquette. When you put up a big ol' website designed to
spread
> }lies, all bets are off.
>
> It's not just a matter of netiquette; he also holds a copyright on the
> e-mail that he sent you.
Copyright doesn't matter. Did Matt K. have the copyright for the quotes he
posted? You can legally reproduce matterial if it is put to fair use. From
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/faq.htm,
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of
authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as
poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright
does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it
may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, section What
Works Are Protected.
How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
You can ask for it. If you know who the copyright owner is, you may contact
the owner directly. If you are not certain about the ownership or have other
related questions, you may wish to request that the Copyright Office conduct
a search of its records for a fee of $65 per hour. Additional information
can be found in Circular 22.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be
entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are
circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be
used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office
recommends that permission be obtained.
> --
> -- Herb Huston
> -- hus...@radix.net
> -- http://www.radix.net/~huston
>
--
****************************************
Reed A. Cartwright
Graduate Student
Department of Genetics
University of Georgia
Garret 74
When you post something in a public forum, it's public...
Carl M.
[snip]
> to which I replied:
>
> ------------
> so you intend to keep intentionally misleading readers with Darwin (and other)
> quotes taken out of context? perhaps *you* should pick up a bible. I suggest
> you start with passages dealing with lying. Would you like me to suggest
> some? Oh, wait, I think I see: Lying for the greater good. Am I getting
> warm?
> ------------
>
> and finally, he replies with the icing on the cake:
>
> ------------
> I am forgiven. How about you?
> Bye.
> ------------
>
> not that this really comes as a surprise to anyone, but it's the first
> admission I've seen that a Creationist is knowingly and intentionally
> deceiving readers.
Jason has performed a truly amazing example of investigative journalism. A
double twist pike with a triple pious fraud back flip. Lets see what the
judges think.
USA AUS CCP FRA GBN IRL JAP SWD
10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Oh, but Kent Hovind has also done something similar recently.
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/christian/mail.html
[I'm not James Smith btw]
Are the persons in alt.talk.creationism paying attention to any of this?
Or are they adopting the Three Monkeys Method of analysis?
--
** Remove obvious spam block from the email address
Ole Madsen
--
***************************************************************
Ole Madsen
http://www.creationdays.dk - The Gap Theory Page
http://www.danmarkforjesus.dk
http://www.israelnu.dk - nyheder og artikler
>
> I wish I had kept all my private emails. I talked to a YEC who continued
to
> preach elsewhere in public forum that there was absolutely no evidence for
> evolution, *after* admitting to me privately that there was so much of it,
> that it must be correct. Its not hard at all to get them to buckle in
> private. Public opinion is all that matters to them.
I have found the same on a day age man, when pushed, he did not reply on why
he said as he did, no bible evidence.
Ole
Tom
"Herb Huston" <hus...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
> In article <zX6w7.51449$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
> }I sent him a private email informing him that a quote on his site was
proven
> }to be erroneous, misleading, deceitful, whatever you'd like to call it.
> }I asked if he'd be removing it in light of the fact that it's been shown
to
> }be wrong.
> }
> }I got this really interesting reply:
> [excision]
>
> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
Tom: He doesn't need his permission, dip shit. It might be in the best of
"net manners" to do so, but he doesn't need permission.
Adam Marczyk
> In article <Qv7w7.51762$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
> Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
> }Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
> }>>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
> }>>
> }>>No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person
conversation
> }>>in which s/he admitted same?
> }>
> }> Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
> }>
> }
> }netiquette schmetiquette. When you put up a big ol' website designed to
spread
> }lies, all bets are off.
>
> It's not just a matter of netiquette; he also holds a copyright on the
> e-mail that he sent you.
That's absurd; you can't sue someone for posting a private e-mail in a
public forum. For better or for worse, when he sends out that letter he's
losing control over its contents.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
Adam Marczyk
Wow. I mean, wow. Not that I'm surprised a creationist would be this
dishonest, I'm merely surprised that one would admit it.
Jason
>
> Jason has performed a truly amazing example of investigative journalism. A
> double twist pike with a triple pious fraud back flip. Lets see what the
> judges think.
sarcasm noted and discarded. this was clearly not intended to be passed off
as an investigation, journalism, or anything of that nature. Just relaying
an enlightening usenet/email conversion illustrating what many of us have
already observed, but is rarely admitted.
--
Jason
David Jensen
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in
<ts3g5vp...@corp.supernews.com>:
>Herb Huston <hus...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
>news:9pr0k1$gqf$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
>> In article <Qv7w7.51762$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
>> Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
>> }Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
>> }>>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
>> }>>
>> }>>No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person
>conversation
>> }>>in which s/he admitted same?
>> }>
>> }> Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
>> }>
>> }
>> }netiquette schmetiquette. When you put up a big ol' website designed to
>spread
>> }lies, all bets are off.
>>
>> It's not just a matter of netiquette; he also holds a copyright on the
>> e-mail that he sent you.
>
>That's absurd; you can't sue someone for posting a private e-mail in a
>public forum. For better or for worse, when he sends out that letter he's
>losing control over its contents.
No, he doesn't lose control of the contents. Whenever you write
something, you hold the copyright to it. When you post it to usenet you
have a certain expectation of republication and reuse that you do not
necessarily have if you send an e-mail.
gen2rev
Gee, with an attitude like that, you can justify *anything*, no matter how heinous.
Adam Marczyk
Wow. I mean, wow. Not that I'm surprised a creationist would be this
David Jensen
>Wow. I mean, wow. Not that I'm surprised a creationist would be this
>dishonest, I'm merely surprised that one would admit it.
I would expect that more of the Johnsons of the world, who know better,
and don't care, because they think that manipulating people to better
behavior is a good thing.
Most of the creationists I know couldn't possibly tell you if they are
being honest because they have no idea what creationism is up against.
Bigdakine
>From: Jason bitb...@jnj.org
>Date: 10/7/01 3:03 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <zX6w7.51449$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>
Well, forgiveness is a wonderful thing.
STuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Chris Thompson
>
> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
>
> --
> -- Herb Huston
If someone sends me a letter- snail mail, not email- it is my property.
I can quote from it freely. After all, the person sent it to me of
his/her own free will.
Email is no different. What you describe might be courteous, but I
hardly think it is a copyright violation.
I guess it just says that your private and public lives should be
congruent.
Chris
Herb Huston
Reed A. Cartwright <racREM...@arches.uga.edu> wrote:
}"Herb Huston" <hus...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
}news:9pr0k1$gqf$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
}> In article <Qv7w7.51762$pN2.15...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
}> Jason <ja...@jnj.org> wrote:
}> }Gyudon Z <gyu...@aol.com> wrote:
}> }>>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
}> }>>
}> }>>No. Would I need someone's permission to relay an in-person
}conversation
}> }>>in which s/he admitted same?
}> }>
}> }> Probably not, but those aren't covered by netiquette.
}> }>
}> }
}> }netiquette schmetiquette. When you put up a big ol' website designed to
}spread
}> }lies, all bets are off.
}>
}> It's not just a matter of netiquette; he also holds a copyright on the
}> e-mail that he sent you.
}
}Copyright doesn't matter. Did Matt K. have the copyright for the quotes he
}posted?
Irrelevant. Matt K. holds a copyright on his own expression in private
e-mail to Jason, which is the issue at hand. If you'll look at the deepest
level of quotation, which no longer has any attribution, you'll see that
the question concerned private e-mail (by the way, I was the author of that
question). The "all bets being off" is an irrelevant side issue that does
not justify the posting of private e-mail without permission.
Stephen F. Schaffner
Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>Herb Huston wrote:
>>
>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
>>
>> --
>> -- Herb Huston
>
>If someone sends me a letter- snail mail, not email- it is my property.
>I can quote from it freely. After all, the person sent it to me of
>his/her own free will.
No. You own the letter, the author owns the contents, unless
he or she assigns or abandons the copyright in some way.
>Email is no different. What you describe might be courteous, but I
>hardly think it is a copyright violation.
Copyright law (specifically the Berne convention) thinks otherwise.
Look it up.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Carl M.
I wasn't being sarcastic. That was my attempt at humor after being awake
for more than 24 hours.
Jason
misinterpretation admitted and withdrawn :)
--
Jason
Tom
"Stephen F. Schaffner" <ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9ptj4q$p0d$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <3BC20B96...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com>,
> Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
> >Herb Huston wrote:
> >>
> >> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
> >>
> >> --
> >> -- Herb Huston
> >
> >If someone sends me a letter- snail mail, not email- it is my property.
> >I can quote from it freely. After all, the person sent it to me of
> >his/her own free will.
>
> No. You own the letter, the author owns the contents, unless
> he or she assigns or abandons the copyright in some way.
>
>
> >Email is no different. What you describe might be courteous, but I
> >hardly think it is a copyright violation.
>
> Copyright law (specifically the Berne convention) thinks otherwise.
> Look it up.
Tom: Hmm..when I took my law courses unless an item was "copyrighted" there
could be no infringement. Guess I missed the class in which they discuss
your version of the law.
David Jensen
"Tom" <TomBe...@charter.net> wrote in
<ts6q333...@corp.supernews.com>:
When did you take this? Was it in law school or elsewhere in college?
The standard is that the author has copyright to all material unless
they have transferred the copyright by contract.
anne
written down in any readable format is copyrighted material. Whether
actually registered or not, the author holds the copyright. I think a
copyright violation occurs when someone who is not the author makes
unauthorized use of the copyrighted material to make money, or prevents
the author from making money on his own copyrighted material.
This post is copyrighted material. If you write a book and quote my
words from this post without my permssion, and you publish your book for
sale, you have violated my my copyright, because you are using my words
to make your money. I don't think a violation occurs when my post or (a
snail mail or e-mail letter) is reproduced solely for the purpose of
critical review, which I think would be the case here in this forum.
Copyright laws have a tendency to be pretty vague and alleged violations
are usually considered on a case by case basis, though.
Paul Ruggeri
> I am forgiven. How about you?
> Bye.
> ------------
I have nothing intelligent to add to this - so I'll say this instead:
OH MY GOD!!! Such wonderfully, hillarious, bold-faced, arrogant HYPOCRISY!!!! WOW!!!!
It's OK for him to lie, because he knows he is forgiven!? ***WOW***!!!
Has he ever got a pair of brightly polished, saintly, brass-balls!!!
I once spoke to an admitted child molester (and practicing ardent, born-again christian) who felt that regardless of the
lives he destroyed (and made no attempt at asking forgiveness or making any reparations here on earth), that he was at
peace with himself because he knew that God would forgive him when he died...
Well...
Jesus, Tap-dancing Christ...
At least I'm not bitter about it...
Now that I've managed to pull myself together enough to actually write a coherent non-sputtering rebuttal...
Herb Huston <hus...@Radix.Net> wrote in message news:9pquie$edk$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
In all seriousness I think this whole copyright debate is moot. Surely, if "Matt K" came forward to claim copyright
ownership that would be tantamount to admitting *publicly* that he has, indeed, lied for the greater good. We can only
hope that he's THAT stupid.
Steve Schaffner
When did you take your law courses, and in what country?
U.S. copyright law changed in January of 1989, when it adopted the
Berne Convention. Since then, no registration has been required for
an author to retain copyright.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
Andrew Glasgow
"Tom" <TomBe...@charter.net> wrote:
Technically, anything that anyone writes is automatically copyrighted to
the author unless they explicitly choose to place it in the public
domain.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
rogue
news:ts6q333...@corp.supernews.com...
JERRY
I'm no lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt, but because I do some
writing, the subject of intellectual property is of interest to me.
In effect, what was said about the letter belonging to you but the contents
belonging to someone else is correct. It *is* considered "intellectual
property." What does that mean to you if you post it?
If you post it verbatim, you should credit the source, and more, you should
get the permission of the person who wrote it first.
If you wish to paraphrase, as long as it's not too closely, you can do so,
and you can name the source. If you wish to quote, you need permission. If
you print the author's material and don't identify the source, rather than
protecting the source from embarrassment, you are essentially stealing the
material, even if you don't claim it as your own and admit that it was
written by another.
If it were not this way, you wouldn't see people going to court trying to
prove that they owned or wrote material (and thereby own the intellectual
property value of it) before someone else published it, and that it was
"taken" from them.
Now, the caveat here is that you should check with a barracuda..I mean, an
attorney (j/k) for clarification on this issue.
Alan Barclay
Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
>"Tom" <TomBe...@charter.net> writes:
>
>> "Stephen F. Schaffner" <ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>> news:9ptj4q$p0d$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
>> > In article <3BC20B96...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com>,
>> > Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Herb Huston wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> -- Herb Huston
>> > >
>> > >If someone sends me a letter- snail mail, not email- it is my property.
>> > >I can quote from it freely. After all, the person sent it to me of
>> > >his/her own free will.
>> >
>> > No. You own the letter, the author owns the contents, unless
>> > he or she assigns or abandons the copyright in some way.
>> >
>> >
>> > >Email is no different. What you describe might be courteous, but I
>> > >hardly think it is a copyright violation.
>> >
>> > Copyright law (specifically the Berne convention) thinks otherwise.
>> > Look it up.
>>
>> Tom: Hmm..when I took my law courses unless an item was "copyrighted" there
>> could be no infringement. Guess I missed the class in which they discuss
>> your version of the law.
>
>When did you take your law courses, and in what country?
>U.S. copyright law changed in January of 1989, when it adopted the
You mean 1978.
Steve Schaffner
No, I mean 1989 (although I'm not sure if I mean January or March).
The Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect in 1978; the U.S. adopted
the Berne Convention in 1989. Or so I've read.
Louann Miller
>I THINK, (and I could be mistaken) that any original thought that's
>written down in any readable format is copyrighted material. Whether
>actually registered or not, the author holds the copyright. I think a
>copyright violation occurs when someone who is not the author makes
>unauthorized use of the copyrighted material to make money, or prevents
>the author from making money on his own copyrighted material.
Be reasonable. First, what are the chances that someone would give
permission for publication of a letter where they admit they're lying?
Second, doesn't the lying itself upset you at all?
Paul Ruggeri
anne <ann...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1811-3BC...@storefull-295.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> I THINK, (and I could be mistaken) that any original thought that's
> written down in any readable format is copyrighted material. Whether
> actually registered or not, the author holds the copyright. I think a
> copyright violation occurs when someone who is not the author makes
> unauthorized use of the copyrighted material to make money, or prevents
> the author from making money on his own copyrighted material.
>
> This post is copyrighted material.
No, it isn't. Anything you state or write in a public forum, is by definition, public domain.
If you appear in a public place you can be photographed and published without explicit permission. Do you think all
those folks they show in the stands at football games have given their explicit written permission to be on TV?
Barrett Richardson
On 10 Oct 2001, Louann Miller wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2001 19:24:30 -0400, ann...@webtv.net (anne) wrote:
>
> >I THINK, (and I could be mistaken) that any original thought that's
> >written down in any readable format is copyrighted material. Whether
> >actually registered or not, the author holds the copyright. I think a
> >copyright violation occurs when someone who is not the author makes
> >unauthorized use of the copyrighted material to make money, or prevents
> >the author from making money on his own copyrighted material.
The poster could forward all proceeds to the bearer of false
witness :)
>
> Be reasonable. First, what are the chances that someone would give
> permission for publication of a letter where they admit they're lying?
>
But concerning the admission of false witness in question: being that it
was placed in the public domain without headers how could an individual
prove that it was their own admission of false witness?
> Second, doesn't the lying itself upset you at all?
>
There used to be a commandment against it.
-
B
Steve Schaffner
> anne <ann...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1811-3BC...@storefull-295.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > I THINK, (and I could be mistaken) that any original thought that's
> > written down in any readable format is copyrighted material. Whether
> > actually registered or not, the author holds the copyright. I think a
> > copyright violation occurs when someone who is not the author makes
> > unauthorized use of the copyrighted material to make money, or prevents
> > the author from making money on his own copyrighted material.
> >
> > This post is copyrighted material.
>
> No, it isn't. Anything you state or write in a public forum, is by definition, public domain.
Yes, it is copyrighted. See
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
for example.
> If you appear in a public place you can be photographed and published without explicit permission. Do you think all
> those folks they show in the stands at football games have given their explicit written permission to be on TV?
Your face is not subject to copyright law. What you write is.
Michael G.
wrote:
>On 8 Oct 2001 11:05:36 -0400, in talk.origins
>"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in
><ts3g5vp...@corp.supernews.com>:
[...]
>>That's absurd; you can't sue someone for posting a private e-mail in a
>>public forum. For better or for worse, when he sends out that letter he's
>>losing control over its contents.
>
>No, he doesn't lose control of the contents. Whenever you write
>something, you hold the copyright to it. When you post it to usenet you
>have a certain expectation of republication and reuse that you do not
>necessarily have if you send an e-mail.
While I'm sure that you could sue someone for posting a private email,
I imagine it would be difficult to win. I could see certain
organizations trying it (for instance, certain quasi-religious
organizations founded by science fiction writers). Please correct me
if I'm wrong here.
From a practical perspective Adam is correct. You can't assume that an
email you've sent someone won't be forwarded elsewhere. Recently one
of my colleagues accidentally forwarded a flippant remark I made to
her in an email to a customer. It wasn't at all serious in this case
but I think you can see the potential for trouble.
Regardless, I think it's fair to say that the original poster could
have safely paraphrased the contents of the email. Under the doctrine
of fair use, the original poster could even have briefly quoted the
most damning portion of the email. However, he could not have posted
the entire email and remained within the bounds of fair use.
When you send an email, you do not have the expectation that the
recipient will not reveal the contents of the email to other people,
much in the same way that I can show other people letters I have
received.
--Michael
Paul Ruggeri
Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message news:ydladyz...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> "Paul Ruggeri" <paulrugg@no-spam_home.com> writes:
>
> > anne <ann...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:1811-3BC...@storefull-295.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > > I THINK, (and I could be mistaken) that any original thought that's
> > > written down in any readable format is copyrighted material. Whether
> > > actually registered or not, the author holds the copyright. I think a
> > > copyright violation occurs when someone who is not the author makes
> > > unauthorized use of the copyrighted material to make money, or prevents
> > > the author from making money on his own copyrighted material.
> > >
> > > This post is copyrighted material.
> >
> > No, it isn't. Anything you state or write in a public forum, is by definition, public domain.
>
> Yes, it is copyrighted. See
>
> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
I'm wearing orthopedic shoes... (I stand corrected). But I think that quoting a previous post as reference would fairly
easily constitute "Fair Use", wouldn't it? Unless you are claiming that the quoted post is actually your own, then I see
no potential for trouble, here. Of course how wrong have I been before...? :-)
In any case, I think this is all kinda moot. The real issue is that "Jason" posted a message quoting an alledgedly
private email from "Matt K". If "Matt K" wants to come forward and claim copyright infringement for Jason's posting of
that email, then Matt is as good as admitting having commited an entirely separate in fraction - namely, that he has
repeatedly lied about the truth in the name of creationism. If Matt wants to come forward and claim slander or libel,
and that Jason completely fabricated the quotes in the posts, then the question is this: is it possible to get either
Jason's or Matt's ISP's to release to the courts (should it go that far) the contents of any records of email exchanged
between them? Do ISP's keep records of email contents for such contingencies? (Or even backups?)
>
> for example.
>
> > If you appear in a public place you can be photographed and published without explicit permission. Do you think all
> > those folks they show in the stands at football games have given their explicit written permission to be on TV?
>
> Your face is not subject to copyright law.
Oooohhh Yes, it is...!!! In certain situations, your face (well, not *yours* specifically - no offence) is indeed VERY
subject to copyright law. If I take a picture of someone feeding pigeons in San Marco Square in Venice Italy, and
I later decide to use that photo as part of an exhibit, I NEED that person's permission. In other situations,
such as a televised football game, footage of the fans in the stands falls under 'Fair Usage' and that guys' face in
the upper right hand corner of the screen has no legal footing to stand on if he objects to having his face there.
But that's admittedly a BIT off topic and I shouldn't have brought it up...
Robert Grumbine
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>In article <ts6q333...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom" <TomBe...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> "Stephen F. Schaffner" <ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>> news:9ptj4q$p0d$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
>> > In article <3BC20B96...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com>,
>> > Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Email is no different. What you describe might be courteous, but I
>> > >hardly think it is a copyright violation.
>> >
>> > Copyright law (specifically the Berne convention) thinks otherwise.
>> > Look it up.
>>
>> Tom: Hmm..when I took my law courses unless an item was "copyrighted" there
>> could be no infringement. Guess I missed the class in which they discuss
>> your version of the law.
Berne was, iirc, 1984. The US didn't adopt the convention until somewhat
afterwards. The older version of US copyright law, i.e., pre-Berne,
did have a different take. It is also still the case that without
registration of the copyright it is difficult to collect damages.
Nevertheless, the standard for quite some time in the US and the other
signatories to the Berne convention is:
>Technically, anything that anyone writes is automatically copyrighted to
>the author unless they explicitly choose to place it in the public
>domain.
And this does definitely apply to email and newsgroup posts as well
as to the latest John Grisham novel.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine
Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Did you get his permission to post his private e-mail?
>>
The physical letter is yours. You can sell the object if you choose.
>I can quote from it freely. After all, the person sent it to me of
>his/her own free will.
Nope. The quotation, the copying, is still restricted. The 'sent
to you freely' aspect is why the piece of paper is yours. The words
are still the author's.
Michael G.
<paulrugg@no-spam_home.com> wrote:
[...]
>In any case, I think this is all kinda moot. The real issue is that "Jason" posted a message quoting an alledgedly
>private email from "Matt K". If "Matt K" wants to come forward and claim copyright infringement for Jason's posting of
>that email, then Matt is as good as admitting having commited an entirely separate in fraction - namely, that he has
>repeatedly lied about the truth in the name of creationism. If Matt wants to come forward and claim slander or libel,
>and that Jason completely fabricated the quotes in the posts, then the question is this: is it possible to get either
>Jason's or Matt's ISP's to release to the courts (should it go that far) the contents of any records of email exchanged
>between them? Do ISP's keep records of email contents for such contingencies? (Or even backups?)
[...]
The records of the typical ISP for email consist of the message ID and
the time the message was sent. We used to back up any email left on
the server during the nightly backup, although I imagine this isn't a
universal practice (and also depends on the type of mail server run).
This would be an interesting case to try...
--Michael
anne
My face showing up in a picture at a football game is not a copyright
issue for me. The photo, however belongs to the photorapher. I can't
swipe his photo of me in the stands, and make copies and sell them to
all my friends, because that photo is HIS copyrighted material.
anne
give permission for publication of a letter where they admit they're
lying?
Second, doesn't the lying itself upset you at all?
Anne: I was simply responding to the discussion about the copyright.
Admittedly, it is a bit off topic from the original post.
Yes lying is wrong. And lying to persuade people to believe God
certainly does more harm than good. If I'm am going to do some good
work for God, I must also do it in His time and in His way. Just ask
Moses about how well good intentions alone worked out for him and that
Egyptian he killed. (Exodus chapter 2, I think.)
I'm not saying he lied or he didn't. It's hard to tell when things get
cut and pasted. And I did notice a distinct lack of surrounding context
where the "I am forgiven" stuff was posted. It sure does LOOK like
supreme hypocrisy. But then the earth LOOKS old, too. LOL
Louann Miller
Depending on the situation, you could have a legal right to a photo
taken of you -- at least to the extent of suing the photographer for
publishing it under some circumstances. There's a famous case of a
woman who sued and won over a photo of her backside taken at a state
fair. Photo shows a palimino horse, rear end forward, and the woman
standing next to it, also rear end forward, wearing a spotted dress
and picking something off the ground. The photo was ruled libelous on
the grounds of defamation of character. (The interesting part is that
they were able to convince judge and jury that she was -identifiable-
by that photo, and therefore specifically subject to public ridicule
by its publication. They do say people get to know each other really
well in small towns. <g>)
Paul Ruggeri
anne <ann...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:17460-3B...@storefull-294.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Umm... No offense Anne, but these last statements mankes it *sound* like you're simply brushing the issue off. That's as
much as saying it's OK. However you bring up a *good* point about the context of the quotes. Why dont we find out, and
ask the originator of this post about the context?
Jason, do the quotes in your post originating this thread represent the entirety of the 3 emails between you and Matt K,
or are they selected excerpts from them? Of particular interest is the final "I am forgiven." quote.
Jason
>
> Umm... No offense Anne, but these last statements mankes it *sound* like
> you're simply brushing the issue off. That's as much as saying it's OK.
> However you bring up a *good* point about the context of the quotes. Why
> dont we find out, and ask the originator of this post about the context?
>
> Jason, do the quotes in your post originating this thread represent the
> entirety of the 3 emails between you and Matt K, or are they selected
> excerpts from them? Of particular interest is the final "I am forgiven."
> quote.
yep, those are the emails in their entirety, sans headers.
the "I am forgiven. Are you? Bye" part was his entire response.
I went on to have a long email conversation, probably 10 emails each direction,
where he alternated between telling me the source from which I looked up the
Darwin quote must be wrong, and admitting he's lying and happy about it.
Unsurprisingly, he neglected to respond when I asked why he didn't have any
honest evidence to use, and had to resort to lies.
You can take my post as you like. Anyone can forge an email, so even if I'd
posted full emails with headers, it's no proof of anything. You don't have to
believe me about this particular case. But believing this sort of thing
doesn't happen seems a bit naive.
--
Jason
Paul Ruggeri
> yep, those are the emails in their entirety, sans headers.
> the "I am forgiven. Are you? Bye" part was his entire response.
>
> I went on to have a long email conversation, probably 10 emails each direction,
> where he alternated between telling me the source from which I looked up the
> Darwin quote must be wrong, and admitting he's lying and happy about it.
>
> Unsurprisingly, he neglected to respond when I asked why he didn't have any
> honest evidence to use, and had to resort to lies.
>
> You can take my post as you like. Anyone can forge an email, so even if I'd
> posted full emails with headers, it's no proof of anything. You don't have to
> believe me about this particular case. But believing this sort of thing
> doesn't happen seems a bit naive.
Excellent!!!
I will take them as I take all things on the internet, (newsgroups in particular), with a healthy-sized grain of salt...
However, given the history, and my own personal experiences with creationists, I'm obliged to weigh my opinion just a
*tad* in your favor.
Thank You
Steve Schaffner
> In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-12...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
> >In article <ts6q333...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Tom" <TomBe...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Stephen F. Schaffner" <ssc...@flora03.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> >> news:9ptj4q$p0d$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
> >> > In article <3BC20B96...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com>,
> >> > Chris Thompson <rockw...@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > >Email is no different. What you describe might be courteous, but I
> >> > >hardly think it is a copyright violation.
> >> >
> >> > Copyright law (specifically the Berne convention) thinks otherwise.
> >> > Look it up.
> >>
> >> Tom: Hmm..when I took my law courses unless an item was "copyrighted" there
> >> could be no infringement. Guess I missed the class in which they discuss
> >> your version of the law.
>
> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
Robert Grumbine
Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
>bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
[deleted]
>> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
>
>The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
A lousy 98 years off out of 4.55 billion, a mere 2E-6 percent,
and you quibble! Boy, you evilooshionists are a picky lot.
Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized the US was so
far behind the rest of the western world in adopting the convention.
Steve Schaffner
> In article <ydl1yk3...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu>,
> Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> >bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>
> [deleted]
>
> >> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
> >
> >The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
>
> A lousy 98 years off out of 4.55 billion, a mere 2E-6 percent,
> and you quibble! Boy, you evilooshionists are a picky lot.
>
> Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized the US was so
> far behind the rest of the western world in adopting the convention.
Now if we could just get up to speed on the metric system . . .
David Jensen
>bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>
>> In article <ydl1yk3...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu>,
>> Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>> >> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
>> >
>> >The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
>>
>> A lousy 98 years off out of 4.55 billion, a mere 2E-6 percent,
>> and you quibble! Boy, you evilooshionists are a picky lot.
>>
>> Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized the US was so
>> far behind the rest of the western world in adopting the convention.
>
>Now if we could just get up to speed on the metric system . . .
I thought we were among the first countries of the world to allow the
use of metric.
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:ydl8zea...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>
> > In article <ydl1yk3...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu>,
> > Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> > >bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
> >
> > [deleted]
> >
> > >> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
> > >
> > >The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
> >
> > A lousy 98 years off out of 4.55 billion, a mere 2E-6 percent,
> > and you quibble! Boy, you evilooshionists are a picky lot.
> >
> > Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized the US was so
> > far behind the rest of the western world in adopting the convention.
>
> Now if we could just get up to speed on the metric system . . .
The WHAT system?
Tracy P. Hamilton
Herb Huston
David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
}On 17 Oct 2001 09:28:20 -0400, in talk.origins
}Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in
}
}I thought we were among the first countries of the world to allow the
}use of metric.
Well, let's see what the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ has to say in the
micropaedia article on "metric system:"
Brought into being by the French National Assembly
between 1791 and 1795, metric units were made legally
compulsory in France (1801), and a more stringent law
was enacted in 1837 to overcome conservative opposi-
tion. The spread of the system to other countries
was slow but continuous, and, by the early 1970s,
only a few, notably the United States, had not adop-
ted the metric system for general use.
The following is strictly from memory, but I think that 1866 was the year
in which the metric system became "legal" in the U.S., meaning that it was
put on a par with the English system.
--
-- Herb Huston
-- hus...@radix.net
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
David Jensen
hus...@Radix.Net (Herb Huston) wrote in
<9ql1sf$77n$1...@saltmine.radix.net>:
Good memory. http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/lc1136a.htm says that
"In the early 1800's the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (the
government's surveying and map-making agency) used meter and kilogram
standards brought from France. In 1866 Congress authorized the use of
the metric system in this country and supplied each state with a set of
standard metric weights and measures."
Of course, I would like to complain about their 'metric' recipe later on
that page. Don't most cooks blessed with metric cook by mass not by
volume?
Matt Silberstein
bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine):
>In article <ydl1yk3...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu>,
>Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
>>bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>
>[deleted]
>
>>> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
>>
>>The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
>
> A lousy 98 years off out of 4.55 billion, a mere 2E-6 percent,
>and you quibble! Boy, you evilooshionists are a picky lot.
>
> Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized the US was so
>far behind the rest of the western world in adopting the convention.
No need to thank him. There is more than one Berne convention on
copyright. The European law did change in the 80's (I don't know the
date and don't want to look it up) and we did change several years
later. You were not off by that much if at all.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
There is safety in numbers and people and things
And big wads of money and great big diamond rings
J.O.
Steve Schaffner
> In talk.origins I read <9qjph8$p75$1...@saltmine.radix.net> from
> bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine):
>
> >In article <ydl1yk3...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu>,
> >Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
> >
> >[deleted]
> >
> >>> Berne was, iirc, 1984.
> >>
> >>The Convention dates from 1886, actually.
> >
> > A lousy 98 years off out of 4.55 billion, a mere 2E-6 percent,
> >and you quibble! Boy, you evilooshionists are a picky lot.
> >
> > Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized the US was so
> >far behind the rest of the western world in adopting the convention.
>
> No need to thank him. There is more than one Berne convention on
> copyright. The European law did change in the 80's (I don't know the
> date and don't want to look it up) and we did change several years
> later. You were not off by that much if at all.
The Berne Convention I'm talking about is the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which was created in Berne
in 1886, completed in Paris in 1896, revised in Berlin in 1908,
completed (again) in Berne in 1914, revised in Rome in 1928, revised
in Brussels in 1948, revised in Stockholm in 1967, and revised in Paris
in 1971. What other Berne Conventions are there?
John Wilkins
Three:
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
Habitats
http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/104e.htm
The one on Intellectual Property Rights (an extension to the copright
one)
http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Archives/international/wipoeu.html
and the Bern RIver Convention Center
http://www.newbernconventions.com/
Fun is a T1 connection and Google...
Matt Silberstein
Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu>:
That is several Bern Convention 1886, Bern Convention 1896, etc. Or,
at least, that is what I meant. The question, I thought, was not when
it started, but when there was the change in copyright law in Europe
so that you did not need to register things for them to be protected.
I had thought that was in the 1980s, but if I am wrong correct me. But
if that change was in the 1980s, and particularly if it was in 1984,
then Robert was right.
John Wilkins
Steve Schaffner
As far as I can tell, removing the need to formally register copyright
was done in the Berlin revision, in 1908. I could be mistaken,
however.
Steve Schaffner
> Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> > The Berne Convention I'm talking about is the Berne Convention for the
> > Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which was created in Berne
> > in 1886, completed in Paris in 1896, revised in Berlin in 1908,
> > completed (again) in Berne in 1914, revised in Rome in 1928, revised
> > in Brussels in 1948, revised in Stockholm in 1967, and revised in Paris
> > in 1971. What other Berne Conventions are there?
>
> Three:
>
> The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
> Habitats
> http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/104e.htm
>
> The one on Intellectual Property Rights (an extension to the copright
> one)
> http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Archives/international/wipoeu.html
>
> and the Bern RIver Convention Center
> http://www.newbernconventions.com/
>
>
> Fun is a T1 connection and Google...
Grr. This is nothing but, but . . .
[pause to consult lawyers]
It's jactitation, that's what it is.
John Wilkins
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
>
> > Steve Schaffner <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > The Berne Convention I'm talking about is the Berne Convention for the
> > > Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which was created in Berne
> > > in 1886, completed in Paris in 1896, revised in Berlin in 1908,
> > > completed (again) in Berne in 1914, revised in Rome in 1928, revised
> > > in Brussels in 1948, revised in Stockholm in 1967, and revised in Paris
> > > in 1971. What other Berne Conventions are there?
> >
> > Three:
> >
> > The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
> > Habitats
> > http://www.coe.fr/eng/legaltxt/104e.htm
> >
> > The one on Intellectual Property Rights (an extension to the copright
> > one)
> > http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Archives/international/wipoeu.html
> >
> > and the Bern RIver Convention Center
> > http://www.newbernconventions.com/
> >
> >
> > Fun is a T1 connection and Google...
>
> Grr. This is nothing but, but . . .
>
> [pause to consult lawyers]
>
> It's jactitation, that's what it is.
[slightly longer pause to consult dictionary]
A pathological tossing of the body? Perhaps...
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Herb Huston
Thanks. My father says it's genetic. (No, I didn't steal that from _The
Education of Max Bickford_; my father has been saying it for years.)
} http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/lc1136a.htm says that
}"In the early 1800's the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (the
}government's surveying and map-making agency) used meter and kilogram
}standards brought from France. In 1866 Congress authorized the use of
}the metric system in this country and supplied each state with a set of
}standard metric weights and measures."
Among other things this meant that a land contract couldn't be invalidated
just because the area of the parcel was expressed in hectares instead of
acres.
}Of course, I would like to complain about their 'metric' recipe later on
}that page. Don't most cooks blessed with metric cook by mass not by
}volume?
I'm still trying to figure out how to measure "a pinch."
cats...@yahoo.com
>In article <7p6sstogjklmojc66...@4ax.com>,
>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>}Of course, I would like to complain about their 'metric' recipe later on
>}that page. Don't most cooks blessed with metric cook by mass not by
>}volume?
>
>I'm still trying to figure out how to measure "a pinch."
It's a tad more than a "skosh".
>
>--
>-- Herb Huston
>-- hus...@radix.net
>-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
>
---------
J. Pieret
---------
There is no greater hatred in the world
than the hatred of ignorance for knowledge.
- Galileo Galilei -
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Steve Schaffner
cats...@yahoo.com
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2001 18:48:46 -0400, in talk.origins
>hus...@Radix.Net (Herb Huston) wrote in
><9ql1sf$77n$1...@saltmine.radix.net>:
>
>
>>In article <rr3rst85jv1014r51...@4ax.com>,
>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>}On 17 Oct 2001 09:28:20 -0400, in talk.origins
>>}Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in
>>}>Now if we could just get up to speed on the metric system . . .
>>}
>>}I thought we were among the first countries of the world to allow the
>>}use of metric.
>>
>>Well, let's see what the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ has to say in the
>>micropaedia article on "metric system:"
>>
>> Brought into being by the French National Assembly
>> between 1791 and 1795, metric units were made legally
>> compulsory in France (1801), and a more stringent law
>> was enacted in 1837 to overcome conservative opposi-
>> tion. The spread of the system to other countries
>> was slow but continuous, and, by the early 1970s,
>> only a few, notably the United States, had not adop-
>> ted the metric system for general use.
>>
>>The following is strictly from memory, but I think that 1866 was the year
>>in which the metric system became "legal" in the U.S., meaning that it was
>>put on a par with the English system.
>
>Good memory. http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/lc1136a.htm says that
>"In the early 1800's the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (the
>government's surveying and map-making agency) used meter and kilogram
>standards brought from France. In 1866 Congress authorized the use of
>the metric system in this country and supplied each state with a set of
>standard metric weights and measures."
>
>Of course, I would like to complain about their 'metric' recipe later on
>that page. Don't most cooks blessed with metric cook by mass not by
>volume?
>
Anyone (except bakers) who cooks by mass *or* volume . . . shouldn't!
The best cooking measures are "smell","feel" and "taste".
cats...@yahoo.com
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2001 18:48:46 -0400, in talk.origins
>hus...@Radix.Net (Herb Huston) wrote in
><9ql1sf$77n$1...@saltmine.radix.net>:
>
>
>>In article <rr3rst85jv1014r51...@4ax.com>,
>>David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>>}On 17 Oct 2001 09:28:20 -0400, in talk.origins
>>}Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in
>>}>Now if we could just get up to speed on the metric system . . .
>>}
John Wilkins
> thewi...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) writes:
>
> > Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) writes:
> > >
....
> > > > Fun is a T1 connection and Google...
> > >
> > > Grr. This is nothing but, but . . .
> > >
> > > [pause to consult lawyers]
> > >
> > > It's jactitation, that's what it is.
> >
> > [slightly longer pause to consult dictionary]
> >
> > A pathological tossing of the body? Perhaps...
>
> http://www.duhaime.org/dict-jk.htm#J
Oh (he said innocently), there are *other* senses?