Ladle/Google/Linking - Consensus?
Jim Sheard
Apologies for the cross-post.
Can we get a consensus on the issue of linking etc., for guidance
purposes? Before this blew up, it seemed apparent to me that the
following uses of Google deep-links to people's work were ethical:
1. In a post to Usenet - "You think PJR is a crap poet? Try
2. On a website - "The original piece that Lysaght plagiarised can be
found here:
- in any normal clickable-link form.
And I assumed that other uses of Google deep-links (e.g. framing a
text within one's own website, redistributing siphoned-off texts) were
unethical, without permission
It took me a while to work out why DB might be so incensed by the
Ladle's handling of Rik's 'picks of the week'. I'm guessing that the
problem is that someone could assemble a 'publication' which consisted
entirely of pop-up windows containing Googled poem texts - and we
would probably find that unacceptable, in the same way as assembling a
news site by popping-up deep-linked content from BBC, CNN etc would be
iffy. That is clearly not Rik's intention with Clot, but there's room
for misunderstanding there.
I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
acceptable? Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
from the web-based LLR make any difference?
Jim
--
AAPC FAQ & Resources
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
Tom Bishop
"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message news:3debf818....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
A window would still be spawned from the usenet.. it is the
same thing. Google would seemingly welcome the links.
I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>
> Jim
>
>
> --
> AAPC FAQ & Resources
> http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"Don't be so humble - you are not that great."
-- Golda Meir
Bolduc619
Bishop replies:
It's my work. Mine, Got that? I'm only limiting his expresion by saying I don't
want my work in his or any other person's publication w/o my permission. This
is the same as making a serripticious audio recording from a reading and then
saying , hey, it was out there as noise. I just picked it up with my handy
dandy techo scooper, and fuk the copy right.
DB
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> --
>> AAPC FAQ & Resources
>> http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
>
>
>--
>Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
>"Don't be so humble - you are not that great."
> -- Golda Meir
>
PS --- Thanks for the quick resolution, Rik.
j r sherman
where did someone ask that they "send in the clowns?"
what you're saying is bullshit. it's misdirection, and dishonest. let's say i
think someone is an idiot...like you, Tom. and let's say that i didn't want to
have ANYTHING to do with said idiot, ya know, like you, Tom. and that includes
my poetry, which is mine. and what i decide to do with my poetry is MY business
and no one else's, period-and-end of the discussion. if you utilize my poetry on
a site that you've created without asking my permission, than that's theft, and
i don't give a fuck what the legalities are. i don't want to be connected in
anyway to an idiot, like you, Tom.
you want to post something here in Usenet that's a link from google, that's one
thing.
if you create a website that says poetry, and as one example of said poetry is a
poem of mine, then you need to ask my permission. period, end of discussion. i
don't care if it's linked to google, or it's linked to Sweet-Teens-Sucking
website for the mentally disturbed, or if it's archived anywhere. to utilize
anyone's work on a website you've created you need to ask the permission of the
creator of said work.
why is this so bloody fucking hard to understand?
and this isn't about legalities, this is about what's right and what's moral!
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
--the Marg Gold Star --- Quote by Uncle Billy
Renay St. James
"Tom Bishop" <tom-0...@truly.nu> wrote in message
news:asgu3i$r8up0$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
<...>
> I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
*****and now can we have opinions from people who
don't have an axe to grind?
Renay
Tom Bishop
"Renay St. James" <rena...@rjames.com> wrote in message news:x_UG9.211913$P31.83270@rwcrnsc53...
Well I ain't a big fan of Rik, so it must be principles.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"Procrastination has moved into my attic,
realizing he needn't wander the globe stealing time,
when he can live comfortably off me." --Thomas Dillon
Tom Bishop
"Bolduc619" <bold...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021202210327...@mb-me.aol.com...
>
>
> Bishop replies:
>
> >
>
> It's my work. Mine, Got that?
Yes..
Please stop posting to the Usenet.
You don't understand it.
Thanks!
Tom W
If I'm entirely happy with a poem, it isn't posted to aapc or any other critical forum in which I participate. I post because I'm seeking critical commentary on a work which is in no way a final product. alt.arts.poetry.COMMENTS I'm flattered that Rik recognized one of my poems. It was after he acknowledged my skepticism of LLR in an older thread (which stated exactly what I've said here). Failing to ask my permission, I would hope that he would include a caveat that the poem is a flawed work in progress which may or may not resemble the final draft.
I've never submitted anything to the official aapc site. I might. I might even submit to Clot, even though I'm still miffed at Rik. When I do submit online, you and Rik are more than welcome to say "Tom W, you had your chance and you blew it so go suck an egg." I wouldn't blame you one jot. However, until I seek publication on a particular work, I ask everyone to kindly leave my drafts where I have left them: within the confines of critical forums. I don't believe what Rik is doing is wrong or malicious, but in the same breath it isn't clearly right and the logic he employs to make it "legal" is being contorted by Bishop (and others) into something else for the sake of being silly, if not worse -- as has often been implied by Bishop.
Tom
gnarl
g.
"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3debf818....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
Bolduc619
Sherman observes:
Thank you, JR. I truly spent all day trying tio understand why they thought it
was OK to steal other whan they cana get away with it. You know, the Dick
Cheney School of Business Ethics.
DB
Bolduc619
Tom attempts to retort:
>
>
>"Bolduc619" <bold...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20021202210327...@mb-me.aol.com...
>>
>>
>> Bishop replies:
>>
>
>> >
>>
>> It's my work. Mine, Got that?
>
>Yes..
>
>Please stop posting to the Usenet.
>You don't understand it.
>
>Thanks!
So what about /mine/ do you not understand?
DB
Is there a section in the RAP FAQ opposed to discussions of copyright?
Has the RAP monitor appointed you to decide which questions will be discussed
by whom? I think not!
DB
Michael Cook
Tom Bishop wrote in message:
> I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>
You can take a deep breath Tom B it's all over, the principles involved came
to an amiable arrangement, speaking of principles; the law, and by that I
mean past and present, is clear on the issue of fair use and limited license
but there are other principles to consider. The writing community is close
knit, more so here and in rap everybody knows everybody else so we should
really be looking at the issue within that context. and so they (the
principles) did, they agreed that the overriding principle be one of mutual
respect and should that not be the compelling principle, it is after all the
basis for law. You have taken to tossing the Constitution around in your
arguments, first amendment this, free speech that. A right to life,
liberty, and a pursuit of happiness is the fundamental, the principium upon
which our nation was founded and is a guarantee we as Americans take
seriously, what was not enumerated were the limitations, the
responsibilities that must go hand in hand with as broad a responsibility,
such as it is. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness for all insofar as
said pursuits do not impinge on another's to do the same, now we are talking
principles! This issue, here and at this time is not about law it goes
deeper then that, they figured it out, I figured it out, most everyone did.
we don't often get the opportunity to pursue the 'noble' in life so many
other demands to meet, and that's a shame but when one does come along it
will define the man.
"I clearly think"
No, I don't think so.
mdc
--
Marg Gold Star recipient
"for going beyond in the fight against stupidity"
Renay St. James
>
> "Renay St. James" <rena...@rjames.com> wrote in message
news:x_UG9.211913$P31.83270@rwcrnsc53...
> >
> > "Tom Bishop" <tom-0...@truly.nu> wrote in message
> > news:asgu3i$r8up0$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> > > business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
> >
> > *****and now can we have opinions from people who
> > don't have an axe to grind?
>
>
> Well I ain't a big fan of Rik, so it must be principles.
*****put me back in your killfile, please.
Renay
j r sherman
says...
as poets, or even wanna be poets, or just people who scribble on the back of
paper bags, all we have is our poems, whether they're lousy or good. this isn't
about google archiving, this is about being in charge of where we want our poems
to appear.
it's not about being pissy about simple archiving, which is a theory that's been
put forth by some here. it's being displayed on a site that was created directly
for poetry, as if it were a collection, not an archive.
the only person who has a right to direct where their poems are going to appear
is the creator of the poem, and NO ONE else.
it's been also put forth here that there's nothing against the law about doing
this kind of (not) archiving. as i said before, and i'll say it again, this
isn't an issue about legalities. it's about what's moral and what's right. if we
as writers and poets don't respect that idea, then there's no point to this at
all.
having said this, i will also defend Rik, a person i personally like, and who's
posts and comments i enjoy very much. i don't think his intention here was to
offend anyone. if fact i think he admires your stuff very much. so i think you
should let Rik off the hook, you've made your point, for sure.
our words are our own, it's that simple.
Tom Bishop
"Renay St. James" <rena...@rjames.com> wrote in message news:hGWG9.212146$%m4.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Well no.. but were you in it?
I love everyone but junior now, I'm just not a fan of Rik,
love him dearly though.
Who do you love and hate.. ?
>
> Renay
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
Poetry is what gets lost in translation.
-- Robert Frost
Marek W. Lugowski
Michael Cook <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>Tom Bishop wrote in message:
>> I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
>> business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>>
>
>You can take a deep breath Tom B it's all over, the principles involved came
>to an amiable arrangement, speaking of principles; the law, and by that I
>mean past and present, is clear on the issue of fair use and limited license
>but there are other principles to consider. The writing community is close
>knit, more so here and in rap everybody knows everybody else so we should
>really be looking at the issue within that context. and so they (the
>principles) did, they agreed that the overriding principle be one of mutual
...
>mdc
>--
>Marg Gold Star recipient
>"for going beyond in the fight against stupidity"
For crying out loud, you foolish fop. Learn the distinction between
"the principals" and "the principles". I'll leave extraneous semicolons
for next time.
-- Marek
Tom Bishop
"Michael Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:3dec32d9$1...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
>
> Tom Bishop wrote in message:
> > I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> > business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
> >
>
> You can take a deep breath Tom B it's all over,
Hasn't even started.
>
> mdc
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways
that won't work." - Thomas Alva Edison
Michael Cook
Marek W. Lugowski <"mareklug@freeN0:5P"@Mshell:com.> wrote in message
news:uuopc1a...@corp.supernews.com...
I saw that error ("the principals" and "the principles") and a few others as
well
will be more attentive.
Lee Merkel
> "fop" what's a fop?
MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
And be sure to take an IRS deduction.
--
Lee Merkel
~~ You're always at the frontier of reality ~~
Michael Cook
Lee Merkel <leem...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:3DECBE33...@peoplepc.com...
> Michael Cook wrote:
>
>
> > "fop" what's a fop?
>
> MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
> PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
No need, I looked it up.
"fashion-conscious man: a man who is so obsessed
by fashion and vain about his own appearance
that he becomes ridiculous
I had assumed it an acronym, that's why I asked.
Jim Sheard
wrote:
>"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message news:3debf818....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snip>
>> I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
>> acceptable? Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
>> from the web-based LLR make any difference?
>
>A window would still be spawned from the usenet.. it is the
>same thing. Google would seemingly welcome the links.
>
>I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
>business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
Trust me, you're not going to succeed in using this discussion to
further your own agenda: it has been explained to you at some length
that your plans would be deemed outright theft.
E Selow
>
> Lee Merkel <leem...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:3DECBE33...@peoplepc.com...
> > Michael Cook wrote:
> >
> >
> > > "fop" what's a fop?
> >
> > MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
> > PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
>
> No need, I looked it up.
> "fashion-conscious man: a man who is so obsessed
> by fashion and vain about his own appearance
> that he becomes ridiculous
And I thought it meant flowery orange pekoe.
Elvira
Tom Bishop
"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message news:3dec896e....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Good, I will inform you when it is up.
You will see how vacuous your claims are, or you will successfully
sue me. In any case it will be resolved definitively.
>
> Jim
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"The universe is steady state, i.e., pretty continuously fucked up.
-- Dennis M. Hammes
George Tolis
<snip>
> It took me a while to work out why DB might be so incensed by the
> Ladle's handling of Rik's 'picks of the week'.
Ditto, until your example.
> I'm guessing that the
> problem is that someone could assemble a 'publication' which consisted
> entirely of pop-up windows containing Googled poem texts - and we
> would probably find that unacceptable, in the same way as assembling a
> news site by popping-up deep-linked content from BBC, CNN etc would be
> iffy. That is clearly not Rik's intention with Clot, but there's room
> for misunderstanding there.
Yes.
> I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
> acceptable? Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
> from the web-based LLR make any difference?
So, if I wanted to circumnavigate Bolduc's argument (not Woolery's) I could
set up a page with merely a list of 'top posts to AAPC and RAP in the past
week' with subject titles/poem titles, author, time and date plus search
strings to put into Google to return only the desired results, if I wanted
to be thorough. I could then have a link to the Google Groups front page
and detailed instructions on how to find/navigate the posts.
The end result is the same, but the process is botched. Does this seem more
appropriate? Work cannot be argued to be 'included' in the 'zine that way,
can it?
GT
Michael Cook
E Selow <sis...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:asibt5$pfg$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> "Michael Cook":
> >
> > Lee Merkel <leem...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DECBE33...@peoplepc.com...
> > > Michael Cook wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > "fop" what's a fop?
> > >
> > > MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
> > > PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
> >
> > No need, I looked it up.
> > "fashion-conscious man: a man who is so obsessed
> > by fashion and vain about his own appearance
> > that he becomes ridiculous
>
> And I thought it meant flowery orange pekoe.
>
> Elvira
>
but really, its all just the same
and that would be a "fob"?
Tom Bishop
"George Tolis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:asicoq$ri1ns$1...@ID-137423.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3debf818....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> <snip>
> So, if I wanted to circumnavigate Bolduc's argument (not Woolery's) I could
> set up a page with merely a list of 'top posts to AAPC and RAP in the past
> week' with subject titles/poem titles, author, time and date plus search
Could be done.. but nothing wrong with what Rik
is doing in my opinion.
No one has offered ANY relevent arguement why Rik
should be bullied by DB over this.
Although DB has copyright, the usenet posting is not subject
to the same control, and other than removing from the archive
(assuming any particular archive agrees to do so) there ain't a
thing DB can (or should) do.
Anything else is a gross overstatement of DB's rights.
> strings to put into Google to return only the desired results, if I wanted
> to be thorough. I could then have a link to the Google Groups front page
> and detailed instructions on how to find/navigate the posts.
Hard enough to get anyone to follow one simple link.. this is absurd.
Google doesn't mind deep linking.
They instruct you in creating their links.
>
> The end result is the same, but the process is botched. Does this seem more
> appropriate? Work cannot be argued to be 'included' in the 'zine that way,
> can it?
The argument is vacuous (and moronic) from the start.
You ignore me, so be it.
>
> GT
>
>
> > Jim
> >
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"Lust is to the other passions what the nervous fluid is to life."
- Marquis de Sade
Peter J Ross
found Jim Sheard guilty of posting this:
>Apologies for the cross-post.
>
>Can we get a consensus on the issue of linking etc., for guidance
>purposes? Before this blew up, it seemed apparent to me that the
>following uses of Google deep-links to people's work were ethical:
>
>1. In a post to Usenet - "You think PJR is a crap poet? Try
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments&selm=blahblahblah.....
>
>
>2. On a website - "The original piece that Lysaght plagiarised can be
>found here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments&selm=blahblahblah.....
>
>- in any normal clickable-link form.
>
>
>And I assumed that other uses of Google deep-links (e.g. framing a
>text within one's own website, redistributing siphoned-off texts) were
>unethical, without permission
>
>It took me a while to work out why DB might be so incensed by the
>Ladle's handling of Rik's 'picks of the week'. I'm guessing that the
>problem is that someone could assemble a 'publication' which consisted
>entirely of pop-up windows containing Googled poem texts - and we
>would probably find that unacceptable, in the same way as assembling a
>news site by popping-up deep-linked content from BBC, CNN etc would be
>iffy. That is clearly not Rik's intention with Clot, but there's room
>for misunderstanding there.
>
>I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
>acceptable? Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
>from the web-based LLR make any difference?
My opinion, Jim, is that the point of principle is too important to be
resolved by compromise. The issue of deep-linking to Google is a red
herring, since we all deep-link to Google and to many other sites all
the time. We do it, for instance, every time we link to the AAPC FAQ.
DB has never complained about it before.
The real issue is whether the content of a review ought to be
determined by the people whose work is being reviewed, and the answer
*has* to be No. The reviewer's independence is being damaged and the
means that have been used to damage it are not much better than
intimidation.
Besides, good Usenet/Internet practice requires a link to be provided
when one refers to something that isn't quoted. These people are
asking Rik to make assertions about their poems without providing
evidence to back them up.
I hope Rik will rethink his decision to surrender to this unbelievable
exhibition of idiocy.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments found Michael Cook guilty of posting this:
>
>Tom Bishop wrote in message:
>> I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
>> business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>>
>
>You can take a deep breath Tom B it's all over, the principles involved came
>to an amiable arrangement, speaking of principles; the law, and by that I
>mean past and present, is clear on the issue of fair use and limited license
>but there are other principles to consider. The writing community is close
>knit, more so here and in rap everybody knows everybody else so we should
>really be looking at the issue within that context. and so they (the
>principles) did, they agreed that the overriding principle be one of mutual
>respect and should that not be the compelling principle, it is after all the
>basis for law.
No, that isn't what happened. David Bolduc made a false accusation of
plagiarism. Until he withdraws that accusation, he remains completely
in the wrong. We have enough worries about plagiarism in these
newsgroups without the word "theft" being bandied about by people who
haven't a clue what they're talking about.
This doesn't change the fact that Bishop is a dishonest idiot who's
hoping to use this discussion as an excuse for genuine theft, of
course.
--
PJR :-)
Michael Cook
Peter J Ross <heres...@meow.org> wrote in message
news:p8fpuu0uoru909ka5...@4ax.com...
i was trying to be nice
all i did was fob up
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Apologies for the cross-post.
Why?
>
> Can we get a consensus on the issue of linking etc., for guidance
> purposes? Before this blew up, it seemed apparent to me that the
> following uses of Google deep-links to people's work were ethical:
>
> 1. In a post to Usenet - "You think PJR is a crap poet? Try
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments&selm=blahblahblah.....
>
> 2. On a website - "The original piece that Lysaght plagiarised can be
> found here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments&selm=blahblahblah.....
>
> - in any normal clickable-link form.
>
> And I assumed that other uses of Google deep-links (e.g. framing a
> text within one's own website, redistributing siphoned-off texts) were
> unethical, without permission
A website/page is a physical hotmetal document (the copy) existing
on a physical HD (the medium of publication). If one's own document
(or directory) copies the original to display it at his site, that's
definitive violation of copyright in being an unauthorised copy. If
one's own document points to or talks about the original as extant
somewhere else, that's "fair use."
>
> It took me a while to work out why DB might be so incensed by the
> Ladle's handling of Rik's 'picks of the week'. I'm guessing that the
> problem is that someone could assemble a 'publication' which consisted
> entirely of pop-up windows containing Googled poem texts - and we
> would probably find that unacceptable, in the same way as assembling a
> news site by popping-up deep-linked content from BBC, CNN etc would be
> iffy. That is clearly not Rik's intention with Clot, but there's room
> for misunderstanding there.
>
> I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
> acceptable?
It is, and without question. (In my previous comments, I wasn't
aware that there was any other version; hence the semiautomatic
irk.)
If the /site/ that is the LLR /points/, it's legal. If it copies
the original to its own directory, it's not.
If it writes its own hotmetal that /displays/ the original copy,
that's still legal. A file viewer of any kind does not make a
permanent copy; the screen view is ephemeral, and a "performance" is
not copyrightable precisely because it's not held to be a copy. I
can recite somebody else's pome 'til I'm blue in the face (but
/why/??) so long as I don't claim it's my own (I don't even have to
attribute it; it's called a "cover" in the trade).
> Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
> from the web-based LLR make any difference?
No.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> AAPC FAQ & Resources
> http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
A "publication" which consists entirely of pop-up references to
other people's stuff is called a "thesis," a "dissertation," or a
"term paper." Nothing we say here is going to alter the practice or
its widespread "acceptability." In the usual thesis, the other's
material is blatantly retyped (republished) as the "author's" own,
usually without even changing the one-word-per-sentence that is held
to be "fair use." Too many pieces of Power Paper depend on this
practice for it ever to be /questioned/, let alone altered or
abolished.
Alternatively, a publication consisting almost entirely in other
people's stuff identified as such, is ineptly called a "[Locality]
Review [of Literature]." Where these are printed on paper, it is
customary to obtain the author's permission to print -- oh. He
/submitted/ his, um, piece /to/ that journal, which fact constitutes
the offer of First Serial Rights. Printing his piece is
/physically/ necessary in the case, to create the only issue of the
piece to which the "Review" (which reviews only itself) can point in
the first place. It is /not/ necessary that these Rights be paid
for in any manner or sense, not even to the furnishing of a
"contributor's copy." Like the "thesis," it /is/ mandatory that the
author be identified. Sort of. "M. Smith" is legally sufficient,
even if that is also the name of the editor.
/Public exposure/ of the author's work is legally held to be a
"valuable commodity" constituting a contractural payment/fulfilment,
and this precedent is crucial to /any/ griping about like exposure
online.
Alternatively, a publication that talks /about/ other people's
stuff without actually including any of it is called /The New
Yorker/, et sim. The medium of original publication or performance
is irrelevant. The commodity of public exposure is not. The
/value/ of said exposure to both the "author" /and/ the potential
audience has not generated a new question since Moses wrote the
Pentateuch.
Now, if anybody takes a schidt on the Commons /or/ in a
coffeehouse extempore, /anybody else/ can point to it in any manner
he sees fit, /and/ say anything about it he wishes, provided only
that he doesn't claim it's /his/ schidt (why??) or make a permanent
alteration to the schidt or the Commons by his pointing to the
schidt (he may have the owner's permission to alter the
coffeehouse).
But that's a "review" that doesn't, itself, replicate (republish)
the schidt. It is subject only to the law of Commons (not, as DB
and Tom insist to opposite effects, Common Law) OR to the rules of
the coffeehouse (never both at once), and to copyright in either
case.
If it does not /reproduce/ (opposed to "view") the schidt pointed
to, no matter /how/ it is pointed to, copyright is not even an
issue.
A "thesis" published entirely online, precisely so as to make
electronic link to its various source material, is not only common
and legal practice, it's precisely why CERN in 1964 expanded the
original DOD ARPANet (now InterNet) internationally, to any college
with a telephone.
A journal or review that consisted in lists of links to posts on
the same subject is already called "The American Journal of
Medicine" et sim, and does not raise the issue of copyright even if
it posts its own /abstract/ of the reported article. It does not
raise the issue of copyright even if said journal exists /solely/
online (such electronic journals now outnumber the good old paper
ones).
/The Long Ladle Review/ is such an entirely-online electronic
journal, complete with active links ("footnotes," to the
traditionalist).
If somebody craps on the Commons or the coffeehouse and the
/Ladle/ chooses to note the fact, the crapper has only one recourse,
and that's to see that the turd stands inspection.
/Before/ he lays it.
Been that way since the scribes poked clay at Ur.
The lone bugger is the Great Library at Google. Libraries must
buy their copies or obtain them as gifts. Like everybody else.
The only possible question is whether posting to an
already-Googled (archived, libraried) InterNet gifts the library
with a copy of the post. Because the poster in posting has given
the /library/ not only a copy but the license to circulate it.
(They don't copy it, however the author of a "thesis" might.)
And the law already says that a gift is a gift and exists without
restriction on any subsequent legal use (specified restrictions even
on personal bequests and inheritances have been overturned).
The "question" of the "author's intent" is not even a question and
no author would ever put it (a Princess is another matter entirely)
any more than a machinist can specify the use to which a 10-32 bolt
will be put (he can issue a 10-40 bolt that can't be used in a 10-32
nut, or a Wonders 95 that won't load to an AMD CPU, etc., and that's
all).
Kids -- a woman who sends her /baby/ out into the world cannot
dictate how the world is to treat that baby. A few shalt-nots
("guardian angels") do exist for the simple reason that anybody who
did such-and-so to the baby /could not survive/ having the same
class of act done to himself. And we already have those same laws
for pomes, and they're as few and absolute as for the baby even if
nobody outside rap/aapc considers a pome as valuable as a baby.
But "you can't look at my baby"? "You can't talk about my baby"?
"I never gave you Permission to point to my baby"?
Now /that's/ a pile of schidt if there ever was one.
Indeed, it's one that the Princess cannot survive if it's obeyed.
Unfortunately, it's now all over the Commons /and/ the
coffeehouse.
Feh.
Well, I can look at it, talk about it, and point to it.
Hell, I can even use the /event/, in whole or part, as material
subsequently.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
A computer without language
is an expensive rock.
http://scrawlmark.net
a?GAT!$
j r sherman
>
>
>"Renay St. James" <rena...@rjames.com> wrote in message
>news:hGWG9.212146$%m4.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>>
>> "Tom Bishop" <tom-0...@truly.nu> wrote in message
>> news:ash6nu$qpi4u$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
>> >
>> > "Renay St. James" <rena...@rjames.com> wrote in message
>> news:x_UG9.211913$P31.83270@rwcrnsc53...
>> > >
>> > > "Tom Bishop" <tom-0...@truly.nu> wrote in message
>> > > news:asgu3i$r8up0$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
>> > >
>> > > <...>
>> > >
>> > > > I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
>> > > > business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>> > >
>> > > *****and now can we have opinions from people who
>> > > don't have an axe to grind?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Well I ain't a big fan of Rik, so it must be principles.
>>
>> *****put me back in your killfile, please.
>
>Well no.. but were you in it?
if Renay was lucky.
>I love everyone but junior now,
the tragedy of my life.
>I'm just not a fan of Rik,
>love him dearly though.
>
>Who do you love and hate.. ?
tom, i don't think it's possible for you to fall into either category. you're
the usenet equivalent of the man who isn't there. you should not give yourself
that much credit.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
p.s. Pete! according to Tom, he doesn't hate you! you are simply not trying hard
enough!!!!!
Dennis M. Hammes
> >I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> >business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>
>
> what you're saying is bullshit. it's misdirection, and dishonest. let's say i
> think someone is an idiot...like you, Tom. and let's say that i didn't want to
> have ANYTHING to do with said idiot, ya know, like you, Tom. and that includes
> my poetry, which is mine. and what i decide to do with my poetry is MY business
> and no one else's, period-and-end of the discussion. if you utilize my poetry on
> a site that you've created without asking my permission, than that's theft, and
> i don't give a fuck what the legalities are. i don't want to be connected in
> anyway to an idiot, like you, Tom.
>
> you want to post something here in Usenet that's a link from google, that's one
> thing.
>
> if you create a website that says poetry, and as one example of said poetry is a
> poem of mine, then you need to ask my permission. period, end of discussion. i
> don't care if it's linked to google, or it's linked to Sweet-Teens-Sucking
> website for the mentally disturbed, or if it's archived anywhere. to utilize
> anyone's work on a website you've created you need to ask the permission of the
> creator of said work.
>
> why is this so bloody fucking hard to understand?
>
> and this isn't about legalities, this is about what's right and what's moral!
>
It's no wonder j r finds this poetry schidt impossible. In the same
post, he asserts that /his/ friends can do /anything/ with their
writing they feel like doing, but that somebody he doesn't like
doesn't have Princess' Permission to write about Certain Subjects.
Exhibiting still more of the psychopathy of the True Democrat
Princess (he can "vote" the disposal of my life, fortune, and
honors, but nobody can touch his pome, hoo!), he then asserts that
his illiterate ("utilize," in the instant useage) argument is not
only immeasurably (and therefore infinitely -- the exclamation point
in the instant use) above and beyond the law (but how could this
matter, as he "don't give a fuck what the legalities are" in the
first place; is he /lying/? /Him/?), but that this Holy Power that
is above and beyond the law is specificially identified as /his
personal aesthetic responses/ ("moral," a redundancy of "right" in
the instant useage).
As an example of the Protestant Psychopath, it isn't particularly
interesting (there's nothing in the instant case beyond an intense
exibition of the core definition), and he has failed utterly to make
it entertaining. It's just another Princess in her High Chair,
screeching about the Difference, Obvious To God Hisself You Idiot,
between the meal she got and the meal she wanted. And spattering
all over the floor. (Hey. The Method /worked/ on the Single Most
Powerful Object In Niven's Known Space, and that Object is the /Holy
Mother/. It had /damwell/ better work on the lowliest of the lowly
of UseNet users.)
Far from providing any sort of guardian angel, j r only
demonstrates once again that "good advice costs nothing and is worth
the price."
Because j r cannot /survive/ this advice in at least two
particulars... (any more would Boris Tateers, so, ta).
This analysis of a merely-ordinarily-bad prose "pome" has been
brought to you by the letters "F," "O," "A," and "D."
Dennis M. Hammes
...
> as poets, or even wanna be poets, or just people who scribble on the back of
> paper bags, all we have is our poems, whether they're lousy or good. this isn't
> about google archiving, this is about being in charge of where we want our poems
> to appear.
You aren't.
Live with it or die of it, but shut up about it.
"All you have is your pomes"?
Good grief, boy, even chuckles has his Janet.
Martijn even has an onion.
(Maybe they'll /share/.)
And the Bolduc asserts to have /Marines/.;
If you Agree with him, maybe /he'll/ Share.
And if they /don't/, you can have a "Vote" about it.
P.S.: /You/ "have pomes, ah, /poems/"?
What you /do/ have is a really bad case of crapping yourself in
your playpen while claiming to own everybody you think you've heard
of because you think you've heard of them.
Dennis M. Hammes
...
> It's my work. Mine, Got that? I'm only limiting his expresion by saying I don't
> want my work in his or any other person's publication w/o my permission. This
> is the same as making a serripticious audio recording from a reading and then
> saying , hey, it was out there as noise. I just picked it up with my handy
> dandy techo scooper, and fuk the copy right.
>
> DB
A Princess should /never/ be seen shitting all over himself.
Spoils the image.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Tom Bishop" <tom-0...@truly.nu> wrote in message
> news:asgu3i$r8up0$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> > I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> > business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>
> don't have an axe to grind?
>
Sword do?
Dennis M. Hammes
One /so/ wants his Princesses to be able to pronounce their own Holy
Noises correctly...
(And when you ain't /got/ any tits to speak of, you /gotta/ be
able to say your lines.)
Dennis M. Hammes
"'Urchin'? What's a 'urchin'?"
Lee Merkel
To get those kinds of things explained,
I guess google is the best source.
Lee Merkel
> Lee Merkel wrote:
>
>>Michael Cook wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"fop" what's a fop?
>>
>> MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
>> PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
>>
>> And be sure to take an IRS deduction.
>>
>>--
>>Lee Merkel
>> ~~ You're always at the frontier of reality ~~
>
>
> "'Urchin'? What's a 'urchin'?"
It's a Japanese snack, sea?
sheila miguez
<leem...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> > Lee Merkel wrote:
> >>Michael Cook wrote:
> >>>"fop" what's a fop?
> >>
> >> MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
> >> PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
> >>
> >> And be sure to take an IRS deduction.
> >
>
> It's a Japanese snack, sea?
It's not only for Japanese. It's uni-
versal.
sheila
Renay St. James
> > > Well I ain't a big fan of Rik, so it must be principles.
> >
> > *****put me back in your killfile, please.
>
> Well no.. but were you in it?
*****unless you're a liar.
>
> I love everyone but junior now, I'm just not a fan of Rik,
> love him dearly though.
>
> Who do you love
*****Dwight Yoakam, Mark Knopfler, PJ Harvey, Billy Bob
Thornton, Bolduc, McNeilley, June Carter Cash, Joy, the Jeffs
Gordon-Shaahara-Buckley, Ray Wershing (sp?), Jim Zorn,
Roger Decoster, Bushman, Dave Peverett, Stephen Crane,
Mere Smith, Robert Bakker, Marek, Judy Blunt, Sydney Carton,
H.R. Puffinstuff, Spongebob Squarepants, Eve Ensler, Keith
Richard(s), Joe Strummer, Murphy, Hank Williams III, Leon
Uris, Howlin' Wolf, Kitty Wells, Torte Elvis...
and hate.. ?
*****Sheryl Crow, Anne Rice, and attention seeking usenet fucks.
Renay
Renay St. James
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:3DECE3B9...@arvig.net...
> Lee Merkel wrote:
> >
> > Michael Cook wrote:
> >
> > > "fop" what's a fop?
> >
> > MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
> > PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
> >
> > And be sure to take an IRS deduction.
> >
> > --
> > Lee Merkel
> > ~~ You're always at the frontier of reality ~~
>
> "'Urchin'? What's a 'urchin'?"
*****what one does after too much gin. ie: where's
Billy? oh, he's in the bathroom urchin.
Renay
Renay St. James
> > Trust me, you're not going to succeed in using this discussion to
> > further your own agenda: it has been explained to you at some length
> > that your plans would be deemed outright theft.
>
> Good, I will inform you when it is up.
>
> You will see how vacuous your claims are, or you will successfully
> sue me. In any case it will be resolved definitively.
*****you bumped Sheryl Crow for first place.
Renay
Jim Sheard
<catal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3debf818....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snip>
>> I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
>> acceptable? Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
>> from the web-based LLR make any difference?
>
>So, if I wanted to circumnavigate Bolduc's argument (not Woolery's) I could
>set up a page with merely a list of 'top posts to AAPC and RAP in the past
>week' with subject titles/poem titles, author, time and date plus search
>strings to put into Google to return only the desired results, if I wanted
>to be thorough. I could then have a link to the Google Groups front page
>and detailed instructions on how to find/navigate the posts.
>
>The end result is the same, but the process is botched. Does this seem more
>appropriate? Work cannot be argued to be 'included' in the 'zine that way,
>can it?
I think the fact that such a workaround sounds so ridiculous gives us
the answer ;)
We are discussing the context in which a piece of work is displayed, I
think - hence my suggestion that there might be a difference between a
clean-normal link which replaces the current page content with the
linked-to Google page and a spawned browser window. Of course, the
reader has the option to do this by the use of whatever 'display in
new window' function is available.
I'm local, and know that LLR is scrupulous enterprise run by the sort
of person you want running such things. Besides, such linking policy
has always seemed perfectly acceptable to me. But we need a solid set
of agreed-upons, I feel.
Jim Sheard
<scraw...@arvig.net> wrote:
>Jim Sheard wrote:
>>
>> Apologies for the cross-post.
>
>Why?
Don't like 'em, meself.
I...
<snip>
...lots of interesting stuff, and thank you very much for it.
Jim Sheard
wrote:
I take your point, and agree personally with your position as
expressed elsewhere. In fact, I'm less interested in compromise than
consensus - the latter *might* exclude all but that which we can agree
upon. The reason I think the issue worth clarifying is that the
communal solidarity which operates so effectively in cases of
plagiarism would be very useful in combatting *real* examples of
misuse and abuse of people's work.
> The issue of deep-linking to Google is a red
>herring, since we all deep-link to Google and to many other sites all
>the time. We do it, for instance, every time we link to the AAPC FAQ.
Agreed. 1 & 2 above still seem to me to be entirely acceptable,
especially in the case of Google. It's worth noting that when Google
acquired the Deja archive, there was much discussion of content
copyright, and people watched Google closely to see exactly what they
were planning to do with their new acquisition. So far, their use of
it seems to be broadly accepted by a sort of consensus.
>DB has never complained about it before.
>
>The real issue is whether the content of a review ought to be
>determined by the people whose work is being reviewed, and the answer
>*has* to be No. The reviewer's independence is being damaged and the
>means that have been used to damage it are not much better than
>intimidation.
I think this is a strong point. You'd expect that only to be a
problem, though, in cases of 'crappest poem of the week'.
>Besides, good Usenet/Internet practice requires a link to be provided
>when one refers to something that isn't quoted. These people are
>asking Rik to make assertions about their poems without providing
>evidence to back them up.
Also a strong point.
Jim Sheard
Hi, Tom.
>If I'm entirely happy with a poem, it isn't posted to aapc or any other critical forum in which I participate. I post
>because I'm seeking critical commentary on a work which is in no way a final product. alt.arts.poetry.COMMENTS I'm
>flattered that Rik recognized one of my poems. It was after he acknowledged my skepticism of LLR in an older thread
>(which stated exactly what I've said here). Failing to ask my permission, I would hope that he would include a caveat
>that the poem is a flawed work in progress which may or may not resemble the final draft.
I can see how the workshop angle could lead to a 'misrepresenting' of
the work in question. Being 'local', I know that a Google link to an
aapc piece is likely to be a draft, even if the subject line doesn't
tell me. An overall caveat on LLR would solve that problem, though.
>I've never submitted anything to the official aapc site. I might.
You'd be most welcome. The original idea of the (non-CasualTee) sound
files was to link in with the drafting process, in fact - a draft text
allied to a draft reading might help people comment more effectively.
But these things drift.
> I might even submit to Clot, even though I'm still
>miffed at Rik. When I do submit online, you and Rik are more than welcome to say "Tom W, you had your chance and you
>blew it so go suck an egg." I wouldn't blame you one jot. However, until I seek publication on a particular work, I ask
>everyone to kindly leave my drafts where I have left them: within the confines of critical forums. I don't believe what
>Rik is doing is wrong or malicious, but in the same breath it isn't clearly right and the logic he employs to make it
>"legal" is being contorted by Bishop (and others) into something else for the sake of being silly, if not worse -- as has
>often been implied by Bishop.
This latter point concerns me, too.
Beau Blue
I'm pretty confused now. I thought I knew what I thought about this.
Other than a notable lack of competency and a significant lack of
courtesy, I didn't think LLR was guilty of anything more than admiring
the work of his friends. And I thought David was being silly for
getting so bent out of shape. Now, I'm not so sure.
"My review's name is Napfold and I want to tell you about the latest
Plastica poem/recording. It's blah blah, and blah blah and blah blah.
You should see/hear it. Go to http://someone's_archive.com. and it'll
be there. Plastica? Don't worry about them ... there's nothing they
can do to keep you from reading/hearing it for free."
This casts LLR as Napster, David as the Big Bad Record Companies,
Dennis as the Lawyer for the Defendant and JR, the Plaintiffs' mouth
piece. I seem to remember Napster lost. And I was miffed 'cause I
thought the greedy shouldn't have won.
But if you boil the money out of it (cast it in terms of worthless ol'
poetry) does that change anything legally? I have a more sympathetic
view of Metallica now (tho' I think they're bosses are greedy
bastards, David) but I still come down on Napster's side of things.
But where I come down doesn't change the facts. Napster lost.
So, because of a lack of courtesy, a noble, tho' flawed, undertaking
is seen as part of a plot to devalue intellectual property rights.
Sounds about right for this assemblage.
-blue
"OK people, breaks over, everybody back on your heads!"
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote:
Colin Ward
>
>I'm pretty confused now. I thought I knew what I thought about this.
>
>Other than a notable lack of competency and a significant lack of
>courtesy, I didn't think LLR was guilty of anything more than admiring
>the work of his friends. And I thought David was being silly for
>getting so bent out of shape. Now, I'm not so sure.
>
>"My review's name is Napfold and I want to tell you about the latest
>Plastica poem/recording. It's blah blah, and blah blah and blah blah.
>You should see/hear it. Go to http://someone's_archive.com. and it'll
>be there. Plastica? Don't worry about them ... there's nothing they
>can do to keep you from reading/hearing it for free."
>
>This casts LLR as Napster, David as the Big Bad Record Companies,
>Dennis as the Lawyer for the Defendant and JR, the Plaintiffs' mouth
>piece. I seem to remember Napster lost. And I was miffed 'cause I
>thought the greedy shouldn't have won.
>
>But if you boil the money out of it (cast it in terms of worthless ol'
>poetry) does that change anything legally? I have a more sympathetic
>view of Metallica now (tho' I think they're bosses are greedy
>bastards, David) but I still come down on Napster's side of things.
>
>But where I come down doesn't change the facts. Napster lost.
>
>So, because of a lack of courtesy, a noble, tho' flawed, undertaking
>is seen as part of a plot to devalue intellectual property rights.
>Sounds about right for this assemblage.
>
> -blue
Comparing LLR's actions to Napster's gets my vote
as worst analogy of the year. And it is December.
Tom Bishop
"Renay St. James" <rena...@rjames.com> wrote in message news:yO5H9.224907$%m4.7...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Cool carwash!
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
Your primary error lies in your inane belief
that /you/ constitute an "ordered system."
-- Dennis M. Hammes
Lee Merkel
So it's not universal. :-)
Beau Blue
RIAA, on behalf of its members, sued Napster because it launched
a service that enabled and facilitated piracy of music on an
unprecedented scale. Or so they claimed.
Napster built a system that allowed users who logged onto Napster's
servers to obtain copyright infringing MP3 files that were stored on
the computers of other users. Napster provided direct hyperlinks
to those files.
Napster argued that they weren't doing anything wrong since the files
weren't being archived by Napster. They argued all they was doing was
providing a service, advanced searching and archive linking.
Seems analogous to me.
-blue
>
Tom Bishop
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message news:3DECDF06...@arvig.net...
What a gray madcrap froup!
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"To judge from the notions expounded by theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men
simply with a view to crowding hell." -Marquis de Sade
Tom Bishop
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message news:3DECD168...@arvig.net...
> A website/page is a physical hotmetal document (the copy) existing
> on a physical HD (the medium of publication). If one's own document
> (or directory) copies the original to display it at his site, that's
> definitive violation of copyright in being an unauthorised copy.
I wish someone could explain: http://plagiarist.com
It seems to be a blatant violator, from the domain name
on down.
I find it handy, since it is an online source of what
people think are the best poems (with even fairly
contemporary poets represented).
Totally illegal probably, yet they continue
quite merrily.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"Beliefs only serve to limit perception of reality."
Michael Cook
Don't bother, I'll google it
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Chuck Lysaght
> Apologies for the cross-post.
>
> Can we get a consensus on the issue of linking etc., for guidance
> purposes? Before this blew up, it seemed apparent to me that the
> following uses of Google deep-links to people's work were ethical:
>
> 1. In a post to Usenet - "You think PJR is a crap poet? Try
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments&selm=blahblahblah.....
>
>
> 2. On a website - "The original piece that Lysaght plagiarised can be
> found here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&start=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments&selm=blahblahblah.....
>
> - in any normal clickable-link form.
>
>
> And I assumed that other uses of Google deep-links (e.g. framing a
> text within one's own website, redistributing siphoned-off texts) were
> unethical, without permission
>
> Ladle's handling of Rik's 'picks of the week'. I'm guessing that the
> problem is that someone could assemble a 'publication' which consisted
> entirely of pop-up windows containing Googled poem texts - and we
> would probably find that unacceptable, in the same way as assembling a
> news site by popping-up deep-linked content from BBC, CNN etc would be
> iffy. That is clearly not Rik's intention with Clot, but there's room
> for misunderstanding there.
>
> I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
> from the web-based LLR make any difference?
>
Why don't you and Peter create a website about it? You can have Peter
spam the guestbooks and message boards Rik has posted on. Just a
thought.
Colin Ward
Then let me explain some of the myriad subtle
differences between the Long Ladle Review and Napster:
1a. Napster usually dealt with files NOT produced
by the author of the original work. These
files were usually created without that author's
explicit or implicit consent.
1b. LLR deals with the very file created by the author
in the very form that the author created it. To
emulate Napster in this regard LLR would have to
cause an already altered (in format) copy of David's
poem to be emailed from one pirate to another.
2a. Napster transferred files which were NOT
presented by the author for free public
access [from that source, at least].
2b. LLR transfers NO FILES but, rather,
points to where the author has caused the
work to be available for public viewing.
3a. Pirating was the raison d'ętre of Napster.
3b. Any copying (i.e. pirating) of David's work
would take place from the Google site, not
the LLR site, and would thus occur without
any implied consent from LLR. If "this is
a neat poem, check it out" equates to "go
steal it" in your mind then you would have
to regard all reviewers as thieves. I doubt
that George Lucas would have any trouble
understanding that "Star Wars is a great
movie; go see it at the Odeon" does not
violate his copyright on the movie. Nor
should Lucas expect to be asked for permission
from the reviewer to make the recommendation.
This would serve as little more than a
header for a far more complete list of stark
differences between LLR and Napster. I would
imagine that others here could add copious other
radical and jarring contrasts between the two.
Perhaps in the future you will have more
success with your analogies when comparing things
which are similar rather than things which are
opposite in virtually every pertinent respect.
I wish you the best of luck with them. They
can be tricky in the wrong hands, remember.
Cheer up. There are still 28 more days in
2002! :)
Best regards,
Some guy
Chuck Lysaght
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:35:21 -0500, a jury from
> alt.arts.poetry.comments found Michael Cook guilty of posting this:
>
> >
> >Tom Bishop wrote in message:
> >> I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
> >> business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
> >>
> >
> >You can take a deep breath Tom B it's all over, the principles involved came
> >but there are other principles to consider. The writing community is close
> >really be looking at the issue within that context. and so they (the
> >principles) did, they agreed that the overriding principle be one of mutual
> >basis for law.
>
> No, that isn't what happened. David Bolduc made a false accusation of
> plagiarism. Until he withdraws that accusation, he remains completely
> in the wrong. We have enough worries about plagiarism in these
> newsgroups without the word "theft" being bandied about by people who
> haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Maybe you should create a website about it. Spam the guestbooks and
message boards that David has posted on. Send him e-mail viruses.
Sound familiar?
>
> This doesn't change the fact that Bishop is a dishonest idiot who's
> hoping to use this discussion as an excuse for genuine theft, of
> course.
Well, you can do the same for him. I love it when you go nuts.
Michael Cook
Chuck Lysaght <c_ly...@bikerider.com> wrote in message
news:9f2e0168.02120...@posting.google.com...
stop fobing!
Tom W
Jim--
I'd love for an overall caveat to solve the problem but, for me, it
would only serve as a temporary stint ignoring a larger problem.
Broken hinges (like Tom Bishop) will misinterpret Rik's intent, willfully
trampling copyright laws and common decency in the process. Bishop's
repeatedly said as much. Thankfully he has stated he has zero interest
in my works, but I'd rather see the LLR and any looney idea it might inspire
simply go away. If a reviewer has time to read poems in a newsgroup, it
only takes one extra second to hit the reply button and send a form-letter
email to the post's originator asking for permission to link--it's not
that unwieldy or inconvenient, and it would avoid all (and I mean ALL)
the nonsense.
Thanks for your invitation to the AAPC site. I rather like the idea of sound files linked into the drafting process. I can't stress enough how much voiced sonics help me in the draft process, and it's an area I'm intensely interested in pursuing. I'm curious how many participants have received feedback on the sound files, as I had always assumed this area of the AAPC site to be a showcase of finished work. I'll have to locate my microphone. It's in a box, er, somewhere. Egads! It might take months for me to find the accursed device.
Regards,
Tom
Tom W
Tom Bishop wrote:
The poems on plagiarist.com, without exception, are taken from published works. There's the
difference. IF people visiting the site like a poem, they're inclined to go out and buy a book
or two. The authors appearing at plagiarist.com actually benefit financially from the exposure,
so no one is complaining, and several of the authors listed are aware of its existence. In fact,
I know one or two who have contributed their own works to the website to increase their exposure,
but I'm not a name-dropper.
I don't write enough poetry to fill books. Maybe I have enough for one or two books, but I'd have
to spend months revising and editing (and many more months courting a reputable publisher) and I
don't have any future plans to dedicate that time. So take someone like me... you lift a draft
of an unfinished poem of mine from usenet... how do I benefit? I mean, outside of the unasked
for honor to kick your ass after the fact?
Tom
Jim Sheard
wrote:
... but not one based on any actual *reading*, eh, fuckwit?
Your plagiarisms led to your being written-off. Helping make that
happen was a noble enterprise.
Peter J Ross
found Chuck Lysaght guilty of posting this:
>Peter J Ross <heres...@meow.org> wrote in message news:<p8fpuu0uoru909ka5...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:35:21 -0500, a jury from
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments found Michael Cook guilty of posting this:
>>
>> >
>> >Tom Bishop wrote in message:
>> >> I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
>> >> business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You can take a deep breath Tom B it's all over, the principles involved came
>> >to an amiable arrangement, speaking of principles; the law, and by that I
>> >mean past and present, is clear on the issue of fair use and limited license
>> >but there are other principles to consider. The writing community is close
>> >knit, more so here and in rap everybody knows everybody else so we should
>> >really be looking at the issue within that context. and so they (the
>> >principles) did, they agreed that the overriding principle be one of mutual
>> >respect and should that not be the compelling principle, it is after all the
>> >basis for law.
>>
>> No, that isn't what happened. David Bolduc made a false accusation of
>> plagiarism. Until he withdraws that accusation, he remains completely
>> in the wrong. We have enough worries about plagiarism in these
>> newsgroups without the word "theft" being bandied about by people who
>> haven't a clue what they're talking about.
>
>Maybe you should create a website about it.
I'm willing to make an effort to declare repeatedly in public that Rik
Roots is not a thief.
>Spam the guestbooks and
>message boards that David has posted on. Send him e-mail viruses.
>Sound familiar?
It sounds like chucklish tactics. Very familiar.
>> This doesn't change the fact that Bishop is a dishonest idiot who's
>> hoping to use this discussion as an excuse for genuine theft, of
>> course.
>
>Well, you can do the same for him. I love it when you go nuts.
I'm genuinely annoyed, chuckhole. While you're amusing in your
pathetic way, the discovery that somebody I thought honest and
reliable is little better than you are is something of a shock.
Having no understanding of how real human beings relate to each other,
you'll never understand what I mean.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments found Tom Bishop guilty of posting this:
>
>"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message news:3dec896e....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:40:01 -0800, "Tom Bishop" <tom-0...@truly.nu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jim Sheard" <j...@jsheard.co.uk> wrote in message news:3debf818....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> I wonder whether the posted-to-Usenet version of LLR alone would be
>> >> acceptable? Or would the minor change of *not* spawning a new window
>> >> from the web-based LLR make any difference?
>> >
>> >A window would still be spawned from the usenet.. it is the
>> >same thing. Google would seemingly welcome the links.
>> >
>> >I clearly think that it is a principle thing, and none of DB's
>> >business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
>>
>> Trust me, you're not going to succeed in using this discussion to
>> further your own agenda: it has been explained to you at some length
>> that your plans would be deemed outright theft.
>
>Good, I will inform you when it is up.
>
>You will see how vacuous your claims are, or you will successfully
>sue me. In any case it will be resolved definitively.
I think we'll *start* with a straightforward portscan...
--
PJR :-)
j r sherman
a SACRED and noble enterprise. Mother Teresa, you and Pete, right there together
on the right hand side of the lord.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
--the Marg Gold Star --- Quote by Uncle Billy
Tom Bishop
"Tom W" <twoo...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3DED54FC...@mchsi.com...
>
> The poems on plagiarist.com, without exception, are taken from published works. There's the
> difference.
Hmm.. that /difference/ makes it a real violation.
> IF people visiting the site like a poem, they're inclined to go out and buy a book
> or two. The authors appearing at plagiarist.com actually benefit financially from the exposure,
> so no one is complaining, and several of the authors listed are aware of its existence. In fact,
> I know one or two who have contributed their own works to the website to increase their exposure,
> but I'm not a name-dropper.
I assume so actually, and because of this the attitudes here make no sense.
>
> I don't write enough poetry to fill books. Maybe I have enough for one or two books, but I'd have
> to spend months revising and editing (and many more months courting a reputable publisher) and I
> don't have any future plans to dedicate that time. So take someone like me... you lift a draft
> of an unfinished poem of mine from usenet... how do I benefit?
In the first place, I would never /take/ anything out of the Usenet context,
but you have some fairly strange ideas, so I won't even go there.
What I will do is inform everyone of a new plan I intend to follow
that may be more amenable. Will top post.
> I mean, outside of the unasked
> for honor to kick your ass after the fact?
You wouldn't have any legal grounds to do so, but you are always
free to hire Bruno. As am I.
>
> Tom
>
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"So many women, so few hatboxes."
-- Dale Houstman
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
> >
> >>Michael Cook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"fop" what's a fop?
> >>
> >> MICHAEL COOK IS A POOR URCHIN WITHOUT A DICTIONARY!
> >> PLEASE SEND HIM YOUR OLD ONES!
> >>
> >>
> >>Lee Merkel
> >> ~~ You're always at the frontier of reality ~~
> >
> >
>
> It's a Japanese snack, sea?
>
> Lee Merkel
> ~~ You're always at the frontier of reality ~~
Ah. Well, I wouldn't even try it unless you guaranteed that it
tasted better'n an English swan, see?
(P.S.: I thot only W.C.Fields "liked" children.)
Dennis M. Hammes
Well, it could still be MGM or Fox...
Dennis M. Hammes
But to qualify for a Darwin, he'd hafta do something like
electrocuting himself while trying to have sex with his MP3 player.
And somebody otta learn to read. Though I have nothing against Mr.
Roots or his place in the incident, where did I ever argue for the
/defendant/?
Dennis M. Hammes
Not.
For it to be analog, you'd have to demonstrate that Google's
library copies of us are /stolen/.
Which I already pointed as the only question in the entire issue.
Beau Blue
>Colin Ward wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:16:17 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I'm pretty confused now. I thought I knew what I thought about this.
[offending analogy snipped]
>> > a noble, tho' flawed, undertaking
>> >is seen as part of a plot to devalue intellectual property rights.
>> >Sounds about right for this assemblage.
>> >
>> > -blue
>>
>> Comparing LLR's actions to Napster's gets my vote
>> as worst analogy of the year. And it is December.
>
>But to qualify for a Darwin, he'd hafta do something like
>electrocuting himself while trying to have sex with his MP3 player.
>
>And somebody otta learn to read. Though I have nothing against Mr.
>Roots or his place in the incident, where did I ever argue for the
>/defendant/?
>--
I took this to be a defense of Mr. Roots' project.
" If the /site/ that is the LLR /points/, it's legal. If it copies
the original to its own directory, it's not.
If it writes its own hotmetal that /displays/ the original copy,
that's still legal. A file viewer of any kind does not make a
permanent copy; the screen view is ephemeral, and a "performance" is
not copyrightable precisely because it's not held to be a copy."
-Dennis M. Hammes
Seems I'm doing a pretty bad job at comprehending these
issues and people's positions regarding the control of an
individual's intellectual property. I apologize. I don't have a horse
in this race and should have kept off the track. Like I said, I'm
pretty confused about this stuff. I don't think I qualify for a darwin
either but this discussion certainly has made my brain hurt.
-blue
I'll just wander back to the woods now. It's so much easier there.
Colin Ward
>Seems I'm doing a pretty bad job at comprehending these
>issues and people's positions regarding the control of an
>individual's intellectual property. I apologize. I don't have a horse
>in this race and should have kept off the track. Like I said, I'm
>pretty confused about this stuff. I don't think I qualify for a darwin
>either but this discussion certainly has made my brain hurt.
Try this analogy instead: Does one have
the right to drive their friend over to see
the charming holiday display in Macy's window?
j r sherman
>
>j r sherman wrote:
>...
>> as poets, or even wanna be poets, or just people who scribble on the back of
>>paper bags, all we have is our poems, whether they're lousy or good. this isn't
>>about google archiving, this is about being in charge of where we want our poems
>> to appear.
>...
>
>You aren't.
yes i am. sorry.
> Live with it or die of it, but shut up about it.
heh... like i'm gonna shut up about anything. you kill me, dennis.
> "All you have is your pomes"?
well, fuck, women come and go. kids will leave you when you're old. dogs die.
cats, will leave you when you're old. our words won't run away and marry a
skateboarder name "Snake" and throw their lives away on crystal meth.
> Good grief, boy, even chuckles has his Janet.
my words are more real than chuckles girls. even you know that, dennis.
> Martijn even has an onion.
> (Maybe they'll /share/.)
> And the Bolduc asserts to have /Marines/.;
on occasion. on occasion i have actresses, and libertines. and married women.
and a lovely cross section of women of various sorts. and this means....what,
Mr. Dennis?
> If you Agree with him, maybe /he'll/ Share.
now that was Bitchy, Mary. what's with you as of late, dennis? you're getting
almost Queen-like here.
> And if they /don't/, you can have a "Vote" about it.
>P.S.: /You/ "have pomes, ah, /poems/"?
there are more amazing things, mary.
> What you /do/ have is a really bad case of crapping yourself in
>your playpen while claiming to own everybody you think you've heard
>of because you think you've heard of them.
what you seem to have is a stick so far up your butt that they've changed your
nickname to Fence-post Hammes.
do remember, at a later date, that i was not the one who got personal with this,
okay?
j r sherman
how about, JJ, can i come over and drive your car over to the charming holiday
Macy's window.
of course i don't ask for your permission to drive your car, i just take the car
because i admire you so much, and JUST KNOW that you're a wonderful guy who is
willing to lend his car to anyone, even if they don't even ask!
Renay St. James
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aslor...@drn.newsguy.com...
> well, fuck, women come and go. kids will leave you when you're old. dogs
die.
> cats, will leave you when you're old. our words won't run away and marry a
> skateboarder name "Snake" and throw their lives away on crystal meth.
*****NO DOGS DO NOT DIE! not good dogs, anyway. simply, you say
to them, "do not die. ever. good dog." a good dog will always do what you
tell it to. if this doesn't work, you call Stephen King to find out where
that
pet cemetery is. DOGS DO NOT DIE!
Renay
Colin Ward
>In article <p8ksuuoo8mju0cbn1...@4ax.com>, Colin says...
>>
>>On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:51:19 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Seems I'm doing a pretty bad job at comprehending these
>>>issues and people's positions regarding the control of an
>>>individual's intellectual property. I apologize. I don't have a horse
>>>in this race and should have kept off the track. Like I said, I'm
>>>pretty confused about this stuff. I don't think I qualify for a darwin
>>>either but this discussion certainly has made my brain hurt.
>>
>> Try this analogy instead: Does one have
>>the right to drive their friend over to see
>>the charming holiday display in Macy's window?
>
>how about, JJ, can i come over and drive your car over to the charming holiday
>Macy's window.
>
>of course i don't ask for your permission to drive your car, i just take the car
>because i admire you so much, and JUST KNOW that you're a wonderful guy who is
>willing to lend his car to anyone, even if they don't even ask!
Given that the car in question (LLR) has
has been provided for the expressed purpose of
driving you to Macy's (i.e. DB's work on Google)
and its owner is literally steering you there I
cannot imagine how its owner's permission could
possibly be more explicit.
Can you?
Yours was a valiant effort. Cheer up, though.
There are still 27 more days of 2002 to design an
analogy even worse than Beau Blue's.
j r sherman
forgive me. dogs don't die. dogs live forever and ever. on occasion they
manifest themselves into other dogs so as to continue onward, but only on
occasion. for the most part dogs are eternal and live forever.
what was i thinking?
Bolduc619
*****Renay observes:
There's this scary scary movie, which like Bambi should never be shown to
children EVER, called /Good Dogs Go to Heaven/. Tell the young 'uns they can
rent it when they are 18 snd if they are really good, Mommy will let them see
the full 12 hour video of your upcoming surgeries.
DB
Renay St. James
> In article <3fuH9.237950$P31.94708@rwcrnsc53>, "Renay says...
> >
> >
> >"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:aslor...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> well, fuck, women come and go. kids will leave you when you're old.
dogs
> >die.
> >> cats, will leave you when you're old. our words won't run away and
marry a
> >> skateboarder name "Snake" and throw their lives away on crystal meth.
> >
> >*****NO DOGS DO NOT DIE! not good dogs, anyway. simply, you say
> >to them, "do not die. ever. good dog." a good dog will always do what
you
> >tell it to. if this doesn't work, you call Stephen King to find out
where
> >that
> >pet cemetery is. DOGS DO NOT DIE!
> >
> >Renay
>
> forgive me. dogs don't die. dogs live forever and ever. on occasion they
> manifest themselves into other dogs so as to continue onward, but only on
> occasion. for the most part dogs are eternal and live forever.
>
> what was i thinking?
*****whew! okay, that's better. thanks.
Renay
Renay St. James
"Bolduc619" <bold...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021204185213...@mb-fz.aol.com...
>
> *****Renay observes:
> >"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:aslor...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> well, fuck, women come and go. kids will leave you when you're old.
dogs
> >die.
> >> cats, will leave you when you're old. our words won't run away and
marry a
> >> skateboarder name "Snake" and throw their lives away on crystal meth.
> >
> >*****NO DOGS DO NOT DIE! not good dogs, anyway. simply, you say
> >to them, "do not die. ever. good dog." a good dog will always do what
you
> >tell it to. if this doesn't work, you call Stephen King to find out
where
> >that
> >pet cemetery is. DOGS DO NOT DIE!
>
> children EVER, called /Good Dogs Go to Heaven/. Tell the young 'uns they
can
> rent it when they are 18 snd if they are really good, Mommy will let them
see
> the full 12 hour video of your upcoming surgeries.
*****so true! it really is a scary movie. plus, Burt Reyolds is the main
voice.
Renay
j r sherman
not at all. i MUST have been thinking of squirrels or something rodentia-like.
squirrels like live for only a few months at best.
oh, look, Citizen Kane is on... i gotta go!
love and kisses,
j r sherman
p.s. it was a SLED! HA!
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Michael Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:3dec32d9$1...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Bishop wrote in message:
> > > business attempting to limit Rik's publication/expression.
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Tom Bishop
Like so much other pomet-generated jabberwocky to which you come
galumphing with your vorpal-blade generator, it was over before it
started.
P.S.: "Deeplinking" is not a legal /or/ technical term any more
than hotmetal is the first hypertexting symbology.
(Though it would be in the /Kama Sutra/ if that old fart had known
anything about women.)
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote:
>
> >Colin Ward wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:16:17 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'm pretty confused now. I thought I knew what I thought about this.
>
> [offending analogy snipped]
>
> >> > a noble, tho' flawed, undertaking
> >> >is seen as part of a plot to devalue intellectual property rights.
> >> >Sounds about right for this assemblage.
> >> >
> >> > -blue
> >>
> >> Comparing LLR's actions to Napster's gets my vote
> >> as worst analogy of the year. And it is December.
> >
> >But to qualify for a Darwin, he'd hafta do something like
> >electrocuting himself while trying to have sex with his MP3 player.
> >
> >And somebody otta learn to read. Though I have nothing against Mr.
> >Roots or his place in the incident, where did I ever argue for the
> >/defendant/?
> >--
>
> I took this to be a defense of Mr. Roots' project.
Only in that it remarks the instant case. My defense of the
fairly-novel electronic "Lit'ry Review" as both legal and needful
has been general.
As it must be; law must apply to /more than one case/, and apply
/in advance of a case/. Else it's nothing but "last man standing,
wins."
Of cuss, that, too, is a law...
>
> " If the /site/ that is the LLR /points/, it's legal. If it copies
> the original to its own directory, it's not.
> If it writes its own hotmetal that /displays/ the original copy,
> that's still legal. A file viewer of any kind does not make a
> permanent copy; the screen view is ephemeral, and a "performance" is
> not copyrightable precisely because it's not held to be a copy."
> -Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Seems I'm doing a pretty bad job at comprehending these
> issues and people's positions regarding the control of an
> individual's intellectual property. I apologize. I don't have a horse
> in this race and should have kept off the track. Like I said, I'm
> pretty confused about this stuff. I don't think I qualify for a darwin
> either but this discussion certainly has made my brain hurt.
>
> -blue
Well, you do have a pony in this race even it it turns out to be a
dog.
But never bet on the players; bet on the rules.
Dennis M. Hammes
Hm. Not bad.
Reminds me that my position on poultry as good reportage means
that poultry seeks good metaphor for law.
The fact generates its own problems (cf. the history of the
Church, e.g.), but hey, what else are poets for?
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> In article <p8ksuuoo8mju0cbn1...@4ax.com>, Colin says...
> >
> >On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:51:19 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Seems I'm doing a pretty bad job at comprehending these
> >>issues and people's positions regarding the control of an
> >>individual's intellectual property. I apologize. I don't have a horse
> >>in this race and should have kept off the track. Like I said, I'm
> >>pretty confused about this stuff. I don't think I qualify for a darwin
> >>either but this discussion certainly has made my brain hurt.
> >
> > Try this analogy instead: Does one have
> >the right to drive their friend over to see
> >the charming holiday display in Macy's window?
>
> how about, JJ, can i come over and drive your car over to the charming holiday
> Macy's window.
>
> of course i don't ask for your permission to drive your car, i just take the car
> because i admire you so much, and JUST KNOW that you're a wonderful guy who is
> willing to lend his car to anyone, even if they don't even ask!
Bad pome. The metaphor fails utterly on the fact that the car is
still parked where he left it.
(I still don't consider you stupid. I just consider that some
boys will say /anything/ to park their little pink cars where it's
warm.)
(On the gripping hand, maybe that /is/ stupid.)
(Well, at least mine /rhyme/.)
Dennis M. Hammes
KEYBOARD!!
(Maybe j r /is/ stupid. He really tried to steal a /Valiant/???)
obdatum:
Only ten more shopping days 'til Beethoven's Birthday.
j r sherman
>
>On 4 Dec 2002 12:37:43 -0800, j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <p8ksuuoo8mju0cbn1...@4ax.com>, Colin says...
>>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:51:19 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Seems I'm doing a pretty bad job at comprehending these
>>>>issues and people's positions regarding the control of an
>>>>individual's intellectual property. I apologize. I don't have a horse
>>>>in this race and should have kept off the track. Like I said, I'm
>>>>pretty confused about this stuff. I don't think I qualify for a darwin
>>>>either but this discussion certainly has made my brain hurt.
>>>
>>> Try this analogy instead: Does one have
>>>the right to drive their friend over to see
>>>the charming holiday display in Macy's window?
>>
>>how about, JJ, can i come over and drive your car over to the charming holiday
>>Macy's window.
>>
>>of course i don't ask for your permission to drive your car, i just take the car
>>because i admire you so much, and JUST KNOW that you're a wonderful guy who is
>>willing to lend his car to anyone, even if they don't even ask!
>
> Given that the car in question (LLR) has
>has been provided for the expressed purpose of
>driving you to Macy's (i.e. DB's work on Google)
but the owner has NOT been asked if he wants to drive to Macy's. he's inside the
house, watching The Longest Day on TCM.
>and its owner is literally steering you there I
>cannot imagine how its owner's permission could
>possibly be more explicit.
well, as i've said before, if we can get back to the point, there was a site
created that utilized the poem of the author without the author's permission. by
all appearances it would look as if the author agreed to being part of said
website and allowed his work to be shown there, even if the showing of the
ACTUAL poem is located somewhere else.
it's not as if Rik said, "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
favorite of his poems" and posted that as a message here in usenet.
he created a site that collected together poetry, making the CLEAR implication
of a collection of poems being edited by the website creator. the collection
process on a separate NON-ARCHIVED site ends any issues of public domain, and
becomes a situation where the permission of the authors of said collected poems
should be asked.
i honestly don't give a fuck if this process that i am against is legal. that is
beside the point. it's unethical and immoral. a poet SHOULD have the final word
on his own words and where they're going to appear.
note that i use the word "should". hopefully that will stunt further argument,
thanks. what is real and what "should" be are certainly two different things,
but reality still doesn't change what's right, and what "should" be.
in the case of Rik, i don't believe that he was aware of my argument at the time
he created this site, hence i have no ill-will against him.
> Yours was a valiant effort. Cheer up, though.
i am not upset. you should see me when i get really mad.
>There are still 27 more days of 2002 to design an
>analogy even worse than Beau Blue's.
the analogy was yours, Colin. heal thy-self, my good Canuck.
Beau Blue
> Try this analogy instead: Does one have
>the right to drive their friend over to see
>the charming holiday display in Macy's window?
>
So, how did my charming holiday display (that I put up at St.
Vincent's for free) get into Macy's window? Back when St. Vincent's
first opened on the block, when things were 'just a bunch of display
designers showing off for one another', there was no talk about Macy's
right to do whatever they pleased with those displays. In fact, back
then, Macy's didn't even exist.
And, just because the displays were/are available in St. Vinny's
basement, why are they fair game for Macy's to store in ITS basement
and then present to anyone with a car and friends?
AND,
If Macy's doesn't really have a right to put those charming displays
in their windows, what responsibilities do you have, as a display
designer, someone with a car, friends and the knowledge that the
displays are in the windows, in seeing that your peers' displays are
not viewed against their wishes?
AND,
If your position is that you have no responsibility at all except to
not take your friends to the Macy's windows your peers ask you not to
go to (provided they know every single time you get in your car with
your friends to go charming display viewing), why should we not think
of you as a Macy's employee? And someone who should be included in the
lawsuit we bring against Macy's for taking unfair advantage of our
giving nature?
-blue
Rik Roots
>
Hi, Jim.
> well, as i've said before, if we can get back to the point, there was a
> site created that utilized the poem of the author without the author's
> permission.
>
I have not "utilised" any poems on my website except for my own.
I have created a commented list of links (in effect a "review") to posts
made to usenet and archived by Google.
> by all appearances it would look as if the author agreed to
> being part of said website and allowed his work to be shown there,
>
Absolutely not true. The accursed links which I post on my website open a
completely separate browser window which shows the Google archive website.
Complete with Google banner, Google ads and Google links.
Perhaps you would be happier if the link opened the Google website in the
same browser window, replacing the scum website completely?
By posting to usenet without setting exclusion headers, a person is giving
an implied consent to Google to archive their post, and an implied consent
to having their post displayed in the Google website context.
> even if
> the showing of the ACTUAL poem is located somewhere else.
>
There is an ogre sitting in a silo somewhere in America. This parasitic
ogre sucks up the usenet bandwidth, slobbering up every keystroke it can,
only avoiding those morsels which have been created with poisonous
anti-ogre headers.
This ogre is very clever in some ways and very stupid in other ways. It is
clever because it can store everything it sucks up in an efficient,
effective filing system. It is stupid because whenever anyone comes along
and pokes it with a stick, it will regurgitate a post and display it on its
very own website.
This ogre is not called Roots (though some believe that Roots is possibly a
related, defective species within the same genus). Roots is just the
imbecile who is trying to potty train the ogre.
People need to start coming to terms with the ogre, because it is not a
fairy tale. It is real. It exists. And it is not going to go away.
> it's not as if Rik said, "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
> favorite of his poems" and posted that as a message here in usenet.
>
Um, that is what I have done. Each issue of LLR is posted both to my
website *and* to each of the newsgroups cited within that issue. Do you
honestly believe I would offer an (admittedly inane) review of a person's
post without giving them an opportunity to comment on the review and the
reviewer?
> he created a site that collected together poetry, making the CLEAR
> implication of a collection of poems being edited by the website creator.
>
Not edited. Reviewed. Would you truely insult the Blackwood's reviewers by
claiming they had "edited" Keats?
> the collection process on a separate NON-ARCHIVED site ends any issues of
> public domain, and becomes a situation where the permission of the authors
> of said collected poems should be asked.
>
Each issue of LLR *is* archived. In the Google archive. Together with any
and all responses which that issue generates.
And (as many others have pointed out) why should a reviewer - however inane
his reviews - ask permission before reviewing another person's work, in
particular when that work has been posted in a public arena such as a
newsgroup?
> i honestly don't give a fuck if this process that i am against is legal.
> that is beside the point. it's unethical and immoral. a poet SHOULD have
> the final word on his own words and where they're going to appear.
>
It is a simple truth - to me at least - that a reviewer must be able to
point his readers (yes, both of them) to a place where they can view the
original work, so that they can come to their own conclusions about its
worth and skill independent of the reviewer's opinion. I point my readers
(bless them both) in the direction of the Google archive. If a post is not
archived on Google at the time I'm preparing the next issue of LLR then I
cannot - will not - review it.
(Actually, I think I posted one such review in Issue 1 of LLR, which said:
"Preston Mark Stone - From Bottles (rap)
No link to offer for this gem of a poetry sequence (the Ladle thinks mr
preston may have set his no-archive flag), but that only makes it more
important - in the Ladle's view - for people to invest in a good newsfeed,
to ensure excellence such as this is served direct to the screen. Googlers
may wish to search out for reflections of the original in other posters'
responses."
After posting it, I worried about it, and decided when I started looking at
posts for Issue 2 not to do it again. Apologies to Mr Stone for this action
- if he so wishes it, I will remove this review article from my website in
its entirety. Anyway, as I was saying...)
And furthermore, I will remove a link from my scum website as soon as I am
able to once it has been requested by the person whose post has been
reviewed.
> note that i use the word "should". hopefully that will stunt further
> argument, thanks. what is real and what "should" be are certainly two
> different things, but reality still doesn't change what's right, and what
> "should" be.
>
It amazes me that the surreal world of usenet can manage to upset so many
people on such a regular business.
> in the case of Rik, i don't believe that he was aware of my argument at
> the time he created this site, hence i have no ill-will against him.
>
Thank you. It is a pity indeed that we all couldn't have had this exchange
of views when I posted Issue 1 of the review. Thank the gods we did't wait
until issue 47.
One thing I have been very remiss about over the past few days is rebutting
the more ludicrous statements made by young master tom bishop. Prior to
last Sunday I had made special efforts to refute each of his attempts to
cite my dear little review in support of his "projects". Since Sunday, I
have been distracted by other events. I can only apologise for this
terrible deriliction of duty. I have vowed that LLR shall never be used as
a precedent to justify his experiments. I will not forsake that vow.
> love and kisses,
>
> j r sherman
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
> Of sprites and goblins."
>
> --the Marg Gold Star --- Quote by Uncle Billy
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/index.html
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare
Colin Ward
It seems you are having as much trouble understanding
analogies this week as JJ is having creating them. Even
the parenthesis didn't help. :(
LLR's consent is not at issue here. DB's
is. I know it is tough to keep up with the
players without a program, but DB's work is
the "Macy's" here, not the car. Got it now?
>>and its owner is literally steering you there I
>>cannot imagine how its owner's permission could
>>possibly be more explicit.
>
>well, as i've said before, if we can get back to the point, there was a site
>created that utilized the poem of the author without the author's permission. by
Google, you must mean. LLR only pointed
to it on Google. Do you seriously believe we
need anyone's permission to access their
contributions on Google? Should we phone for
it at 4:00 A.M.? Or can we only call David
during local daylight hours to ask for his
consent for us to Google him?
David *did* give consent for ANYONE to
view his contributions on the Usenet when he
posted it and on Google (a mere extension of
the post's life archived away for posterity)
when he decided to go with the default option
of archiving his original post. Rik's commenting
on them first is merely an application of that
First Amendment thingie you keep telling me about.
>all appearances it would look as if the author agreed to being part of said
>website and allowed his work to be shown there, even if the showing of the
>ACTUAL poem is located somewhere else.
Perhaps, but only to a complete illiterate
who was:
1. Unaware of what linking and Google are.
2. Unaware that the URL at the top of their
browser has changed to a new domain name
(a pretty big clue, I should think, but
not as big as this next one:).
3. Clueless as to why Google has not provided
a "HOME" button to return to LLR. Gotta
use the BACK button on the browser.
>it's not as if Rik said, "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
>favorite of his poems" and posted that as a message here in usenet.
Actually, it is almost EXACTLY that. The message
has merely been archived WITH THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION
in an extension of the usenet which we know as Google.
Google is sort of like a retirement home for usenet
messages, see?
>he created a site that collected together poetry,
Exactly wrong. It only collected his own thoughts
and opinions of poetry (along with some offerings of his
own, of course). It linked ELSEWHERE (i.e. to Google,
where David Bolduc chose to offer it for public viewing)
to get to David's poem itself.
> making the CLEAR implication
>of a collection of poems being edited by the website creator.
There is not even the slightest hint that Rik has
edited (i.e. changed) even one word in any of the works
to which he links. Indeed, given that these works are
presented *on Google*, Rik could not physically do so.
> the collection
>process on a separate NON-ARCHIVED site ends any issues of public domain, and
>becomes a situation where the permission of the authors of said collected poems
>should be asked.
On *this* I would agree wholeheartedly. Any
site which archives posts which the posting author
has explicitly asked NOT be archived is detestable.
Of course, this is not the case with Google.
Side note: JJ's concerns about retracting this
consent AFTER posting are worthy of serious consideration
but are not central to our discussion at this moment.
>i honestly don't give a fuck if this process that i am against is legal. that is
>beside the point. it's unethical and immoral.
Google is unethical and immoral? Why?
Is admiring a statue in a public park
unethical and immoral too? Can I recommend
it to my friends? Take the kids there to
see it? Or do I have to ask the sculptor's
permission first?
> a poet SHOULD have the final word
>on his own words and where they're going to appear.
And he or she does. Don't archive it for public
viewing and, lo and behold, it won't be archived for
public viewing.
>note that i use the word "should". hopefully that will stunt further argument,
>thanks. what is real and what "should" be are certainly two different things,
>but reality still doesn't change what's right, and what "should" be.
>
>in the case of Rik, i don't believe that he was aware of my argument at the time
>he created this site, hence i have no ill-will against him.
>
>> Yours was a valiant effort. Cheer up, though.
>
>i am not upset. you should see me when i get really mad.
>
>>There are still 27 more days of 2002 to design an
>>analogy even worse than Beau Blue's.
>
>the analogy was yours, Colin. heal thy-self, my good Canuck.
The analogy is doing fine, my good friend,
surviving even your prodigious efforts to
misinterpret it.
>love and kisses,
>
>j r sherman
Good hearing from you, as always. Get well
soon; we miss you.
Your fan,
Colin
Colin Ward
>Colin Ward <kal...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>> Try this analogy instead: Does one have
>>the right to drive their friend over to see
>>the charming holiday display in Macy's window?
>>
>
>So, how did my charming holiday display (that I put up at St.
>Vincent's for free) get into Macy's window?
Because YOU consented to have its life extended
there or, more accurately, chose not to insist that
they NOT do so KNOWING that this would be the default.
Suggesting that you understand the temporary nature
of usenet storage but have never heard of Google is a
questionable defence--and not one that anyone would
accept from an experienced internetter such as DB or
yourself.
Would it shock you to learn that human beings
are treated the same way as old usenet messages?
Ever hear of a "no 99" code?
<Snip>
M.H.Benders
Rik Roots wrote:
> By posting to usenet without setting exclusion headers, a person is giving
> an implied consent to Google to archive their post, and an implied consent
> to having their post displayed in the Google website context.
That's what you say, but it's actually a load of crap. Google only gets
away with it because no one hired an expensive lawyer yet. Their excuse,
moreover, is based on the fact that they archive the entirety of usenet,
thus not making any editors choice and thus not 'publishing'. None of
these arguments apply to your Review Magazine.
> > it's not as if Rik said, "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
> > favorite of his poems" and posted that as a message here in usenet.
> >
> Um, that is what I have done. Each issue of LLR is posted both to my
> website *and* to each of the newsgroups cited within that issue. Do you
> honestly believe I would offer an (admittedly inane) review of a person's
> post without giving them an opportunity to comment on the review and the
> reviewer?
You *do* pretend it's some sort of Review, instead of just a collection
of links. Why you would do that escapes me, as there's hardly anything
'reviewed' in that little pamphlet.
M.H.Benders
Beau Blue
>On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:21:36 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
>>So, how did my charming holiday display (that I put up at St.
>>Vincent's for free) get into Macy's window?
>
> Because YOU consented to have its life extended
>there or,
No I didn't and you know it.
>more accurately, chose not to insist that
>they NOT do so KNOWING that this would be the default.
Since Google was put together at Stanford in '95, wasn't funded 'til
'98 and was beta 'til September of '99, didn't acquire Deja 'til '00
and neither Larry or Sergey ever bothered to ask me what I thought the
defaut should be, why should I accept your statement that I "consented
to have it's life extended"? And if there was some legal defense of
"you consented to have its life extended there" when did it happen, in
what courthouse, and who was the lawyer defending the rights of the
individual contributors?
>Suggesting that you understand the temporary nature
>of usenet storage but have never heard of Google is a
>questionable defence
Now, how did you pull this out of my post?
According to my notes I started posting to the net in '85. A full
decade before the youngsters in Palo Alto ever even met. The only
archive of RAP posts that I knew of in '89 through '94 was my own and
was for my own private use.
If I had started posting articles I had archived to 'The Hawk' or
'ZeroCity' without the author's permission, I'm fairly certain the RAP
community would have lynched me ... at the very least they would've
insulted and assaulted my character.
> and not one that anyone would
>accept from an experienced internetter such as DB or
>yourself.
Don't you mean "anyone with a 'vested' interest"? That would be Larry
and Sergey, the Stanford prof that put up the initial $100K and the
investors who put up the other $900K that got the engine out of
development. I guess not, unless you were one of those investors. Are
you one of those investors? I'm looking here for a motive for your
defense of actions that would appear, on the surface at least, to be
against your own individual interests.
> Would it shock you to learn that human beings
>are treated the same way as old usenet messages?
>Ever hear of a "no 99" code?
Please, I'm confused enough. Don't change the subject.
>
> <Snip>
>
Unfair! You're previous posts seem to represent you as an expert on
these matters. Certainly, you posted as if you have thought this all
through and understand all the issues and ramifications. Even to the
point of ridiculing my analogy 3 or 4 times. Now we're using YOUR
analogy and you only answer one of my questions?
Here I was thinking I was discussing this with someone who'd spent
time in some job like Web Development Director at Stanford's Business
School or something and then you go and cut things off after the first
question. I'm disappointed.
-blue
Colin Ward
>Colin Ward <kal...@mts.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:21:36 GMT, jjw...@cruzio.com (Beau Blue) wrote:
>
>>>So, how did my charming holiday display (that I put up at St.
>>>Vincent's for free) get into Macy's window?
>>
>> Because YOU consented to have its life extended
>>there or,
>
>No I didn't and you know it.
The poster certainly did. And you know it.
Given the chance to opt out of archiving and
choosing not to exercise that option, one's only
option would have to be to argue along the lines
of "uninformed consent".
"Gee, your Honour, I knew Usenet messages
had a limited lifetime but, no, I've never heard
of Google!"
As difficult as this argument would be to
make for a newbie it would be impossible for an
experienced internet user such as yourself or
David Bolduc. The problem with using stupidity
as a case is that, under cross examination, any
glint of intelligence will betray you. Yes, I
grant you that we could name a few people here
who could pull it off, but you and David Bolduc
are certainly not among them. :)
But, of course, if you and/or Martijn
Benders wish to launch a lawsuit against Google
and the eons-old Roman legal concept of "silence
giving consent" you are certainly free to try.
Please don't be too surprised if it is laughed
out of consideration by the first screening law
clerk to come across it, though.
My advice would be to accept that Google
is here to stay and get on with life.
<Luddite anti-Google rant mercy snipped>
Tom Bishop
"M.H.Benders" <maan...@chello.nl> wrote in message news:3DF009CE...@chello.nl...
>
>
> Rik Roots wrote:
>
> > By posting to usenet without setting exclusion headers, a person is giving
> > an implied consent to Google to archive their post, and an implied consent
> > to having their post displayed in the Google website context.
>
> That's what you say, but it's actually a load of crap. Google only gets
> away with it because no one hired an expensive lawyer yet. Their excuse,
> moreover, is based on the fact that they archive the entirety of usenet,
NOT TRUE.. they exclude much of it,
the bulk of it actually.
They cover no Usenet binary groups,
which account for much of the traffic.
> thus not making any editors choice and thus not 'publishing'. None of
> these arguments apply to your Review Magazine.
No.. Usenet is a special /thing/.
It can be legally copied (and subsetted).. the limits of subsetting
have not been tested (or please cite the case).
Google is simply one of many. See giganews.com, newsfeeds.com
etc.. many of them. Most charge for access (not content, but only traffic).
>
>
> > > it's not as if Rik said, "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
> > > favorite of his poems" and posted that as a message here in usenet.
> > >
> > Um, that is what I have done. Each issue of LLR is posted both to my
> > website *and* to each of the newsgroups cited within that issue. Do you
> > honestly believe I would offer an (admittedly inane) review of a person's
> > post without giving them an opportunity to comment on the review and the
> > reviewer?
>
> You *do* pretend it's some sort of Review, instead of just a collection
> of links. Why you would do that escapes me, as there's hardly anything
> 'reviewed' in that little pamphlet.
He reviews enough to call it a review. Just that he picks
favorites is a review of sorts.
>
> M.H.Benders
Scott Murphy
> well, as i've said before, if we can get back to the point, there was a site
> created that utilized the poem of the author without the author's permission. by
> all appearances it would look as if the author agreed to being part of said
> website and allowed his work to be shown there, even if the showing of the
> ACTUAL poem is located somewhere else.
The site is called google.com, and the "somewhere else" is the otherwise
ephemeral newsfeed streaming over the disks of countless servers.
> it's not as if Rik said, "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
> favorite of his poems" and posted that as a message here in usenet.
I found it indistinguishable from saying "i really like David's stuff, here's a link to my
favorite of his poems".
> he created a site that collected together poetry, making the CLEAR implication
> of a collection of poems being edited by the website creator. the collection
> process on a separate NON-ARCHIVED site ends any issues of public domain, and
> becomes a situation where the permission of the authors of said collected poems
> should be asked.
Like google, kaleida is archived until such time as human error or lack of funds
end its tenure on a disk.
When I appear in public, folks may laugh at me, flatter me, ignore me--
whatever. Posting to Usenet is a form of appearing in public.
Rik Roots has collected links. These links are his comments aloud
on some characters he's seen on the "street." They appear as links,
not thefts, and pursuing the links renders the texts in a neutral context
that can't reasonably be construed as theft or defacement. Such hypertexts
of links are the essence of the web.
> i honestly don't give a fuck if this process that i am against is legal. that is
> beside the point. it's unethical and immoral. a poet SHOULD have the final word
> on his own words and where they're going to appear.
Fuck poets. Fuck their bleeding, neurotic hearts. They are a bunch of whining
toddlers who think they can be fatally wounded by a blow from a wet noodle.
> note that i use the word "should". hopefully that will stunt further argument,
jims, there is not a word in the lexicon that *ever* stunted argment from *you*,
least of all a stunted stump of a word like "should."
-Murphy
Texas Max King
i fucked a poet once . . . gawd was she a most divine fuck . . .
she chanted a soliliquoy in anapestic tetrameter when she came . . .
of course she wasn't as good as the opera singer . . .
but I'm partial to high notes.
-Max ('link', isn't that the little guy in Zelda?)
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> In article <3DECDF06...@arvig.net>, "Dennis says...
> >
> >j r sherman wrote:
> >...
> >> as poets, or even wanna be poets, or just people who scribble on the back of
> >>paper bags, all we have is our poems, whether they're lousy or good. this isn't
> >>about google archiving, this is about being in charge of where we want our poems
> >> to appear.
> >...
> >
> >You aren't.
>
> yes i am. sorry.
>
> > Live with it or die of it, but shut up about it.
>
> heh... like i'm gonna shut up about anything. you kill me, dennis.
In the instant case, you just killed yourself, since you can file
the serial numbers off this post /and/ the feelings /and/ the
knowledge that generated it, and put it directly into Rik's mouth
concerning your control of a pome once you post it /or/ submit it
for other publication.
>
> > "All you have is your pomes"?
>
> well, fuck, women come and go. kids will leave you when you're old. dogs die.
> cats, will leave you when you're old. our words won't run away and marry a
> skateboarder name "Snake" and throw their lives away on crystal meth.
Even worse, grass turns brown. And suns burn out.
And our words run away all the dam' time. It's why we corset them
in extra carriage-return cleavage in the belief they can't then run
as fast as a Modern Woman (dogs remain out of the question re speed,
and cats never gave a dam' in the first place).
>
> > Good grief, boy, even chuckles has his Janet.
>
> my words are more real than chuckles girls. even you know that, dennis.
But of course. "Comparison by hyperbole" and all like that there.
Poor art, though, being so cliche in these parts.
>
> > Martijn even has an onion.
> > (Maybe they'll /share/.)
> > And the Bolduc asserts to have /Marines/.;
>
> on occasion. on occasion i have actresses, and libertines. and married women.
> and a lovely cross section of women of various sorts. and this means....what,
> Mr. Dennis?
That where chuckles has his Janet, you have your French Cinema.
(God, this flaming shit is easy.)
>
> > If you Agree with him, maybe /he'll/ Share.
>
> now that was Bitchy, Mary. what's with you as of late, dennis? you're getting
> almost Queen-like here.
Bitchy? Probably. Hopefully. I tend not to be very good at it,
but it's in the subject line on this one.
>
> > And if they /don't/, you can have a "Vote" about it.
>
> >P.S.: /You/ "have pomes, ah, /poems/"?
>
> there are more amazing things, mary.
Yes; chuckles' having pomes, e.g. For you, this poetry shit is
easy; we (even I) /expect/ you to have pomes. Again, the rhetorical
figure was already hackneyed in these froups.
>
> > What you /do/ have is a really bad case of crapping yourself in
> >your playpen while claiming to own everybody you think you've heard
> >of because you think you've heard of them.
>
> what you seem to have is a stick so far up your butt that they've changed your
> nickname to Fence-post Hammes.
It was that dam' Halloween party. It was so cold I stuck a
two-by-four up my ass and went as a popsicle. And my "smiley" was
more than a little suggestive of "fence" in every "post" already,
so...
>
> do remember, at a later date, that i was not the one who got personal with this,
> okay?
I addressed "personal vs. UseNet" elsewhere this morning. Q.v.
Some of the "brusque" results from the fact I've been using a
kitchen chair for a walker for about the duration of the
altercation. And sometimes the ibuprofen wears off in the middle of
a UseNet session. /That/ would have been "personal."
Schidt happens. Leave it lie, write about it, eat it, fling it.
It's a free country. That DB says "not" in the case is most unlike
him, to be sure.
But it's also "material." Both the fact and the anomaly.
As is the fact that, while it is the duty of the smart to remind
the stupid that they are stupid, one doesn't expect to have to
remind his friends. So the element of duty puts an element of
shrill in the voice.
>
> love and kisses,
>
> j r sherman
>
Stuart Leichter
King" <max...@pstx.com> wrote:
You must've been delirious and deranged, a soliloquoy is a theatrical
device obsolesced by voiceover. Did she say 'soliliquoy'? Maybe she was
comparing you to a giant redwood tree?
Dennis M. Hammes
Why did you think I never put "her rosebud mouth" into a sonnet?
Gives her teeth like dracula, and you can only steer with your feet
on her ears, when /her/ feet belong on /your/ ears.