So Mike is arguing that plagiarism is okay because it was given by revelation? That makes VPW's stealing different than the stealing we see everyday?
What he's arguing, Bolshevik, is that the information is God's, and God can give it to whomsoever he wishes. And if someone (VPW) collates all the info (at God's direction) then that person isn't stealing or plagiarising the works, because the information didn't belong to the original writer whose publications were plagiarised.
Hence, God revealed something to, say, Stiles; but the information was God's, not Stiles's; and VPW merely collated it and put it together with publications from, say, Bullinger. Throughout, the information remained and remains God's property.
It doesn't explain, of course, why TWI should copyright material that, on this basis, isn't theirs to collate, since it's God's information. Copyrighting would mean that this publication of God's information becomes less available to others to whom God might reveal information , or give instructions, to collate such material with their own publications (should they so wish).
PFAL material, you understand, is God's final written word about anything, and as such will not need to be added to or amended. Not now, and not ever in the future, by generations 100 years down the line (should Christ's return be delayed that long).
What he's arguing, Bolshevik, is that the information is God's, and God can give it to whomsoever he wishes. And if someone (VPW) collates all the info (at God's direction) then that person isn't stealing or plagiarising the works, because the information didn't belong to the original writer whose publications were plagiarised.
Hence, God revealed something to, say, Stiles; but the information was God's, not Stiles's; and VPW merely collated it and put it together with publications from, say, Bullinger. Throughout, the information remained and remains God's property.
. . .
I discover a cure for a disease after years of hard work. It could save many. I do nothing with it.
Who does this cure belong to?
The universe is full of information. Does a valued piece of information belong to the first discoverer? Or the first to be acknowledged? The first to show it's importance? The first to apply it in a way that helps others?
I discover a cure for a disease after years of hard work. It could save many. I do nothing with it.
Who does this cure belong to?
The universe is full of information. Does a valued piece of information belong to the first discoverer? Or the first to be acknowledged? The first to show it's importance? The first to apply it in a way that helps others?
The first to record it as her/his discovery/work. In your scenario, it would be patented.
I find it interesting that you skipped the plainest discussion to fog the issue with sesquipedian
Hold your interest... it's a boring explanation.... again.... scarcity of time, plus difficulty reading. That's my life now. I may someday get macular surgery someday, etc.
The two factors work together to slow me down and loose lots of posts, and the need to totally ignore some for various reasons, and priorities for what TO spend time on. Then on top of that, when I open GSC I have a collection of posts I missed last session, and new posts, and the scramble makes it hard to know where to begin. I am done with my style of Rock-n-Roll-get-my-message-out-blasting-thru-all-opposition posting , where dodging is an honored art form. I ended that. I gave up on it here. Gosh, I'm tired of explaining this over and over. I should copy and paste this from now on.
My whole mode now is NORMAL, like I interact with other people, customers, strangers at Starbucks, etc.
But lots get lost in the shuffle mostly unawares to me. I apologize for it and try to engage.
As for the first two paragraphs of your post [ I find it interesting that you skipped... thru ... , Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, etc.] either I did not have the time to even read it, didn't totally understand it then, or something? Net result is I don't understand all the references contained within it. Again I apologize. If those two paragraphs are important to you, let's start fresh, and I'll try. Pretend you are pitching it ALL to someone for the first time. (not far from truth; I'm juggling about 5 complicated issues I've been corresponding with to several other friends, and my brain is a little overloaded.)
These are the honest facts. I wasn't fogging then, nor now. But maybe just a tiny for fun below.
That said, I thought it was interesting (becoming a common idiom lately?)...
I thought it interesting that you opened up those two paragraphs with: " I find it interesting that you skipped the plainest discussion to fog the issue with sesquipedian concepts that had nothing to do with it. "
In addition to interest upon interest, I see that sesquipedian is delightfully self-referential. That makes it self-referential upon self-referential ! My favorite self referential word is embelishmentationalism. I made it up.
If those two paragraphs are high priority I'll try again if you will.
If there were actually "digital reams of debate"on this and not one offhand comment and a short discussion, you should have no trouble finding the thing to cite so we can discuss what he actually said and how it didn't relate except in your imagination. I'm expecting you to say it can't be found but that it somehow was the key to your statements- while continuing to skip all the other points-for which you have no SENSIBLE answer.
This is about the 1942 snow storm and Lifted Up's post on a rogue snow storm he saw, and the many posts on it. It came up over and over. I don't want to bother looking. It's low priority for me. It wasn't the key to my statements. I had posted a lot on the science of rogue waves a few times, and then, out of the blue (like HCW's anti racism post), it came in to surprisingly support me. I then referred back to it for a few years a few times when the snow storm show job came up as it still does over and over. I just wish you remember and posted the oppositions to some of the things you think are solid.
Anyone here should be able to find these things IF they are still here. Keywords: rogue, wave, rogue-wave, snow, snowjob, snow job, running.
***
Has anyone ever tried to restore the pruned posts? There were a lot. I have copies of ALL of the pruned threads that I posted on, possibly some are not complete, though. I can send my copies to any programmer who wants to restore the pruned threads.
Maybe someone can contact Lifted Up. I'm pretty sure that was his name because I re-posted it a few times like Oldiesman's post on how he found VPW's caveat that he hardly originated any of his teachings in WLIL.
Sorry Mike, but I think you are obfuscating the simplicity of the Bible; I believe if God communicated his Word - then what more is needed then to simply believe it? I think one can infer from many passages that God does indeed help seekers to get a better understanding of his Word...
That is the whole idea behind the following passages:
16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own...John 7:16, 17 NIV
Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this. II Timothy 2:7 NIV
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding...Proverbs 9:10 NIV
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. ...Psalm 119:130 KJV
13 For we write you nothing other than what you read and understand [there is no doublemeaning in what we say]. And I hope you will [accurately] understand [divine things] until the end; 14 just as you have [already] partially understood us, [and one day will recognize] that you can be proud of us just as we are of you, in the day of our Lord Jesus...II Corinthians 1: 13, 14 Amplified
Mike, don’t over complicate it! The Word is right there in plain sight ! No one needs a secret decoder ring !
Sorry, but the complications are there already.
There are lots of places where mis-copied texts, bad translations, and blinding tradition complicate the ancient scriptures.
THAT's one way the Bible interprets itself. We can use the principle (if we believe it) that the originals were perfect, and that all contradictions are either in our understanding or in the transmission of the text. In that way the consistent parts help us iron out the inconsistent parts. And the difficult verses are understood in light of the clear ones. And... there are several more ways the Bible helps us fix errors and understand the original text.
Penworks, IMO, used a broad brush to hide all that from her readers. I thought is was a serious weakness of bias right at the start of her work. I'll still read it, but it lowered my expectations that I'd see much.
***
You wrote: “I think one can infer from many passages that God does indeed help seekers to get a better understanding of his Word...”
I AGREE. One of the coolest ways He can do this is planting keys right in the text that sail through the adversary’s obfuscations.What we can find in the text this way God expects us top find.THEN, of course, He can also give direct revelation when needed.
I think the parts of the ancient scriptures that get the most sophisticated scrambling (lost originals, mis-translations, blinding tradition) are not the emotionally soothing parts (which most flock to) but the power passages that inform us how to EFFECTIVELY rock the boat on the adversary, and threaten his grip.
How very ELITIST of you. What exactly are your academic credentials?
No. If I had elitist credentials THEN I'd be elitist in insisting on you taking me serious simply because of them. I am lowlife and not recognized. My only hope is that CONTENT of what I say has integrity above the best credentials. If I had credentials, that would be just present a little wrinkle to the strategies of those who so desire to resist the idea that we were given light, and like all other humans but one, we lost it.
Mike, you sir, beside the fact that you are a dogmatist, are a fundamentalist. Except that YOUR fundamentalism is PFLAP flavored.
I agree. Did you see where I explained that I was keying off the most offensive traits of fundamentalism which lack the needed flavoring of PFAL? It never occurred to me that you were keying off the definition of fundamentalism. Did you see where I admitted (when I saw our mis-communication) that TWI (and PFAL) was fundamentalist in the sense of the definition? That would make me a fundamentalist, I know.
I see most fundamentalists as failing to live up to its definition, because of poor originals, bad translations, and blinding tradition. In that sense I am NOT one of them; not included in the areas that matter, just the beginning definition.
This is about the 1942 snow storm and Lifted Up's post on a rogue snow storm he saw, and the many posts on it. It came up over and over. I don't want to bother looking. It's low priority for me. It wasn't the key to my statements. I had posted a lot on the science of rogue waves a few times, and then, out of the blue (like HCW's anti racism post), it came in to surprisingly support me. I then referred back to it for a few years a few times when the snow storm show job came up as it still does over and over. I just wish you remember and posted the oppositions to some of the things you think are solid.
Anyone here should be able to find these things IF they are still here. Keywords: rogue, wave, rogue-wave, snow, snowjob, snow job, running.
***
Has anyone ever tried to restore the pruned posts? There were a lot. I have copies of ALL of the pruned threads that I posted on, possibly some are not complete, though. I can send my copies to any programmer who wants to restore the pruned threads.
Maybe someone can contact Lifted Up. I'm pretty sure that was his name because I re-posted it a few times like Oldiesman's post on how he found VPW's caveat that he hardly originated any of his teachings in WLIL.
A) So, it's not important enough for you to look up, but someone else should look it up, and it supposedly supports your position . That's a rather specific level of importance.
B) Should be no surprise that you still can't remember that WE'VE posted what vpw wrote- and why it was completely inadequate. One comment buried over 100 pages into one book owned by a minority of twi'ers is not "proper attribution" nor was it even honest in this instance. If you want to get into that one, make a new thread and I'll explain or cut-and-paste what was already explained about that.
Hold your interest... it's a boring explanation.... again.... scarcity of time, plus difficulty reading. That's my life now. I may someday get macular surgery someday, etc.
The two factors work together to slow me down and loose lots of posts, and the need to totally ignore some for various reasons, and priorities for what TO spend time on. Then on top of that, when I open GSC I have a collection of posts I missed last session, and new posts, and the scramble makes it hard to know where to begin. I am done with my style of Rock-n-Roll-get-my-message-out-blasting-thru-all-opposition posting , where dodging is an honored art form. I ended that. I gave up on it here. Gosh, I'm tired of explaining this over and over. I should copy and paste this from now on.
My whole mode now is NORMAL, like I interact with other people, customers, strangers at Starbucks, etc.
But lots get lost in the shuffle mostly unawares to me. I apologize for it and try to engage.
As for the first two paragraphs of your post [ I find it interesting that you skipped... thru ... , Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, etc.] either I did not have the time to even read it, didn't totally understand it then, or something? Net result is I don't understand all the references contained within it. Again I apologize. If those two paragraphs are important to you, let's start fresh, and I'll try. Pretend you are pitching it ALL to someone for the first time. (not far from truth; I'm juggling about 5 complicated issues I've been corresponding with to several other friends, and my brain is a little overloaded.)
These are the honest facts. I wasn't fogging then, nor now. But maybe just a tiny for fun below.
That said, I thought it was interesting (becoming a common idiom lately?)...
I thought it interesting that you opened up those two paragraphs with: " I find it interesting that you skipped the plainest discussion to fog the issue with sesquipedian concepts that had nothing to do with it. "
In addition to interest upon interest, I see that sesquipedian is delightfully self-referential. That makes it self-referential upon self-referential ! My favorite self referential word is embelishmentationalism. I made it up.
If those two paragraphs are high priority I'll try again if you will.
No, I'm not buying this one. Here's how it works. We have a discussion on the 1942 promise. Anyone is welcome to participate-you've specifically been invited to participate by the original poster of the thread (me). If you want to participate, you'll actually have to READ THE POSTS. You expect me to read your posts-and I do- so you're expected to show me the same courtesy you're expecting of me-and getting. Since we all have lives, you don't have to drop everything to read it, but you're expected to read the thread before joining it. It's not even a full page yet. So, start with the first post-the one you're claiming a problem with. If you're actually misunderstanding something in that post, ask about it in the thread and be specific. "I don't want to read that much, please summarize" is rather rich coming from you. I'll rephrase if some wording has you stuck, but I see no sign that was the case. I'm seeing you skip what you want and reply only to what you feel like-even if you skipped the more critical and replied only to the least point.
And if I didn't think you could participate fully as a poster in the thread, I wouldn't have made it as easy as possible for you to reply while actually inviting you personally to join in. Make of that what you will.
I discover a cure for a disease after years of hard work. It could save many. I do nothing with it.
Who does this cure belong to?
The universe is full of information. Does a valued piece of information belong to the first discoverer? Or the first to be acknowledged? The first to show it's importance? The first to apply it in a way that helps others?
Bolshivek, I like your sensitivity to the flimsiness of ownership of intellectual property.
I like the idea of intellectual property, but it is not nearly as solid as ownership of objects.
Maybe the REASON the US Constitution makes a place for it is BECAUSE of this flimsiness. It's a good concept, promoting thinking and commerce and progress, but because it's so flimsy it NEEDS the support of the Constitution.
I've also noticed that real estate ownership is a little flimsy, in light of property taxes where that ownership must be rented from the govt, and in light of imminent domain where the govt decides it own it more.
I've seen that the ownership of window cleaning routes (and many similar businesses) is flimsy, and for LOTS of reasons.
I try to be very careful with customers of "mine" whom I "sell" to another window cleaner. What do those customers think of my ownership of "them" ? What happens if a customer of "mine" sells his business? Do I "own" that business still? What if one of "my" customers wants to get rid of me to help his nephew who just went into the window cleaning business? Is he "stealing" from me? What if a customer of "mine" hires a new manager and that person wants to start fresh with new bids from several window cleaners? It's endless.
I wonder if the copyrights, to those who live in that world like I live in window world, have endless complications and nuances that broadcast that flimsiness to those in the know?
Hardly ANYONE (especially here where copyrights are a major club used in hammering out the Pure Evil model) ever talks about all this flimsiness, so THANKS Bolshevik, for assisting me in this.
No, I'm not buying this one. Here's how it works. We have a discussion on the 1942 promise. Anyone is welcome to participate-you've specifically been invited to participate by the original poster of the thread (me). If you want to participate, you'll actually have to READ THE POSTS.
You are right... in general. But in my case there's more to consider than the courtesy factor you rightfully mention.
I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me. If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.
No. If I had elitist credentials THEN I'd be elitist in insisting on you taking me serious simply because of them. I am lowlife and not recognized. My only hope is that CONTENT of what I say has integrity above the best credentials. If I had credentials, that would be just present a little wrinkle to the strategies of those who so desire to resist the idea that we were given light, and like all other humans but one, we lost it.
Mike, Mike, Mike... I quoted where you called Penworks "dimwitted." That's something an elitist would say. Then, after quoting you, I asked you about your academic credentials. If you want to now not be an elitist, you'd have to take back your namecalling (dimwitted).
I assure you, those here who would consider your content (your fundamentalist PFLAP dogma) to have integrity seem to be few and far between.
I agree. Did you see where I explained that I was keying off the most offensive traits of fundamentalism which lack the needed flavoring of PFAL? It never occurred to me that you were keying off the definition of fundamentalism. Did you see where I admitted (when I saw our mis-communication) that TWI (and PFAL) was fundamentalist in the sense of the definition? That would make me a fundamentalist, I know.
And it (the definition of fundamentalism) makes Wierwille and his subculture also fundamentalist.
I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me. If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
138
52
45
Popular Days
Feb 28
62
Feb 26
51
Mar 28
47
Feb 25
42
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 73 posts
Mike 138 posts
waysider 52 posts
So_crates 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 28 2018
62 posts
Feb 26 2018
51 posts
Mar 28 2018
47 posts
Feb 25 2018
42 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Just for the record - I’ve mentioned this before - the definition for “hard hitting” as often associated with tough journalists who do their job - is uncompromisingly direct and honest, especially in
Grace Valerie Claire
Mike, what are you talking about?? I think there is a lot of "good," here at the GSC. For example, if you go back, and read the threads, many people have revealed the real TWI, not the one in your i
DontWorryBeHappy
Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already to
Rocky
So did I. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So Mike is arguing that plagiarism is okay because it was given by revelation? That makes VPW's stealing different than the stealing we see everyday?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's exactly what Mike is arguing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
And the counterargument would be . . . To what end? VPW hurt far, far more than helped anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Bolshevik asked:
What he's arguing, Bolshevik, is that the information is God's, and God can give it to whomsoever he wishes. And if someone (VPW) collates all the info (at God's direction) then that person isn't stealing or plagiarising the works, because the information didn't belong to the original writer whose publications were plagiarised.
Hence, God revealed something to, say, Stiles; but the information was God's, not Stiles's; and VPW merely collated it and put it together with publications from, say, Bullinger. Throughout, the information remained and remains God's property.
It doesn't explain, of course, why TWI should copyright material that, on this basis, isn't theirs to collate, since it's God's information. Copyrighting would mean that this publication of God's information becomes less available to others to whom God might reveal information , or give instructions, to collate such material with their own publications (should they so wish).
PFAL material, you understand, is God's final written word about anything, and as such will not need to be added to or amended. Not now, and not ever in the future, by generations 100 years down the line (should Christ's return be delayed that long).
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Well, that of course is a subjective argument. We can't quantify either one.
But Twinky articulated Mike's position well. Probably far better than Mike ever could... at least far more succinctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes…I’m wondering if any questions about Mike’s position should be directed to Twinky - - just to save time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
T-Bone, you might have a point! LMAO!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I discover a cure for a disease after years of hard work. It could save many. I do nothing with it.
Who does this cure belong to?
The universe is full of information. Does a valued piece of information belong to the first discoverer? Or the first to be acknowledged? The first to show it's importance? The first to apply it in a way that helps others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The first to record it as her/his discovery/work. In your scenario, it would be patented.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hold your interest... it's a boring explanation.... again.... scarcity of time, plus difficulty reading. That's my life now. I may someday get macular surgery someday, etc.
The two factors work together to slow me down and loose lots of posts, and the need to totally ignore some for various reasons, and priorities for what TO spend time on. Then on top of that, when I open GSC I have a collection of posts I missed last session, and new posts, and the scramble makes it hard to know where to begin. I am done with my style of Rock-n-Roll-get-my-message-out-blasting-thru-all-opposition posting , where dodging is an honored art form. I ended that. I gave up on it here. Gosh, I'm tired of explaining this over and over. I should copy and paste this from now on.
My whole mode now is NORMAL, like I interact with other people, customers, strangers at Starbucks, etc.
But lots get lost in the shuffle mostly unawares to me. I apologize for it and try to engage.
As for the first two paragraphs of your post [ I find it interesting that you skipped... thru ... , Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, etc.] either I did not have the time to even read it, didn't totally understand it then, or something? Net result is I don't understand all the references contained within it. Again I apologize. If those two paragraphs are important to you, let's start fresh, and I'll try. Pretend you are pitching it ALL to someone for the first time. (not far from truth; I'm juggling about 5 complicated issues I've been corresponding with to several other friends, and my brain is a little overloaded.)
These are the honest facts. I wasn't fogging then, nor now. But maybe just a tiny for fun below.
That said, I thought it was interesting (becoming a common idiom lately?)...
I thought it interesting that you opened up those two paragraphs with: " I find it interesting that you skipped the plainest discussion to fog the issue with sesquipedian concepts that had nothing to do with it. "
In addition to interest upon interest, I see that sesquipedian is delightfully self-referential. That makes it self-referential upon self-referential ! My favorite self referential word is embelishmentationalism. I made it up.
If those two paragraphs are high priority I'll try again if you will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This is about the 1942 snow storm and Lifted Up's post on a rogue snow storm he saw, and the many posts on it. It came up over and over. I don't want to bother looking. It's low priority for me. It wasn't the key to my statements. I had posted a lot on the science of rogue waves a few times, and then, out of the blue (like HCW's anti racism post), it came in to surprisingly support me. I then referred back to it for a few years a few times when the snow storm show job came up as it still does over and over. I just wish you remember and posted the oppositions to some of the things you think are solid.
Anyone here should be able to find these things IF they are still here. Keywords: rogue, wave, rogue-wave, snow, snowjob, snow job, running.
***
Has anyone ever tried to restore the pruned posts? There were a lot. I have copies of ALL of the pruned threads that I posted on, possibly some are not complete, though. I can send my copies to any programmer who wants to restore the pruned threads.
Maybe someone can contact Lifted Up. I'm pretty sure that was his name because I re-posted it a few times like Oldiesman's post on how he found VPW's caveat that he hardly originated any of his teachings in WLIL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry, but the complications are there already.
There are lots of places where mis-copied texts, bad translations, and blinding tradition complicate the ancient scriptures.
THAT's one way the Bible interprets itself. We can use the principle (if we believe it) that the originals were perfect, and that all contradictions are either in our understanding or in the transmission of the text. In that way the consistent parts help us iron out the inconsistent parts. And the difficult verses are understood in light of the clear ones. And... there are several more ways the Bible helps us fix errors and understand the original text.
Penworks, IMO, used a broad brush to hide all that from her readers. I thought is was a serious weakness of bias right at the start of her work. I'll still read it, but it lowered my expectations that I'd see much.
***
You wrote: “I think one can infer from many passages that God does indeed help seekers to get a better understanding of his Word...”
I AGREE. One of the coolest ways He can do this is planting keys right in the text that sail through the adversary’s obfuscations. What we can find in the text this way God expects us top find. THEN, of course, He can also give direct revelation when needed.
I think the parts of the ancient scriptures that get the most sophisticated scrambling (lost originals, mis-translations, blinding tradition) are not the emotionally soothing parts (which most flock to) but the power passages that inform us how to EFFECTIVELY rock the boat on the adversary, and threaten his grip.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. If I had elitist credentials THEN I'd be elitist in insisting on you taking me serious simply because of them. I am lowlife and not recognized. My only hope is that CONTENT of what I say has integrity above the best credentials. If I had credentials, that would be just present a little wrinkle to the strategies of those who so desire to resist the idea that we were given light, and like all other humans but one, we lost it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree. Did you see where I explained that I was keying off the most offensive traits of fundamentalism which lack the needed flavoring of PFAL? It never occurred to me that you were keying off the definition of fundamentalism. Did you see where I admitted (when I saw our mis-communication) that TWI (and PFAL) was fundamentalist in the sense of the definition? That would make me a fundamentalist, I know.
I see most fundamentalists as failing to live up to its definition, because of poor originals, bad translations, and blinding tradition. In that sense I am NOT one of them; not included in the areas that matter, just the beginning definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Now, after a few hours? I'm looking for the posts I missed responding to with bleary eyes, and only one beer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) So, it's not important enough for you to look up, but someone else should look it up, and it supposedly supports your position . That's a rather specific level of importance.
B) Should be no surprise that you still can't remember that WE'VE posted what vpw wrote- and why it was completely inadequate. One comment buried over 100 pages into one book owned by a minority of twi'ers is not "proper attribution" nor was it even honest in this instance. If you want to get into that one, make a new thread and I'll explain or cut-and-paste what was already explained about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No, I'm not buying this one. Here's how it works. We have a discussion on the 1942 promise. Anyone is welcome to participate-you've specifically been invited to participate by the original poster of the thread (me). If you want to participate, you'll actually have to READ THE POSTS. You expect me to read your posts-and I do- so you're expected to show me the same courtesy you're expecting of me-and getting. Since we all have lives, you don't have to drop everything to read it, but you're expected to read the thread before joining it. It's not even a full page yet. So, start with the first post-the one you're claiming a problem with. If you're actually misunderstanding something in that post, ask about it in the thread and be specific. "I don't want to read that much, please summarize" is rather rich coming from you. I'll rephrase if some wording has you stuck, but I see no sign that was the case. I'm seeing you skip what you want and reply only to what you feel like-even if you skipped the more critical and replied only to the least point.
And if I didn't think you could participate fully as a poster in the thread, I wouldn't have made it as easy as possible for you to reply while actually inviting you personally to join in. Make of that what you will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Bolshivek, I like your sensitivity to the flimsiness of ownership of intellectual property.
I like the idea of intellectual property, but it is not nearly as solid as ownership of objects.
Maybe the REASON the US Constitution makes a place for it is BECAUSE of this flimsiness. It's a good concept, promoting thinking and commerce and progress, but because it's so flimsy it NEEDS the support of the Constitution.
I've also noticed that real estate ownership is a little flimsy, in light of property taxes where that ownership must be rented from the govt, and in light of imminent domain where the govt decides it own it more.
I've seen that the ownership of window cleaning routes (and many similar businesses) is flimsy, and for LOTS of reasons.
I try to be very careful with customers of "mine" whom I "sell" to another window cleaner. What do those customers think of my ownership of "them" ? What happens if a customer of "mine" sells his business? Do I "own" that business still? What if one of "my" customers wants to get rid of me to help his nephew who just went into the window cleaning business? Is he "stealing" from me? What if a customer of "mine" hires a new manager and that person wants to start fresh with new bids from several window cleaners? It's endless.
I wonder if the copyrights, to those who live in that world like I live in window world, have endless complications and nuances that broadcast that flimsiness to those in the know?
Hardly ANYONE (especially here where copyrights are a major club used in hammering out the Pure Evil model) ever talks about all this flimsiness, so THANKS Bolshevik, for assisting me in this.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are right... in general. But in my case there's more to consider than the courtesy factor you rightfully mention.
I could be wrong, but it seems no one else here is nearly the center of attention when they post. My situation is that I am in the center of attention, and get swamped far more than you or anyone else here. I am being pompous here. It's my TOPIC that is the reason I get so much attention, not me. If you or anyone else here thinks they have any idea of the burden of volume I face every time I post, please supply a link so I can get convinced by the timestamps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike, Mike, Mike... I quoted where you called Penworks "dimwitted." That's something an elitist would say. Then, after quoting you, I asked you about your academic credentials. If you want to now not be an elitist, you'd have to take back your namecalling (dimwitted).
I assure you, those here who would consider your content (your fundamentalist PFLAP dogma) to have integrity seem to be few and far between.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And it (the definition of fundamentalism) makes Wierwille and his subculture also fundamentalist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Poor Mike. Woe is Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.