[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
Wil Cooley
wcooley at nakedape.cc
Thu Mar 28 00:47:25 UTC 2002
Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw <jeff at jhenshaw.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:54:36PM PST
>
> This is part and parcel of the same argument, neither
> conflicts which my assertion, and I am not sure what your
> point is, particulary because I made no reference to
> Article 8 in the context of this discussion on PLUG-talk;
> although I of course recall our discussion in IRC - in which
> you seemed to be unaware of the evils of paper money.
My point is that sometimes your constitutional exegesis is based
on nonsense. I was referring to our discussion on IRC.
> What I stated does not conflict with your statements above. They agree
> with your assessment I would tsay.
You're correct; I mispoke. I mean the *natural* mutation of
language is a matter of fact; you assert that the language
has been mutated forcibly.
> A conspiracy is three or more people with a common goal.
No it's not. It's two or more people with a "plot." "Plot"
implies doing bad things, or evil, if you will.
> I think there is more than three people who print Webster's
> dictionaries.
And all the other English dictionaries in the world. Asserting that
all the dictionaries in the world were rewritten in 1913 to overthrow
the constitution is absurd.
> It takes more than three to run a business that large, and
> I think that I can be safe in saying that they well know
> that the founders use of the word militia in the "well
> regulated militia" and their use of the word "regulated" in
> that sentence were a problem for those who oppose private
> firearm ownership and state militias being composed of all
> able-bodeied males 18 and over, rather than the corporate
> US National Guard.
Never in the 2 years I studied Latin did the verb 'regulare' have
a damn thing to do with "able-bodied males 18 and over." What,
pray tell, does "regulated" mean then?
> So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and
> subsitute a NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe
> they must have had some purpose for doing so.
>
> Who else is responsible for the perceived shift in the
> meanings of words?
>
> Mass Media?
It's not a perceived shift; it's an actual shift. I won't go into
linguistics here and now, but it's a well regarded fact that it
happens naturally or perhaps, "chaotically" (to use the word in
the pop-math sense). If you don't believe me, read some Chaucer,
then some Shakespeare, then some Maugham. Or is the existence these
clearly different forms of English just part of the conspiracy too?
> Now, please explain the definition of the word paranoid and how you
> think it applies to me.
paranoid
adj : suffering from paranoia
n : a person afflicted with paranoia [syn: paranoiac]
Paranoia \Par`a*noi"a\, n. (Med.)
A chronic form of insanity characterized by very gradual
impairment of the intellect, systematized delusion, and usually
by delusions of persecution or mandatory delusions producing
homicidal tendency. In its mild form paranoia may consist in the
well-marked crotchetiness exhibited in persons commonly called
``cranks.'' Paranoiacs usually show evidences of bodily and
nervous degeneration, and many have hallucinations, esp. of
sight and hearing.
I admit I'm using the word loosely; I don't think you're chronically
insane, but I do suspect you suffer from delusions of persecution.
> Are you implying that everyone in the world is good and there is no
> reason to suspect that there might be some very
> powerful concerns that have goals in direct conflict with
> the constitution?
>
> Tisk tisk
No, obviously I wouldn't assert that. That's a nice try at a
strawman argument. But these "powerful concerns" are not the
lexicographers. In order for that to happen, they would have had to
have complaisance of the whole of the literate, English-speaking
world and of all of competing makers of English dictionaries.
Just because it says "Webster's" doesn't mean it's the same company
and we aren't the only English speakers in the world.
> I expect more from you Wil than to use a charged, overused
> perjorative against me because I have a opinion that is not
> politically correct.
No, I use a charged, overused perjorative because you have an opinion
that is absurd. It's not a matter of politically correctness;
it's a matter of having opinions that are reasonable and sound.
> If you are ready to research it as well as I have I think
> you will find yourself reaching the same conclusion, there
> are conspiracies in this world, Wil.
I am not; my life is too short for chasing wild geese.
> Paranoid is when you see conspiracies against yourself
> personally, which do not exist.
>
> You are using the word very loosely and inappropriately.
>
> You are also wrong.
When you see conspiracies against your government which have
direct affect on you, it is a conspiracy against you.
> >>The problems are not with people being educated and
> >>literate, it is the uneducated and illiterate which needs
> >>fixing.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure what the second clause in the latter sentence means.
> > What's the antecedant of "it"?
You failed or neglected to answer this question. What did you mean?
Wil
--
Wil Cooley wcooley at nakedape.cc
Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc
irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20020327/d3a41935/attachment.asc>
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list