[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

[Wil Cooley]

Also Sprach J.A.Henshaw <jhenshaw at dsl-only.net> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:31:40PM PST
> 
> Still a common goal.

A "common goal" does not mean a plot or conspiracy.  If so, then
according to the preamble, the constitution is a conspiracy.

> The point,  once again,  is not in the details - the point is,  that
> the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel
> when defining politically correct thought.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

> >>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.
> > 
> 
> Hmm,  don't remember saying any such thing.  So your 
> statement above is ABSURD

You didn't expressly.  But it seems a necessary condition for what
you say to be true.  Is it not?  Merriam Webster's alone cannot
shift the meaning of words.  Nor can the Oxford English Dictionary.

> Let's start small though, and maybe if you get interested 
> enough to learn the facts you might become enlightend.
> 
> Who publishes ALL the textbooks used in public schools in 
> this country,  for starters?

Textbook publishers?  A bunch of drunken Irishmen in Boston?

> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> 
> Well-trained

Wrong.  "regulare" is from the noun "regula", which means "ruler
(for measuring); straight stick; straight board; rule, standard,
example, model, principle".  Nothing about "well-trained."  Or do
you discount my Latin dictionary because it was published in 1966?

> Oh my god,  another conspiracy
> 
> I see that defending the constitution is still an open 
> invitation to be called a kook, eh?

No, but asserting that the lexicographers at Merriam
Webster's are trying to trick you is.

> Next you will say I wear a tinfoil hat and hear voices,  and
> am waiting for the mother ship to pick me up?

I have to admit, I do wonder what you'll come up with next.

> I have a better idea.  Investigate the topic, and get back to me.

Which topic?  Do you want me to make photocopies of other
dictionaries' definitions of the word "regulate"?
> 
> Well,  Wil,  when you get down to business and find out 
> which corporations are owned by which corporations and which 
> dummy corporations are hiding the other dummy corporations, 
>   and find that all the oil companies are owned by ONE 
> powerful concern;  you will begin to see that you are naive 
> and ignorant of the way the world works.

Hm, of course, they're all owned by the Illuminati, right?
 
> You can call me delusional because you cannot accept it;  I 
> can quietly think you may delusional because you refuse to 
> see it.

I refuse to recognize things things which have no evidence
or credible basis; I don't recognize the exitence of gods for
the same reasons.

> This is well documented stuff we are discussing,  I don't 
> make this up as I go along.

Oh, I'm sure you don't.  But I've seen some real cranks,
some who even operate the websites you've directed me to.

> England was conspiring to prevent the formation of the Union 
> before it was formed.
> 
> That is true,  WIl.  Let's start with the baby food and see 
> if you can digest that, okay?

This is not the case.  England actively resisted the break off the
colonies.  There's nothing conspiratoral about that.  They might
have even done underhanded things to thwart the formation of the
nation, but their motives were quite plain.

> Would you call that statement delusional?  "England was 
> conspiring to prevent the formation of the Union before it 
> was formed."
> 
> Giddy up!

Not delusional; simply wildly inaccurate.

> 
> >>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.
> > 
> 
> 
> Just like saying  in essence that book publishing is for all 
> practical purposes controlled by the wealthy,  does not mean 
> I think the 13th amendment resulted from a dictionary 
> published that year...
> 
> Just as ludicrous

But you are asserting that our understanding of the 2nd
amendment has been undermined by Merriam Webster (or is it
Oxford?)

> If I could demonstrate a shift in the lexicographers direction that
> was universally in conflict with the definitions used in the Black's
> Law dictionary published in
>   the time of the writing of the constitution,  and
> particulary if I could show recent changes in their direction that
> had a correlation to "hotbed issues" like the word militia,  would
> that be a start?

That would.  I challenge you to do so.

> Or do you categorically deny any and all possibility of any 
> kind of plot at any time or place - to restore the King of 
> England's reign over the freeholders of the USA

And approximately when did this plot occur?

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/20020327/043f64c9/attachment.asc>