[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
Wil Cooley
wcooley at nakedape.cc
Thu Mar 28 10:29:59 UTC 2002
Remember: To the list!
Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw <jeff at jhenshaw.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:51:55PM PST
> Wil Cooley wrote:
>
> > Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw <jeff at jhenshaw.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:57:17PM PST
> >
> >>Wil Cooley wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't understand you Jeff because sometimes your writing is
> > unintelligible. This is the section I was responding to:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > Are you asserting that I'm changing the meaning of the word
> > "conspiracy" to fit my political ideals? The word conspiracy has
> > meaned what I assert it means for as long as I've known it and in
> > all the literature I've read. I challenge you to find a dictionary
> > where it doesn't.
> >
>
>
> Uh, the word paranoid was the one I referred to; the one I
> called charged and perjorative........... doh!!!!
No it wasn't. At least, if it were, you certainly didn't
make it clear. Here's the quoted message:
###
>>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.
>
>
Still a common goal.
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.
###
At this point, as far as I can tell, we're talking about the
nature of a conspiracy. If we weren't, then you've just
demonstrated:
"""
> Impossible? Whatever. Show me two sentences that don't
> fit, instead of just claiming it, ok?
"""
Either you've switched to talking about paranoia without
telling anyone and thus validated my claim that it's nearly
impossible to tell which point you're arguing at any one
time, or you're wrong and we were talking about the meaning
of "conspiracy."
> I am saying that you chose that word knowing it is a loaded
> word; when you attack a man instead of his arguments,
> well.... you know the rest, don't ya.
Back to this? Didn't I *admit* this before? Yes, I did. At the
beginning of this exchange, I was feeling a little more flippant
than I am now, and, Jupiter forbit, I was kinda joking.
> > You also have a tendency to disregard
> > some statements which pose good questions. The problems with your
> > writing and the disorganization of your arguments prejudice me
> > against these discoveries of yours.
>
>
> I see, the messenger IS the message. Got it.
First of all, your statement is not a message and you are not
a messenger; it is an assertion and you are the one arguing to
prove it. (Okay, in some sense, these are e-mail "messages";
but that's not the sense in which you used the word.) Secondly,
the reputation and comportment of a person lends credibility to
his assertions. If a person with bad, uncorrected vision tells
you he saw something and another person with normal vision tells
you he saw something different, whom do you believe? And in fact,
it's more complex than that: One has limited time for study and
argumentation in one's life, so one must choose the matters one
takes up carefully. So one must choose whom to read and whom
to ignore; I prefer to read the writings of someone with the
skills and clarity of mind to cogently explain or argue a point.
Thirdly, one's writing skills are usually indicative the degree
of intellectual training one has had, which is usually accompanied
with the disciplines and rigors required for clear thought.
> Why is the history of the US and the the law of the land my
> responsibilty to teach you in an email discussion anyway?
It isn't. If you make a claim, however, it is your responsibility
to support it and not expect someone to just believe you.
> Do you think I can give you 20 years of study in a paragraph
> without losing you somehow?
>
> Why in the heck don't you just go look it up? I am not in
> the full time education business.
The problem is that you've covered so much ground that it's
impossible to know what "it" is in the above sentence. You can't
make a single point and back it up. When I ask you more carefully,
you side-step the point with non sequiturs and ad ignoratum
arguments!
(Scot, didn't I tell you this is what he'd do?)
> >
> > When you present a statement which is contrary to your interlocuter's
> > belief, the burden of proof falls on you. Usually, you'd rather
> > just make absurd statements which are irrelevant.
> >
> >
>
> Hmm.. I don't recall making any absurd statements. Oh yeah,
> but I'm paranoid and insane, and you are judge of what is
> factual and what is paranoia, so why do I even argue with you?
You're doing what I pointed out previous right here--instead of
actually addressing the matter of burden of proof, you focus instead
on a non-issue and try to make an issue of it. Furthermore, I also
said expressly that I didn't think you were chronically insane.
> >>You still believe the constitution allows John Maynard
> >>Keynes' employer to control our money, so I am not surprised!
> >>
> >>You still cannot see why inflation robs you, and yet you
> >>call me delusional.
> >>
> >
> > I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the
> > value of the money I have on hand.
> >
> >
>
> OK so far so good....
Actually, I mispoke here. What I should have said was "I can
perfectly well recognize that inflation decreases the value of
money I have on hand."
>
>
> >>I tell you what, since you want to rewrite the constitution
> >>to account for Keynesian economics, and the inflation he
> >>championed;
> >>
> >
>
>
> There is a a message wherein you say that the constitution
> didn't account for inflation, and so on....if you can't
> follow your own arguments, it's no wonder you can't follow
> mine.
That statement was in a wholly separate argument which I was
having with Scot. I was asking him an hypothetical question
about what he thought of the matter. The context should
have been clear.
> In another post you say that the first and second amendments
> need to be reexamined.
>
> Hence, my perception of your view that it needs to be
> rewritten... I guess reexamined in Latin means something
> else, who knows.... sheesh! I can't follow you Wil! DO you
> or don't you want to rewrite it?
In English even! "reexamine" does *not* mean "rewrite"!
> > Please cite the messages where I asserted I wanted to do so.
> >
>
> Well, you have a copy don't ya? Short memory you have too.
You're good at hat tricks, but I won't fall for it.
> >
> >>I will be happy to trade federal reserve notes for any gold
> >>or silver coins you may have, or any U.S. treasury notes you
> >>may have, since you obviously cannot tell the difference;
> >>let someone who can appreciate the difference be the steward
> >>of any such items, okay?
> >>
> >>I am tired of debating with someone who still cannot
> >>understand BASIC principles of the constitution like what a
> >>gold coin is and why it is proscribed; worse yet you don't
> >>seem to recognize the importance of it!
> >>
> >
> > Likewise, I'm tired of debating with someone who cannot argue
> > clearly.
> >
> >
> >>You don't appear to be ready to argue the meaning of the
> >>English language either today or yesterday.
> >>
> >
> > I'm perfectly ready to argue the meaning of words in the English
> > language. The language itself has no meaning; only the words and
> > constructions from those words have meaning.
> >
>
>
> And where are words not used in communication, as to convey
> a meaning? Are these two really separate? If they are, or
> are not, what is the point of nitpicking over virtually
> irrelevant tangents when you perfectly well understand me....
Hm, it seemed a point worth making at the time. Identifying
linguistic mistakes is one of my hobbies.
>
> Besides that I have already stated that it makes one look
> like an ass?
> (or perhaps, a monkey flinging feces around)
>
>
> >
> >>Is there some new dictionary I need to read, that tells me
> >>what the current definition of lawful money is?
> >>
> >>And if it hasn't changed, who is (actually) delusional?
> >>
> >
> > I don't care about the definition of lawful money. You have
> > failed to demonstrate to me why it is important and how things
> > could realistically be changed for the better.
>
>
> Okay, the guy who can't follow along and is the arbiter of
> what is delusional and what is not, states above that
>
> "I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the
> value of the money I have on hand."
>
> Apparently not *perfectly* well; but I won't criticize your
> choice of words, sentence structure, or provide Merriam
> Webster's definition of *perfectly* because it's not
> important, and I would be an ass.
You would be correct to do so; as I said, I mispoke.
> If you will, lay
> > out a plan (perhaps phased in over a period of, say, 20 years)
> > of how you would return to a system that is consitutional and what
> > our daily life would look like at that point.
>
>
> Here is a one day plan:
>
> Follow the law; or shall I say APPLY the law... (does anyone
> need an interpreter to understand THAT?)
>
> Now, our daily life will be enriched by re-establishing justice.
>
> Justice, if you recall, is one of the things our government
> is supposed to establish.
>
> It is a worthy goal, I assure you.
So this is able to just happen, *poof*, overnight? Everyone
will like it more than the way before? We'll still be able
to get along with the rest of the world?
> >
> > I'm still awaiting your response to a fair number of questions I
> > have asked. Which dictionary has "conspired" to change the meanings
> > of words to its will and which words? You started out with "coin",
> > in our discussion on IRC, and then today moved to "regulate" and
> > "militia." When did the British crown "conspire" to "restore the
> > King of England's reign over the freeholders of the USA" ?
> >
> > Wil
> >
>
>
> Yes, and I told you that Title 4 has the governments own
> rules for the war flag and what it was about, you do not
> respond after I show you.
Yes, because reading about how to fold the flag bores me.
> We will argue about etymology rather than here your
> assessment of the gold fringe on the flag, and it's
> significance.
I fail to see any significance. About the only thing you've said
about it that sounds at all important is that the flag that flies
now indicates wartime and marshall law, in which a person is guilty
until proven innocent. Is that the point you're trying to make?
If so, why has the judicial system not made any recognizable
changes? Where are the protestors screaming in the street about
innocent-until-guilty being overthrown? Why didn't you just say that
in the first place instead of sending me to a page with paragraph
after paragraph about how the flag should be folded?
> Was I right? Was I wrong? No response, you don't sem to
> think it is important, like inflation is not, apparently.
> You are still waiting for responses because I don't see the point in
> having several simultaneous debates with you; you apparently cannot
> follow too well and as you say, you think coins are paper money since
> our discussion in IRC and yet you think you understand money perfectly
> well... why go any further?
I never said I think coins are paper money; they are manifestly
different types of objects--one made a base metal (with a gloss of
precious metal) and one made of Crane paper.
> You have plenty to chew on, and I don't care for being insulted on a
> regular basis because you haven't, as you state above in this post I
> reply too, heard it often ewnough.
"regular" basis? Do you mean a "well-trained" basis?
> "I assign a higher certitude to things that I have
> internalized
> through time and exposure. That's the way humans work."
> I am trying to expose you to some things, and you need more time and
> exposure before you internalize it.
> Ted Koppel? Don't expect him to repeat it for you.
> ;)
Wil
--
W. Reilly Cooley wcooley at nakedape.cc
Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc
irc.linux.com #orlug,#lnxs
When I hear a man applauded by the mob I always feel a pang of pity
for him. All he has to do to be hissed is to live long enough.
-- H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report"
-------------- 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/20020328/928615d9/attachment.asc>
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list