cutting up a post

[Douglas Pollard]

Douglas Pollard wrote:
> Samuel Thurston, III wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Douglas Pollard 
>> <dougpol1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>  
>>> I have allowed several posts to go by without answering as I had 
>>> said my
>>> piece and felt I was finished but the thread does not seem to want to
>>> die.  I am glad that some were interested enough to post. Most I think
>>> have been good arguments though I may disagree.   I think its a silly
>>> argument to say that by cutting up an argument into pieces and leaving
>>> out a major part can't change it's meaning is a bit silly.  I also feel
>>> that to argue that a e-mail posted here should meet some kind of legal
>>> standards.    Seems there is a belief that we should be posting in 
>>> legal
>>> eze.  I feel sure that my informal disclaimer was understood by any 
>>> that
>>> wanted to.   Which was in short, that the political putting of African
>>> Americans on welfare was a major contributer to inner city violence in
>>> the, "FCC and Internet", argument which this thread, "cutting up a
>>> post", referred to.  The explanation part of my statement was 
>>> eliminated
>>> when IT was replied to.   Go back and read it.    MY posts not about me
>>> or even what I posted It was my belief that it is unfair to take
>>> someones book tear out a page and claim that is what the book is about.
>>> Do I expect interleaving to somehow stop? No. There is nothing wrong
>>> with interleaving and it serves a purpose.  But if it is used for the
>>> purpose of censoring  I see it as dishonest.  As best I can remember
>>> these lists are intended to be informal not legal argument. I stated
>>> before that I should not have even mentioned copyright as the post was
>>> not about copyright and that it brought in a legal argument. If by
>>> editing whether interline or censorship the meaning of the post has 
>>> been
>>> changed in my opinion that is not fair use. As to remark that the
>>> statements are unclear it would seem that a reasonable response would
>>> be,  please explain these points. If a thing is said to be unclear does
>>> it make sense to comment on it when it is clearly not understood.   The
>>> most amazing thing about this is it seems that some have been somehow
>>> angered by this post.  I can see how  the persons who's post this was
>>> about would resent it.  Of course everyone is free to post on the
>>> subject but I won't be posting in reply as I have already said more 
>>> than
>>> I care to an see no need to repeat myself.  IF you will look back my
>>> threads are about the only ones being commented on and if no one likes
>>> my topics why don't someone bring up something else so we can argue 
>>> that.
>>>
>>>                                                               Doug
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> Regarding copyright, the message attributed to you is your complete
>> and original text -unadulterated- in the archives.  If you don't
>> believe me go and look.  All responses are categorized exactly so, and
>> by sending said message to a listbot you implicitly agree to free and
>> unlimited dissemination of that original copy.  No one will mistake
>> your responders for you, and anyone so interested can verify the
>> context of the conversation from your original text, provided they can
>> get through the already mentioned bad grammar, spelling, and
>> formatting.  In this or any sense, nobody is censoring you.  By
>> forgoing these finer points of the English language, you may be doing
>> yourself a disservice on this front.
>>
>> archive: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/
>>
>> With respect to your views on taking your diatribes apart and
>> responding to them piece by piece, I am reminded of something my
>> grandfather, a woodwright and educator, once told me. "Sam," he said,
>> "If the legs don't measure up, the whole table is useless. "  You
>> mentioned that this notion was similar to saying that each sentence in
>> the U.S. Constitution must therefore contain the entire document.  It
>> is a bad example because the Constitution doesn't make claims or
>> arguments, it makes assertions as to how things will be or ought to
>> be.  However I understand your meaning, and I think that, to the
>> contrary, each line in such a document must hold up to independent
>> logical scrutiny, or the whole thing falls apart.  If someone slipped
>> in a line that said "Magical Unicorns grant the federal government
>> power of indefinite detention and warrantless wiretapping" (or
>> anything of equal absurdity) well, that would color the meaning of the
>> whole document.  Similarly, many learned scholars have spent years
>> arguing the finer points of a single article of the Constitution. So
>> clearly individual parts of a longer point must stand on their own.
>> If they do not, there is a good chance your argument is not actually
>> logical.
>>
>> If you find that there is some person taking your arguments out of
>> context, either point out their error or dismiss them.  There's no
>> reason to direct the complaint to an entirely different thread.
>>
>> Now Doug, I would like to state for the record that I LOVE your posts,
>> but then I also enjoy reading conspiracy-theory blogs and watching the
>> FOX News opinion shows for ironic amusement. The only problem I have
>> with yours is that they are VERY hard to read.  I'm not quite fluent
>> in four human languages and spend a lot of my time reading technical
>> manuals and source code, and I'm telling you your stuff is hard on the
>> eyes.  I can't really complain though because  if I could think of
>> anything controversial to say, you better believe I'd be saying it.
>>
>>   
> OK,  I guess I will have to throw away this idea that this list is 
> conversaton and I might dash off something and post it.  I can, write 
> more coherently as I write occasional magazine articles and do regular 
> commentary for a local news paper.  I am a hunt an peck typer so it is 
> slow and my thinking stays way ahead of my typing ability.  That has a 
> tendancy to make me leap ahead so  thoughts are left out.   The fact 
> that I can't spell does not help.  I will have to slowdown, edit and 
> rewrite I guess if i still want to post to this list.  Likely will 
> not. Most of what I write is my idea's and opinions though I try to 
> add what I concider to be facts to base the post on.  I was  hopeing 
> to get  opinions but instead on the FCC thread, all I got was cursing 
> and venom and no ones thinking at all on the subject matter.  I used 
> to belong to some on line writing groups where you posted ideas and 
> maybe portions of articles or even the whole book you had written and 
> you got feedback.  Wonderful stuff!  They had to shut down because 
> publishers consider posting on line as publishing even in a small 
> group, so they could not buy first publishers rights.   That's a shame 
> in my opinion because they were wonderful sounding boards.   I had 
> hoped to post may half thought out ideas, not  exactly written as I 
> hope to publish  to avoid the idea that they had been published on 
> line.  This is why I was so set against the statements being taken 
> apart with sections left out that changed the meaning of my posts.    
> I can see that this will not work and I can see I will have to have 
> another way to get opinions. Probably an off line reading and writing 
> group will serve that purpose better.  This was an experiment gone hay 
> wire.
>                                                                         
>                                       Doug
> Sorry Samuel, I did not meant send to you personally. I keep 
> forgetting to change the To: address