Iââ¬â¢m serious. Anyone who cherry-picks content from this piece without playing by the rule above can count on hearing from an attorney PDQ.
Consider this cherry-picking to discuss ludicrous copyright warnings against using excerpts. Tim please set your lawyers on me, this week is pretty boring.
Also see Fair Use.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-03T10:05:02
I think Tim Bray’s “I’ll pull out the lawyers” is lame.
But at the same time, the spirit in which he meant the threat (“it’s abuse to cherry-pick this to serve your agenda if you prevent your readers from getting the full picture”) seems obvious and reasonable to me. So all the people skreaking and bouncing like chimps at the mere mention of lawyers look equally lame to me.
Re:Don't link!
jdavidb on 2008-04-03T15:38:33
I expect readers to have brains and go looking for context if it matters to them. If it doesn't, I'm not abusive if they are idiots.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-03T16:43:43
That’s the point: he wants readers to have the link, so he’s threatening writers/journalists who quote selectively without linking. His threat is toothless, of course, but I certainly understand what compelled him to include it, considering how highly political the subject matter is.
Pointing out that he’s wrong merely makes you somewhat of a lawyeristic nitpicker (which won’t make me think less of you than I think of him for posturing with lawsuit threats); actually disrespecting his request and then mocking him, however, makes you a rowdy 15 year old. Have a bit more maturity than that.
Re:Don't link!
jdavidb on 2008-04-03T17:35:40
What I said wasn't intended to sound mocking. I just don't think like he thinks at all. He and I see the burden of making people understand as falling in such completely different places that his request seems absolutely unreasonable and completely unworthy of respect to me.
Re:Don't link!
pudge on 2008-04-10T22:23:41
His threat is toothless, of courseWell, aside from the fact that you just called youself a lawyerlistic nitpicker (sounds like a demon from the Mountains of Ignorance, cf. The Phantom Tollbooth), I think there's nothing whatsoever wrong with pointing out the fact that he is wrong. Is not truth of its own value?... Pointing out that he's wrong merely makes you somewhat of a lawyeristic nitpicker actually disrespecting his request and then mocking him, however, makes you a rowdy 15 year oldNonsense. If we pretend that he has a right to enforce that request for the sake of "maturity," then at some point he might. I firmly believe that all unwarranted assertions of restrictions of liberty should be met by expression of precisely that liberty. If someone says you cannot depict Muhammed, then you should do precisely that. If someone says you cannot own a gun, you should buy one. If someone says you must let in the police without a warrant, you should refuse. This is how liberty is protected in the long run.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-10T23:56:52
you just called youself a lawyerlistic nitpicker
“Point out” in the sense of “call him out on it for the sake of doing so.”
Is not truth of its own value?
Straw man. I didn’t say it makes you wrong, I said it makes you someone who purposefully ignores the larger context and sticks to the literal reading. There is a word for such people, and the correctness of one’s reading doesn’t change that.
If we pretend that he has a right to enforce that request for the sake of “maturity,” then at some point he might.
Slippery slope. I can’t claim to know Tim Bray well enough to be sure of my assessment that he wouldn’t; neither can you for the opposite.
This is how liberty is protected in the long run.
Does not follow from the premise (which I disagree with anyway, but never mind that).
What was your argument, again?
Re:Don't link!
pudge on 2008-04-11T02:37:25
I didn't say you did (that means YOU are the one with the straw man here, FWIW).Is not truth of its own value?Straw man. I didn’t say it makes you wrongI said it makes you someone who purposefully ignores the larger context and sticks to the literal readingBut that's not true. Indeed, it doesn't stand up to simple logical scrutiny. Just because I pay attention to one thing doesn't mean I am ignoring something else.There is a word for such peopleYes. "People Who Care About Truth."UmIf we pretend that he has a right to enforce that request for the sake of "maturity" then at some point he might.Slippery slope.... no. It's not. I can't claim to know Tim Bray well enough to be sure of my assessment that he wouldn't; neither can you for the opposite.Shrug. He said he would. And maybe HE wouldn't, but someone else might, because of his example.
No, such nonsense cannot be tolerated.Um. That IS the premise. Unless you think that the premise is "we have liberty" and "we should protect liberty." If you want to go back that far, then fine, yes, it does follow, quite clearly. Not on its own, of course, but given innumerable historical examples.This is how liberty is protected in the long run.Does not follow from the premisewhich I disagree with anyway, but never mind thatDisagree that we have liberty? Or that we should protect it? Or that the way to protect it is by exercising it?What was your argument, again?It is quite obvious, and barely needed to be said in the first place: that it is utter tripe for you to claim there is anything whatever wrong with asserting liberty in the face of someone who denies that liberty.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-11T03:29:02
Yes, there is nothing wrong with purposefully misquoting someone who is writing about highly politicised matter and therefore asking to be quoted only in a particular fashion… because the request was accompanied by a toothless “or else.” And the right approach to life that will ensure you life in freedom is to maximally spite everyone who makes an unreasonable request.
Respect.
Re:Don't link!
pudge on 2008-04-11T05:07:57
Yes, there is nothing wrong with purposefully misquoting someoneSee, again with the straw man. No one did that.asking to be quoted only in a particular fashionNope. Let's be honest here, please. He was demanding that we give up our rights, under threat of legal action, not merely asking.And the right approach to life that will ensure you life in freedom is to maximally spite everyone who makes an unreasonable request.Nope. Not maximally, only enough to make the point, and only when rights are at issue.Respect.Exactly. I respect the liberty of all people, including those that come after us, enough to fight for it whenever necessary. And the most insidious way we lose our rights is when we voluntarily do it because someone else just thinks we should for some made-up and illogical sense of "decorum" or "maturity."
You and Tim Bray do not respect liberty much -- obviously, since you take such great pains to say he isn't saying precisely what he is saying, and what he emphasizes he is saying -- so you don't see this as valuable. Shrug.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-13T23:29:48
No one did that.
Two out of three blog posts is not my definition of “no one.”
“decorum”
You don’t know me at all, do you? (Not that I mind – quite contrarily.)
You and Tim Bray do not respect liberty much
Indeed, in bizarro universe where he has sent a lawyer after someone and I commended him for doing so, no, neither of us does.
Re:Don't link!
pudge on 2008-04-14T02:37:19
Two out of three blog posts is not my definition of “no one.”Nor mine.Bullshit. He is trying to prevent people from exercising their liberty through threat of force. You are saying that defying his bullying is "immature."You and Tim Bray do not respect liberty muchIndeed, in bizarro universe where he has sent a lawyer after someone and I commended him for doing so, no, neither of us does.
He doesn't have to actually go through with his threat to disrespect liberty: simply making it is enough. And your opposition to expression of liberty, as one of the best means of protecting liberty, is pretty obviously disrespecting liberty.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-14T03:52:44
If I had something to say about Tim Bray’s actual subject matter, I would have summarily quoted from his posting without feeling the need to either comply by his terms or to comment on my disregard thereof – but last I checked, none of those who I saw commenting on his posting had anything to say about what it was actually about.
I am asserting that it should be obvious that these commenters are therefore automatically outside of the group of people for whom Tim Bray would even consider making good on his threat. It follows that none of them have demonstrated anything interesting about the regard or alleged lack thereof for liberties that Mr. Bray may or may not have. All the short-breathed, red-faced posturing over liberties has done nothing more than make the commenters look ignorant of either the context, their own insignificance, or both.
How it follows from my expressing this observation that I disregard liberties is a mystery that only Chris Nandor can fathom.
Re:Don't link!
pudge on 2008-04-14T06:42:37
I am asserting that it should be obvious that these commenters are therefore automatically outside of the group of people for whom Tim Bray would even consider making good on his threat.That does not justify the threat, and is therefore irrelevant.It follows that none of them have demonstrated anything interesting about the regard or alleged lack thereof for liberties that Mr. Bray may or may not have.No, it does not so follow. The threat ITSELF is the problem, as I've already demonstrated. Whether he plans to "make good" on this threat is self-evidently completely beside the point.All the short-breathed, red-faced posturing over liberties has done nothing more than make the commenters look ignorant of either the context, their own insignificance, or both.Yawn. Call me ignorant all you like, but you're the one clearly who doesn't even understand what liberty is, how it works, or why it is important. You're the pot calling the silverware black.How it follows from my expressing this observation that I disregard liberties is a mystery that only Chris Nandor can fathom.So you are incapable of reading, then? I never said you disregard liberty, I said you disrespect it, and I explained how quite clearly, and that you refused to directly address it shows that you are either illiterate ot dishonest. I shall unnecessarily repeat myself: you explicitly rejected the notion that giving in to unwarranted assertions of limitations of our liberty harms our liberty. Indeed, you claimed that NOT giving in constitutes "immaturity." It goes without saying -- for rational people -- that not respecting liberty enough to defend, and even OPPOSING such defenses of liberty, is a de facto disrespect of liberty.
What's more of a mystery is why you keep digging your hole deeper.
Re:Don't link!
Aristotle on 2008-04-14T08:50:41
Digging myself in deeper? I wish! That would muffle the droning diatribe.
I explicitly reject the notion that refusing to give in to a limitation someone posted on his blog about what you may or may not do with his words on yours, when their limitation was obviously toothless to begin with and you have nothing else to do than yammer about the limitation itself, does damn-all for liberty. Also, I explicitly hold that failing to recognise this and pretending that challenging response does any great things for liberty makes you look like a self-important fool.
That is what I did and do.
Yes, I did that. It wasn’t stated that well, initially, but you took from there and managed to mangle those statements beyond all recognition, multiple times over. I have little doubt your next reply will be another iteration of the same.
Re:Don't link!
pudge on 2008-04-14T14:56:38
I explicitly reject the notion that refusing to give in to a limitation someone posted on his blog about what you may or may not do with his words on yours, when their limitation was obviously toothless to begin with and you have nothing else to do than yammer about the limitation itself, does damn-all for liberty.You also implicitly reject the notion of basic logic, as you are clearly committing the begging-the-question fallacy.Also, I explicitly hold that failing to recognise this and pretending that challenging response does any great things for liberty makes you look like a self-important fool.More question-begging, and introducing a straw man. And you have no credibility with me -- and I imagine, anyone else -- on what people "look like."Yes, I did that. It wasn’t stated that well, initially, but you took from there and managed to mangle those statements beyond all recognition, multiple times over.That is obviously incorrect. I did not in any way misrepresent what you said. The only "evidence" you've provided that I misrepresented you are question-begging claims as above, the insipid, and nearly self-evidently false, notion that a "toothless claim" is therefore irrelevant by virtue of being "toothless."I have little doubt your next reply will be another iteration of the same.Yawn.
Re:Don't link!
jdavidb on 2008-04-03T15:39:22
No, in addition to linking, you have to have the little obnoxious announcement about how you simply must go read his all-important essay. A link alone won't do it.
