cutting up a post

[Samuel Thurston, III]

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.