This rather tedious and pointless thread has been going on for quite a
while, and I follow it in morbid fascination to see if I can detect any
trace of the original topic. You see, I was the author of this
thread's odd title!
I believe the topic had something to do with that old favorite,
"oonsciousness" (favorite of "arrested adolescence" in the context of
intellectual development).
At some point, I (or possibly someone else who took on the job this
time) pointed out the need to define one's terms (especially
"consciouusness") as a prerequesite for any meaingful discussion (n.b.:
MEANINGFUL; not necessarily intelligent, deep, or subtle, but at least
MEANINGFUL).
Someone responded with what he considered to be (HIS WORDS) a
"plausible" definition. Accordingly, in my reply to this, I altered
the title by adding "(PLAUSIBLE definitions?)", to emphasize the point
that whatever else the reader got out of my reply, the take-home
message is: this is not an appropriate way to talk about DEFINITIONS.
In other words (assuming the person using this expression knows the
meaning and common usage of "plausible"--which is perhaps not a safe
assumption), the person proposing a "plausible" definition does not
understand what a definition is nor what its utility is.
A propos the thread's current issue: is this thread's title MY
intellectual property? should I be letting you folks use it without
acknowledgment, much less payment? (of course, I used someone ELSE'S
title as a starting point...)
In the paper print world, I believe the law is (in USA) that someone
sending a letter to me retains PUBLICATION rights, but I own the
physical letter, and may sell it to the highest bidder (or to the
lowest bidder, if I am a charitable sort). Given the blurring of the
distinction between physical object and information in the email world,
nobody knows which end is up in regards these ownership and privacy
issues in cyberspace; indeed, I believe greater legal minds than mine
(OK, mine is microcephalic, and I don't mean microprocessor) are trying
to sort this out and come up with new laws.
Meanwhile, enjoy your little spat.
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <379EA99D.21ED717C at sandpiper.net> Jim Balter <jqb at sandpiper.net>
writes:
>>X wrote:
>>>> Jim Balter wrote:
>>>> > > However, you can hardly expect both to be rude to someone in a
>> > > private communication and to have them show you the courtesy of
>> > > protecting the privacy of your communication.
>> >
>> > Yes, I most certainly can expect that, from people with any regard
>> > for the rule against making private communications public.
>> > Of course some morally corrupt persons find all sorts of
>> > justifications for their corruption, such as "oh, that rule
doesn't
>> > apply if the person was rude".
>>>> Well I don't know about a "rule", but legally speaking you probably
have
>> copyright over your private communication (I know I do, because I
live
>> in the UK, where copyright exists in an original work from the
moment of
>> creation). Publishing it in a public forum is a breach, and you have
>> legal recourse. Whatever the excuse ...
>>It was only a reference to something I said privately,
>not a quote verbatim, and even if so it probably would have
>fallen under fair use. None of this, however, is to the point.
>>--
><J Q B>
>
