[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly,

Registration at the NYT is free. The NYT was not in any way deprived of any potential revenue. They did not have it up for sale. They had it up for the price of a no-cost registration.

What I don't understand is why there is no link to the article.



Post 41

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for that clarification, Rick. It still doesn't change the principle, however. The NYT online makes their money through advertisers. If we don't get accounts, we don't see the ads. That's why they restrict access to the articles. It really doesn't matter why they restrict access anyway. They own the article, and they say you must have an account.

Seriously though, it really ought to be over. Nicole has done her best to put it to rights, and I would _love_ to talk about love and values. It is so interesting to me! Please someone, read my comments on balancing love and parenting. Please someone, comment on them! I would even take violent disagreement at this point!

Kelly



Post 42

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kelly,

I can't violently disagree with what you said, and I do violently agree with this article. The author has courage and passion and independence and the right values -- and that is just the kind of thing that should be posted to this forum. It is one of the best articles I've read in some time. (In spite of what I said earlier about Nicole, which I don't take back by the way, she deserves praise for having the wonderful sense of life response she did to this article).

I do disagree (not violently) with something you said:
I also think she makes it sound like having sex is the measurement of keeping romance alive.
I think the author has the proper -- no, the perfect -- perspective on the issue. Perhaps I'll comment further on this later.



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lance said:

Shayne, you're not exactly a "people person" are you?
This actually had me laughing out loud.

MH said:

Shayne...you were right to flag up the problem

Absolutely! Especially on an Objectivist forum!

but it's time to drop it.

Correction: It's waaaay past time to drop it!
I agree, but it's just my opinion. Not telling you what to say or anything Shayne.

Ethan





Post 44

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you all for your kindness and good advice. (And I don't know about the mail order bride thing... are you rich? lol... just kidding. I am a future bride already. But I am flattered. ;o) In respect to the need to bring this forum back on track, I am going to let you all hash out the issues within the article itself on your own. I think I have made the points that I wanted to make about it. There are still some problems with what was written (like what Kelly has brought up) that should be investigated. I do not have the answers to all of those. I look forward to reading what everyone else has to say.

I have also come to see that I must not have a full understanding of Objectivism, because it seems that I am mistaken that once a person has made a mistake and rectified it, that they are allowed to move on. I am very unclear as to what my next move should be. I have never read anything about a length of time that I should feel guilty after making a mistake. Is there some sort of guideline on this? It is amazing to me that after doing all I have done, I am looked upon as if I am still doing wrong. I ask honestly, when does that end? Clearly, since the issue is still being discussed, my rectifying it does not matter. I know that many of you are bothered by what happened, and I am as well. Very bothered. But until I get an answer from admin about taking the article down (which I have asked about at the beginning of this but have not received an answer yet) it will be there. I cannot take it down. I want to, believe me, but I do not have that power. Every other thing I could do, I have done. I have never said that I did not do wrong. It seems that most recognize that. Thank you.

This whole incident has disturbed me greatly. Please mail me if you have to say anything else on the copyright issue, or start a new thread. I am not trying to say that the issue should not be spoken about, but I am of the opinion that it is over for the most part.

Because of finals and other work that I have for school coming up, I will not be available for many long or involved responses. Please understand if you do not see me here for awhile.

Please let me know if there is anyone else besides the Webmaster on SOLO to see about getting the article down.

~NT





Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole, you put out a good article, which in normal circumstances, would have sparked some pretty good discussion. Unfortunately, because of a certain buzzkilling troll around here, ahem.... it turned into a bunch of legalistic bullshit. That disturbs me as well.

What seemed to me to be the equivalent of a student passing around photocopies of an interesting article for discussion in a class turned into a legal debate over intellectual property/copyrights.  There is a Solo law section for those who delight in that type of hairsplitting and stuff. 

Myself, well I'm more interested in applying objectivism to life and mothering is a big part of my life. I found this article interesting and a bit counter to my own experience on several levels. I married a prince who turned into a frog the moment he planted his seed. Thankfully, I divorced sperm donor and finally found a real and understanding man who knows how to make me purr, and now that my kids are older, it's not so much of a conflict to be acting in my own self-interest.

BTW, thanks sistah, for quoting me. You rock. Good luck with exams and the upcoming nuptuals.

(edit- talk to Joe Rowlands about removing article, or moving it to the solo law thread)

(Edited by katdaddy on 4/23, 2:19pm)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole:
I have also come to see that I must not have a full understanding of Objectivism, because it seems that I am mistaken that once a person has made a mistake and rectified it, that they are allowed to move on. I am very unclear as to what my next move should be. I have never read anything about a length of time that I should feel guilty after making a mistake. Is there some sort of guideline on this? It is amazing to me that after doing all I have done, I am looked upon as if I am still doing wrong. I ask honestly, when does that end?
Your past self has copied NYT's article without permission, and that will never change. I think this will end once you get in contact with the owner of the article, and pay for the damages done (even though damages may be nil). There is no need for you to feel guilt, instead the proper thoughts might be "Now people think I steel (unfortunate). I will need to change my behavior so that I can be trusted through the future. Its probably also best that I show that I paid for all damages done to the owner." Then yea, move on. Of course you are going to be rebuked when you support your actions with "lots of other people do it!" : )



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good grief - all you ARI crappers - bugger off.



Post 48

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not in love with [my youngest daughter]. Nor with her two brothers or sister... I'm not in love with any of them.
Its difficult for me to understand exactly what the woman means by "love" and "in love". I think she is just saying buzzwords.

Kelly wrote:
But all that aside, I do think the author is right that we have to know the order of our values, and not sacrifice a higher for a lower. And we have to do what it takes to make our relationships thrive even with children. After all, we are living in the present.

To whoever said they didnít think this was a big problem: it is. I see Momís all the time who have totally given themselves up in their relationship with their children. It isnít just a problem with neglecting their romantic relationships, but with neglecting all their values. That doesnít make a happy or healthy person. It makes a martyr, and it makes children riddled with guilt.
I have nothing to add. I agree. Maybe there is so little posting on the parent subject because you have said everything there is to say?



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole,

I don't know if this will put your doubts to rest, but there is absolutely no reason at all - neither moral nor legal - to have the article taken down. Not after all that has happened.

Before, certainly. Not now.

Technically speaking, now only if NYT requests it. That is ALL.

Don't let the moralizers get to you. You are completely, morally and legally correct now.

Michael




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole,
You do not misunderstand objectivism in thinking that you should be allowed to move on. I hope Shayne's assholiness doesn't dissuade you from posting in the future or cause you unnecessary worry about a vicious outcry.

Robert,
Keep posting those concise jabs... they make me smile.





Post 51

Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Solo is kind of like the Bible of Objectivism: you can always find an "Objectivist" argument to support your viewpoint, no matter what it is. Wait, that's not right. You touchy-feely people never gave any arguments.

I need to come up with a name for the touchy-feely creeps that hang out here in order to distinguish them from the honest, intelligent, and principled of the forum, because it's not really fair when I say "many on Solo" and whatnot.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 4:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nicole, you've done nothing morally wrong and have nothing to feel guilty about. You made an error, admitted your error and done more than is really necessary to correct your error.

As an example: while traveling, you accidentally shortchange a 7-11 clerk a dollar, complete your journey of 300 miles, and make the discovery of your error. Would you make any effort to correct the error? I don't think any rational person would expect you to go to any effort whatsoever, not even the 7-11 clerk or owners of the store. The action was unintended and the amount inconsequential.

This copyright issue is the same. Your action was without harmful intent and financially inconsequential. If the NYT were to pursue legal action, it would be irrational. If they were to pursue any kind of financial remuneration from you, they would be trying to take undue advantage of you, and you should neither agree nor offer to do so.

I believe that most likely you will never hear from the NYT. If anything, it is more likely that SOLO would be contacted, informed of the infringement and instructed to remove the article. But I doubt even that will happen.

Like all federal law, intellectual property law is convoluted and byzantine and the rules for the internet are still being written. I've had enough experience with both copyright law and large corporations to know that the best thing you can do now, regarding this issue, is absolutely nothing.

As I said previously, Nicole, you rock! Good luck with your exams and forthcoming nuptials with whomever the lucky guy is. :-)


 





Post 53

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
woopsie, I forgot to hit the preview button before pressing post.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 4/24, 7:19am)




Post 54

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne: ad populum



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
It's not that Nicole didn't do something wrong, it's that she did something to correct it. People are ok'ing her because she did something to correct her mistake, not because she didn't make a mistake in the first place. I fail to see how this is ad populum.
Sarah



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Once more, folks - morals or ethics are a code of values to GUIDE one thru life - they are NOT commandments, nor catechisms ...

We are Objectivists, not Catholics -
So take that Latin and stick it up the backhole.




Post 57

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah: I was more trying to give a name for touchy-feely "support" of positions, and less talking about this thread.



Post 58

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean: You were exactly right in your post 46: Nicole should expect rebuke when she sanctions an argument from "lots of other people do it". And that's ad populum. But I don't think that explains the depth of the bizarreness of this thread.

Amid all this, it's heartening to see that you and Kelly at least, can see that I was trying to focus on a principle, one that Nicole is oblivious to in spite of her willingness to put things right, and one that will get her in trouble in the future, probably not on this issue, but certainly on some other issue, if she persists. Their encouragement of her ignorance and emotionalism by virtually every other poster in this thread is not doing her any good.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne said:

This is incredible. First of all, I thought this discussion didn't even need to get to post 18. Post 7 was sufficient. But once 18 was up, there was a problem. I find it incredible that *you* don't see one in it.

Nicole quotes the author: "People do this all the time. They paste up articles, email them around. Post them. ... I seriously doubt the Times will notice or care ...and if they do, all they'll ask is that you take it down..."
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah......
Shayne absolutely no one has said that there was no problem here, not me and not even Nicole.
Nicole contacted the author and the NYT, the author says she doesn't mind and doubts NYT will, the NYT so far hasn't even bothered responding. Regardless, Nicole is in any case requesting that the article be taken down.

People on this thread are praising Nicole not for breaking the NYT's copyright, but because she had the guts and the principle to recognise and admit her error and take steps to correct it. That is virtuous behaviour Shayne.

You on the other hand latch on to an honest mistake, make a mountain out of a molehill and persist in trying to pummel and belittle Nicole over it, even while she takes action to put matters right. That is why you inspire such a negative reaction from the other posters.

Kat,

There is a Solo law section for those who delight in that type of hairsplitting and stuff. 
That gave me quite a chuckle, though I would like to believe the Law forum is about much more than hairsplitting :-)

MH




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]