RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be

RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JVoV -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/1/2017 7:23:58 AM)
Am I supposed to read that in the voice of William Shatner or Christopher Walken? Is that, randomly inserted comma, just there, for dramatic effect?

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/1/2017 7:29:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Am I supposed to read that in the voice of William Shatner or Christopher Walken? Is that, randomly inserted comma, just there, for dramatic effect? Deflect. Deflect. Deflect. Pitiful, but expected.

JVoV -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/1/2017 7:50:31 AM)
That's all you, Blanche. Anything I contribute to the conversation, you reject. You're bitching and moaning about how our government works, but don't like having the actual rules pointed out to you. I certainly don't dare trying to explain the concept of a democratic republic to you. You still haven't owned up to using the wrong word in your title. I do hope you've edited it on your blog. Now, for anyone that takes my threats over the Oxford comma to heart, please be advised that Florida is a stand your ground state, and I have no legal obligation to suffer the attempted murder of my brain cells without defending myself. I do not have a habit of cutting bitches without provocation and I will try to use non-lethal force as much as possible. However, with that said, anyone that I've Force-choked over the internet, you had it coming and sorry/not sorry. Also, I'm crushing your head.

Wayward5oul -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/1/2017 2:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV You made the thread, sweetums. Not me. Yep. I truly hate to see the English language that I love be misused in such a manner.

igor2003 -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/1/2017 3:21:05 PM)
FR If I understand the OP correctly, a politician, no matter which party they are affiliated with, should be representing the ENTIRE population of the area or district which they represent. Would that be correct? So I can only assume that this same concept would hold true even if the politician in question was voted in by less than 25% of the voting public. He or she should be acting, voting, and representing even the 75% that didn't vote for him or her. What a novel idea!

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/1/2017 8:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 FR If I understand the OP correctly, a politician, no matter which party they are affiliated with, should be representing the ENTIRE population of the area or district which they represent. Would that be correct? So I can only assume that this same concept would hold true even if the politician in question was voted in by less than 25% of the voting public. He or she should be acting, voting, and representing even the 75% that didn't vote for him or her. What a novel idea! That's exactly what I was saying. Given the fact that we're supposed to have a REPRESENTATIVE democratic republic and the people elected to the position are *called* "Representative", I don't think I've gone too far off the reservation. Michael

MrRodgers -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/2/2017 9:08:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 FR If I understand the OP correctly, a politician, no matter which party they are affiliated with, should be representing the ENTIRE population of the area or district which they represent. Would that be correct? So I can only assume that this same concept would hold true even if the politician in question was voted in by less than 25% of the voting public. He or she should be acting, voting, and representing even the 75% that didn't vote for him or her. What a novel idea! Yes, it doesn't matter who doesn't vote or how many votes it took. Those that didn't, have chosen to have no voice or even input. And yes, once elected, all reps. represent all of the district.

MrRodgers -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/2/2017 9:13:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 when you identify yourself as the author of the work you are quoting Michael, that takes care of the notion of "self plagiarizing" which ultimately means, passing off what are you writing as new work without attribution. Yeah, I know, but I've been using: "I reserve the right to plagiarize myself" for about twenty years, now, especially when I'd re-run some stuff because I needed to go on vacation or when I needed to take some personal time. In fact, to be fair, because some of the same issues keep coming up, time and time, again, I am sure that I have "plagiarized" myself on issues where my opinion hasn't changed. After twenty years, even Jack Anderson got repetitive, to a degree [:D] You have cmail, bounty Peace, Michael Really kinkroids ? Originators of material cannot plagiarize themselves. That's like saying Mozart plagiarized himself just to play one of his own works.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (12/2/2017 5:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Really kinkroids ? Originators of material cannot plagiarize themselves. That's like saying Mozart plagiarized himself just to play one of his own works. I really wish you wouldn't refer to me as a "kinkroid", but I understand that it's not done out of a desire to engage in name-calling, per se. That to the side, as discussed earlier on in the thread, there is a possibility of a writer being under an exclusive contract to a publisher or being under a contract to write a political column and specifies they're not allowed to write political stuff for anyone else. It sucks, but it happens. There could, indeed, be a case where a writer could "plagiarize" themselves and it could cause some legal issues. Ex.: some writers have some "favorite" phrases to which they always "fall back". In the novel "The Godfather" Puzo describes Sonny Corleone about seven or eight times, using the term "heavy cupid face". Since these writers do have a tendency to do this, let's build a scenario: An author writes a book for XYZ Publishing Corp. In that book, he establishes, defines (for his own purposes) and uses a certain phrase/sentence. Let's suppose it's (I know this is someone else's quote, but I am not sure to whom it should be attributed): "Let's not turn perfection into the enemy of good." If the author has signed what I consider to be a domineering contract wherein the publisher holds the copyright instead of the author, when the author goes to work for "*NEWSWEAK* and uses that phrase without attributing it to his previous work, he could find himself in a bit of a legal bind. It sucks and it's a shame, but it is possible for authors to never have or loss rights to their own work.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875