NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/humor/d/2848

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 4.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!burley
From: [e-mail] (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: rec.humor.d
Subject: Re: The Twelve Bugs of Christmas is NOT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN!!
Date: 28 Dec 92 00:48:14
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
Lines: 74
Distribution: rec
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]><[e-mail]
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail]'s message of 28 Dec 92 00:44:28 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Craig Burley) writes:
   >
   > Then why say it?  Why say "I doubt you have any copyright" or whatever?
   > Isn't that just advertising that you have knowledge of what copyright

       I don't think so.  Saying you doubt something says that you
       are UNCERTAIN!

Duh...another bozo posting drivel to the net and unable to admit a simple
mistake.

So, you think the statement "I doubt that your hair is green" is equivalent
to "I don't know anything about hair or the color green"?

Face it, by saying "I doubt you have any copyright", you implied you had
some useful knowledge of copyright law (which you didn't) even _while_
you expressed _doubt_ about whether the person _you_ were flaming had a
copyright for their own work.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between doubt and ignorance
says a lot.  You _should_ have said "I'm ignorant about copyright law",
but apparently you're ignorant about conversational English as well.

   > I agree, I just don't see why you need to start off such a post with a claim

       I DID NOT START A POST OFF WITH SUCH A THING!  If you will recall
       was the last sentence of my post.  And I used the word 'doubt.'
       Doubt means:  hesitate to believe; be undecided in opinion.
       Thus considering, I do not believe that I made any claim that
       the author did not have a copyright.

Sorry, I have no record of your original post, and my memory that you started
off your post with that statement was obviously incorrect from what records
I do have -- you used the phrase "I also doubt", which strongly suggests it
_wasn't_ the first thing in your post, after all.

See how easy it is to admit a mistake?  I do it all the time, but maybe that's
easier when one makes fewer mistakes in a public forum.

Meanwhile, if I state this publicly:

    I doubt you have any nutritious food in your possession

Which of the following is implied to typical members of the audience?

    A)  I know nothing about food, nutrition, or laws regarding possession

    B)  I am making no claims regarding your edible possessions

    C)  I am claiming that either you have no nutritious food _or_ that you
        _think_ you do but my knowledge of nutrition is probably superior
        to yours and, hence, what you think is nutritious probably isn't
        according to my higher knowledge

Answer: C.  You seem to be claiming both A and B, of course, but the answer
remains C.  It is a simple but important lesson to learn when communicating
in a public forum.  I won't bore you with tales of how many times I made
comments like yours when I was a kid -- fortunately, after 2 or 3 hundred
times, I finally learned.  Whether you learn is up to you.

       I do believe that some people like to flame though!!

Only when the target is so tantalizing and yet such easy prey.  Actually
I rarely flame, but there are so very few such plump targets as you on the
few newsgroups I read.  Of course, I never intended to flame per se, but
your reaction of constantly reinterpreting what you said turned this into
a flamefest.  Seriously, can you _honestly_ say you _weren't_ claiming
the person _didn't_ have a copyright?  I doubt you can.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    [e-mail]
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) [e-mail]