Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Well, to get the letter from Tim's lawyers, you'd have to excerpt from the essay and not just the copyright notice. You'd have to quote something like "The fact that it’s thousands of pages long really isn’t that much of a usability problem", then have some sort of transformative effect like saying "Tim is deluded if he thinks thousands of pages is a usability problem, since I know that I can't get most people to read a 300 page book on learning Perl". You might also qu
    • I think Tim Bray’s “I’ll pull out the lawyers” is lame.

      But at the same time, the spirit in which he meant the threat (“it’s abuse to cherry-pick this to serve your agenda if you prevent your readers from getting the full picture”) seems obvious and reasonable to me. So all the people skreaking and bouncing like chimps at the mere mention of lawyers look equally lame to me.

      • I expect readers to have brains and go looking for context if it matters to them. If it doesn't, I'm not abusive if they are idiots.

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • That’s the point: he wants readers to have the link, so he’s threatening writers/journalists who quote selectively without linking. His threat is toothless, of course, but I certainly understand what compelled him to include it, considering how highly political the subject matter is.

          Pointing out that he’s wrong merely makes you somewhat of a lawyeristic nitpicker (which won’t make me think less of you than I think of him for posturing with lawsuit threats); actually disrespecting h

          • His threat is toothless, of course ... Pointing out that he's wrong merely makes you somewhat of a lawyeristic nitpicker

            Well, aside from the fact that you just called youself a lawyerlistic nitpicker (sounds like a demon from the Mountains of Ignorance, cf. The Phantom Tollbooth), I think there's nothing whatsoever wrong with pointing out the fact that he is wrong. Is not truth of its own value?

            actually disrespecting his request and then mocking him, however, makes you a rowdy 15 year old

            Nonsense. If we pretend that he has a right to enforce that request for the sake of "maturity," then at some point he might. I firmly believe that all unwarranted assertions of restrictions of liberty should be met by expression

            • you just called youself a lawyerlistic nitpicker

              “Point out” in the sense of “call him out on it for the sake of doing so.”

              Is not truth of its own value?

              Straw man. I didn’t say it makes you wrong, I said it makes you someone who purposefully ignores the larger context and sticks to the literal reading. There is a word for such people, and the correctness of one’s reading doesn’t change that.

              If we pretend that he has a right to enforce that request for the

              • Is not truth of its own value?

                Straw man. I didn’t say it makes you wrong

                I didn't say you did (that means YOU are the one with the straw man here, FWIW).

                I said it makes you someone who purposefully ignores the larger context and sticks to the literal reading

                But that's not true. Indeed, it doesn't stand up to simple logical scrutiny. Just because I pay attention to one thing doesn't mean I am ignoring something else.

                There is a word for such people

                Yes. "People Who Care About Truth."

                If we pretend that he has a right to enforce that request for the sake of "maturity" then at some point he might.

                Slippery slope.

                Um ... no. It's not.

                I can't claim to know Tim Bray well enough to be sure of my assessment that he wouldn't; neither can you for the opposite.

                Shrug. He said he would. And maybe HE wouldn't, but someone else might, because of his example.

                No, such nonsense cannot be tolerated.

                This is how liberty is protected in the long run.

                Does not follow from the premise

                Um. That IS the premise. Unless you think that the premise is "we hav

                • Yes, there is nothing wrong with purposefully misquoting someone who is writing about highly politicised matter and therefore asking to be quoted only in a particular fashion… because the request was accompanied by a toothless “or else.” And the right approach to life that will ensure you life in freedom is to maximally spite everyone who makes an unreasonable request.

                  Respect.

                  • Yes, there is nothing wrong with purposefully misquoting someone

                    See, again with the straw man. No one did that.

                    asking to be quoted only in a particular fashion

                    Nope. Let's be honest here, please. He was demanding that we give up our rights, under threat of legal action, not merely asking.

                    And the right approach to life that will ensure you life in freedom is to maximally spite everyone who makes an unreasonable request.

                    Nope. Not maximally, only enough to make the point, and only when rights are at issue.

                    Respect.

                    Exactly. I respect the liberty of all people, including those that come after us, enough to fight for it whenever necessary. And the most insidious way we lose our rights is when we voluntarily do it because someone else just thinks we shou

                    • No one did that.

                      Two out of three blog posts is not my definition of “no one.”

                      “decorum”

                      You don’t know me at all, do you? (Not that I mind – quite contrarily.)

                      You and Tim Bray do not respect liberty much

                      Indeed, in bizarro universe where he has sent a lawyer after someone and I commended him for doing so, no, neither of us does.

                    • Two out of three blog posts is not my definition of “no one.”

                      Nor mine.

                      You and Tim Bray do not respect liberty much

                      Indeed, in bizarro universe where he has sent a lawyer after someone and I commended him for doing so, no, neither of us does.

                      Bullshit. He is trying to prevent people from exercising their liberty through threat of force. You are saying that defying his bullying is "immature."

                      He doesn't have to actually go through with his threat to disrespect liberty: simply making it is enough. And your opposition to expression of liberty, as one of the best means of protecting liberty, is pretty obviously disrespecting liberty.

                    • If I had something to say about Tim Bray’s actual subject matter, I would have summarily quoted from his posting without feeling the need to either comply by his terms or to comment on my disregard thereof – but last I checked, none of those who I saw commenting on his posting had anything to say about what it was actually about.

                      I am asserting that it should be obvious that these commenters are therefore automatically outside of the group of people for whom Tim Bray would even consider making

                    • I am asserting that it should be obvious that these commenters are therefore automatically outside of the group of people for whom Tim Bray would even consider making good on his threat.

                      That does not justify the threat, and is therefore irrelevant.

                      It follows that none of them have demonstrated anything interesting about the regard or alleged lack thereof for liberties that Mr. Bray may or may not have.

                      No, it does not so follow. The threat ITSELF is the problem, as I've already demonstrated. Whether he plans to "make good" on this threat is self-evidently completely beside the point.

                      All the short-breathed, red-faced posturing over liberties has done nothing more than make the commenters look ignorant of either the context, their own insignificance, or both.

                      Yawn. Call me ignorant all you like, but you're the one clearly who doesn't even understand what liberty is, how it works, or why it is important. You're the pot calling the silverware black.

                      How it follows from my expressing this observation that I disregard liberties is a mystery that only Chris Nandor can fathom.

                      So you are incapable of reading, then? I never said you disregard

                    • Digging myself in deeper? I wish! That would muffle the droning diatribe.

                      I explicitly reject the notion that refusing to give in to a limitation someone posted on his blog about what you may or may not do with his words on yours, when their limitation was obviously toothless to begin with and you have nothing else to do than yammer about the limitation itself, does damn-all for liberty. Also, I explicitly hold that failing to recognise this and pretending that challenging response does any great things fo

                    • I explicitly reject the notion that refusing to give in to a limitation someone posted on his blog about what you may or may not do with his words on yours, when their limitation was obviously toothless to begin with and you have nothing else to do than yammer about the limitation itself, does damn-all for liberty.

                      You also implicitly reject the notion of basic logic, as you are clearly committing the begging-the-question fallacy.

                      Also, I explicitly hold that failing to recognise this and pretending that challenging response does any great things for liberty makes you look like a self-important fool.

                      More question-begging, and introducing a straw man. And you have no credibility with me -- and I imagine, anyone else -- on what people "look like."

                      Yes, I did that. It wasn’t stated that well, initially, but you took from there and managed to mangle those statements beyond all recognition, multiple times over.

                      That is obviously incorrect. I did not in any way misrepresent what you said. The only "evidence" you've provided that I misrepresented you are question-begging claims as above, the insipid, and nearly self-evidently false, notion that a "to