In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is copyrighted). However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
Mgm
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is copyrighted). However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
I don't see how. It's possible that stealing someone else's trick for your magic show might be piracy, but describing a trick in an encyclopedia article shouldn't be. We're not reproducing the trick, just describing it.
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for to start with.
On 1/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is
copyrighted).
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
I don't see how. It's possible that stealing someone else's trick for your magic show might be piracy, but describing a trick in an encyclopedia article shouldn't be. We're not reproducing the trick, just describing it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And while they're probably not exact copies of the method used in the book or manual provided with the effect. The summary written in the article is in such detail that it may constitute a copyright violation of the manual the same way excessively long plot summaries are. (see for example the template atop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_%28season_3%29 )
Mgm
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for to start with.
On 1/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks
aren't
patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the
way
it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is
copyrighted).
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
I don't see how. It's possible that stealing someone else's trick for your magic show might be piracy, but describing a trick in an encyclopedia article shouldn't be. We're not reproducing the trick, just describing it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
and
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for to start with.
What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part of why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing information is not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]
As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on Wikipedia is an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy and paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of magicians.
-- Matt
[1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does transgress IP law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text?
Mgm
On 1/15/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
and
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for
to
start with.
What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part of why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing information is not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]
As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on Wikipedia is an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy and paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of magicians.
-- Matt
[1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does transgress IP law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.
per case law.
Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text?
Case law please? It sounds a bit of a stretch and in the class of things where it would be ridiculous for us to attempt to assuage the sense of entitlement you allege for magicians.
- d.
On 15/01/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Case law please? It sounds a bit of a stretch and in the class of things where it would be ridiculous for us to attempt to assuage the sense of entitlement you allege for magicians.
I probably mean "imply" rather than "allege".
- d.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.
Could you back that up, please? As I understand it, this is way too broad an interpretation of copyright law. It's only illegal to actually _copy_ something that's copyrighted, not to merely do something that reduces its "value."
Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text?
I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which as far as I can tell don't apply here.
Wikipedia has no obligation to keep other people's secrets (possibly with some exceptions in biographical articles, I guess). One need merely take a glance through the Scientology articles to see that.
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.
Could you back that up, please? As I understand it, this is way too broad an interpretation of copyright law. It's only illegal to actually _copy_ something that's copyrighted, not to merely do something that reduces its "value."
Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a
copy
it still violates the copyright of the text?
I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which as far as I can tell don't apply here.
That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick are copyrighted - no doubt.
Mgm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which as far as I can tell don't apply here.
That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick are copyrighted - no doubt.
Mgm
And as long as we don't copy "the instructional videos and/or manuals," revealing the trick is no more a violation of anything than revealing that Zeus gets the girl is a violation of anything.
Oh, by the way: Beowulf kills Grendel.
- -- Sean Barrett | Our strength is as the strength of sean@epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
On 1/15/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which as far as I can tell don't apply here.
That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick are copyrighted - no doubt.
Mgm
And as long as we don't copy "the instructional videos and/or manuals," revealing the trick is no more a violation of anything than revealing that Zeus gets the girl is a violation of anything.
Oh, by the way: Beowulf kills Grendel.
The real difficulty is supplying references. There's nothing wrong with referring to hard-copy manuals that aren't available online, though.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't see how. Copyright covers a specific tangible expression, not
the underlying ideas contained within it. One can make a movie out of a book and then have the book be in public domain while the movie remains copyrighted, for example. I think the sort of IP protection you're thinking of is more along the lines of trade secret or patent law, which as far as I can tell don't apply here.
That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick are copyrighted - no doubt.
Maybe. Some of these tricks have been around longer than the magicians want to believe. That aside, the way in which the instructions are written is copyright, but not the instructions themselves. If there is only one way of writing the instructions the copyright could be void. That's the merger principle.
Ec
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.
In the US, plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because a plot is a copyrightable work. Copyright covers copying, not just making exact copies. Most plot summaries are fair use. Some aren't.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material.
In the US, plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because a plot is a copyrightable work. Copyright covers copying, not just making exact copies. Most plot summaries are fair use. Some aren't.
Agreed. The distinction is a point of fact that is never very clear on the face of it. I suppose if you go too far it could be considered a derivative work, but it would be very difficult to determine how far is too far.
Ec
Copyright caselaw takes into account the character of the copyrighted work. If the nature of the work is to describe some sort of process or activity, it likely falls under patent law and not copyright law. The standard mantra, misleading as it can be, is that ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions. When we are talking about things like "how to move your hands around to get the desired effect," that usually applies (when we are talking about things like "an evil character with a dark black helmet who makes asthmatic weezing", then we get into a more murky question about where ideas end and expressions begin).
Is there any concrete reason to worry about this at the moment or is this all just hypothetical? We should not overly concern ourselves with magician etiquette if there is no pressing reason.
FF
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text?
Mgm
On 1/15/07, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
and
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for
to
start with.
What did you mean by "should"? Making information freely available is part of why Wikipedia exists and why Wikipedia is a good thing. Sharing information is not normally termed "piracy" when it does not transgress IP law.[1]
As far as I'm aware, the only general argument against exposure on Wikipedia is an ethical one (presuming we otherwise have reliable sources, don't copy and paste text etc.) But Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of magicians.
-- Matt
[1] And you might not wish to term it "piracy" even when it does transgress IP law, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
But it's still making material freely available that should be paid for to start with.
"Should be"? Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
- -- Sean Barrett | Our strength is as the strength of sean@epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
People don't pay for the "magic" per se, they pay for the showmanship. In my opinion, revealing the mechanics of a magic act in no way detracts from that particular act's commercial viability. Struggling magicians, on the other hand, might be of another opinion.
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is copyrighted). However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/15/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
People don't pay for the "magic" per se, they pay for the showmanship. In my opinion, revealing the mechanics of a magic act in no way detracts from that particular act's commercial viability. Struggling magicians, on the other hand, might be of another opinion.
You forget that there have been people who make their living comeing up with new tricks. You've also got the problem of the poor guy faceing a bunck of kids who know how the trick is done (kids are hard enough to deal with in any case).
geni wrote:
You forget that there have been people who make their living comeing up with new tricks. You've also got the problem of the poor guy faceing a bunck of kids who know how the trick is done (kids are hard enough to deal with in any case).
Why does Wikipedia have an obligation to support the people who make their living coming up with new tricks? And if we do, why doesn't that obligation extend to supporting the people who make their living selling commercial encyclopedias?
On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Why does Wikipedia have an obligation to support the people who make their living coming up with new tricks?
It doesn't. you are makeing a strawman argument. I was simply pointing out something the intital commenter had missed. Of course depending on how they sell their tricks wikipedia could increase thier market (if they sell each trick to a very small number or even just one person).
You pay for the secret when you buy a magic effect. Revealing it on Wikipedia certainly detracts from the product's commercial viability .
Mgm
On 1/15/07, Nina Stratton ninaeliza@gmail.com wrote:
People don't pay for the "magic" per se, they pay for the showmanship. In my opinion, revealing the mechanics of a magic act in no way detracts from that particular act's commercial viability. Struggling magicians, on the other hand, might be of another opinion.
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is
copyrighted).
However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Sincerely,
Nina "Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work." - Abdul Kalam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
You pay for the secret when you buy a magic effect. Revealing it on Wikipedia certainly detracts from the product's commercial viability .
Mgm
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of business models.
- -- Sean Barrett | Our strength is as the strength of sean@epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
You pay for the secret when you buy a magic effect. Revealing it on Wikipedia certainly detracts from the product's commercial viability.
Lots of people who sell information will no doubt find Wikipedia detracts from their commercial viability (Britannica Online?), but that's not our concern. Our job on Wikipedia is to document topics based on the available reliable sources. Sorry to sound callous about it, but if that happens to negatively impact the business of selling secrets, then tough cheese.
Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text?
Our article on [[copyright]] says:
`Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.'
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MacGyverMagic/Mgm stated for the record:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is copyrighted). However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
Mgm
Dear All:
Do we have a WP: page discussing this issue? Wikipedia's policy is clear, but the question still comes up periodically, and it would be nice to be able to point people to a concise explanation.
If there isn't one, I may try to pull something together.
- -- Sean Barrett | Our strength is as the strength of sean@epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Do we have a WP: page discussing this issue? Wikipedia's policy is clear, but the question still comes up periodically, and it would be nice to be able to point people to a concise explanation. If there isn't one, I may try to pull something together.
Please do. For reference, there was the historical [[Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods]].
[[King levitation]] is an article where people have fought to remove the explanation of the effect -- "Consider the magicians' livelihoods that you are harming by posting this unnecessary junk. It is unethical!" etc.
[[King levitation]] also completely lacks references. We might want to mention the need for reliable sources, which is an especially important issue when it comes to "secret" information of any kind. The issue of sourcing is related to the exposure question, because magicians have little right to be upset when Wikipedia is acting only as a tertiary source, pulling together information from sources already in the public domain.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is copyrighted). However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
Mgm
Isn't the correct paradigm here not copyright law but rather [[Trade secret]]s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret?
"A company can protect its confidential information through non-compete non-disclosure contracts with its employees. The law of protection of confidential information effectively allows a perpetual monopoly in secret information - it does not expire as would a patent. The lack of formal protection, however, means that a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered."
If it is appearing on Wikipedia, it seems to me that the third party has manifestly discovered it; if they are complaining about it appearing on Wikipedia, then they are crying over spilt milk/trying to put the genie back into the bottle/cat into the bag, etc.
--Gwern
gwern branwen wrote:
On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
In a previous discussion it was determined that most magic tricks aren't patented (for fear of revealing the method) or copyrighted (only the way it's written down in a book or recorded on a DVD or video is copyrighted). However, isn't exposure of commercially available effects considered [[piracy]] then?
Mgm
Isn't the correct paradigm here not copyright law but rather [[Trade secret]]s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret?
The Church of Scientology claim knowledge of [[Xenu]] as a trade secret.
Gwern wrote:
Isn't the correct paradigm here not copyright law but rather [[Trade secret]]s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret?
Actually, I think it's even closer to guild lore.
If it is appearing on Wikipedia, it seems to me that the third party has manifestly discovered it; if they are complaining about it appearing on Wikipedia, then they are crying over spilt milk/trying to put the genie back into the bottle/cat into the bag, etc.
Agreed.
On 16/01/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If it is appearing on Wikipedia, it seems to me that the third party has manifestly discovered it; if they are complaining about it appearing on Wikipedia, then they are crying over spilt milk/trying to put the genie back into the bottle/cat into the bag, etc.
Agreed.
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
On 16/01/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
- d.
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
- -- Sean Barrett | Our strength is as the strength of sean@epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
On 16/01/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
No, no. He was an *anti*-Mason. There are plenty of nutters attacking [[Freemasonry]] from both sides. Here's to the core of reasonably sane editors trying to keep it useful and readable.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
On 16/01/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
No, no. He was an *anti*-Mason. There are plenty of nutters attacking [[Freemasonry]] from both sides. Here's to the core of reasonably sane editors trying to keep it useful and readable.
- d.
See, this is why I make such a bad cabalist. I can never keep my conspiracies straight.
(Of course, all good cabalists say things like that. Claiming to confuse conspiracies confuses the conspiracy cultists. TINC. Shemhamforash. Cthulhu ftagn. Fnord. Yee-haw!)
- -- Sean Barrett | Our strength is as the strength of sean@epoptic.com | ten because there are fourteen of us.
On 17/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Conspiracies are never straight.
Well, the good ones aren't, anyway.
That reminds me, [[Robert Anton Wilson]] is really pretty skimpy. Also needs a few more <!--fnord-->s.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
That reminds me, [[Robert Anton Wilson]] is really pretty skimpy. Also needs a few more <!--fnord-->s.
- d.
It already has plenty ... can't you see them?
- -- Sean Barrett | The Bible has some pretty specific things to say sean@epoptic.com | about killing. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on | the subject of kneecaps. --Shepherd Derrial Book
On 17/01/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
That reminds me, [[Robert Anton Wilson]] is really pretty skimpy. Also needs a few more <!--fnord-->s.
It already has plenty ... can't you see them?
No ... but somehow, I don't want to look.
- d.
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!"
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
I gather there have also been edit wars at [[Phi Gamma Delta]] over the use of that fraternity's greek letters.
On 16/01/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!"
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
I gather there have also been edit wars at [[Phi Gamma Delta]] over the use of that fraternity's greek letters.
And here I was thinking "encyclopedia as enlightenment project" was something I could assume and that NPOV was going to be the hard one to get across ...
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Steve Summit stated for the record:
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!"
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
I gather there have also been edit wars at [[Phi Gamma Delta]] over the use of that fraternity's greek letters.
"The fraternity's letters are, thus, considered sacred and are never to be displayed on an object that can be easily destroyed."
I fear that any attempt by a ΦΓΔ member to edit that article will cause the universe to implode into a starkly actinic singularity of ravening logic!
And by the way, since I wrote ΦΓΔ in this e-mail message, no member of that frat is allowed to delete it, right?
- -- Sean Barrett | While you are still sane I shall take your sean@epoptic.com | total knowledge. --Worsel of Velantia
Sean Barrett wrote:
David Gerard stated for the record:
On 16/01/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your editing access vanished! Just like that (tm).
Ah ... Lightbringer, wasn't it? Wasn't he the one who thought my username meant I hated the Pope?
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
There you go! All the time I was deceiving myself into believing that epoptic had something to do with ulcers. :-)
Ec