Thomas Dalton writes:
Boy, I sure would hate to be the lawyer who had to explain this point to a judge.
You know, as the person paid to be the legal expert here, it would be helpful if you would make straight points as opposed to unhelpful rhetoric.
I don't think I signed away my right to express humor or irony when I signed up with this outfit.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rhetoric" here, since in fact I truly would hate to be the lawyer who was trying to explain in court how "raw Wikinews" and how it's different from "editorially checked Wikinews" and how different theories of liability might apply depending on which one was at issue, and why it should make a difference. Not to mention spelling out the operation of flagged revisions.
I suppose you want me to use smileys when I say something wry or smile in resigned bemusement. ;)
Anyone familiar with my career knows I've explained difficult and complex issues in the past, but I think a critical judge would be impatient with glib distinctions between categories of Wikinews. Make that doubly impatient if the judge is, say, French.
--Mike
I don't think I signed away my right to express humor or irony when I signed up with this outfit.
Not at all, but it would be helpful if you then went on to explain more seriously.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rhetoric" here
Rhetoric is something said more for effect than for its informational value - humour and irony are forms of rhetoric. (They can still have informational value, but it's generally of secondary importance to the effect of the statement.)
I suppose you want me to use smileys when I say something wry or smile in resigned bemusement. ;)
I've been online long enough that I can usually correctly interpret what people are saying. It also helps to English - we're generally much more used to sarcasm and similar forms of rhetoric than, say, Americans.
Anyone familiar with my career knows I've explained difficult and complex issues in the past, but I think a critical judge would be impatient with glib distinctions between categories of Wikinews. Make that doubly impatient if the judge is, say, French.
Thank you for the clarification, that's what I was after. A little explanation of *why* you think that would be nice, but I understand it may be difficult to explain properly without getting into more detail (particularly technical detail) than is appropriate for a general mailing list.
May I also point out that Mr. Godwin does not exist in his position to provide you, Mr. Dalton, with free legal advice. He advises the Foundation alone. That he deigns to speak to you (on or off-list) is a credit to his magnanimous nature, not paying some debt of obligation to you to be nice or explain things in such a way that you understand them.
On Dec 4, 2007 5:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think I signed away my right to express humor or irony when I signed up with this outfit.
Not at all, but it would be helpful if you then went on to explain more seriously.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rhetoric" here
Rhetoric is something said more for effect than for its informational value - humour and irony are forms of rhetoric. (They can still have informational value, but it's generally of secondary importance to the effect of the statement.)
I suppose you want me to use smileys when I say something wry or smile in resigned bemusement. ;)
I've been online long enough that I can usually correctly interpret what people are saying. It also helps to English - we're generally much more used to sarcasm and similar forms of rhetoric than, say, Americans.
Anyone familiar with my career knows I've explained difficult and complex issues in the past, but I think a critical judge would be impatient with glib distinctions between categories of Wikinews. Make that doubly impatient if the judge is, say, French.
Thank you for the clarification, that's what I was after. A little explanation of *why* you think that would be nice, but I understand it may be difficult to explain properly without getting into more detail (particularly technical detail) than is appropriate for a general mailing list.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 04/12/2007, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
May I also point out that Mr. Godwin does not exist in his position to provide you, Mr. Dalton, with free legal advice. He advises the Foundation alone. That he deigns to speak to you (on or off-list) is a credit to his magnanimous nature, not paying some debt of obligation to you to be nice or explain things in such a way that you understand them.
Well that's hardly going to work, is it? Most of the decisions around here are made by volunteers, not the foundation, so it's the volunteers that need the legal advice.
on 12/4/07 5:08 PM, Mike Godwin at mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
Boy, I sure would hate to be the lawyer who had to explain this point to a judge.
You know, as the person paid to be the legal expert here, it would be helpful if you would make straight points as opposed to unhelpful rhetoric.
I don't think I signed away my right to express humor or irony when I signed up with this outfit.
I certainly hope not, Mike. Two people who need a sense of humor in their work: lawyers & psychotherapists - "motive" is an important word in both our work.
Marc Riddell
PS: I thought of placing a :-) or a ;-) at the end, but I figured your own obvious sense of humor would make them unnecessary. I'm with ya.
M
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org