Anthony writes:
Then you haven't answered how the requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of speech are in conflict.
I have certainly tried to explain it. Do you need me to try to explain it again and again until you understand what I'm saying?
Are you just making this up off the top of your head?
Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good faith" memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?).
But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize.
That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're quite proud of it.
Again a very educated and informative response.
I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free to disagree.
I see you've incorporated the "ad hominem" meme quite well.
I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here.
Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as "little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems to me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me.
You mischaracterize what I think.
I am happy to learn that, despite what you have posted in public, you don't really suppose I think of you as "little people" and expect that my views will be "accepted without question." On the other hand, this raises the question of why you attributed such views to me in the first place, but you need not answer here if it would make you uncomfortable to source your assertions.
--Mike
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Are you just making this up off the top of your head?
Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good faith" memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?).
So you're just going tit-for-tat with me? Is that it? If so, fine, we're even. Now can we get back to something productive?
Oh shit. That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? Damn, now I get another tat. See where the tit-for-tat is leading us?
But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in
conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize.
Well, no, I can't source it. I don't know exactly *where* I got this notion of rights. It happened a long time ago, when I was first learning about the term. That said, I've googled around and it does seem that there is a philosophical debate on exactly this question. I think it's mostly a semantic argument, though I also think there is a deeper question as to whether or not humans are fundamentally in conflict with each other (a question which I would tentatively answer in the negative, though I admit that I haven't studied the question enough to be sure about my answer).
That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
quite proud of it.
Again a very educated and informative response.
I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free to disagree.
I completely agree that you think that way. It's not particularly useful for me to know this, though.
I see you've incorporated the "ad hominem" meme quite well.
I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here.
Instead of attacking my idea, you attacked me.
Can this discussion be continued in private?
________________________________ From: Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:22:36 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Trademarks
Anthony writes:
Then you haven't answered how the requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of speech are in conflict.
I have certainly tried to explain it. Do you need me to try to explain it again and again until you understand what I'm saying?
Are you just making this up off the top of your head?
Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good faith" memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?).
But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize.
That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're quite proud of it.
Again a very educated and informative response.
I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free to disagree.
I see you've incorporated the "ad hominem" meme quite well.
I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here.
Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as "little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems to me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me.
You mischaracterize what I think.
I am happy to learn that, despite what you have posted in public, you don't really suppose I think of you as "little people" and expect that my views will be "accepted without question." On the other hand, this raises the question of why you attributed such views to me in the first place, but you need not answer here if it would make you uncomfortable to source your assertions.
--Mike
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org