what would you rather do than be stuck in an airline seat next to Cory Doctorow?
Nate_Trost wrote:Irony is also a site that rails against free speech restrictions and memory holes not just removing infringing material but scrubbing any reference to the author from the site.
Nate_Trost wrote:If only Cory Doctorow would write a story about Cory Doctorow being sodomized on YouTube under a Creative Commons license. I would sooner read a non-ghost-written sci-fi collaboration by William Shatner and Richard Simmons than listen to his self-righteous ego-fed yapping. John Lennon is spinning in his grave because even if the world of "Imagine" came to life, it would still include Cory Doctorow.
Nate_Trost wrote:it's not so much that I really despise Cory Doctorow(...)
Nate_Trost wrote:...what would you rather do than be stuck in an airline seat next to Cory Doctorow?
Sorry. Skar, maybe the next author tussle will be bloody to your satisfaction.
.Try and focus on what's being said HERE, not what all those other folks are saying
You are implying that you have made some original and unique statement and argument that has not been presented and addressed elsewhere.
You have not.
Further, please do attempt to at least convery the impression that you are either informed or qualifed to be discussing the bozoness of Cory Doctorow, the hypocrisy of his supporters and SFWA supporters or, if that fails, at least informed enough about this particular matter and its history.
But hey, if bashing Doctorow is what you need to achieve orgasm, go ahead.
.It's a double standard and a bit revealing
I don't even think Doctorow is a bozo, as I said pretty clearly
It's amusing that when Doctorow is the offending party an apology and swift rectification is good enough. But when he's the offended party all hell must break loose before he's satisfied, and, apparently, it hasn't broken loose enough for him yet.
SFWA makes a copyright mistake
.Doctorow makes a copyright mistake
Your dragging this out by responding to things that I haven't actually said is a little disingenuous, which tends to support my point.
Yes, your point being that I'm a hypocrite.
The organization did not make a ... what you are doing.
Burt has a history of ... tends to rankle with people..
Did he? this hasn't been ... it. He did not.
End of story. Everyone's satisfied and has moved on, except for you, Skar.
Skar wrote:The implications are obvious.
up all the gory "he said she said" details of an argument
You totally failed to illuminate just how SFWA's mistake and apology were substantially different from Doctorow's mistake and apology
.Seems pretty obvious to me that copying another's work, in-toto, stripping out the copyright notice that accompanied it and then posting it on a public forum is a violation of copyright
You keep claiming that I'm bashing/slandering Doctorow
david-de-beer wrote:oh my you are just the soul of wit aren't you, playing on my surname like that. Which I take it is an admission that stupid and dense is your natural birthright?
I am still waiting, btw, for you to demonstrate what exactly you know about the sum total of events and opinions surrounding this issue. Are you a member of the SFWA? perhaps the SFWA discussion board in sentient form?
Ursula Le Guin or Jerry Pournelle?
SFWA makes a copyright mistake. Doctorow strenuously objects to their actions. SFWA apologizes and rectifies the mistake swiftly. Doctorow is not satisfied, is still not satisfied and continues to flip his lid.
Doctorow makes a copyright mistake. LeGuin objects to his action. Doctorow apologizes and rectifies the mistake swiftly. LeGuin is satisfied. Matter ends with no flipping of lids at all.
and don't worry, mate, if you're on this forum I will find you. So you may as well stay and continue the spout of claims of no reason.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests