Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will be 
> attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between 
> discourse and sentence).

Sure. It just wasn't a *wrong* sentence, like "John and me will come" would be.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 7:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> What were we talking about?;-)
>

No idea. Now.

>>> >>  I keep forgetting that you've got 20 years on me.  Shame on me, must be
>>> >>  that old memory thing.:-)
>>> >>
>> >  What did you say?
> I'm not sure.:)
>

What!
I heard that. Pardon?


>> >  Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain. Head 'em up, move 'em out.
>> >  http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
> Nice of you to say - who knows, maybe the rules will change while it's
> still feasible for us.  I blame Cameron (though that's largely "just
> because").
>

I blame Cameron, too. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 7:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will
>> be attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between
>> discourse and sentence).
>
> Sure. It just wasn't a *wrong* sentence, like "John and me will come"
> would be.
>

Rude as well ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/20/2011 2:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of a book, for a
>>> classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't *sell* the
>>> book, or its pages, to someone else.
>>
>> That's not actually the case, and never has been.
>>
> Fair use. You mention it yourself soon after.

Yes. But it's not just "if you're not selling it, it's OK." That's a common 
mistake people have. Photocopying an entire article out of a magazine and 
giving it out to your class for free is *not* fair use.

> All well and good, but, in a practical sense, this is meaningless for 
> "digital" content.

Not really. People just get in trouble because they're making copies 
illegally. Show me someone who has been sued for ripping a CD he owns so he 
can listen to it himself, without giving either to anyone else.

>> Yes. That's called "public performance", and it's not one of the legal
>> rights you get when you purchase the content.
>>
> Oddly, reading a book isn't "public performance". Even if you put it 
> under a projector it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand.. plug your 
> iPad into a big display on a wall... Would it?

Note that it's more "public" in question than "performance". Certainly 
getting up on stage in front of a crowd and reading poetry from a book is 
public performance.

>>> They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
>>> have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF),
>>> and, more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying
>>> your right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
>>
>> This isn't true, as I understand it. I'm sure there are loopholes and
>> such, and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit
>> for, but the intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally
>> own.
>>
> The biggest "loophole" is, if the software stops working, or the server 
> goes down, even if they promised to let you replace a copy, if you lost 
> the local one, you lose the thing you bought. So, no, I am quite correct 
> in this.

You were talking about something different. I was talking about the 
legality, you're talking about the technology.

> Same with "giving/selling the original". Try that with an eBook...

That's certainly harder without support from the vendor.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:42:55 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's why it would be more correct/proper to answer "John and I will
>> be attending" (still passive voice, but the subject is unified between
>> discourse and sentence).
> 
> Sure. It just wasn't a *wrong* sentence, like "John and me will come"
> would be.

Correct.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:46:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> >  What did you say?
>> I'm not sure.:)
>>
> What!
> I heard that. Pardon?

I said "Duck Season!" ;-)

>>> >  Shame, but our loss is Oregon's gain. Head 'em up, move 'em out.
>>> >  http://tinyurl.com/67bqthx
>> Nice of you to say - who knows, maybe the rules will change while it's
>> still feasible for us.  I blame Cameron (though that's largely "just
>> because").
>>
>>
> I blame Cameron, too. ;-)

I'm not surprised. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 7:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What!
>> >  I heard that. Pardon?
> I said "Duck Season!";-)
>

Oh!No! You didn't

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:55:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/01/2011 7:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> What!
>>> >  I heard that. Pardon?
>> I said "Duck Season!";-)
>>
>>
> Oh!No! You didn't

You sure about that?  After all, you said you didn't hear what I 
said....maybe you did after all. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2011 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:55:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2011 7:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> What!
>>>>>   I heard that. Pardon?
>>> I said "Duck Season!";-)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh!No! You didn't
>
> You sure about that?  After all, you said you didn't hear what I
> said....maybe you did after all. ;-)
>

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'bang.jpg' (27 KB)

Preview of image 'bang.jpg'

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> [graphic "BANG!"]

LOL

That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message