Please stop feeding the troll!

Published on June 11, 2006 By drmiler In Politics

Look I know it's fun to argue with the clueless one. Heck, I do it myself. But he's getting to big for his britches. Try this.....for every post you put on his blog, give him 3 trolling cookies. I do it every day regardless of whether I post or not.

Comments (Page 2)

terpfan1980

on Jun 11, 2006

Man Law.

Man Law.

(Great series of commercials, even if more than half that crowd is unrecognizable!).

terpfan1980

on Jun 11, 2006

I propose that from now on, all replies to the Col's articles be posted here in the "Please stop feeding the troll!!" thread.

One point that BakerStreet is absolutely correct on - the articles need to be completely ignored. Not read, but completely ignored. Don't even both replying to the headlines, just ignore the lame attempts at spewing the same garbage. Without readers and debating partners, the C.O.L. is useless and his articles will cease.

It's that old "If a bear craps in the woods and no one is around...." The stink may still be out there, but who really cares?

bakerstreet

on Jun 11, 2006

That's the real issue to me. If you don't like what he says, and you don't have anything to offer other than derision, then why post at all? That way you don't have to worry about trolling him to make up for the thousands of points you give him.

Frankly, I think he's doing Republicans a service at this point. Every second that is wasted on Bush is a second that Dems could have been prepping for 2008, or working over 2006 congressional candidates. I say, let him waste his time.

P.S. The Col isn't blacklisted from this, is he?

-----

on Jun 11, 2006

*sigh*

I admit, I'm a col-aholic. It is just so hard to not click on his stuff.

I do agree with you baker, in some ways. I rarely try to "troll" him. If he is wrong, then he is wrong. Now, that does not mean that I have not had a time where I've just been rude. It happens, and for that, I am ashamed.

~L

drmiler

on Jun 11, 2006

You should check out your friendly copyright laws in the US. As an Australian citizen I could get sued for blatantly violating copyright like that. 20%'s the max in Oz and even then it can't be a block quote.

Thankfully this isn't oz. Copyright laws are different here. I also made sure to say where it came from.

[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: www.newsbusters.org ]

Adventure-Dude

on Jun 11, 2006

What I don't understand isn't trolling when someone is just rambling? We all want respect and find Col to be arogant and rude. But if someone on my block is that way I can't go and put up a sign on his property saying he sucks. Just ignore him. It's your frivilous arguments with him that go no where. Now you are concerned because of his ranking? I'm sorry but some of you should be ashamed. It's one thing if he came to your post and said such things but another when you go to his backyard. Think about it.

AD

bakerstreet

on Jun 12, 2006

"Copyright laws are different here. I also made sure to say where it came from."

Actually they aren't. You can't post whole articles in the US either without permission, but no one seems to bother much with it in terms of blogs and such. If you check copyright law you'll find that 'fair use' isn't copy and pasting the whole thing. You can quote it, but not copy it all verbatim.

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2006

Actually "fair use" seems to read differently from what you think

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

bakerstreet

on Jun 12, 2006

No offense, Doc, but I've been doing this in terms of online art for years, ask anyone around the stardock community. The part you missed in what you just posted is:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and "

In other words, whether or not it is fair use depends on how much of it you republish as compared to the whole. In other words the more you publish the less "fair" it's going to be considered. If reposting something in its entirety isn't copyright infringement, what is? And don't say selling it, because we both know that giving stuff away isn't any different in the eyes of the law.

"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians."

Copyright is the right of an author to choose when, where, and how a work is reproduced. Yes, you can claim fair use and cite a work for the purpose of referring to it, but when you publish the whole work, you have stolen the author's right to say whether or not they want you to reproduce it.

You aren't an educator or a librarian, so I'm thinking you've not got the right to publish a whole work.

" As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. "

If you want to cite something, fine, but reprinting it all is a violation of copyright. Do what you want, I don't care, but there's no reason to call something fair use when it isn't. According to you, you'd have the permission to reprint any work you want and call it fair use. If what you are doing isn't copyright infringement, what is?

If I recall, didn't JU have a policy against people posting entire articles, anyway?

bakerstreet

on Jun 12, 2006

I wonder how Dr. Miller would feel if the Col had copy/pasted one of his blogs with a little extra line at the top. I'm thinking he'd have a different opinion of 'fair use' at that point...

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2006

Sorry but anonymous posters need not apply.

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2006

I wonder how Dr. Miller would feel if the Col had copy/pasted one of his blogs with a little extra line at the top. I'm thinking he'd have a different opinion of 'fair use' at that point...

Nope, no change in opinion. Wouldn't bother me at all.

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2006

And btw baker I didn't see you give the col any static over reply #20 in his blog titled "LET THEM STARVE", The Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush Where he posted an "entire" article as a reply.
Link
And "here" is a link to the original article:
Link

You want to talk about the way I do things? That's fine. But do it across the board to all that do it or don't do it at all.

bakerstreet

on Jun 12, 2006

I didn't give you any static either, if you note, until someone condemned the Col for posting whole articles. ANd I really didn't give you any static, I told you I didn't care what you did. Call it what it is, though.

drmiler

on Jun 12, 2006

didn't give you any static either, if you note, until someone condemned the Col for posting whole articles. ANd I really didn't give you any static, I told you I didn't care what you did. Call it what it is, though.

You're right you didn't give me any. Not really anyway. But who said anything about the col posting whole articles? It dang sure wasn't me.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!