Re: Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[treiter@comet.net (Toby Reiter)]

In article <4tlihd$cn@darla.visi.com>, nathan@mixer.visi.com (Nathan
Mates) wrote:

> In article <31FD358F.7141@concentric.net>,
> Michael Dobropolski  <DobroDad@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>    Yo. Your Reply-To: field isn't set to go back to you, but to
> someone else. This makes your post look very suspicious in coming from
> two ISPs as above.
> 
>    Further, it is good style to trim what you're responding to (hint:
> look up how to delete) to only the sections, as I noted in my last
> followup. Interesting how you deleted only the attempt to improve your
> netettiquette in your followup, but left everything else intact.
> 
> >Anyway, (not tomorrow, not years from now, no time machines) 
> >the changing of law is not really temporal. Actions, that 
> >are as identical as we can have as interacting social 
> >beings, can get one perpetrator heavy sanctions, another 
> >will never be charged, another will be charged and 
> >acquitted, and so forth, all on the same day. 
> 
>    [10 more lines of dense stream of consciousness prose
> deleted. Please note that James Joyce is the exception, not the rule
> in good literature.]
> 
>    So what you argument is that Asimov might pull an OJ Simpson and
> evade justice, or it might bear the full brunt of copyright law, so
> who cares? The occasional miscarriage of justice in this country is
> NOT an excuse to break the law. If and when you have a _real_
> argument, one that is based on facts, not delusions from fantasyland,
> we can talk further.
> 
> Nathan Mates
Like almost all conflicts, the difficulty here is a communications
problems.  According to what I have read from Linda McCallister's book _"I
wish I'd said that!"_, I would characterize Nathan Mates as a Noble, one
who tends to see issues in either black and white, prefers quick,
straighforward answers (see his desire for "facts" and who generally
dislikes lengthy discussion (note his reaction above in brackets.) On the
other hand, Michael Dobropolski is more of a Socratic communicator meaning
that he dislikes seperating items as either/or, and tends to see the gray
areas of an issue.  He tends more towards philosophy than specific facts
although he is interested in details.  These are two fundamentally
different viewpoints, and thus these two men are not arguing on the same
level.  Nathan demands Michael show why Asimov should not be considered
illegal, whereas Michael is more concerned with showing Nathan that
because of the specific details surrounding each case before the law, two
similar cases can be shown with two different outcomes, and a miscarriage
of justice has not occurred in either case. Neither of these communication
styles or viewpoints are necessarily bad or good, although people with
Nathan's own style of communication (Noble) will be more likely to relate
to his viewpoint, whereas those with a more socratice communication style
(including myself) will be more likley to agree with his point of view. 
Reflectives (the third tyoe of communicator) are, unfortunately, not
invloved here.

By the way, even though I am biased, I attempted to make this as objective
as possible an examination of the situation.  If anything I said here
intrigued you in any way, I encourage you to get the book from your local
library--it's a really good book.