New Angel

You're pretty funny. I never said I hated him. I said he lied under
oath. Why does saying that make everybody assume that I hate him?


Perhaps because your tone seemed more than a bit hateful toward him?

Caryn
Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

So, I could talk trash about Bush all day, but that's really not what I
wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk about Clinton and I don't get why
it is that we can't talk about Clinton without someone (several million
someones) piping up that Bush is worse. That's irrelevant to the
discussion of Clinton, to my mind.


Considering that at the start of this, long before you joined in, I was
comparing Bush and Clinton, talking about how both of them lied, I fail to see
how this is a discussion just of Clinton.

You wanted to talk about Clinton. I wanted to discuss BOTH, and I HAD BEEN
DOING SO before you came into it with just your chant of "Clinton lied."


Caryn



Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

Caryn wrote:
Elizabeth wrote this:
You're pretty funny. I never said I hated him. I said he lied under
oath. Why does saying that make everybody assume that I hate him?

Perhaps because your tone seemed more than a bit hateful toward him?

Statements of fact don't usually have a tone. I think you inferred what
wasn't there or allowed your opinion of me to color your reading.

Could you please make an effor to add the attributions if your program
won't do it? (and that's a neutral request in a neutral tone, ok?)

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Caryn wrote:
So, I could talk trash about Bush all day, but that's really not what I
wanted to discuss. I wanted to talk about Clinton and I don't get why
it is that we can't talk about Clinton without someone (several million
someones) piping up that Bush is worse. That's irrelevant to the
discussion of Clinton, to my mind.

Considering that at the start of this, long before you joined in, I was
comparing Bush and Clinton, talking about how both of them lied, I fail to see
how this is a discussion just of Clinton.

Long before I joined in? Jezes, Caryn, eight hours is hardly "long
before." I'm so sorry that I don't always work at home and couldn't
keep up with your prolific posting. But the fact is that you responded
to a comment Lucille made about Clinton with a "yeah, but Bush is worse"
kind of comment. Bush being worse doesn't make what Clinton did ok.

You wanted to talk about Clinton. I wanted to discuss BOTH, and I HAD BEEN
DOING SO before you came into it with just your chant of "Clinton lied."

Nope. Sorry.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Long before I joined in? Jezes, Caryn, eight hours is hardly "long
before."

Long in terms of numbers of posts, not time.

But the fact is that you responded
to a comment Lucille made about Clinton with a "yeah, but Bush is worse"
kind of comment.

Lucille didn't even mention Clinton by name, and what I said was that I'd
rather have a president who lies about sex than one who lies to get us into a
war. I stated a personal preference between two kinds of liars. But it does
show that Bush was part of the discussion from the beginning, this was never a
discussion of just Clinton's lies.

You wanted to talk about Clinton. I wanted to discuss BOTH, and I HAD BEEN
DOING SO before you came into it with just your chant of "Clinton lied."

Nope. Sorry.

Elizabeth


Are you saying I wasn't???? You contradict yourself here, as you just
admitted that Bush had been part of the discussion early on.

Caryn
Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

In article , "Dr. Brat"
writes:

he lied under oath

From this morning's paper, by Matthew Miller:
"he lied under oath, conservatives say -- that was always why this really
mattered. But consider: When Clinton gave his deposition in the Jones case,
Lewinsky had already filed her affidavit saying there had been no hanky-panky
between them. If Clinton had come clean in the deposition, he would have
immediately exposed Lewinsky to charges of perjury. It's a delicious fact that
conservatives will just have to live with. But in the end, isn't it clear that
in sticking to his story, Clinton was done in by his own chivalry?"

Ken Starr was hired to look into Whitewater, yet, if you review the Starr
report, the word "Whitewater" appears exactly zero times. The word "real
estate" does not appear. A friend of mine downloaded the report, put it into
WordPerfect, and spent several hours using the Search function for various
words, to make sure that she wasn't overlooking them herself. If I had turned
in a report containing no reference whatsoever to what I was supposed to be
researching, my boss would've been livid.

It became quite clear that Starr was unable to find what his Republican friends
wanted him to find, so he expanded his investigation hoping to find something,
even if it wasn't On Topic to what he was supposed to look into. Those of you
who were offended by the Starr Report reading like soft porn -- take it up with
Starr; he's the one who wrote it.

--
Finished 5/21/04 - Fireman's Wife
WIP: Fireman's Prayer (#2), Amid Amish Life, Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler,
Holiday Snowglobe

Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html

He isn't asserting that it is; however, if Fahrenheit 451 did not exist
or was not well-known, it is almost certain Moore wouldn't have used the
title Fahrenheit 9/11. While he says "Fahrenheit 9/11 is the
temperature at which freedom burns", that is not literal and would mean
nothing to the general public without Bradbury's prior work. I'm also
not buying the line that Moore didn't know about Bradbury's complaint
call for six months. Moore has shown through his other films that he's
going to do whatever he pleases and to hell with everyone else. In that
respect, he is no better than the portrayal of the subjects in his
films. I'm sure he has interesting things to say, but I'm no longer
willing to listen to him either.

escapee wrote:
So. It still has nothing to do with the original movie. The word Fahrenheit is
not copyrighted.

--
Brenda
"Nothing...I got nothing for sale."

escapee wrote:
So. It still has nothing to do with the original movie. The word Fahrenheit is
not copyrighted.

I believe that's "trademark" rather than copyright? I know, because I'm
being chased by a lawyer at present. :-)

Dianne

escapee wrote:
So. It still has nothing to do with the original movie. The word
Fahrenheit is
not copyrighted.

I believe that's "trademark" rather than copyright? I know, because I'm
being chased by a lawyer at present. :-)

Dianne






Yes and no it seems!

I found this using google:

http://www.publaw.com/titles.html

The gist seems to say that the publisher, not the author would be able to
trademark the title of a series of books, not a single book.

Thus, unless Ray Bradbury is self-published, which he isn't as far as I know,
he couldn't sue Micheal Moore for Trademark Infringement.

The article also makes clear that titles are not Copyrightable, so he could not
sue on those grounds as well.

Clear as mud, right? lol

Caryn
Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

Caryn wrote:
Yes and no it seems!

I found this using google:

http://www.publaw.com/titles.html

The gist seems to say that the publisher, not the author would be able to
trademark the title of a series of books, not a single book.

Thus, unless Ray Bradbury is self-published, which he isn't as far as I know,
he couldn't sue Micheal Moore for Trademark Infringement.

The article also makes clear that titles are not Copyrightable, so he could not
sue on those grounds as well.

Clear as mud, right? lol

Ahhh . . . So, it is a bit more complicated than on the surface. But
according to the site, there's no grounds for either infringement.
Dianne