New Angel

On 6/25/04 3:54 PM, in article , "Dianne
Lewandowski" wrote:

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


It has struck me along the lines of Apple suing Microsoft for infringing on
the look and feel of the Apple operating system.
Cheryl

There may be nothing illegal about co-opting another author's book
title, but I think that Mr. Moore should at least admit that he borrowed
the idea from Ray Bradbury. It does seem rather obvious. The first
thing I thought of when I heard the title of the movie was the book
Farenheit 451 and I wondered if he asked permission to use the title.
The fact that he didn't (even if he didn't have to legally) tells me
more about Mr. Moore and the type of person he is that I really care to
know about him.

Anne (in Ellicott City, MD)

Cheryl Isaak wrote:

On 6/25/04 3:54 PM, in article , "Dianne
Lewandowski" wrote:



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




It has struck me along the lines of Apple suing Microsoft for infringing on
the look and feel of the Apple operating system.
Cheryl

Remember that F451 was made into a movie years ago also so that is
another part of the issue. I think it was more a matter of F9/11
getting a lot of bad publicity and controversy which is also reflecting
negatively on the upcoming re-release of F451 and future movie remake.
Very legitimate concerns and there should be some protection for these
future Bradbury-approved projects.

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

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

She was just now on TV wittering on that "She was only 24! Really just a
child!"

24??? A CHILD? by that age I was raising two daughters!!! I`d have been
mortified to have been considered a child!!!

Pat P

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:02:37 -0400, Cheryl Isaak

opined:

statutory rape is saved for minors under the age of 18 and in some
states 16.
She was not raped in any way, shape or form. She came on to him.


If some of the things I am hearing - that she came on to him - are true,
it
was still an abuse of power - his power.
And given his history of sleeping around, may be they were made for each
other. Sorry, not something I can overlook.

And I really feel getting a blow job in the Oval Office was tacky at best
and an insult to the institution of the presidency.
Cheryl

So is lying about where your home state is so you can run on the VP
ticket, a
Cheney did. So is being a CEO of a company which now has all the govt
contracts
to rebuild the oil wells in Iraq (Halliburton). Did you know Cheney still
gets a
salary from them? So is lying to us saying we went into Iraq because of
all the
WMDs Hussein had, but then found nothing. How about when Cheney says, "I
never
said that," then someone plays the tape of him saying it? Oh, what about
nobody
being able to fly anywhere, but the Osama family is flown the day after
the
massacre? Do you think turning fast food jobs into manufacturing jobs to
make
the numbers go up is not lying?

All I"m saying here is that, if we are going to be angry at a man for
lying we
really should look at all the men who lie in the White House, not just the
president people love to hate.

Cheryl, I hope you know this is not a personal attack on you. I am
passionate
about this subject, but none of this is angry and certainly none of this
is
personal against you. I hope you know that, but I think you do.

Victoria


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Karen C - California wrote:


But in the end, isn't it clear that
in sticking to his story, Clinton was done in by his own chivalry?"

Chivalry, hell. He perjured himself, this man who took a sacred oath to
uphold the Constitution, in order to avoid a civil judgment against him
for sexual harassment. (Sex with poor Monica would show a pattern of
behavior.) Some chivalry.

(I don't care if he lied under oath about having a hangnail. It's the
PERJURY that is the problem.)

And I have NEVER understood why the feminist organizations supported
him. NEVER. He has betrayed women on every level, as long as I have been
aware of him.

The feminist orgs crucified Bob Packwood, who was certainly a "groper,"
but did more on the legislative front for women than Clinton ever did. I
thought then, that they were cutting off their nose to spite their face;
and stopped supporting them.

A little known fact about Clinton: under his watch, the Justice
Department tightened the evidence rules on sexual harassment, making the
keeping of a diary of events unacceptable.

This means now that, if you file an EEOC complaint about someone, you
have to have witnesses.

I learned this from a friend, a Federal employee, who filed charges
without success.

How many harassers have you known, that did it in front of people?

Ruthie in CO

escapee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:02:02 GMT, "Dr. Brat" opined:
(...)


You've said this twice now and I have no idea what you're on about.
When did Clinton go into Afghanistan to get Osama?

Elizabeth


http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml

Thank you.

When you wrote "went into Afghanistan to get Osama" I thought you meant
sent troops in to capture Osama and I couldn't figure out what you meant.

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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

escapee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:04:36 GMT, "Dr. Brat" opined:


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? I
voted for him twice and would vote for him again if I could, but he
still lied under oath. Facts is facts.

I don't know if I'd vote for Hillary or not. I suspect not.

Elizabeth


Maybe it's this passive aggressive thing your husband is picking up on. Next
time he points it out, regardless when he does it, examine yourself. Journey to
self. The opportunity is always available to those who wish to take it.

Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about? My husband NEVER
accuses me of being passive agressive. He has no reason to.

Suppose you try figuring out why you've been slamming everybody here
this week before you start lecturing others about journeys to self.

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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

escapee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:51:12 GMT, "Dr. Brat" opined:

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.

Don't play this game with me, Elizabeth.

I'm not playing any game with you, Victoria. I was answering a
statement made by Caryn.

I am rather good at it. I lived with
people who did this to me all my childhood and I can spot it a hundred miles
away. Take responsibility for the tone you set. Yes, you did set up a tone of
hostility and you absolutely did reflect what we are experiencing.

I'm not any of the people from your childhood and I am taking
responsibility for the tone I set. I was discussing Clinton with
Cheryl, who I really like but with whom I have significant political
differences. You should expect that under those circumstances, my tone
would have been rather neutral. I certainly wasn't going to fawn over
Clinton under the circumstances.

If you and Caryn can't stand to see Clinton criticized, that's your
issue, not mine.

Existentialism. That's all I'll say.

Existenialism is a crock of bull (and yes, now my tone is hostile).

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?)

No, it's a passive aggressive tone.

What is passive aggressive about asking someone to please observe proper
posting protocols?

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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Karen C - California wrote:
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?"

I don't buy it. It reeks of Monday morning quarterbacking. Personally,
I think that Clinton is far to politically adroit to let chivalry get in
his way. Hubris is another issue.

And it's definitely not only conservatives who say "he lied under oath."

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
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

In article , "Dr. Brat"
writes:

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?"

I don't buy it. It reeks of Monday morning quarterbacking. Personally,
I think that Clinton is far to politically adroit to let chivalry get in
his way.

Speaking from a legal perspective (and Clinton is a lawyer), if you know that
one of the other witnesses has already stated under penalty of perjury "no",
and you then testify "yes", you know one or the other of you is going to get
clobbered for lying under oath. If, on the other hand, you can parse the
question such that you can also say "no", everyone's safe. And certainly
"sexual relations" can reasonably be parsed to mean *only* actual penetration
of the female by the male organ, rather than any of the other "games" which
would not have resulted in technical loss of virginity (assuming Monica had
still had hers to lose).

I don't recall seeing the actual transcript of whether he was asked "did you
play touchy-feely or kissy-kissy" or how exactly the question was worded. But
I am of the generation that defines "sex" as only The Ultimate. You could do
an awful lot in my generation and still be A Good Girl. So, if the question
was "did you have sex", most of my generation would have no qualms about saying
No, because they didn't do "it". Did everything else but, but didn't do "it",
therefore, No.

But it comes back to, Starr was hired to investigate Whitewater. Monica had
nothing doing with Whitewater -- she wasn't even born at the time. If Starr
had stuck to his initial assignment, there wouldn't have been an investigation
into Monica that resulted in the writing of an erotic report. Maybe we would
have gotten a Starr Report that actually used the word Whitewater once or
twice, instead of not at all.

Instead, when he came up empty on Whitewater, he got permission to go on what's
called a "fishing expedition". You ask about anything and everything under the
sun, and hope you come up with something. i.e., whether Joe drank a beer
before he turned 21 has nothing whatsoever to do with the traffic accident he
had at age 50, but it proves (oooooooooh) that he's a scofflaw, and therefore
maybe didn't stop at the red light, because he doesn't always obey the law.

As I said during the impeachment hearings, "let he who is without sin cast the
first stone". If every Senator who'd ever told his wife he was working late,
when he wasn't really working, were barred from voting on the impeachment, the
vote would have been 2-0.


--
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