Your congress and President accomplished this so far this year

[Robert A Whit]

In the six months and four days since the 113th Congress began, it has passed 13 laws (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29). And, despite lawmakers constantly beating the drum on boosting jobs, none of the new measures have been focused on employment. Here's a list of what the 113th Congress has passed in its first six months:



H.R.41: To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.
Sponsor: Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (44)
H.R.152: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 1/4/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.325: No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] (introduced 1/21/2013) Cosponsors (1)
S.47: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 1/22/2013) Cosponsors (61)
H.R.307: Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] (introduced 1/18/2013) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 3/4/2013) Cosponsors (None)
S.716: A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 4/11/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.1246: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Vacancy Act
Sponsor: Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] (introduced 3/19/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.1765: Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Latham, Tom [IA-3] (introduced 4/26/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.1071: To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins.
Sponsor: Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-22] (introduced 3/12/2013) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.360: To award posthumously a Congressional Gold Medal to Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley to commemorate the lives they lost 50 years ago in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, where these 4 little Black girls' ultimate sacrifice served as a catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement.
Sponsor: Rep Sewell, Terri A. [AL-7] (introduced 1/23/2013) Cosponsors (301)
H.R.258: Stolen Valor Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] (introduced 1/15/2013) Cosponsors (127)
S.982: Freedom to Fish Act
Sponsor: Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] (introduced 5/16/2013) Cosponsors (3)

[fj1200]

The less the better unless they're going to reduce the size of government.

[Little-Acorn]

And, despite lawmakers constantly beating the drum on boosting jobs, none of the new measures have been focused on employment.

Is there still somebody around, who thinks that Congress "doing something" will boost jobs?

Haven't we had enough demonstrations to the contrary in the last 4 years?

The best way Congress can "boost jobs", is to get out of the way.

Government was created to protect our rights, remember? And that's got nothing to do with "boosting jobs".

[Abbey Marie]

In the six months and four days since the 113th Congress began, it has passed 13 laws (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29). And, despite lawmakers constantly beating the drum on boosting jobs, none of the new measures have been focused on employment. Here's a list of what the 113th Congress has passed in its first six months:



H.R.41: To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program.
Sponsor: Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] (introduced 1/3/2013) Cosponsors (44)
H.R.152: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 1/4/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.325: No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] (introduced 1/21/2013) Cosponsors (1)
S.47: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 1/22/2013) Cosponsors (61)
H.R.307: Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] (introduced 1/18/2013) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
Sponsor: Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] (introduced 3/4/2013) Cosponsors (None)
S.716: A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 4/11/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.1246: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Vacancy Act
Sponsor: Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] (introduced 3/19/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.1765: Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Latham, Tom [IA-3] (introduced 4/26/2013) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.1071: To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins.
Sponsor: Rep Hanna, Richard L. [NY-22] (introduced 3/12/2013) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.360: To award posthumously a Congressional Gold Medal to Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley to commemorate the lives they lost 50 years ago in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, where these 4 little Black girls' ultimate sacrifice served as a catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement.
Sponsor: Rep Sewell, Terri A. [AL-7] (introduced 1/23/2013) Cosponsors (301)
H.R.258: Stolen Valor Act of 2013
Sponsor: Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] (introduced 1/15/2013) Cosponsors (127)
S.982: Freedom to Fish Act
Sponsor: Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] (introduced 5/16/2013) Cosponsors (3)


Robert, we need a link. Thanks, Abbey.

[aboutime]

Robert, we need a link. Thanks, Abbey.


Abbey. You oughta know by now.
"You don't need no stinkin' link!" :laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, we need a link. Thanks, Abbey.

I am not clear why Abbey but just for you ...


http://news.yahoo.com/congress-passed-13-laws-none-them-jobs-093314472.html

[Marcus Aurelius]

I am not clear why Abbey but just for you ...


http://news.yahoo.com/congress-passed-13-laws-none-them-jobs-093314472.html

you are very well aware of the rules of the board regarding links to avoid copyright infringement, dumb ass. Are you purposely trying to get Jim's board in trouble?

[Robert A Whit]

Some say Congress can only get out of the way and can't boost jobs.

Define a job.

Some think a Job lasts a long period, such as 10 years or more.

Some say if you earn money for a month, you have a job.

Hardly anyone starts a job at age 18 that they still do at age 58. Typically in this era, one may hold a dozen or more jobs over that span of time.

Obama says he wants infrastructure.

Infrastructure is a special job. Having once worked on infrastructure let me illuminate.

We worked on foundations for heavy structures. We drove piling. We being piledrivers.

We would show up on a job site that had been first prepared by earth moving equipment. Few of us drive D8 Cats so that offers a few jobs.

Others would use back hoes to dig holes. Into those holes we drove piling.

Into that hole with the piling went a massive concrete pour. Upon that foundation the rest was constructed.

Few have any idea how it is to build a massive building or bridge over a body of water.

Obama speaks of a few special workers on those sorts of jobs.

If you really want to put people to work, stop this madness with home finances. Obama signed laws that block homes being built. Cities love taxes from new homes.

Homes cause trees to be cut and milled. All kinds of things are in our new homes.

Such as doors, windows, roofs, fireplaces and the rest. Your home is a treasure trove of jobs.

Those making toilets go to work. Those concrete people show up as do electricians, plumbers and many many crafts.

Obama knows that the housing market will do the job but he actually won't put any effort into this.

Some cities housing is awful. Demolish that and erect new homes.

Anyway, Congress can help or it can hurt. Obama does not create laws so all he can do is urge or veto.

But he is out fund raising.

[Abbey Marie]

I am not clear why Abbey but just for you ...


http://news.yahoo.com/congress-passed-13-laws-none-them-jobs-093314472.html

Thanks, Robert. From our rules at the top of the board: Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.

[Robert A Whit]

Thanks, Robert. From our rules at the top of the board: Copyright Infringement - When posting something as fact, it's always best to supply a link to your source if possible. While we encourage the use of linking to sources, please refrain from posting articles in their entirety. The first paragraph or 2 would be fine with a link to the rest of the article. This is acceptable under the fair use doctrine but copying of entire articles will likely result in copyright infringement, and your post may be removed and/or edited to protect the community.

Well, Does Thomas copyright the laws by Congress?

Still, I also got data from Jim repeating your data. Thanks a lot doll.

Also, what I posted was the laws they passed.

Another problem was i saw it in the news on Yahoo but they had not written the article. It was somebody else. My source was Yahoo.

I honestly did not realize common news can be copyrighted.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well, Does Thomas copyright the laws by Congress?

Still, I also got data from Jim repeating your data. Thanks a lot doll.

Also, what I posted was the laws they passed.

Another problem was i saw it in the news on Yahoo but they had not written the article. It was somebody else. My source was Yahoo.

I honestly did not realize common news can be copyrighted.

Now you're being willfully stupid, and you know it. You're just trying to stir shit up.

This...


In the six months and four days since the 113th Congress began, it has passed 13 laws (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29). And, despite lawmakers constantly beating the drum on boosting jobs, none of the new measures have been focused on employment. Here's a list of what the 113th Congress has passed in its first six months:

...was the problem portion of your post. It was someone elses words, verbatim, and while it had a link in it to the laws in question, there was no link to where you got those exact words... thus the copyright infringement issues for the site.

Stop being an ass, use links when you take someone elses words, and all will be well... dumb ass.

[jimnyc]

Well, Does Thomas copyright the laws by Congress?

Still, I also got data from Jim repeating your data. Thanks a lot doll.

Also, what I posted was the laws they passed.

Another problem was i saw it in the news on Yahoo but they had not written the article. It was somebody else. My source was Yahoo.

I honestly did not realize common news can be copyrighted.

Anything that another places on their website can be copyrighted. And news stories are copyrighted FAR more often than anything else. There are millions and millions of news articles out there and someone had to write them. Even the laws you posted, while I don't think anyone would prosecute over that, the collective data was placed elsewhere on another site. If a major company sued, I couldn't even afford to defend myself let alone be successful.

And the beginning even happened once. I was once contacted by a writer from the Dallas Star, or the Dallas Morning News? I forget which one, but I was contacted, and the writer less than thrilled that her entire article was posted here AND without a citation. I cut it down to 3 paragraphs and added a link to her article, and she was cool with that.

And Yahoo, they have individual writers for nearly every article, and I'm sure they would like credit for their writing, as would Yahoo as an agency.

The "article" you posted here, at the very top of it - <cite id="yui_3_8_1_1_1370687234481_1244" class="byline vcard">By Niraj Chokshi | National Journal</cite>

So when you link to that page, that person gets due credit. You will see stories hosted on Yahoo from AP as well, as well as from other agencies. And even they, in that article, give no less than 4 citations of their own to where they got their information. Just helping you out to further understand!

And lastly, for right or wrong, here's where I determine how we handle citations and articles from elsewhere: (go to link at bottom for entire write-up):

Fair use


17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
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.

-----------------------------------------------------

Amount and substantiality

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use". Conversely, in Harper & Row Publishers Inc v. Nation Enters,[16] the use of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial.

Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and such copyright considerations as these were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.[17] changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[18] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." The recent Sixth Circuit Court decision in the appeal to Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films has reversed this standing, eliminating the de minimis defense for samples of recorded music, but stating that the decision did not apply to fair use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[red states rule]

Is there still somebody around, who thinks that Congress "doing something" will boost jobs?

Haven't we had enough demonstrations to the contrary in the last 4 years?

The best way Congress can "boost jobs", is to get out of the way.

Government was created to protect our rights, remember? And that's got nothing to do with "boosting jobs".

Who the hell wants more of this?



http://ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/thanks-obama.png

[PostmodernProphet]

In the six months and four days since the 113th Congress began, it has passed 13 laws (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29). And, despite lawmakers constantly beating the drum on boosting jobs, none of the new measures have been focused on employment. Here's a list of what the 113th Congress has passed in its first six months:

to be fair, from your source it appears the House of Representatives actually passed sixty, but the Senate only passed ten.....the president only signed 13.......

[red states rule]

http://i.qkme.me/3rj7e8.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

Anything that another places on their website can be copyrighted. And news stories are copyrighted FAR more often than anything else. There are millions and millions of news articles out there and someone had to write them. Even the laws you posted, while I don't think anyone would prosecute over that, the collective data was placed elsewhere on another site. If a major company sued, I couldn't even afford to defend myself let alone be successful.

And the beginning even happened once. I was once contacted by a writer from the Dallas Star, or the Dallas Morning News? I forget which one, but I was contacted, and the writer less than thrilled that her entire article was posted here AND without a citation. I cut it down to 3 paragraphs and added a link to her article, and she was cool with that.

And Yahoo, they have individual writers for nearly every article, and I'm sure they would like credit for their writing, as would Yahoo as an agency.

The "article" you posted here, at the very top of it - <cite id="yui_3_8_1_1_1370687234481_1244" class="byline vcard">By Niraj Chokshi | National Journal</cite>

So when you link to that page, that person gets due credit. You will see stories hosted on Yahoo from AP as well, as well as from other agencies. And even they, in that article, give no less than 4 citations of their own to where they got their information. Just helping you out to further understand!

And lastly, for right or wrong, here's where I determine how we handle citations and articles from elsewhere: (go to link at bottom for entire write-up):

Fair use


17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
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.

-----------------------------------------------------

Amount and substantiality

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use". Conversely, in Harper & Row Publishers Inc v. Nation Enters,[16] the use of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial.

Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and such copyright considerations as these were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.[17] changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."[18] In other words, de minimis sampling was still considered fair and free because, traditionally, "the law does not care about trifles." The recent Sixth Circuit Court decision in the appeal to Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films has reversed this standing, eliminating the de minimis defense for samples of recorded music, but stating that the decision did not apply to fair use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Looks like all I have to say is the post is for nonprofit educational purposes

Which my posts always are.

[jimnyc]

Looks like all I have to say is the post is for nonprofit educational purposes

Which my posts always are.

Yes, and if non-profit, that means you are allowed to snip some of it for use - but you still have to give a link reghardless. Under NO circumstances is copyrighted work allowed to be used, whether in part or in full, without a citation. It being for non-profit and educational reasons simply means that it fits within the guidelines of "fair use" and it's legal to reproduce a limited amount - with a citation.

But without any of that explanation, it still simply doesn't matter. The rules of THIS board require citations for all work posted here, and you agreed to these rules, and I assume have read them. So while I was kind enough to supply a lengthy answer as to why we implement these rules - it's not something up for debate. I'm not in a position to pay to defend a lawsuit just because you disagree with or don't understand the law.

[jimnyc]

Looks like all I have to say is the post is for nonprofit educational purposes

Which my posts always are.



In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:


Which is the sentence prior to what you quoted - which means it simply qualifies, and in no way, shape or form means it can be copied without citation, or that telling others it's for educational purposes and not have to link.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Yes, and if non-profit, that means you are allowed to snip some of it for use - but you still have to give a link reghardless. Under NO circumstances is copyrighted work allowed to be used, whether in part or in full, without a citation. It being for non-profit and educational reasons simply means that it fits within the guidelines of "fair use" and it's legal to reproduce a limited amount - with a citation.

But without any of that explanation, it still simply doesn't matter. The rules of THIS board require citations for all work posted here, and you agreed to these rules, and I assume have read them. So while I was kind enough to supply a lengthy answer as to why we implement these rules - it's not something up for debate. I'm not in a position to pay to defend a lawsuit just because you disagree with or don't understand the law.

His narcissistic personality disorder prevents him from recognizing this.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Looks like all I have to say is the post is for nonprofit educational purposes

Which my posts always are.

I think you meant your posts are always non-educational.

[Abbey Marie]

Robert, I thought you understood the need a page back. Why fight this simple request?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Robert, I thought you understood the need a page back. Why fight this simple request?

One of the behaviors exhibited by those with a narcissistic personality disorder, is the inability to accept some things they do or have done wrong, and the consistent need to prove to their accuser they are in the right.

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, and if non-profit, that means you are allowed to snip some of it for use - but you still have to give a link reghardless. Under NO circumstances is copyrighted work allowed to be used, whether in part or in full, without a citation. It being for non-profit and educational reasons simply means that it fits within the guidelines of "fair use" and it's legal to reproduce a limited amount - with a citation.

But without any of that explanation, it still simply doesn't matter. The rules of THIS board require citations for all work posted here, and you agreed to these rules, and I assume have read them. So while I was kind enough to supply a lengthy answer as to why we implement these rules - it's not something up for debate. I'm not in a position to pay to defend a lawsuit just because you disagree with or don't understand the law.

You did fine to a point then decided to go snarky on me.

I shall follow your rules.

First I agree and I now understand the law.

[jimnyc]

[/U][/B]

You did fine to a point then decided to go snarky on me.

I shall follow your rules.

First I agree and I now understand the law.

When you fail to comprehend the law AND question the rules you agreed to previously, I tend to drop the niceties and simply tell it as it is - that stories/quotes and such from elsewhere MUST have citations. YOU are the one who tried to argue this and claim that your post or posts somehow didn't qualify.

But yes, I agree, you should just follow the rules and forget the rest. Now please go back on topic.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, I thought you understood the need a page back. Why fight this simple request?

I am not fighting anything. Trying to make sure I can get by with the minimum.

I now fully understand it.

By the way, most of the time I supply links.

Suppose I get a joke in my mail. Must I link you to my personal mail account?

Maybe somebody wants to tell me why stuff like routine news is copyrighted?

Is it due to some way to pay the author and if so, who pays them?

Some stuff I get mailed to me just has no links of any sort.

[Robert A Whit]

When you fail to comprehend the law AND question the rules you agreed to previously, I tend to drop the niceties and simply tell it as it is - that stories/quotes and such from elsewhere MUST have citations. YOU are the one who tried to argue this and claim that your post or posts somehow didn't qualify.

But yes, I agree, you should just follow the rules and forget the rest. Now please go back on topic.


There is no need for you to drop the niceties. Clearly once again you misunderstood why or what I needed to know. Come on, no need to keep the club banging me. I appreciate kind explanations. I did not mistreat you at all.

[Robert A Whit]

Which is the sentence prior to what you quoted - which means it simply qualifies, and in no way, shape or form means it can be copied without citation, or that telling others it's for educational purposes and not have to link.

I know

I know

I now fully understand

Thank you for your help

[jimnyc]

I am not fighting anything. Trying to make sure I can get by with the minimum.

I now fully understand it.

By the way, most of the time I supply links.

Suppose I get a joke in my mail. Must I link you to my personal mail account?

Maybe somebody wants to tell me why stuff like routine news is copyrighted?

Is it due to some way to pay the author and if so, who pays them?

Some stuff I get mailed to me just has no links of any sort.

Generally speaking, emails belong to the receiver, unless it has a legal disclaimer. So emails are fine, as it would be yours. You say you want to get by with the "minimum". Supplying a small link is no extra work, and it's the law. News stories are copyrighted as SOMEONE wrote it. If you want to write about a current event without copying someone elses work, so be it. But if you copy an article from elsewhere, then SOMEONE wrote it, and that someone is not you.

In your example, the author was paid by the National Journal, or Yahoo. They write these stories and publish them - but they still own the copyright. They are on websites and they are trying to make money, of course. Allowing everyone and anyone to "borrow" the work, without a citation, would kind of defeat the purpose of copyright laws.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=645438#post645438) When you fail to comprehend the law AND question the rules you agreed to previously, I tend to drop the niceties and simply tell it as it is - that stories/quotes and such from elsewhere MUST have citations. YOU are the one who tried to argue this and claim that your post or posts somehow didn't qualify.

But yes, I agree, you should just follow the rules and forget the rest. Now please go back on topic.



There is no need for you to drop the niceties. Clearly once again you misunderstood why or what I needed to know. Come on, no need to keep the club banging me. I appreciate kind explanations. I did not mistreat you at all.

Yeah, Jim... clearly it's all your fault and Robert is completely innoc..... ROFLMFAO.. sorry, I just could not get that all out with a straight face.... ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh:

[jimnyc]

There is no need for you to drop the niceties. Clearly once again you misunderstood why or what I needed to know. Come on, no need to keep the club banging me. I appreciate kind explanations. I did not mistreat you at all.

Asking you to abide by the law and rules is not mistreating you. I explained things to you in great length, both here on this thread and in a PM. Then you come back a day later and tried to claim that somehow it didn't apply to you, as it was not for profit educational. Whether you misread, or did that willfully, it doesn't matter. It was explained to you that it's required and that should have ended things right there. Don't claim you are being mistreated when anyone reading this thread can say that this is far from being true.

[Robert A Whit]

Looks like all I have to say is the post is for nonprofit educational purposes

Which my posts always are.

I did not fully clarify.

I believe the point formerly made to include links is well established. I of course will always use links for authors work. I post humor and have no clue who told some of the jokes so I hope links are not needed for jokes I get in the mail with no author shown.

As to articles and just about all written material, I shall do as the rules of the board state.

I believe that only a couple of paragraphs can be posted and the full article can't be posted unless I include written permission from the aut6or or the source they put it in. It is a pain to get the permission so I shall once again review the rules to keep Jim or others out of trouble.

[Robert A Whit]

Asking you to abide by the law and rules is not mistreating you. I explained things to you in great length, both here on this thread and in a PM. Then you come back a day later and tried to claim that somehow it didn't apply to you, as it was not for profit educational. Whether you misread, or did that willfully, it doesn't matter. It was explained to you that it's required and that should have ended things right there. Don't claim you are being mistreated when anyone reading this thread can say that this is far from being true.

Some of your posts are so cool.

Then you make me read your posts as if somebody is scraping their fingernails down a chalk board.

I was not challenging you but you treat me as if that was what I did.

I did not challenge you.

I got more out of your nice comments than those which are snarky on your part. I did not claim to be mistreated.

Just try being nice. I respond to nice very well. Most of your comments were very nice.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Okay.. so far, the betting trends indicate Robert will continue to argue, while claiming he isn't 'really' arguing, for another 4-7 posts. At that point, betting trends indicate the thread is either closed or caged.

Anyone else want in on the action?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Some of your posts are so cool.

Then you make me read your posts as if somebody is scraping their fingernails down a chalk board.

I was not challenging you but you treat me as if that was what I did.

I did not challenge you.

I got more out of your nice comments than those which are snarky on your part. I did not claim to be mistreated.

Just try being nice. I respond to nice very well. Most of your comments were very nice.
Telling the owner of the board how to behave.

Wow... just.... wow.

[aboutime]

Okay.. so far, the betting trends indicate Robert will continue to argue, while claiming he isn't 'really' arguing, for another 4-7 posts. At that point, betting trends indicate the thread is either closed or caged.

Anyone else want in on the action?

Marcus. I'd like to join in. But if I do. I will also be accused of everything being directed your way. Not to mention how Robert is only being emulated by another member who seems to resemble what some called a 5114 puppet kind of character, and devout redneck.
Then again. It might be fun to take part in the action. Predictable as it is.

[gabosaurus]

Okay.. so far, the betting trends indicate Robert will continue to argue, while claiming he isn't 'really' arguing, for another 4-7 posts. At that point, betting trends indicate the thread is either closed or caged.


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7554833408/h9DF824B9/

[PostmodernProphet]

I have profited nothing from this education.....

[red states rule]

The greatest accomplishment of Obama and the Congress


http://catosdomain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/the-welfare-state-obama-2012-election-economy-politics-13444680921.jpg