... I'm curious as to what atrocious English you're referring too. I can't see anything wrong in your post, the one you're responding to, or the one that's in response to either.
The comment:
Past tense seems appropriate, considering that most of these “intellectual property” restrictions we’re hemmed by originated in the US of A..."
should have been:
Past tense seems appropriate, considering that most of these “intellectual property” restrictions by which we’re hemmed in originated in the US of A...
or even:
Past tense seems appropriate, considering that most of these “intellectual property” restrictions in by which we’re hemmed originated in the US of A...
Today's grammar lesson, presented in its entirety by the esteemen Captain Pedantic, is brought to you courtesy of the letter L and the Number 7...
Let's say that the court does rule in WB/Disney's favor. Given the number of times that Disney's been sued in the past, why not hit them where it would hurt them the most?
Let's say that someone (not me, of course--I would never consider such a thing...) got injured at Disneyland and decided, after consultation with legal counsel, decided to sue. Not Disney, mind you, but all the various corporate enterprises with which they do business.
I'm sure that between all of the marketers, toy and merchandise manufacturers, stores that sell their products, movie theatres, etc., this person (who is not me) would rake in a lot of cash ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H receive a proper settlement for physical damages and emotional stress.
And friends, somewhere in the Disney vaults enshrined in some little folder, will be a study in black and white of my lawsuit.
And the only reason I'm telling you this now is 'cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into Disneyland, just walk in say "Mickey, I can get anything I want, by suing your business partners." And walk out.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't let him in.
And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't let either of them in.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singing it and walking out? They may think it's an organization.
And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing it and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
Aside from the issues that have been pointed out, I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the journals get a one-year monopoly on publishing federally funded research.
As far as I'm concerned, if public money is paying for it, then the public should have access to it right off the bat.
Sir, I had a long and detailed response all typed out and ready to post, fully formatted, with a point-by-point detailed analysis of how each of your arguments were so far off the mark that if you were William Tell, your son would not only still have the apple on his head, but he would also never be able to provide you with grandchildren. Angels would have wept at the beauty of my prose, and the Devil himself would have been so overcome he would have renounced his sinful ways.
But I stayed my mouse-button clicking finger. Not, as you would ordinarily think, because of any fear that my missive would in any way fail to convey the full meaning of my thoughts. Nay, this simple-minded poster had an inspired moment of clarity and grace, the dies was cast, and a torrent of prose unmatched by any that had come before was about to be set free and blind you with its brilliance.
Rather what gave me pause was, as I was about to submit my response, was the small thought that, from the dark recesses of the back corner of my mind, attracted my notice. Feebly at first, vying for my attention amid the other thoughts that lay dormant and unused, but slowly gaining in strength and animation, until by the time I was ready to post it was jumping wildly about in my head and screaming banshee-like in its need to be heard.
And what of this thought, that felt itself to have such an importance that it needed to pause my righteous response with its insistence? I turned my attention to it, took it up, and examined it thoroughly, turning it about and viewing it from all angles. I was puzzled by it seeming panic, trying to discover what would cause it such distress.
Suddenly, I realized. I was about to respond to a marketing flack, one of the foul creatures of darkness whose sole purpose in its miserable, loathsome existence was to pervert the beautiful language I so cherish into something twisted and profane.
Ye gods, how could I have succumbed to this? I was ashamed. My flowery prose and concise debate were about to be wasted on something that shuns normal human relations, and would rather skulk in the darkness, over coming its hapless victims with it subtle lies and deceit.
Quickly, I jumped to my keyboard and deleted my previous diatribe, weeping softly as I erased its delicate beauty. I attempted to console myself with the fact that it would would have been wasted on such a beast. It helped somewhat.
I decided that a more appropriate response to your post would be to point out all of the shortcomings of your screed in one simple, short statement: You sir, are an idiot.
You people seem to be missing the point. "Word of mouth" is the sort of impromptu, spontaneous, "marketing-without-the-marketing-department" that occurs when people are so impressed/excited about your product that they simply have to tell others about it.
What you are doing isn't so much "word of mouth" as it is "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution."
Oh, they have more than enough writers. I think that the problem they have is that they refuse to give their infinite number of monkeys enough time to randomly pound out a decent script.
The amount of effort dedicated to marketing and promoting a movie is usually inversely proportional to the actual quality of the finished product. Just saying...
On the post: Sense Of Entitlement? TV Show Creator Wants A Cut Of Hulu IPO Proceeds
Re:
On the post: Madonna Sued For For Selling Clothes Under 'Material Girl' Brand
Re: She should have chosen a more appropriate name for her clothing line
On the post: Rupert Murdoch's Anti-Fair Use Comments Used Against Him In Court Yet Again
Re: Re: Quantum Mechanics Resolves This ;~)
On the post: Australia Once Again Decides You Have No Freedom To Tinker With Your Gaming Console
Re: Re: Re: Re: Land Of The Not-So-Free
should have been:
or even:
Today's grammar lesson, presented in its entirety by the esteemen Captain Pedantic, is brought to you courtesy of the letter L and the Number 7...On the post: Disney, WB Claim Ad Firm Working With Pirate Sites Is Guilty Of Contributory Infringement
Let's say that someone (not me, of course--I would never consider such a thing...) got injured at Disneyland and decided, after consultation with legal counsel, decided to sue. Not Disney, mind you, but all the various corporate enterprises with which they do business.
I'm sure that between all of the marketers, toy and merchandise manufacturers, stores that sell their products, movie theatres, etc., this person (who is not me) would rake in a lot of cash ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H receive a proper settlement for physical damages and emotional stress.
And friends, somewhere in the Disney vaults enshrined in some little folder, will be a study in black and white of my lawsuit.
And the only reason I'm telling you this now is 'cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into Disneyland, just walk in say "Mickey, I can get anything I want, by suing your business partners." And walk out.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't let him in.
And if two people, two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both faggots and they won't let either of them in.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singing it and walking out? They may think it's an organization.
And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singing it and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
On the post: Election Watcher Files Affidavit Saying He Saw Sequoia Employee Illegally Connect To E-Voting Tabulator
Re: Re: Re: Elections no longer in the hands of citizenry
FTFY
On the post: Some Modest Proposals To 'Save' Other Industries
On the post: 'Ya Dun Goofed': Evidence That Censorship Is Both Needed And Not Needed
Re:
On the post: The Intellectually Dishonest Claims Of Those Fighting Against Open Access To Federally Funded Research
Re: the brightest of the brightest
On the post: The Intellectually Dishonest Claims Of Those Fighting Against Open Access To Federally Funded Research
Huh?
As far as I'm concerned, if public money is paying for it, then the public should have access to it right off the bat.
On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies
Re: Blog Post
But I stayed my mouse-button clicking finger. Not, as you would ordinarily think, because of any fear that my missive would in any way fail to convey the full meaning of my thoughts. Nay, this simple-minded poster had an inspired moment of clarity and grace, the dies was cast, and a torrent of prose unmatched by any that had come before was about to be set free and blind you with its brilliance.
Rather what gave me pause was, as I was about to submit my response, was the small thought that, from the dark recesses of the back corner of my mind, attracted my notice. Feebly at first, vying for my attention amid the other thoughts that lay dormant and unused, but slowly gaining in strength and animation, until by the time I was ready to post it was jumping wildly about in my head and screaming banshee-like in its need to be heard.
And what of this thought, that felt itself to have such an importance that it needed to pause my righteous response with its insistence? I turned my attention to it, took it up, and examined it thoroughly, turning it about and viewing it from all angles. I was puzzled by it seeming panic, trying to discover what would cause it such distress.
Suddenly, I realized. I was about to respond to a marketing flack, one of the foul creatures of darkness whose sole purpose in its miserable, loathsome existence was to pervert the beautiful language I so cherish into something twisted and profane.
Ye gods, how could I have succumbed to this? I was ashamed. My flowery prose and concise debate were about to be wasted on something that shuns normal human relations, and would rather skulk in the darkness, over coming its hapless victims with it subtle lies and deceit.
Quickly, I jumped to my keyboard and deleted my previous diatribe, weeping softly as I erased its delicate beauty. I attempted to console myself with the fact that it would would have been wasted on such a beast. It helped somewhat.
I decided that a more appropriate response to your post would be to point out all of the shortcomings of your screed in one simple, short statement: You sir, are an idiot.
On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies
Re: Re: Response
Step 4) ???
Step 5) Profit!
On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies
Re: Response
What you are doing isn't so much "word of mouth" as it is "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution."
On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies
Re: Response
On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies
Re: Spam
On the post: Dear Warner Bros., It's Not 'Word Of Mouth' If You Have To Pay People To Promote Your Movies
Something I've noticed over the years...
On the post: Theater Owner Begs Hollywood Not To Give Consumers What They Want
Re:
On the post: Judge Bars Reporter From Publishing Legally Obtained Factual Info, Saying She Doesn't Care If It Violates First Amendment
Re: Re: The Constitution...
On the post: Concrete Company Sues Woman For Posting Negative Review On Angie's List
Re: Re:
On the post: NY Hotels Upset Over More Efficient 'Home' Competition; Gets Politicians To Try To Outlaw Such Things
Re: Economics vs Laws
You know, that just might work...
Next >>