This shit gets out of hand

[Moxie]

Wouldn't call them pirates, but that's a whole other story...

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

 

[Jimmy Clayton]

^Moxie, I am talking about this comment you made...

"There have been pirates since the beginning of time. Hell just look at the pirates that came on the mayflower to steal the Land that is now America from the indians."

As I said before, I wouldn't call Pilgrims pirates.

 

[dmnEPC]

^Moxie, I am talking about this comment you made...

"There have been pirates since the beginning of time. Hell just look at the pirates that came on the mayflower to steal the Land that is now America from the indians."

As I said before, I wouldn't call Pilgrims pirates.

o really

pirate  
Use Pirate in a sentence
pi·rate [pahy-ruht] Show IPA noun, verb, pi·rat·ed, pi·rat·ing.
noun
1.
a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.

What happened to the indians after the pirates (sorry Pilgrims) landed on Plymouth rock?

 

[Jimmy Clayton]

"The Pilgrims saw a few Native Americans here and there during the first four months in Plymouth, but in general the Native people kept their distance. The Pilgrims had happened to come ashore in an area to which the Patuxet people belonged. The Patuxet were wiped out by a devastating plague brought by English slavers in 1617 and some of their settlements still had stores of corn and beans which the English helped themselves to. They later "reimbursed" the Wampanoag for the goods and food which they had taken.

The first encounter between the Pilgrims and Native people took place on 18 December. A small scouting party of Pilgrims was attacked by a group of Wampanoag, who were eventually driven off with musket fire. The Pilgrims learned later that two Englishmen, a Captain Thomas Hunt and explorer John Smith, had lured Cape Cod Native Americans into a trap in 1614 and sold them as slaves in Europe. The Wampanoag who attacked the scouting party assumed the colonists were somehow related to Hunt's raids and were prepared to defend themselves this time. The skirmish was brief and led the colonists to call the spot where it occured First Encounter, a name which endures to this day.

The landing in the area which would become Plymouth Colony happened on 21 December. Contrary to myth, the landing was not on Plymouth Rock, and no women or Native Americans were present. (So much for all those glorious oil paintings of "savages" bowing in submission to the White Man.) The confusion over Plymouth Rock can be traced back to 1741, when Elder John Faunce (age 95) referred to the Rock as "the place where the forefathers landed." This probably just implied "often landed," but was construed as "first landed," and the Rock became an instant tourist attraction (and continues as such to this day). "

 

[guerilla]

I want to point out that this thread got completely jacked in order to talk about Pilgrims and the anarchists had nothing to do with it. Just sayin'

 

[dmnEPC]

I want to point out that this thread got completely jacked in order to talk about Pilgrims and the anarchists had nothing to do with it. Just sayin'

it took a 5 year old .gov shill account to derail it.

 

[Moxie]

^Moxie, I am talking about this comment you made...

That was dmnEPC.



Here are some pictures of a pirate :

 

[Jimmy Clayton]

That was dmnEPC.

Indeed it was...my mistake.

 

[Napolean]

Well, if you call leveraging an existing media platform and gaining credibility by writing for an organization that is a "name brand" as a step to vault myself into a position where I can reach more people with my point of view, influence others and make a lot more money instead of focusing on small time things like writing for some little website that no one knows or really cares about then yea, my motivations are only "superficial".

If your motivations aren't superficial, your methods certainly are.

The type of person who thinks inside the box and assumes you need a big publisher to make it is going to have a hard time unless they get lucky. I doubt the lack of imagination it takes to reach that kind of conclusion would come from a good writer.

Are you implying that someone whose motivations I described above is automatically seeking external validation because they are writing for someone like the NYT and all the benefits it brings?

Well, the words that stood out in your description were "prestige" and "reputation".. in those cases I wouldn't have to imply it, its already implied by the nature of those motivations.

Keep in mind that I am not arguing against ever working for a company like the New York Times, I'm disagreeing with your original point, that going through a big publisher is the only way to earn a living from writing.

If you are a good enough writer, you may not even need to go to New York Times, they may come to you.

It's quite a jump to start assuming you can tell whether someone is seeking internal or external validation based on such a shallow (or should I say superficial) understanding of their deeper motivations...

How so? I would argue that there only only two primary motivations a person can have. 1.) To prove yourself to yourself, and 2.) To prove yourself to others.

One is shallow, one is not.

It's possible to seek fame and celebrity to prove to yourself you could do it, before hollywood got so political those were the people most likely to make it.

Still there are people in that mindset trying today, but the number of people seeking fame and celebrity for shallow reasons outnumber those others >9000:1.

 

[Jimmy Clayton]

...I'm disagreeing with your original point, that going through a big publisher is the only way to earn a living from writing.

Please show me where I make this point, because that isn't my point at all...