DiscussMormonism.com

I found this snippet that no one has seemed to deconstructed:

I just noticed this in their decision to re-sticky the thread, which I personally support. However they keep insisting that we have so much interest in them they fail to see all they are doing is proving our point. They are obviously so obsessed with what goes on here not only do they steal content from this board (they are so lost on the whole fair use clause on commentary and parody), they keep track of everything it does for little out of context "gems."

Nemesis

So Nemesis is going to steal a page from El Mustache and claim copyright infringement. Should we expect Nemesis to soon claim all content as protected and file a take down as well? Time will tell!

Nemesis wrote:They are obviously so obsessed with what goes on here not only do they steal content from this board (they are so lost on the whole fair use clause on commentary and parody),

No, Nemesis, nobody here is lost on the Fair Use provisions for commentary and parody. If you really think we are, then explain why we are in your next "Neighborhood Watch" post.

. . . they keep track of everything it does for little out of context "gems."

Wrong again. Those gems are in their precise and proper context; that's what makes them so funny.

If you disagree, then find one that's out of context and explain why it's out of context.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, why do you [Nemesis] keep insisting on using my real name every chance you get, even though I've never revealed it either here or on MD&D?

Dr. Shades wrote:Wrong again. Those gems are in their precise and proper context; that's what makes them so funny.

If you disagree, then find one that's out of context and explain why it's out of context.

If my quote from MADB / MDD had been brought here without commentary, I wouldn't have objected. It was when Equality framed it by asking whether the JC Penny catalog would be my next target of opprobrium that I objected.

Now, I grant that I may not have been as clear in the original as I thought I was. That's certainly possible. I believed at the time I wrote it that I was clarifying under what circumstances viewing swimsuit magazines could be considered wrong by mentioning that the crux of the issue for Mormons was sexual arousal (and not a list of good vs bad images). As I recall (but cannot find the original thread), that very issue of swimsuit catalogs had been in dispute. When Equality framed the quote by assuming I was targeting magazines instead of the general feeling of lust, I felt misrepresented.

Again, I may not have been as clear as I thought I was when I wrote it. However, I do feel that the quote was used in a way I did not intend. Whether the mistake by Equality is ultimately my fault due to a lack of clarity, a simple mistake on Equality's part, or perhaps a malicious misrepresentation I do not know. While I am biased into thinking I was clear, I have to consider that there are other hints that I may not have been clear enough in the original quote. I think, then, in that case it would have been better to have asked for clarification instead of making assumptions. However, I also realize that it can quickly become overly burdensome to continually ask for clarification or consider all possible or even likely interpretations.

Thanks, but I'd like Nemesis to do it.

With regards to the Neighborhood Watch, has anyone noticed that Nemesis is the only one watching?

Jersey Girl wrote:With regards to the Neighborhood Watch, has anyone noticed that Nemesis is the only one watching?

Why am I picturing a guy dressed up in an old army uniform, rusty gun on his shoulder, marching to and fro, guarding his driveway... while the neighbors are calling the local MHP and the sheriff's department?

Jersey Girl wrote:With regards to the Neighborhood Watch, has anyone noticed that Nemesis is the only one watching?

Which makes the whole thing even more ridiculous.

harmony wrote:Why am I picturing a guy dressed up in an old army uniform, rusty gun on his shoulder, marching to and fro, guarding his driveway... while the neighbors are calling the local MHP and the sheriff's department?

I had this in mind:

Actually, I've interpreted Nemesis's latest actions as a sign of how much power Juliann is really wielding over there. She had, over the course of the past couple of years or so, seemed to have dropped almost entirely off the radar. But this latest round of stuff strongly suggests that she's been as busy as a bee behind the scenes.

asbestosman wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:Wrong again. Those gems are in their precise and proper context; that's what makes them so funny.

If you disagree, then find one that's out of context and explain why it's out of context.

If my quote from MADB / MDD had been brought here without commentary, I wouldn't have objected. It was when Equality framed it by asking whether the JC Penny catalog would be my next target of opprobrium that I objected.

Now, I grant that I may not have been as clear in the original as I thought I was. That's certainly possible. I believed at the time I wrote it that I was clarifying under what circumstances viewing swimsuit magazines could be considered wrong by mentioning that the crux of the issue for Mormons was sexual arousal (and not a list of good vs bad images). As I recall (but cannot find the original thread), that very issue of swimsuit catalogs had been in dispute. When Equality framed the quote by assuming I was targeting magazines instead of the general feeling of lust, I felt misrepresented.

Again, I may not have been as clear as I thought I was when I wrote it. However, I do feel that the quote was used in a way I did not intend. Whether the mistake by Equality is ultimately my fault due to a lack of clarity, a simple mistake on Equality's part, or perhaps a malicious misrepresentation I do not know. While I am biased into thinking I was clear, I have to consider that there are other hints that I may not have been clear enough in the original quote. I think, then, in that case it would have been better to have asked for clarification instead of making assumptions. However, I also realize that it can quickly become overly burdensome to continually ask for clarification or consider all possible or even likely interpretations.

I agree that Equality did not represent your quote properly. However, I feel that you did make your intent very clear, and actually straightened things out regarding that particular quote on the thread in question.

There is nothing that prevents any poster from MDD the opportunity to do the same thing if they feel misrepresented.

Dr. Shades wrote:Oh, and while we're on the topic, why do you [Nemesis] keep insisting on using my real name every chance you get, even though I've never revealed it either here or on MD&D?

As a way of venting righteous indignation, while covertly letting you know that a missile strike from the Maxwell Institute could be imminent, if you don't capitulate and admit that you control that meme generator board. Either that or it is an escalation on efforts to find out who took the strawberries in order to take administrative action.

Some might consider it dirty pool either way.