Book 'pirate' goes underground after being named by Terry Goodkind

[Mujokan]

Do you think your opinion on the book, (you possibly have a lot of time to waste if you read the second and third) is relevant to the issue? Is it ok to steal bad food or ugly clothing? I am missing the point perhaps?
Helen

Is it relevant how much time I have to waste? If I'd intended to make such an argument I'd have been clear about it. The quality of his books has been a side topic in the thread.

[plib]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

You are correct. I did not learn about irony in University. The Universities that I attended assumed that most of those enrolling would have learned something so basic at a much earlier age. I fully undertand irony but apparently you don't. I didn't REALLY think that you were supposing that we choose our parents - my response was ironic. (Possibly a little sarcastic.)

Unfortunately whoever taught you at that much earlier age failed to impart that irony, like fly fishing, usually requires a light touch. Never mind, also a bit like fly fishing, you can improve with practice.

I read what you had written very carefully, in fact I found it so difficult to believe that I read it again. You quite clearly stated that the majority of choices have little to do with success.

"For the vast majority the choices you make in life, other than the choice of your parents, actually have very little to do with whether you are part of the 1% or the 99%"

Do you not recall posting this?

I'm sorry that you do not appear to be able to parse what is in front of you. The wording is very specific, intentionally so. It is not semantics to read what is actually written.

"Please show me the word success in that quote"?

Ah, we are going to play semantics are we? That's ok, I don't mind a bit of game playing - I usually do well.

I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind, however as said, reading what it written is not semantics. Assigning your interpretation of what is written may well be, which makes the next few paragraphs of your diatribe irrelevant, except maybe to you.

Do you not consider being ranked in the top percentile among wage earners to count as being successful? Success is variously defined by reputable dictionaries (i.e., those that are not Webster's derivations) as: "accomplishing an intended pupose, a state of prosperity or fame, achieving a goal". Now, if a person obtains a job in order to earn an income, and if they do well enough in that position to earn an income that is ranked among the top one percent of incomes, would you not regard that as success? If not, how would you regard it? Blind luck? A failure?

I truly doubt that many who earn an income in the top one percent do so without making a great many very good choices. We are not talking about inheriting wealth or winning a lotery, but earning. You claim that choices make little difference.

To repeat, for the last time, the argument is not about your definition of "success", it's not about earnings, it's about wealth. They are not the same metrics. If you want to talk to yourself about earnings then be my guest, that was not the subject of the original post or the article which you do not appear to have bothered to read. I'm sure you enjoy charging off on your irrelevant tangents but that's what they are, irrelevant tangents.

One of the good choices I make is not to spend too much time on debates with those who appear to willfully ignore the substance of the debate, or who wish to realign it to whatever hobby horse they bring to the debate. I'm afraid your arguments appear to qualify on both grounds, so go pat yourself on the back and enjoy your internal conversation.

BTW, I do (well our family does) have a yacht, a very nice ketch, but it is nowhere near two hundred and fifty feet in length, it is only sixty-two feet. Just the right size to be able to single-hand it if necessary.

Not in any way relevant to the argument, but good for you if you enjoy it. Keep making those good decisions and aiming for the 250 footer. Judging by these prices you only have about $69.5 million to go, a few good choices should do it!

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

Is it relevant how much time I have to waste? If I'd intended to make such an argument I'd have been clear about it. The quality of his books has been a side topic in the thread.

My apologies for the snarky remark. Uncalled for. I mistook the fact that you added it to the end of your post to mean it was important.

Still again my remark was uncalled for and had nothing to do with you really. Doubly unjustified as it was probably prompted by my 86 year old mother who is currently reading a book and complaining about how bad it is at least twice a day.

I have whacked myself on the nose with rolled up newspaper on your behalf and perhaps on my mothers as well

Helen

[Mujokan]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

My apologies for the snarky remark. Uncalled for. I mistook the fact that you added it to the end of your post to mean it was important.

Still again my remark was uncalled for and had nothing to do with you really. Doubly unjustified as it was probably prompted by my 86 year old mother who is currently reading a book and complaining about how bad it is at least twice a day.

I have whacked myself on the nose with rolled up newspaper on your behalf and perhaps on my mothers as well

Helen

No problem, don't think twice about it

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I do respect your right to feel that the majority of people, intelligent or otherwise, who do cause harm to others in a big or small way, feel deep down that they are right. I merely disagree. I find it impossible that, with the exception of pschyopaths and fanatics, that they truly believe they are right.

Just saying

Helen

Thanks; that's a better statement of my position than I've mustered.

I just think that human capacity for self-delusion is near-infinite and that the "smaller" the evil the easier it is to rationalize it away.
And it's not just criminals that do it; think of jerks and egotists. Politicians. Used car salesmen.
Those folks dish out small harms to the world like lawn sprinklers: It doesn't take long for the tally to add up to pretty substantial levels.
Few are actual psychopaths or sociopaths, though: they just lack empathy because they never stop to think about the consequences of their actions--they just never question themselves.

(Or would you consider those folks to be fanatical? I tend to reserve that for incipient mono-maniacs, but...)

[GlenBarrington]

I got NO problem with what Goodkind did. (Assuming he can prove the guy he fingered is guilty, Goodkind is responsible for any mis-identification that may occur) This guy didn't just take it for himself, he put out there for everyone to use.

Intellectual property is still property, it doesn't matter if Goodkind is rich or not. His JOB is to write entertainment text for money, this guy made it difficult for him to make money. And in my experience, writing is HARD work. The last I heard there is no such thing as the right to be entertained at the expense of someone else.

I think Jerry Pournelle did something like that once.

[plib]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

The last I heard there is no such thing as the right to be entertained at the expense of someone else.

I thought that this is what standup comedians do pretty much every night?

(Although I suppose claiming copyright as the butt of the joke isn't going to work)

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by plib

"Unfortunately whoever taught you at that much earlier age failed to impart that irony, like fly fishing, usually requires a light touch. Never mind, also a bit like fly fishing, you can improve with practice".

Thank you for the suggestion, but I don't need more practice fly fishing - I have been pulling rainbows and browns out of various lakes and inland waterways since I was about twelve. Success (there's that word again) requires a deft touch, not a light touch.

"I'm sorry that you do not appear to be able to parse what is in front of you. The wording is very specific, intentionally so. It is not semantics to read what is actually written."

No, but it is semantics (and obstinacy) when you deny that the wealthiest one percent of people in any country are successful. A few inherit their wealth - most don't. Even to inherit wealth and build on it rather than lose it requires a degree of success and a lot of right decisions - something you deny.

But, if it will make you happy - you seem to be getting a little peeved - I will allow that in your world, an extremely wealthy person is not successful. Even though both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries define of success as "a state of prosperity or fame" or "the attainment of fame, wealth, or social status. The US Oxford defines it as "a person or thing that achieves desired aims or attains prosperity".

So there we have it. I am wrong, most financial writers are wrong, most biographers are wrong, most of the world's highest ranked dictionaries are wrong. Any person who regards wealthy people as successful is wrong.

But you are right.

Ok, got that. In your world success equates to failure.

(For some reason I just had a flash of Alice through the Looking Glass. I wonder what prompted that?)

[plib]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

(For some reason I just had a flash of Alice through the Looking Glass. I wonder what prompted that?)

FFS. I give up, there is no point in talking to those who will not listen. But if it's Alice's looking glass you want, just reread the above post, or in fact all of them, where what is written is somehow transformed to what you think is written.

Enjoy your world. It must be a fun place, for you.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Thanks; that's a better statement of my position than I've mustered.

I just think that human capacity for self-delusion is near-infinite and that the "smaller" the evil the easier it is to rationalize it away.
And it's not just criminals that do it; think of jerks and egotists. Politicians. Used car salesmen.
Those folks dish out small harms to the world like lawn sprinklers: It doesn't take long for the tally to add up to pretty substantial levels.
Few are actual psychopaths or sociopaths, though: they just lack empathy because they never stop to think about the consequences of their actions--they just never question themselves.

(Or would you consider those folks to be fanatical? I tend to reserve that for incipient mono-maniacs, but...)

Hey! I give lip-service to all the right causes. I'm PC. I vote the right way. I must, therefore, be a good person.

If I took your $20 while your back was turned, then it must have been the right thing to do. Besides, I'm a bit short of cash right now, I gave a dime to a hobo once, and you probably stole it in the first place.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Goodkind should have showed up at the pirate's home with the Sword of Truth and run him through, shouting " Sic Semper Pirati".

Would have put an end to that pirate's career, anyway. Would have been the libertarian thing to do.

Perhaps one of his fans will do that for him. Certainly would be an interesting "coincidence"...

Of course, it's not as if the idea of publishing the name of others is to make them more vulnerable to attacks (of any kind) from third parties...
It's all merely in the interest of justice, as defined by chief judge victim himself. After all, who else could see the issue as clearly and open-minded, know the most fitting response?
</sarcasm>

It would be interesting to know how much collateral damage this will cause - perhaps none, perhaps much. Hopefully no one looks similar to that pirate guy. Or has a similar name. Or is related with the guy.

I don't have much trust in the general public - I wouldn't be surprised if there were many who'd physically assault anyone they think might be that guy.

This is an issue between the pirate and the writer. No one else should be involved. Have them have a duel for all I care, but make sure you hit the right person and don't involve others who may not react properly or be innocent.

--

The author should have gone with a lawsuit. That would have been a civilized and clean way. That option is now gone.

[edit]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

My father used to have an office coffee service. When he had a client--such as a restaurant or a law firm--who didn't pay their coffee bill, he could sue them and it was costly, took a long time, and rarely resulted in any money in the end. So he started picketing his deadbeat clients. He would alert the local police that he was coming and then hire homeless people to carry signs ("Smith and Smith Law Firm Won't You Please Pay Your Coffee Bill?") in front of the office. He got paid within an hour every time he did this. Name and shame, in action! Before Facebook!

eP

Out of curiosity - was that the first reaction or did he contact them first? Registered letter or somesuch - things that draw attention without ruining the public image.
(I'm prone to forgetting bills that occur infrequently - does that make me a bad person that needs to be publicly humiliated?)

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

Out of curiosity - was that the first reaction or did he contact them first? Registered letter or somesuch - things that draw attention without ruining the public image.

The pirate ruined his public image all by himself --- by uploading and bragging about it. Uploading is not a small and insignificant child's prank, it is a serious challenge to the author's livelihood. The author should have done both, out AND sue the guy.

What is happening now is exactly what the author probably intended to happen -- no vigilantes are going after that lowlife, but a lively discussion has ensued and people have been educated.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Hey! I give lip-service to all the right causes. I'm PC. I vote the right way. I must, therefore, be a good person.

If I took your $20 while your back was turned, then it must have been the right thing to do.

It certainly didn't feel wrong, did it?

You see it all the time with small, petty things... especially in office environments; candy jar moochers, coffee co-op freeriders, office supply "requisitioning", break room thievery...

Think about it, things so prevalent we have specific terms for them: mooch, freerider, etc
(and yes, pirate.)

One case made the evening news:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...-refrigerator/

Now *that* is name and shame.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The pirate ruined his public image all by himself --- by uploading and bragging about it. Uploading is not a small and insignificant child's prank, it is a serious challenge to the author's livelihood. The author should have done both, out AND sue the guy.

What is happening now is exactly what the author probably intended to happen -- no vigilantes are going after that lowlife, but a lively discussion has ensued and people have been educated.

I see Goodkind books all the time online that haven't been taken down. I think what drew Terry's ire is that this dude rubbed his nose into it. I'm sure he knows his books are pirated to an extent but to come into "his house" and offer up said pilfered wares was an insult he couldn't let stand. Its one thing to know it, an entirely other thing to have it pushed in your face.

I think he did the right thing. No use wasting court time on something that could be, and was, handled with a spanking.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

I see Goodkind books all the time online that haven't been taken down. I think what drew Terry's ire is that this dude rubbed his nose into it. I'm sure he knows his books are pirated to an extent but to come into "his house" and offer up said pilfered wares was an insult he couldn't let stand. Its one thing to know it, an entirely other thing to have it pushed in your face.

My feelings in a nutshell.