Posted by Rick Denney on May 10, 2003 at 14:58:55:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orchestra Salaries posted by CM on May 10, 2003 at 09:14:08:
What your anonymity prevents is us taking this offline, where I would prefer to be chastised on a personal basis. You call me by my first name like we are friends (which we may be), but I don't know who you are. That leaves a highly unbalanced relationship from which to debate ideas. I enjoy debate too, obviously, but I don't do it for sport. Corny as it seems, the ideas I right about are important to me. I may be wrong, but I want to test it thoroughly, because it is probably emerging from some deeply held principle and I don't let those go easily.
My first reaction on the subject of copyright was that the original poster (you?) assumed that it was not copyrighted, when in my experience most such things are. I suggested that he look at the materials to be sure, because it is not something that one can assume. Never did I say that it was, in fact, copyrighted, though copyright law requires us to assume that to be the case whether or not it is marked. I merely asked if there was a copyright notice on the publication in which it appeared. It was a side point, as I said to Jim, and a warning to the original poster. I do have a reasonable amount of experience with copyright law.
My argument against publishing the base salaries was flawed, to be sure, by my use of my own salary being published as an example. You were right to challenge it, because it forced me to understand what was motivating my remarks, and now that I've brought that out, we seem to agree on it.
Nobody is more opposed to frivolous lawsuits than I. I have served as an expert witness on a number of occasions (for the defense), and have seen how such cases work up close. But everything I said in that first post is, in fact, true. I said that if it is a joke, then it is impersonation of an officer. (My grammar was a little ambiguous there, I admit.) I also said that it was actionable even if it was on the level, if the courts did not convict. What was not known at the time was that there was a confession, making the probability of that conviction high enough perhaps to warrant the risk. It is the first time in my life, frankly, that I'd heard a real police officer directly say that "so-and-so is a thief" before a conviction, even with a confession and even catching the perpretrator red-handed. Usually they avoid the conclusion by saying something like "so-and-so has confessed to such-and-such, and a search revealed thus-and-so." So, both my statements were true, and are still true. If Anthony LaBelle manages by whatever means to secure an acquittal, the officer will be vulnerable. Again, nobody expects this outcome, but at the time it didn't seem unlikely at all. (Actionable just means that an action can be brought--it is up to the courts to decide the merit of it.)
I keep explaining this in a different way each time because I think you aren't understanding what I'm saying, just as I was cross-wise on the difference between salary scale and actual salaries. I can easily tolerate people disagreeing with me, but when I think they don't understand me it becomes my fault for not explaining myself clearly enough, and I have a hard time letting that go. Forgive me. If you want to proceed with the debate, email me. I won't reveal your identity.
Rick "who likes lively debates but not about the flaws of individuals" Denney