Sunday, April 20, 2003


Memo to “J.T.”


Hey guy, decaf next time.

I bet you think this song is about you
Don’t you
Don’t you?

Ease up, you’re going to strain a muscle or something.

I’d still like to know who took it upon themselves to “excerpt” that silly little entry, with important context links (namely, this one) stripped, when I made a point not to send a ping. I always thought those silly licenses people attach to their weblogs were bogus and unnecessary, but if people are going to be dumbasses I can see the reasons, at least from a CYA point-of-view.

edit: Why operating a keyboard after a night of drinking is usually a bad idea. If you’ve got anything to say about this, post it as a comment here, and leave poor Sam and his readers out of it.

edit: apparently it’s an automated referrer-chasing script. That restores my faith in humanity a bit — it’s good to know that no live human was involved in that appalling bit of context-free quoting. Excuse the “license” bit above as the rantings of someone operating under the influence of too little sleep and too much JT.

JT — no hard feelings. Peace.


:: Dave Walker 04:22 (EST/EDT) [+] ::

:: [/humor/people]
:: tags:

:: Comments (6)

Comments:

Mark wrote:

Title: Auto-excerpts

Date:

Response:
Sam has a script that automatically chases referrers in his access logs and automatically excerpts a sentence or two around the link that points to the entry in his weblog. I believe it breaks on [p] tags, so if you want something excerpted, put it in the same paragraph. As for some sort of license to stop this, forget it, this is absolutely fair use. The fact that it's automated doesn't change that. Don't like it? Don't link.
d.w. wrote:

Title:

Date:

Response:
Understood. I think the lesson to take away from this, though, is that links _are context_. That entry, as replicated, stripped of the links and the obvious "humor" classification it had here, appeared to be much more inflammatory than it was meant to be. Add a genuine ranting kook to the mix (JT) and you've got a recipe for hurt feelings and misunderstandings.
jt wrote:

Title:

Date:

Response:
"Add a genuine ranting kook to the mix (JT)" Are You guys familiar with the law, regarding slander...?? No hurt feelings, just tired of being maliciously maligned. Not to mention You contradicted Your own point about "I think the lesson to take away from this, though, is that links _are context_. That entry, as replicated, stripped of the links and the obvious "humor" classification it had here"... And humor is a tricky thing.
Just because You PLACE this under the category of humor, doesn't necessarily make it all that funny: "then Dave Winer, um, exploded, spewing Manila-fragments all over poor Sam Ruby’s weblog" http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1345.html
jt wrote:

Title:

Date:

Response:
Btw, I don't have the time, resources, or stomach to actually pursue a slander lawsuit at this time. And besides, You've actually conferred somewhat of an honor on me (albeit by way of a back-handed-compliment) by all this discussion of my comments.
d.w. wrote:

Title:

Date:

Response:
That little "/humor/people" is part of the weblog entry, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway... I "slandered" you? This coming from the guy who called me, let me check, oh yes, a "two-bit punk"? Whatever. Peace.
jt wrote:

Title:

Date:

Response:
K... Peace.



To be beautiful is enough! if a woman can do that well who should demand more from her? You don't want a rose to sing. -- Thackeray