Archive for February 10th, 2007
My stuff comes from Your stuff.
I would like permission to use your
Anything I say is my responsibility.
I learned from you.
So, if a release is needed,
you have got my e_mail address:
Comment by mderpelding
I have to be careful what I say here for legal reasons. You don’t have to worry about getting permission to use my stuff, even though it’s copyrighted. I don’t mind the COMMUNISTS using it if they don’t cut and paste or change it. But I’ll use their asses off if they quote me out of context for their own purposes or to damage me or for some other reason which from my point of view does me damage.
So don’t worry about it. If you are going to use huge slices of my stuff FOR OUR PURPOSES, which I sincerely hope you will, you do so not only with my permission, but with my gratitude. My problem is that this is done too little, not too much.
No, it only bothers me that any comrade would HESITATE to use my stuff. Even if you screw up horribly with it, the worst that can happen in a real world court room is that you would have to apologize. Our enemies use the legal system as a weapon against us. If I had their resources, I would do the same thing to them, but not to prevent them from having free speech, which is the way they use it against us. They need that, because they have no case. We only need to be allowed ot present ours.
So you don’t have to ask my permission for any or all of my material if you are honestly on our side. Only the copyright holder can make trouble, since this is civil, not criminal, law. And the only way anybody on either side will get me into court for any real damages is if they really, openly, honestly use what I say against me or mine. Believe me, you cannot do that without meaning to.
I wish I could give blanket permission, but, in any serious sense, anybody who is not a dedicated enemy of me and mine has it.
The Puritans may have read and studied Calvin, but technically they were not Calvinists. A more accurate word used by their more sane contemporaries was “Catharist.”
This is my understanding of the situation. Somebody else’s theology doesn’t interest me except academically, so I’m open to correction:
The Pilgrims were not Puritans. Much of the early history of their tiny Massachusetts Bay Colony was trying to keep from being taking over by Puritan Massachusetts. Thet called themselves Calvinists, too, but not all Calvinists are the same.
Catharists are a whole different kettle of fish. I think you have been lsitenging to people who want to impress you. When such people want to condemn anythig they don’t really know about, they use the intellectual-sounding word “Gnostic.”
Catharist sounds good, too, but it refers to a form of Manichaeism. The Puritans did not condemn reproduction, which is the essence of Catharism.
I am interested in theology because some of the best politics and political argument in history has been funneled into religion. Most of our modern political arguments have appeared in a recognizable form (if you know what you are looking for, which is what I do) as theological debate.
Even an atheist should know his Bible. I don’t worship Zeus or Hermes, but I sure as hell know who they are.