And no serious injuries does not imply an action was moral
was never claiming either, only that both things are factors. getting into a discussion about what is "moral" is a thread in itself.
point is, casting what Mike did as some grievous trespass, as roflstomp seems to want, doesn't make much sense. it's a silly joke that the PA guys ran with for one strip, in response to a threat based on pseudo-law.
morally wrong? since everyone's lawfully allowed to do what has already been done so far, and since no one is seriously hurt or injured, there's not really a problem.
really falls short of passing that along. You pretty clearly said that there was no moral issue because of those things.
point is, casting what Mike did as some grievous trespass, as roflstomp seems to want, doesn't make much sense. it's a silly joke that the PA guys ran with for one strip, in response to a threat based on pseudo-law.
and now we've killed the joke entirely.
It wasn't a grievous trespass, it was just a fairly jerk-ish and rather uncalled for thing to do. Not the comic itself so much as the news post, which has been said.
That has been covered well in this thread. At least in the United States, having your lawyer send a demand letter is unambiguously threatening. It carries the implied threat of legal action.
(General disclaimer: None of this should be taken as legal advice.)
As someone in graduating law school in May, and I say this not as an appeal to authority but to demonstrate how worldview context matters, IMHO what I've quoted of yours isn't really true. This all depends on how you define "demand" and "threatening", of course.
If we're using "threatening" as in "this is an ultimatium before we see you in court" - It's not unambiguously threatening; if anything it should be considered, at worst, ambiguously threatening to people who don't have a lot of experience interacting with lawyers. To Mike, Jerry, and Khoo, who are engaged in business and used to this, it shouldn't be threatening at all. Which is, IMO why they mocked it instead of being concerned about it. I mean, it's pretty funny - it is, afterall, about a secret handshake.
The thing about the notice is though, as people have mentioned - it's a legal demand notice, but there's absolutely no threat in it, veiled or otherwise. For all we know it's the sororities' best practices manual to have an attorney send a formal notice out, in the cases where actual damaging information is posted and stuff like the notice needs T's crossed and I's dotted for the legal record. Or their attorney did five minutes of research while sipping his morning coffee and saw that M&J have a standing "fuck-off" policy towards any and all requests, and so skipped informal option A and went to formal option B.
It's just a worldview thing, I guess. People have had different experiences with lawyers and litigiousness.
EDIT: And apparently the portion of the letter I've been seeing is just snippets and not the full thing. So, who knows? Maybe they ended it with a recap of their demand that was predicated on a threat.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
"It's just a worldview thing, I guess. People have had different experiences with lawyers and litigiousness."
^This
**Disclaimer: I also haven’t seen the entire email, only the snippets people have been posting**
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the people claiming that this is inherently a legal threat are using no other basis than their opinion. Considering they are essentially laymen giving their impression of legal matters I am rather lax to view their opinion with much authority. I’m under the impression that how the legal world works and what constitutes a threat in that environment, is vastly different from what most people understand. People think that lawyers are just for lawsuits or dirty actions. After all, nice people just call each other, right? Consider this:
Here Mike Monteiro explains that in the business world, lawyers are essential and a good thing because they protect both parties. I understand that this is speaking to just business but my point still stands. People in America have the very boogeyman-esque view of lawyers that is more than bolstered by their representation in the media. Some lawyers are assholes. Most are just people doing their job; a job that few people actually understand.
When have power, how get skill? - Me
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Here Mike Monteiro explains that in the business world, lawyers are essential and a good thing because they protect both parties. I understand that this is speaking to just business but my point still stands. People in America have the very boogeyman-esque view of lawyers that is more than bolstered by their representation in the media. Some lawyers are assholes. Most are just people doing their job; a job that few people actually understand.
Agreed wholeheartedly. And yeah, that video is great stuff I had watched it previously and was hoping that's what the link was going to be even before I clicked it; I couldn't remember the guy's name. I was talking to some IRL people about this issue, and one of them pointed me to the webcomic Oatmeal sending a C&D to Funnyjunk for hosting the Oatmeal's stuff without credit. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk2 . Long story short, Funnyjunk flipped out, and the Oatmeal author said himself that " I never had plans to sue FunnyJunk and get it shut down; I just wanted my stolen comics removed." - and the Oatmeal there has probably a claim equal-to-or-better than the sorority does here. It's just part of doing business, and it's how you send requests in the business world so that everything is done within particular industry formatting.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
EDIT: And apparently the portion of the letter I've been seeing is just snippets and not the full thing. So, who knows? Maybe they ended it with a recap of their demand that was predicated on a threat.
This is true, I don't know how much more of the letter there really was either. If they did get all threatening and malicious ("Remove this post or be seared!") I'd take a step back from their side.
point is, casting what Mike did as some grievous trespass, as roflstomp seems to want, doesn't make much sense. it's a silly joke that the PA guys ran with for one strip, in response to a threat based on pseudo-law.
I wouldn't call it grievous, but I do believe Mike is in the wrong on this one. All sorts of people make silly jokes in this world, and sometimes they step in it. Sometimes they're in the right when they do, sometimes they're not. I don't have a problem with the strip as I think I mentioned. I have an issue with the post about it.
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
If the question has become "Was Mike a dick?", then I don't think anyone on either side is going to argue that. Mike often wallows in his dickishness, and this is definitely a prime example Mike acting like a really huge dick.
To me, the question is: "did Mike go too far in his dickishness?", and I would say no. Something noteworthy happened in their life and they turned it into a comic, and tweeted about it etc. They do this every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It just so happens that the subjects of the comic would have really rather not have had the publicity that came with it.
If the question has become "Was Mike a dick?", then I don't think anyone on either side is going to argue that. Mike often wallows in his dickishness, and this is definitely a prime example Mike acting like a really huge dick.
To me, the question is: "did Mike go too far in his dickishness?", and I would say no. Something noteworthy happened in their life and they turned it into a comic, and tweeted about it etc. They do this every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It just so happens that the subjects of the comic would have really rather not have had the publicity that came with it.
I'm not sure I understand he difference between the two, to be honest. Is not the first already "too far" from what one should be?
If the question has become "Was Mike a dick?", then I don't think anyone on either side is going to argue that. Mike often wallows in his dickishness, and this is definitely a prime example Mike acting like a really huge dick.
To me, the question is: "did Mike go too far in his dickishness?", and I would say no. Something noteworthy happened in their life and they turned it into a comic, and tweeted about it etc. They do this every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It just so happens that the subjects of the comic would have really rather not have had the publicity that came with it.
I'm not sure I understand he difference between the two, to be honest. Is not the first already "too far" from what one should be?
Nope.
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
If the question has become "Was Mike a dick?", then I don't think anyone on either side is going to argue that. Mike often wallows in his dickishness, and this is definitely a prime example Mike acting like a really huge dick.
To me, the question is: "did Mike go too far in his dickishness?", and I would say no. Something noteworthy happened in their life and they turned it into a comic, and tweeted about it etc. They do this every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It just so happens that the subjects of the comic would have really rather not have had the publicity that came with it.
I'm not sure I understand he difference between the two, to be honest. Is not the first already "too far" from what one should be?
I'm guessing you believe that being a dick is indeed too far. I personally allow far more leeway to my internet demagogues. To each their own, I guess!
Posts
And no serious injuries does not imply an action was moral
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
was never claiming either, only that both things are factors. getting into a discussion about what is "moral" is a thread in itself.
point is, casting what Mike did as some grievous trespass, as roflstomp seems to want, doesn't make much sense. it's a silly joke that the PA guys ran with for one strip, in response to a threat based on pseudo-law.
and now we've killed the joke entirely.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
I'm mildly surprised that Mike and Jerry bothered THAT much with it in the first place.
I'm pleased that we got a funny comic out of it though, as we usually do from these types of situations.
If that was your intention, your quote:
really falls short of passing that along. You pretty clearly said that there was no moral issue because of those things.
It wasn't a grievous trespass, it was just a fairly jerk-ish and rather uncalled for thing to do. Not the comic itself so much as the news post, which has been said.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
(General disclaimer: None of this should be taken as legal advice.)
As someone in graduating law school in May, and I say this not as an appeal to authority but to demonstrate how worldview context matters, IMHO what I've quoted of yours isn't really true. This all depends on how you define "demand" and "threatening", of course.
If we're using "threatening" as in "this is an ultimatium before we see you in court" - It's not unambiguously threatening; if anything it should be considered, at worst, ambiguously threatening to people who don't have a lot of experience interacting with lawyers. To Mike, Jerry, and Khoo, who are engaged in business and used to this, it shouldn't be threatening at all. Which is, IMO why they mocked it instead of being concerned about it. I mean, it's pretty funny - it is, afterall, about a secret handshake.
The thing about the notice is though, as people have mentioned - it's a legal demand notice, but there's absolutely no threat in it, veiled or otherwise. For all we know it's the sororities' best practices manual to have an attorney send a formal notice out, in the cases where actual damaging information is posted and stuff like the notice needs T's crossed and I's dotted for the legal record. Or their attorney did five minutes of research while sipping his morning coffee and saw that M&J have a standing "fuck-off" policy towards any and all requests, and so skipped informal option A and went to formal option B.
It's just a worldview thing, I guess. People have had different experiences with lawyers and litigiousness.
EDIT: And apparently the portion of the letter I've been seeing is just snippets and not the full thing. So, who knows? Maybe they ended it with a recap of their demand that was predicated on a threat.
^This
**Disclaimer: I also haven’t seen the entire email, only the snippets people have been posting**
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the people claiming that this is inherently a legal threat are using no other basis than their opinion. Considering they are essentially laymen giving their impression of legal matters I am rather lax to view their opinion with much authority. I’m under the impression that how the legal world works and what constitutes a threat in that environment, is vastly different from what most people understand. People think that lawyers are just for lawsuits or dirty actions. After all, nice people just call each other, right? Consider this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U
Here Mike Monteiro explains that in the business world, lawyers are essential and a good thing because they protect both parties. I understand that this is speaking to just business but my point still stands. People in America have the very boogeyman-esque view of lawyers that is more than bolstered by their representation in the media. Some lawyers are assholes. Most are just people doing their job; a job that few people actually understand.
Agreed wholeheartedly. And yeah, that video is great stuff
This is true, I don't know how much more of the letter there really was either. If they did get all threatening and malicious ("Remove this post or be seared!") I'd take a step back from their side.
I wouldn't call it grievous, but I do believe Mike is in the wrong on this one. All sorts of people make silly jokes in this world, and sometimes they step in it. Sometimes they're in the right when they do, sometimes they're not. I don't have a problem with the strip as I think I mentioned. I have an issue with the post about it.
To me, the question is: "did Mike go too far in his dickishness?", and I would say no. Something noteworthy happened in their life and they turned it into a comic, and tweeted about it etc. They do this every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It just so happens that the subjects of the comic would have really rather not have had the publicity that came with it.
I'm not sure I understand he difference between the two, to be honest. Is not the first already "too far" from what one should be?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Nope.
your = belonging to you
their = belonging to them
there = not here
they're = they are
I'm guessing you believe that being a dick is indeed too far. I personally allow far more leeway to my internet demagogues. To each their own, I guess!