Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There doesn't need to be a legal basis, since I'm not making a legal 
> argument.  The ethics I've explained - it isn't fair to the millions 
> who made Star Wars was it is to withhold it forever.  Not until Lucas 
> decides he'd like to release it, but forever.

You say it isn't fair to the millions; thus far, I've not heard an 
outcry from the millions.

> What you're suggesting is that book burning is ok, as long as its the 
> author that's burning the book.  I think that's a veritable crime.

No, I'm not saying that.  The owner of the physical media is entitled 
to burn it; I have the right to burn any book I own (provided I follow 
the fire and pollution codes); no one else has that right.  The author, 
though, so long he hasn't signed away his right, has the right to 
prevent republication of the book.

> > Sure he does.  If he had presented it as a stage production, he 
> > would have the right never to allow it to be produced again.
> 
> It's not a stage production, so that's a red herring.  Further, I'm 
> not disputing he has the right to do whatever he wants, so that is 
> also a red herring.  I'm discussing what's right, not rights.

It seems to me that you are insisting that you get to dictate to others 
what is right.

> > > Judging from the numerous factual errors that you've introduced 
> > > to this thread so far, I wonder how much you actually know about 
> > > Star Wars and its history.
> >
> > Contrary to your beliefs, disagreeing with you does not constitute 
> > factual errors.
> 
> It has nothing to do with our disagreement.  You stated that Lucas 
> had to cut Star Wars down for time demands made by the studio - 
> that's false.

OK, then why did he cut it down?  Why didn't he leave Jaba the Hut in 
the original production?

> You have (to your credit) asked numerous questions that have 
> indicated you don't know basic factual information about Star Wars 
> and its history (for example, whether or not it has been released to 
> DVD, or whether or not it has ever been released in its original 
> format).

Er, no; I have been asking questions to get you to clarify your position.

> > Ah yes, you are the all knowing Oz; all must bow to your superior 
> > knowledge.  Your opinion is supreme above all, and is to be equated 
> > with fact.
> 
> Again, pithy, but without substance.  Stick to the argument and leave 
> the ad hominem behind.

Oh, so you are the only one allowed to engage in ad hominem?  Anyway, it 
wasn't ad hominem; it was a sarcastic summary of how you present 
yourself.

> > The bottom line is that Lucas gets to call the shots, and whether 
> > you like it or I like it doesn't matter unless it affects his 
> > income--and there has been no appreciable effect upon that.
> 
> This is a non-sequiter, because no one has said that Lucas doesn't 
> get to call the shots. 

I'm sorry; I was thinking that you were trying to dictate what he should 
do, and chastizing him for not doing it.  Since I was wrong about that, 
and you agree that he can and may prevent the original version from 
being release, we don't have anything further to discuss on the matter.

> Yet I also detect in your tone (be that as it may on the internet) 
> that you feel none of us have the right to complain about any of 
> this, and you wish we'd just shut up about it. Correct me if I'm 
> wrong, but you seem to be saying that because Lucas has all the 
> rights in this case, we should just be quiet and take it.

Oh, you have the right to complain about it, but you should realize that 
no one has the obligation to listen to your complaints or to pay them 
any heed.

> Lucas is an intelligent man who has consistently demonstrated a 
> certain amount of concern and care for the fans of his films, and I 
> have faith that he'll see the light when he hears enough voices. 

Well, thus far, there haven't been enough voices.

Oh, what has this to do with _Chicago_ anyway?

-- 
Never play strip tarot.