"Has the “3 Paragraph Rule” expired?" Topic

A while back, when I was a naughty OFM, there was a "controversy" about long winded posters cutting and pasting multi paragraph sections of copyright text and content.
It was then decreed that a poster may post a maximum of 3 paragraphs per post. One relevant reason was copyright infringement.

In my humble opinion, posting sheets of copy was also a sign of laziness. If you really understood, you could and should summarize , rather than post.

Now, I realize that the Federalist Papers are in the public domain. But 10 paragraphs lusted from Victor Davis Hanson isn't.
As one of my college professors once said, "I already know what it means. Tell me what YOU think." The implication was that all I was doing was typing. We didn't have cell phones back then or laptops.

All one does when cutting and pasting is show that … you know how to cut and paste. Just like the typing example above. Telling what you think requires you to show that you grasp and understand. 🤷

Back to my original point. Is the "3 Paragraph Rule" no longer in effect? Has it expired?

TMP link

Why? 🤔….

Because many on TMP do NOT read links. One thread comment in "Ultramodern warfare", just posted makes that extremely obvious (from overseas).

Very simple. Your question as to why, has now been answered.

I should say on that one, I was told, I just beat another poster. 🙂

"à votre service"

Oh and John,

I have never complained to Bill about your constant disparaging comments of President "Trump" by name… which is also against posting rules. 😉

I confine such to "Ultramodern Warfare", which has been shown to be a lot more lenient. If this violates the rules, I shall cease.
But by the same token, any PRAISE of that person should also be forbidden.
And that should also apply to Zelensky, Putin, King Charles, Musk, the mayor of New York, RFK Jr…

Very simple. Your question as to why, has now been answered.

Yes it has. So, it IS forbidden. I had to plow through a lot of rules, but there it was. There IS a "3 Paragraph rule".

John I have no issues with what goes on currently in that thread, paragraph wise or otherwise… as long is individuals stay "somewhat" civil.

By the way, that was not the first of multiple paragraph posts, there or elsewhere in TMP. 🙂

Because many on TMP do NOT read links.

And that is not an excuse.

As I said above, or as an Old Professor said, to paraphrase, "If you can't explain it yourself, don't waste time cutting and pasting."

According to The Editor, the Rulevis still in effect. Follow it.

Was there something in Hanson's writing that offends you personally? I find his responses very articulate and worth the time to read.

Obvious typos in my OP include "lusted" re VDH. 😄
Please excuse any others.

Nothing in the Hanson post offended me. I simply don't think he has the expertise so many assume.
I'm specifically referring to cutting and pasting more than 3 paragraphs. Follow the rules.

Again John, why are you so upset?

I doubt many knew about the paragraph rule, including me.

But we all got burnt by the politicians "name" rule and been Dawghoused for it in the past. I'm pretty sure you were aware too. 🙂

Fortunately Bill has been more lenient recently. I for one enjoy it.

Don't read ultramodern warfare if the comments offend you, or place me on stifle so you don't have to read my posts. 🙂

John, I looked at that thread and others. If the .paragraph rule was enforced, they would not exist. 😉

By the way John, I admit to having a lot of multi paragraph posts, but we are all pretty much guilty. 😉

"Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP 03 Sep 2024 3:02 a.m. PST

Doc ranked Reagan very highly. It is quite obvious to anyone that docmcb is a rather conservative professor.

Someone from an "elite" institution like California Berkeley or Penn is unlikely to rank him in his top 20. Ditto a professor from an "historic Black College" like Howard.
Rank LBJ. What are your politics? Does Vietnam matter? Do you think he was the best president for Civil Rights, and does that outweigh Vietnam? I was a Vietnam era college student, and sweated bullets until I got my extremely favorable Draft Lottery number.

Rank JFK. In my opinion, he accomplished little, and kicked the can down the road on Vietnam. That is an atypical view for a Boomer.
On the other hand, I think Nixon was a great president. Where would "highly respected college history professors" rank any of these? Are they Boomers too? Do they belong to the Heritage Foundation? A racism watchdog Group?

It's nonsense to think that personal politics does not enter into how they teach or fill out surveys. Note that I am strictly following the TMP Modern Politics rule. I shall leave it to yourself to decide where "highly educated professional historians" would rate presidents of the last 20, or even 40 years without falling back on their own partisan political views. Some I disagree with, some I consider bumbling fools, and several terrify me. Are college professors entitled to their political opinions? Of course they are.

Luckily, political views do not enter into the professional views of physicists or biochemists. (He said with a mocking smile on his face.)

I hear, way too often, the phrase "I did my research!"
What that inevitably means is that someone Googled a topic, and then went to a site that they knew in advance they would agree with. (Note that I am using "they" in a grammatical sense, rather than in a preferred pronouns sense. Take that as you will for my own politics. And age.)
When the topic of vaccines comes up, I do not trust anyone whose "research" includes Aaron Rodgers, a washed up quarterback, Joe Rogan, a UFC expert and professional blowhard."

Don't read ultramodern warfare if the comments offend you, or place me on stifle so you don't have to read my posts. 🙂

You seem to be implying that one cannot reply to "offensive" posts. Do you demand absolute agreement? Nobody should be permitted to disagree?

Also. If posters can't be bothered to summarize, and insist on violating very clear rules, then they shouldn't be posting.
Cutting and pasting is just cutting and pasting. It shows no insight beyond "I can't think for myself, so I'll simply copy from someone else."
The same argument that more than one of my professors made about typing. 😄

I hear, way too often, the phrase "I did my research!"
What that inevitably means is that someone Googled a topic, and then went to a site that they knew in advance they would agree with.

Good grief! Now you are plagiarizing ME! That's exactly what *I* say about vaccine deniers! Aaron Rodgers! RFK Jr! 😄👍

John now you are just making false accusations about what I said.

By the way, I just copied your post to show you, you broke the rule as well. I doubt the 3 paragraph rule is what is really bothering you.

But I'll let Bill judge the validity.

I'm not talking about multi paragraph posts. I'm talking about COPYING multiple paragraphs of copyrighted material.
One could argue that the Constitution or Federalist Papers are Public Domain. The former should be quoted exactly but only with what's relevant. I quote it all the time, like to quote how CONGRESS issues Letters of Mark. The FP should really be summarized, lest one's eyes glaze over.

My opinions?
Reagan was a good president. However, he did cut and run after the Marines were blown up. That was a key factor in forming Bin Laden's opinion about America being a paper tiger.
LBJ was a racist SOB, and he knew what he was doing with the Great Society. Read Thomas Sowell.
Vietnam? I wasn't about to volunteer, because I could see that no administration really wanted to win. They merely wanted to "show resolve". This got 55,000 Americans killed, and many times more Vietnamese killed. Possibly millions. Since I would not volunteer, I waited to be drafted. My draft lottery number ended up being 350/365. 🤷 This isn't a new relegation. I've said it here before.
JFK? He was killed by the Mob for betraying them. He was also taken advantage of by Kruschev. He betrayed the Cuban guerrillas at the Bay of Pigs. (I blame holdover Dulles spooks for the whole fiasco in the first place.)
Iraq and Afghanistan? Darth Cheney was to blame. Bush was too dumb. Both were totally mishandled.

Nixon was a "good" president who shot himself in the foot.

John what does this have to do
With 3 paragraph rules???

I place quotes around what I copy. In the case of this one, I even put his VDH name at the top.

This all seems to be about your dislike of the current president and anyone who takes his side.

😳

Read the FAQ.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree or disagree.
You may post UP TO 3 paragraphs of copyright material. You can place quotation marks, credit VDH and so on. But no more than 3. Read the rules.
I follow them. So should you, docmcb, and so on.
Hell, even Tango follows them! 😄👍

🙄

I hadn't realized the was a three-paragraph quotation limit. I'd been thinking about posting VDH's "Grapes gotta have water" story, which recounts a conversation from one of his books, and almost certainly is more than three paragraphs long, though most of the paragraphs are really quite short, one liners.

Grelber

"Because many on TMP do NOT read links."

You're partially correct:

map.barbarabush.org

This rule originated because of worries about copyright infringement.
Yes. TMP is "big enough" to receive Cease and Desist notices, and lawsuits.
Somedays, everyone needs to go back and read the link The Editor posted above. As we used to say in Days of Yore, "Bill's house, Bill's rules."
And if I'm out of line knocking the Orange Man, because of POLITICS😱😱, well, so is everyone praising him.
"Ultramodern Warfare" seems to let posters skate a bit on politics. If I am wrong, I'll face the consequences. But so should everyone who thinks he can do no wrong.

If Bill was concerned, I'm sure he would have let me know.

I will make sure and handle VDH writings in a better way in the future. 😱

Well the only other option here is this be sent to the SCOTUS …

You don't know how tempting it was to copy Bill's ENTIRE rules link and paste it.

Sooooo tempting.😈

The Devil sitting on your left shoulder says "Do it!"

By the way, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here, since it's a private forum, as the FAQ point out several times. "Bill's house, Bill's rules."
However, should he accept any Federal subsidies, all bets are off!

Thanks John, I knew that … it was a bit of hyperbole on my part. But yes we all know it is Bill here who has the last word.

Bill ?!? 😮

By the way, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction here

Absolutely incorrect. However, issues (well, ones like this) are not "sent to the SCOTUS". Cases are filed in local jursidictions, appeals happen, and eventyally SCOTUS is the last ditch of an appeal … if they decide to let it in.

The hyperbole is in the idea of a direct line from a post here just showing up on SCOTUS docket.

Still … imaging enough people care deeply enough about what happens in the nooks and crannies of our hobby …

Not a Lawyer – however I believe so long as you know a lawyer who is a member of the Supreme Court Bar or can get them to agree to help – can file an Amicus Curiae Brief with SCOTUS

PDF link

One could only imagine what the Brief would say…

eto +1

D/W +1

Not sure where the idea that SCOTUS would ever be involved with this forum came from. It is a privately owned venue and not a public forum, so it is not subject to the first amendment. As has been stated it is Bill's, and he has the last word. For something to go to court the plaintiff would need to show how they were damaged, such as copyright infringement. Bill has rules about disparaging comments being posted or copyright infringement and how to report them. Also, any lawsuit would most likely be civil and not criminal.

There are SC decisions in the last couple of decades that confirm that this is a private entity and has a right to control its content.

It is a privately owned venue and not a public forum,

There are SC decisions in the last couple of decades that confirm that this is a private entity and has a right to control its content.

I haven't seen any SCOTUS cases about the status of TMP. Links?

Bill absolutely has the right to control the content. Don't know why that would be relevant to the discussion of jursidction.

First, you can't do absolutely anything you want in private. Second, while privately owned, this forum would most likely count as a place of public accomodation.

I own a bar. It's mine. I let people come in. I have limits on how I can treat them. I own a house. I let people in. I have different limites on how I can treat them than at my bar. Regardless, I am not outside the scope of law in either case.

Also, any lawsuit would most likely be civil and not criminal.

Canard. While it varies by session, in the last few decades, over half of SCOTUS cases were civil law, not criminal.

The Miniatures Page is forum for speech. There is a difference between public property and private property. Public property is owned by a government entity such as public schools, public libraries, town halls and streets. Private property is owned by private individuals or organizations such as this forum. There can also be private schools, libraries, and streets. Under the first amendment government entities cannot restrict protected first amendment speech in public. The first amendment does not apply to restrictions applied by private entities or forums. see link As I noted Bill has rules about copyright infringement and what can be posted on this forum which in the case of some posts might be considered slander. Those two items could result in lawsuits which is why he has those rules to protect himself and this forum. YouTube will remove copyrighted material. Because this is a private forum Bill can restrict what is posted here and cannot be sued for removing posts or banning people that violate his rules.