Klarinet Archive - Posting 000256.txt from 2009/02

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] Fair Use
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:56:45 -0500

Last post on this subject. It is fruitless having a logical argument
with people who refuse to use logic. :-(

Tim Roberts wrote:

>But
>that sentence as you have written it is both untrue and unsupported by
>your premises.

The sentence he refers to is:

>If it has never been adjudicated as a
> copyright violation (and it has not) then VERY LIKELY IT IS NOT A
> COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

This sentence is a self-contained statement, it has no "premises." It
has an antecedent (sometimes called a "hypothesis") and a consequent
(sometimes called a "conclusion"). Tim claims it is "untrue". To
prove it is untrue, he MUST prove both of the following:

1. "It has never been adjudicated as a copyright violation."
2. "very likely it IS a copyright violation."

He has not proved either, nor has he presented ANY evidence to prove
either. I am even willing to grant that #1 is true. So now he has to
prove (or at least offer some evidence other than his opinion, which
is completely irrelevant) to prove that #2 is true.

The part where he says "and unsupported by your premises" is
meaningless in this context. The statement is a self-contained
statement. It has no premises. The statement is "If A then B." It is
either true or it is false.

There are no other possibilities. If you don't understand that then,
the conversation is fruitless.

To prove it false, you MUST prove (or offer evidence supporting
proof) as I have explained above.

He has done neither.

End of conversation.
--
Jonathan Cohler
Artistic & General Director
International Woodwind Festival
http://iwwf.org/
cohler@-----.org

------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2009 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is going on right now - see
https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/ for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------