vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) BULLZ-i - 08/06/2014
TIME TO UPGRADE
[url]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/84239812/?autoplay=true[/url]
[url]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/84239812/?autoplay=true[/url]
2.) DParker - 08/06/2014
Man...my first apartment wasn't that nice and well-equipped.
3.) Triton Rich - 08/06/2014
[B]Awesome![/B]
4.) Floyd - 08/06/2014
Competition? More like blew the doors and all the panels, the top, the seats, the wheels, all the glass, all the carpet and all the stuff in it, out of and off of all his BRONCOS.
You still have two broncos, right.
To be fair, only Swampy can get the most out of that trailer.
You still have two broncos, right.
To be fair, only Swampy can get the most out of that trailer.
5.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
LOL...
I actually looked at some units like that (on line) a few years ago for grins and giggles ...Nothing that elaborate, but I was looking for an articulated tow trailer for haulin' stuff offroad and got distracted by the shiny object.
You can't tell me that my Broncos aren't sweet!
I'd show a pic of the back rack but I can't get it to load here from the puter for some reason...But it is as well used as the front. :wink
">
I actually looked at some units like that (on line) a few years ago for grins and giggles ...Nothing that elaborate, but I was looking for an articulated tow trailer for haulin' stuff offroad and got distracted by the shiny object.
You can't tell me that my Broncos aren't sweet!
I'd show a pic of the back rack but I can't get it to load here from the puter for some reason...But it is as well used as the front. :wink
">6.) BULLZ-i - 08/06/2014
I ALREADY SEE ONE MAJOR PROBLEM
... IT'S A FORD
... IT'S A FORD
7.) BULLZ-i - 08/06/2014
[B]YOU SWITCH TO SHOOTING H**t TOO?[/B]
8.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
[QUOTE=BULLZ-i;22967]I ALREADY SEE ONE MAJOR PROBLEM
... IT'S A FORD[/QUOTE]
Well, what did you think a Bronco was, Einstein?
LOL
:wave:
BTW, last I checked it was Chevy and GM in the deep doo doo...:wink
... IT'S A FORD[/QUOTE]
Well, what did you think a Bronco was, Einstein?
LOL
:wave:
BTW, last I checked it was Chevy and GM in the deep doo doo...:wink
9.) BULLZ-i - 08/06/2014
SOMETHING THAT LOSES SUPER BOWLS REALLY REALLY BAD.... OR GOOD IN MY OPINION
10.) Floyd - 08/06/2014
Swampy, show them the picture of your Bronco where you have your Granny in a rocking chair on top with all your cats, er, I mean critters.
11.) Deerminator - 08/06/2014
F.ix
O.r
R.epair
D.aily
Dang that camper is very clever. wounder what it costs?
O.r
R.epair
D.aily
Dang that camper is very clever. wounder what it costs?
12.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
LOL...
I had a Chevy Blazer some time ago that I drove so long that people thought I was gonna be buried in it. Seriously. When it finally died, a lot of people commented to me about it, LOL. That was a good vehicle, too. I strapped the spare tire to the roof...Some people who don't understand these kind of things thought that was pretty funny.
Weird thing is, after a couple of years I noticed a good number of other people riding around like that, too. I figure with all the driving I was doing, especially back then, I was a rolling advertisement for good space management (or at least proficiency at haulin' stuff) and, of course, SUV coolness.
Besides coolness and the convenience of having everything that you could possibly ever need always with you, when I have the Bronco crammed to the gills (which is 99% of the time) I am also insulated from coerced police searches on the roadside. A few years ago, I got pulled at a little speed trap in SC that I knew was a speed trap ---apparently my right foot was in the early stages of Alzheimer's. In my side mirror I watched Officer Obie approaching the vehicle from the rear, looking in the back and side rear windows. I couldn't see anything with the rearview mirror, except of course all the hunting gear from floor to ceiling (the rear seat hasn't been in the upright and locked position since I bought the truck).
Anyway, I could see the little wheels turning in Officer Obie's small head: [I]There's no way I'm searching this vehicle. I'll miss lunch AND Honey Boo-Boo tonight.[/I]
I got the ticket (that's another story for another day) but at least I remained secure in my person, papers, effects and --some might say--my home. :wink
P.S.
My original point---before I got to story-telling-- was going to be that Ford vs. Chevy ain't my thang...I just like to tweak Bullz-i on the internetz. He can't crush me like a grape from all the way out there on the left coast. :wink
I had a Chevy Blazer some time ago that I drove so long that people thought I was gonna be buried in it. Seriously. When it finally died, a lot of people commented to me about it, LOL. That was a good vehicle, too. I strapped the spare tire to the roof...Some people who don't understand these kind of things thought that was pretty funny.
Weird thing is, after a couple of years I noticed a good number of other people riding around like that, too. I figure with all the driving I was doing, especially back then, I was a rolling advertisement for good space management (or at least proficiency at haulin' stuff) and, of course, SUV coolness.
Besides coolness and the convenience of having everything that you could possibly ever need always with you, when I have the Bronco crammed to the gills (which is 99% of the time) I am also insulated from coerced police searches on the roadside. A few years ago, I got pulled at a little speed trap in SC that I knew was a speed trap ---apparently my right foot was in the early stages of Alzheimer's. In my side mirror I watched Officer Obie approaching the vehicle from the rear, looking in the back and side rear windows. I couldn't see anything with the rearview mirror, except of course all the hunting gear from floor to ceiling (the rear seat hasn't been in the upright and locked position since I bought the truck).
Anyway, I could see the little wheels turning in Officer Obie's small head: [I]There's no way I'm searching this vehicle. I'll miss lunch AND Honey Boo-Boo tonight.[/I]
I got the ticket (that's another story for another day) but at least I remained secure in my person, papers, effects and --some might say--my home. :wink
P.S.
My original point---before I got to story-telling-- was going to be that Ford vs. Chevy ain't my thang...I just like to tweak Bullz-i on the internetz. He can't crush me like a grape from all the way out there on the left coast. :wink
13.) bluecat - 08/06/2014
Was that the time you had live rounds rolling around on your floorboards?
14.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
LOL...Yeah, but you couldn't see them under the Bojangles wrappers...:grin::grin:
15.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
Speaking of live rounds...
I did have a big C-N-C target with a lot of bullet holes in it crushed up against the glass on the side rear window. Even though the glass is smoked/slightly mirrored, Officer Obie plainly saw that...He didn't even bother to ask if I had any weapons in the vehicle, LOL...
I did have a big C-N-C target with a lot of bullet holes in it crushed up against the glass on the side rear window. Even though the glass is smoked/slightly mirrored, Officer Obie plainly saw that...He didn't even bother to ask if I had any weapons in the vehicle, LOL...
16.) bluecat - 08/06/2014
It's nice when you can intimidate a police officer. Well done I say.
17.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
LOL....
Well, I wasn't even trying that hard....:wink
He was just a li'l feller with a big badge.
Well, I wasn't even trying that hard....:wink
He was just a li'l feller with a big badge.
18.) DParker - 08/06/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;22997]LOL....
Well, I wasn't even trying that hard....:wink
He was just a li'l feller with a big badge.[/QUOTE]
From the Red Foreman school of LEO intimidation...
Well, I wasn't even trying that hard....:wink
He was just a li'l feller with a big badge.[/QUOTE]
From the Red Foreman school of LEO intimidation...
19.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
"You let him off with a warning..."
:p :laugh:
:p :laugh:
20.) DParker - 08/06/2014
My favorite Red Foreman foot-in-ass quote was...
[QUOTE]"You two morons just hung 'VACANCY' signs on your asses, and my foot is looking for a room."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"You two morons just hung 'VACANCY' signs on your asses, and my foot is looking for a room."[/QUOTE]
21.) Deerminator - 08/06/2014
OOOH RED!!!
22.) Swamp Fox - 08/06/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23008]My favorite Red Foreman foot-in-ass quote was...
"You two morons just hung 'VACANCY' signs on your asses, and my foot is looking for a room."
[/QUOTE]
Ran across those two last night by accident as well...Weird coinkydink, huh?
BTW, Is anyone else having trouble loading pics on here straight from their computer?
"You two morons just hung 'VACANCY' signs on your asses, and my foot is looking for a room."
[/QUOTE]
Ran across those two last night by accident as well...Weird coinkydink, huh?
BTW, Is anyone else having trouble loading pics on here straight from their computer?
23.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/russia-doesn-president-obama-slams-putin-new-interview-article-1.1891259[/url]
What? What about the Russian bride business? That's booming is it not?
Are the new sanctions on the U.S. going to stop the orders? I've got a brunette on backorder right now. I keep looking for the UPS truck.
Russia is a continent right?
What? What about the Russian bride business? That's booming is it not?
Are the new sanctions on the U.S. going to stop the orders? I've got a brunette on backorder right now. I keep looking for the UPS truck.
Russia is a continent right?
24.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
I hope the brunette backorder gets resolved faster than my Cabelas ammo backorder. LOL
[B]"I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything," Obama said in the interview.
[/B]
What a maroon. :re:
He has a problem identifying who builds things ("If you've got a business, you didn't build that"), how well things are built (let's start with Obamacare and the website and devolve from there) and what the slouching schoolboy at the back of the room is capable of (see Syria and Ukraine), so I don't know who listens to him anymore.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2013/08/09/obama-putins-a-sloucher/[/url]
[B]"I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything," Obama said in the interview.
[/B]
What a maroon. :re:
He has a problem identifying who builds things ("If you've got a business, you didn't build that"), how well things are built (let's start with Obamacare and the website and devolve from there) and what the slouching schoolboy at the back of the room is capable of (see Syria and Ukraine), so I don't know who listens to him anymore.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2013/08/09/obama-putins-a-sloucher/[/url]
25.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
This one is a hoot.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/07/minnesota-restaurant-charges-minimum-wage-fee-after-state-wage-hike/[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/07/minnesota-restaurant-charges-minimum-wage-fee-after-state-wage-hike/[/url]
26.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
[B]“I’d gladly absorb a price increase to make sure my waitress/waiter was making a more livable wage, but I won’t patronize a restaurant with your attitude,” wrote Chuck Smith-Dewey. “Any increase in wages applies to all your competitors too, so you are not at a disadvantage by treating your workers well.”[/B]
Another business economics genius heard from...
Another business economics genius heard from...
27.) Deerminator - 08/07/2014
what is a livable wage nowadays???should be around 35,0000/yr
28.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23044][B]“I’d gladly absorb a price increase to make sure my waitress/waiter was making a more livable wage, but I won’t patronize a restaurant with your attitude,” wrote Chuck Smith-Dewey. “Any increase in wages applies to all your competitors too, so you are not at a disadvantage by treating your workers well.”[/B]
Another business economics genius heard from...[/QUOTE]
As Glenn Beck said, "These people have no idea how business works".
Another business economics genius heard from...[/QUOTE]
As Glenn Beck said, "These people have no idea how business works".
29.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
I'd mandate more than that in the high cost-of-living areas....You know, to fight the high cost of living. :re:
30.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Deerminator;23045]what is a livable wage nowadays???should be around 35,0000/yr[/QUOTE]
I'd mandate more than that in the high cost-of-living areas....You know, to fight the high cost-of-living.
:re:
I'd mandate more than that in the high cost-of-living areas....You know, to fight the high cost-of-living.
:re:
31.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23044][B]“I’d gladly absorb a price increase to make sure my waitress/waiter was making a more livable wage, but I won’t patronize a restaurant with your attitude,” wrote Chuck Smith-Dewey. “Any increase in wages applies to all your competitors too, so you are not at a disadvantage by treating your workers well.”[/B]
Another business economics genius heard from...[/QUOTE]
Just another classic case of "Ignorance truly is bliss". Other restaurants are going to pass the cost along to their customer in the form of higher prices and/or reducing the amount/quality of food served. They just aren't going to point it out.
Another business economics genius heard from...[/QUOTE]
Just another classic case of "Ignorance truly is bliss". Other restaurants are going to pass the cost along to their customer in the form of higher prices and/or reducing the amount/quality of food served. They just aren't going to point it out.
32.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23053]Just another classic case of "Ignorance truly is bliss". Other restaurants are going to pass the cost along to their customer in the form of higher prices and/or reducing the amount/quality of food served. They just aren't going to point it out.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
And by pointing it out, you have a bad attitude (making a statement about your government or the government mandate).
Remember that old album that Swampy's mom threw out, [I]Don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player[/I]?
Exactly.
And by pointing it out, you have a bad attitude (making a statement about your government or the government mandate).
Remember that old album that Swampy's mom threw out, [I]Don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player[/I]?
33.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Well, it's even worse than that.
Anytime your costs go up outside of your control, you are disadvantaged. It doesn't matter that the costs went up for everyone. There are plenty of ripple-effect problems that cannot be fixed by passing a new cost on to customers, even if that is wholly possible (which it often is not in the real world, especially in a hyper-competitive, low-margin environment such as the restaurant business).
Anytime your costs go up outside of your control, you are disadvantaged. It doesn't matter that the costs went up for everyone. There are plenty of ripple-effect problems that cannot be fixed by passing a new cost on to customers, even if that is wholly possible (which it often is not in the real world, especially in a hyper-competitive, low-margin environment such as the restaurant business).
34.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
Maybe the restaurant will save a little and serve beanless chili.
35.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
LOL...Something's gotta give.
36.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23057]Maybe the restaurant will save a little and serve beanless chili.[/QUOTE]
Proof of the old bromide that sometimes less is actually more.
Proof of the old bromide that sometimes less is actually more.
37.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Here's another misunderstood concept: Animal property rights. Not sure if a photo is really intellectual property, but it's funnier and more bizarre if we consider it as such for this story. A copyright certainly IS property.
[I]In Indonesia in 2011 a female crested black macaque hijacked the camera of British nature photographer David Slater and proceeded to snap hundreds of photos — among them several selfies, photos of himself, one of which made worldwide headlines and the animal’s Wikipedia page. Slater, citing royalty losses, has tried to have the photograph removed from the site. The Telegraph reports:
The Gloucestershire-based photographer now claims that the decision is jeopardising his income as anyone can take the image and publish it for free, without having to pay him a royalty. He complained to Wikimedia [the U.S.-based non-profit that hosts Wikipedia] that that he owned the copyright of the image, but a recent transparency report from the group, which details all the removal requests it has received, reveals that editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.
Slater is attempting to take the matter to court — at a likely cost of more than $15,000. Slater believes the copyright should be his, since he made possible all of the conditions for the photograph. But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright, or that the image should be in the public domain.
[/I]
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384855/proprietary-primate-wikipedia-says-monkey-owns-copyright-selfie-ian-tuttle[/url]
[I]In Indonesia in 2011 a female crested black macaque hijacked the camera of British nature photographer David Slater and proceeded to snap hundreds of photos — among them several selfies, photos of himself, one of which made worldwide headlines and the animal’s Wikipedia page. Slater, citing royalty losses, has tried to have the photograph removed from the site. The Telegraph reports:
The Gloucestershire-based photographer now claims that the decision is jeopardising his income as anyone can take the image and publish it for free, without having to pay him a royalty. He complained to Wikimedia [the U.S.-based non-profit that hosts Wikipedia] that that he owned the copyright of the image, but a recent transparency report from the group, which details all the removal requests it has received, reveals that editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.
Slater is attempting to take the matter to court — at a likely cost of more than $15,000. Slater believes the copyright should be his, since he made possible all of the conditions for the photograph. But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright, or that the image should be in the public domain.
[/I]
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384855/proprietary-primate-wikipedia-says-monkey-owns-copyright-selfie-ian-tuttle[/url]
38.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23063]Here's another misunderstood concept: Animal property rights. Not sure if a photo is really intellectual property...[/QUOTE]
It is. The problem here is that National Review, like just about everyone else who has reported on the story got this part wrong:
[QUOTE]But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright...[/QUOTE]
In fact Wikimedia's contention is that NOBODY holds the copyright, because non-humans cannot legally own anything. But the story is no less funny for it. :grin:
EDIT: Just as a technical aside, in the U.S. a copyright is not actually "property". It is a government granted time-limited monopoly on the use of a creative work product, and so is not actually "owned" by anyone. So while Slater certainly does own the photo in his camera (and/or his PC or any other device he owns and that stores the digital data comprising the "photo"), he would not "own" any copyright on it even if one existed.
It is. The problem here is that National Review, like just about everyone else who has reported on the story got this part wrong:
[QUOTE]But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright...[/QUOTE]
In fact Wikimedia's contention is that NOBODY holds the copyright, because non-humans cannot legally own anything. But the story is no less funny for it. :grin:
EDIT: Just as a technical aside, in the U.S. a copyright is not actually "property". It is a government granted time-limited monopoly on the use of a creative work product, and so is not actually "owned" by anyone. So while Slater certainly does own the photo in his camera (and/or his PC or any other device he owns and that stores the digital data comprising the "photo"), he would not "own" any copyright on it even if one existed.
39.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Well, to be fair, this is what NR reported: "But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright, [B]or that the image should be in the public domain."[/B]
Emphasis mine, the idea being that someone at Wikimedia thinks there is no copyright to be owned by any person or thing. NR hasn't claimed that monkey copyright is Wiki's only position.
Do we know for a fact that no one at Wiki has fought for retention of the copyright for the monkey?
Also, I have seen definitions of intellectual property that define it as "intangible" (i.e., ideas. etc.) and other broader definitions that include "works of creativity" which some then extend to the tangible thing itself (the photo, the painting, etc.). I'll let the lawyers sort it out.
I tend to refer to the intangible when I talk about intellectual property, allowing that you then go ahead and get a copyright for the tangible thing that results from the creativity. You don't copyright ideas or methods, which lends at least a little support to the idea that the photo itself, which you COULD copyright, is NOT intellectual property.
Emphasis mine, the idea being that someone at Wikimedia thinks there is no copyright to be owned by any person or thing. NR hasn't claimed that monkey copyright is Wiki's only position.
Do we know for a fact that no one at Wiki has fought for retention of the copyright for the monkey?
Also, I have seen definitions of intellectual property that define it as "intangible" (i.e., ideas. etc.) and other broader definitions that include "works of creativity" which some then extend to the tangible thing itself (the photo, the painting, etc.). I'll let the lawyers sort it out.
I tend to refer to the intangible when I talk about intellectual property, allowing that you then go ahead and get a copyright for the tangible thing that results from the creativity. You don't copyright ideas or methods, which lends at least a little support to the idea that the photo itself, which you COULD copyright, is NOT intellectual property.
40.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
I think he's just pissed cause the monkey's a pretty good photographer.
All that money spent on photography school - right down the crapper.
All that money spent on photography school - right down the crapper.
41.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23061]Proof of the old bromide that sometimes less is actually more.[/QUOTE]
If someone eats their beanless chili they may just need some bromide. :grin:
If someone eats their beanless chili they may just need some bromide. :grin:
42.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23066]Well, to be fair, this is what NR reported: "But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright, [B]or that the image should be in the public domain."[/B]
Emphasis mine, the idea being that someone at Wikimedia thinks there is no copyright to be owned by any person or thing. NR hasn't claimed that monkey copyright is Wiki's only position.
Do we know for a fact that no one at Wiki has fought for retention of the copyright for the monkey?[/quote]
Yes: [URL="http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardhjames/wikipedia-claims-a-monkey-owns-the-copyright-to-this-picture"]No, Wikipedia Doesn’t Think A Monkey Owns The Copyright On This Selfie[/URL]
Also: [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/06/just-another-monkey-copyright-story/"]The Volokh Conspiracy: Just another monkey-copyright story[/URL]
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23066]Also, I have seen definitions of intellectual property that define it as "intangible" (i.e., ideas. etc.) and other broader definitions that include "works of creativity" which some then extend to the tangible thing itself (the photo, the painting, etc.). I'll let the lawyers sort it out.[/quote]
That was my approach as well. Fortunately the intellectual property lawyers and professors at the VC (which is where I've been following this case) have it pretty well sorted out.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23066]I tend to refer to the intangible when I talk about intellectual property, allowing that you then go ahead and get a copyright for the tangible thing that results from the creativity. You don't copyright ideas or methods, which lends at least a little support to the idea that the photo itself, which you COULD copyright, is NOT intellectual property.[/QUOTE]
But that's not quite correct. A copyright does not apply to a tangible instance of intellectual property per se (like a book, for instance), but is rather the legal right to reproduce, distribute, perform etc some intangible idea/method. So in fact ideas/methods are [I]exactly[/I] what it is that you hold a copyright on. For instance, if I write a piece of software (at home, not at work) I hold a copyright on the source code. Not the patterns of magnetic particles on my hard drive that stores an ASCII encoded representation of that code, nor any paper printouts of it....but rather the intangible concept of that particular set of abstract compiler instructions.
Emphasis mine, the idea being that someone at Wikimedia thinks there is no copyright to be owned by any person or thing. NR hasn't claimed that monkey copyright is Wiki's only position.
Do we know for a fact that no one at Wiki has fought for retention of the copyright for the monkey?[/quote]
Yes: [URL="http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardhjames/wikipedia-claims-a-monkey-owns-the-copyright-to-this-picture"]No, Wikipedia Doesn’t Think A Monkey Owns The Copyright On This Selfie[/URL]
Also: [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/06/just-another-monkey-copyright-story/"]The Volokh Conspiracy: Just another monkey-copyright story[/URL]
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23066]Also, I have seen definitions of intellectual property that define it as "intangible" (i.e., ideas. etc.) and other broader definitions that include "works of creativity" which some then extend to the tangible thing itself (the photo, the painting, etc.). I'll let the lawyers sort it out.[/quote]
That was my approach as well. Fortunately the intellectual property lawyers and professors at the VC (which is where I've been following this case) have it pretty well sorted out.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23066]I tend to refer to the intangible when I talk about intellectual property, allowing that you then go ahead and get a copyright for the tangible thing that results from the creativity. You don't copyright ideas or methods, which lends at least a little support to the idea that the photo itself, which you COULD copyright, is NOT intellectual property.[/QUOTE]
But that's not quite correct. A copyright does not apply to a tangible instance of intellectual property per se (like a book, for instance), but is rather the legal right to reproduce, distribute, perform etc some intangible idea/method. So in fact ideas/methods are [I]exactly[/I] what it is that you hold a copyright on. For instance, if I write a piece of software (at home, not at work) I hold a copyright on the source code. Not the patterns of magnetic particles on my hard drive that stores an ASCII encoded representation of that code, nor any paper printouts of it....but rather the intangible concept of that particular set of abstract compiler instructions.
43.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Thanks for the clarification on the false notion that Wiki had claimed monkey copyright.
I would be interested in any links you have distinguishing intangibles vs. work product relating to copyright. It has been my experience that when you are asked to distinguish between intellectual property and "other"--- on a state-certification exam, as a point of business accounting/valuation, or in similar circumstances--- there is a clear line painted between what is "intellectual property" and what is tangible or copyrighted/copyrightable property.
The patent office quite clearly tells you that you are NOT copyrighting ideas, methods, etc.
Otherwise, I take your point.
I would be interested in any links you have distinguishing intangibles vs. work product relating to copyright. It has been my experience that when you are asked to distinguish between intellectual property and "other"--- on a state-certification exam, as a point of business accounting/valuation, or in similar circumstances--- there is a clear line painted between what is "intellectual property" and what is tangible or copyrighted/copyrightable property.
The patent office quite clearly tells you that you are NOT copyrighting ideas, methods, etc.
Otherwise, I take your point.
44.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23070]Thanks for the clarification on the false notion that Wiki had claimed monkey copyright.
I would be interested in any links you have distinguishing intangibles vs. work product relating to copyright. It has been my experience that when you are asked to distinguish between intellectual property and "other"--- on a state-certification exam, as a point of business accounting/valuation, or in similar circumstances--- there is a clear line painted between what is "intellectual property" and what is tangible or copyrighted/copyrightable property.
[B]The patent office quite clearly tells you that you are NOT copyrighting ideas, methods, etc.[/B]
Otherwise, I take your point.[/QUOTE]
The bolded statement above (emphasis added by me) might be part of the disconnect here (though I think my previous attempt at an explanation is quite guilty as well). Patents and copyrights are two entirely different animals (ditto trademarks). That said, let me make a correction to my previous in-artful explanation....
I erred in saying that a copyright protects an idea in that it is actually the [I]creative expression[/I] of an idea that is the subject of copyright protection, hence the reference to reproduction, distribution, performance etc. But that doesn't mean that the copyright has something to do with ownership of a tangible object that represents such a creative expression of an abstract idea. For instance, when you buy a book you become the owner of that tangible representation of a copyrighted expression of an idea, but the author (or publisher) still retains the copyright associated with the work that the book contains...so clearly it is not the tangible object that is copyrighted. What the author/publisher possesses (but not "owns") is the legal right to publish that book, or read it aloud to a paid audience, or....well, you get the idea.
I would be interested in any links you have distinguishing intangibles vs. work product relating to copyright. It has been my experience that when you are asked to distinguish between intellectual property and "other"--- on a state-certification exam, as a point of business accounting/valuation, or in similar circumstances--- there is a clear line painted between what is "intellectual property" and what is tangible or copyrighted/copyrightable property.
[B]The patent office quite clearly tells you that you are NOT copyrighting ideas, methods, etc.[/B]
Otherwise, I take your point.[/QUOTE]
The bolded statement above (emphasis added by me) might be part of the disconnect here (though I think my previous attempt at an explanation is quite guilty as well). Patents and copyrights are two entirely different animals (ditto trademarks). That said, let me make a correction to my previous in-artful explanation....
I erred in saying that a copyright protects an idea in that it is actually the [I]creative expression[/I] of an idea that is the subject of copyright protection, hence the reference to reproduction, distribution, performance etc. But that doesn't mean that the copyright has something to do with ownership of a tangible object that represents such a creative expression of an abstract idea. For instance, when you buy a book you become the owner of that tangible representation of a copyrighted expression of an idea, but the author (or publisher) still retains the copyright associated with the work that the book contains...so clearly it is not the tangible object that is copyrighted. What the author/publisher possesses (but not "owns") is the legal right to publish that book, or read it aloud to a paid audience, or....well, you get the idea.
45.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23071]Patents and copyrights are two entirely different animals (ditto trademarks). [/QUOTE]
Sorry. I [B]meant[/B] copyright office.
The copyright office will tell you you're not copyrighting ideas, methods, etc.
I'm reading the rest of your post now.
Sorry. I [B]meant[/B] copyright office.
The copyright office will tell you you're not copyrighting ideas, methods, etc.
I'm reading the rest of your post now.
46.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Okay. Folllowing you on your post though I read it quickly.
Here's my bottom-line contention:
Intellectual property--the way I tend to/have to/am required to think about it in my work--is ideas, methods, processes and "creativity" (ie., intangible). The PRODUCT of those ideas (the book, article, movie, software, [B]photograph[/B], etc.) is NOT intellectual property, but a different class of property, a tangible asset which can be valued and copyrighted.
I can see how some things--and a software program is a GREAT example, especially because of how I, a layman, think about software programs-- might loosely be termed intellectual property. However, the tangibles of the software program (such as they are) are not intellectual property. The thinking and creativity and process of developing the program IS.
My writing is not [B]intellectual property[/B]...My ideas are. Once the [B]work product[/B] coming from those [B]ideas[/B] goes to paper, we leave the realm of intellectual property, and my work product (not my ideas or any "intellectual property") becomes copyrightable. Same thing holds if I take a photograph. The photo itself is not intellectual property.
This is all a little like the difference between cement and concrete. :-)
Throwing that out as bait for Luv2, not necessarily because it is a good analogy.:wink
Here's my bottom-line contention:
Intellectual property--the way I tend to/have to/am required to think about it in my work--is ideas, methods, processes and "creativity" (ie., intangible). The PRODUCT of those ideas (the book, article, movie, software, [B]photograph[/B], etc.) is NOT intellectual property, but a different class of property, a tangible asset which can be valued and copyrighted.
I can see how some things--and a software program is a GREAT example, especially because of how I, a layman, think about software programs-- might loosely be termed intellectual property. However, the tangibles of the software program (such as they are) are not intellectual property. The thinking and creativity and process of developing the program IS.
My writing is not [B]intellectual property[/B]...My ideas are. Once the [B]work product[/B] coming from those [B]ideas[/B] goes to paper, we leave the realm of intellectual property, and my work product (not my ideas or any "intellectual property") becomes copyrightable. Same thing holds if I take a photograph. The photo itself is not intellectual property.
This is all a little like the difference between cement and concrete. :-)
Throwing that out as bait for Luv2, not necessarily because it is a good analogy.:wink
47.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
I don't know about anyone else, but I've had it with intellectual property and copyrights....
Tomorrow's seminar: Tort law.
Tomorrow's seminar: Tort law.
48.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]Okay. Folllowing you on your post though I read it quickly.
Here's my bottom line contention:
Intellectual property--the way I tend to/have to/am required to think about it in my work--is ideas, methods, processes and "creativity" (ie., intangible). The PRODUCT of those ideas (the book, article, movie, software, [B]photograph[/B], etc.) is NOT intellectual property, but a different class of property, a tangible asset which can be valued and copyrighted.[/quote]
I think a lot of this might be an issue of semantics. If by "book, article, movie, software, [B]photograph[/B], etc." you mean "abstract representation of creative expression"....the we're in agreement here. But if you mean the physical instances of those representations (a physical book, reel of film, CD-ROM, 8x10" color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one is, etc) then, no.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]I can see how some things--and a software program is a GREAT example, especially because of how I, a layman, think about software programs-- might loosely be termed intellectual property.[/quote]
Not loosely at all. Computer software...both its source code and the resulting object code (if any)...is very solidly "intellectual property" in the eyes of the law. Trust me, I've been in the software development biz for a long time, and this is something that we deal with on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]However, the tangibles of the software program (such as they are) are not intellectual property. The thinking and creativity and process of developing the program IS.[/quote]
Quite the opposite. It is the result of those mental processes...their "expression"...that constitutes intellectual property. If what you are saying were the case you could publish a book, piece of software...whatever...that is exactly identical to another work previously published by someone else and then simply claim that you arrived at the same work product via different processes, thus resulting in a new and distinct set of intellectual property rights.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]My writing is not [B]intellectual property[/B]...My ideas are. Once the [B]work product[/B] coming from those [B]ideas[/B] goes to paper, we leave the realm of intellectual property, and my work product (not my ideas or any "intellectual property") becomes copyrightable.[/quote]
Half right. It's correct that your ideas must be expressed ("go to paper", or to hard disk, or...) before they may be copyrighted, but it is at that point that they also become intellectual property. Intellectual property is precisely what is subject to copyright protection, which is why you can't copyright an unexpressed idea that remains locked up inside your own skull. [URL="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intellectual+Property"]Legal Dictionary: "Intellectual Property"[/URL]
EDIT: OK, even "become intellectual property" isn't really accurate. More correctly stated, expressions of ideas in the form of creative work product become subject to legal protection via intellectual property rights.
Here's my bottom line contention:
Intellectual property--the way I tend to/have to/am required to think about it in my work--is ideas, methods, processes and "creativity" (ie., intangible). The PRODUCT of those ideas (the book, article, movie, software, [B]photograph[/B], etc.) is NOT intellectual property, but a different class of property, a tangible asset which can be valued and copyrighted.[/quote]
I think a lot of this might be an issue of semantics. If by "book, article, movie, software, [B]photograph[/B], etc." you mean "abstract representation of creative expression"....the we're in agreement here. But if you mean the physical instances of those representations (a physical book, reel of film, CD-ROM, 8x10" color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one is, etc) then, no.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]I can see how some things--and a software program is a GREAT example, especially because of how I, a layman, think about software programs-- might loosely be termed intellectual property.[/quote]
Not loosely at all. Computer software...both its source code and the resulting object code (if any)...is very solidly "intellectual property" in the eyes of the law. Trust me, I've been in the software development biz for a long time, and this is something that we deal with on a regular basis.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]However, the tangibles of the software program (such as they are) are not intellectual property. The thinking and creativity and process of developing the program IS.[/quote]
Quite the opposite. It is the result of those mental processes...their "expression"...that constitutes intellectual property. If what you are saying were the case you could publish a book, piece of software...whatever...that is exactly identical to another work previously published by someone else and then simply claim that you arrived at the same work product via different processes, thus resulting in a new and distinct set of intellectual property rights.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23074]My writing is not [B]intellectual property[/B]...My ideas are. Once the [B]work product[/B] coming from those [B]ideas[/B] goes to paper, we leave the realm of intellectual property, and my work product (not my ideas or any "intellectual property") becomes copyrightable.[/quote]
Half right. It's correct that your ideas must be expressed ("go to paper", or to hard disk, or...) before they may be copyrighted, but it is at that point that they also become intellectual property. Intellectual property is precisely what is subject to copyright protection, which is why you can't copyright an unexpressed idea that remains locked up inside your own skull. [URL="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intellectual+Property"]Legal Dictionary: "Intellectual Property"[/URL]
EDIT: OK, even "become intellectual property" isn't really accurate. More correctly stated, expressions of ideas in the form of creative work product become subject to legal protection via intellectual property rights.
49.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23075]I don't know about anyone else, but I've had it with intellectual property and copyrights....
Tomorrow's seminar: Tort law.[/QUOTE]
You go with the tort thing. Personally, I prefer tarts.
Tomorrow's seminar: Tort law.[/QUOTE]
You go with the tort thing. Personally, I prefer tarts.
50.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
Ain't she sweet!
51.) DParker - 08/07/2014
Strumpets and bawdy wenches are also both quite acceptable.
52.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
Ginger beer.
53.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23076]I think a lot of this might be an issue of semantics.[/QUOTE]
I think so...As well as standard usage, whether required or loosely accepted.
[QUOTE=DParker;23076] Not loosely at all. Computer software...both its source code and the resulting object code (if any)...is very solidly "intellectual property" in the eyes of the law. Trust me, I've been in the software development biz for a long time, and this is something that we deal with on a regular basis. [/QUOTE]
Point well taken. Possibly the top example of where work product is hardly ever disputed as "intellectual property", in stark contrast to work product from other fields, which is NOT technically intellectual property. The disparity is what I was alluding to when I wrote "loosely." If I were talking with a software developer, etc., and did not discuss just about everything surrounding software as "intellectual property", he and I would be on two different pages. On the other hand, if I go to speak with a photographer, writer, graphic designer or manufacturer, that type of usage is far too expansive.
[QUOTE=DParker;23076]Quite the opposite. It is the result of those mental processes...their "expression"...that constitutes intellectual property. If what you are saying were the case you could publish a book, piece of software...whatever...that is exactly identical to another work previously published by someone else and then simply claim that you arrived at the same work product via different processes, thus resulting in a new and distinct set of intellectual property rights. [/QUOTE]
Not sure we're not missing each other here. I think I may have phrased poorly, here if not elsewhere. Your rights as an originator are/can be protected by copyright, etc. You can consider the idea of the book and the copyright or other protections your intellectual property. The book itself--or the photograph--is distinct. If I said a photograph is not intellectual property, I would be correct in many if not most contexts. If I said my [I]rights[/I] to a photograph I took are not intellectual property, I would be wrong in any scenario I can think of.
Furthermore, when I say the book or photograph itself is not intellectual property, I am not saying that I have no intellectual property rights to/surrounding that book or photograph. I would receive a pretty good spanking if I did not make that technical distinction in certain contexts, though. You certainly WOULD have protection from someone writing a book that is even [I]essentially[/I] the same book as you had, while claiming he just got there by a different process. You don't even have to hypothesize about [I]exact[/I] copies. But that protection does not arise from lumping the book in or out of the "intellectual property " category.
[QUOTE=DParker;23076]Half right. It's correct that your ideas must be expressed ("go to paper", or to hard disk, or...) before they may be copyrighted, but it is at that point that they also become intellectual property. Intellectual property is precisely what is subject to copyright protection, which is why you can't copyright an unexpressed idea that remains locked up inside your own skull. [URL="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intellectual+Property"]Legal Dictionary: "Intellectual Property"[/URL]
EDIT: OK, even "become intellectual property" isn't really accurate. More correctly stated, expressions of ideas in the form of creative work product become subject to legal protection via intellectual property rights.[/QUOTE]
No, completely right, LOL. We're both saying the same thing differently, I hope, which may be what you're highlighting with your edit. As I said earlier, you can't copyright an idea, only the product of that idea. The idea is the intellectual property and available for protection. However, it cannot be copyrighted. The book or other work product [I]can[/I] be copyrighted, which puts the book and the idea in two distinct categories. I consider it more precise to refer to the idea as intellectual property, and to the book as work product which can be copyrighted, therefore bestowing intellectual property rights upon it.
Good discussion. :grin:
[COLOR="#FF0000"]I originally said that I wasn't sure that the monkey's [B]photograph[/B] was "really intellectual property." I was trying to make a joke about monkey intelligence, but I did not mean to plant a flag contending that the [B]rights to the photograph[/B] are not intellectual property. Obviously I believe that they are, and always have.
I humbly apologize to the entire forum for my imprecision, and beg forgiveness for opening this entire can of worms. :wink
[/COLOR]
[SIZE=5][COLOR="#0000CD"]Now, let's continue our seminar on tarts...:grin:
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I think so...As well as standard usage, whether required or loosely accepted.
[QUOTE=DParker;23076] Not loosely at all. Computer software...both its source code and the resulting object code (if any)...is very solidly "intellectual property" in the eyes of the law. Trust me, I've been in the software development biz for a long time, and this is something that we deal with on a regular basis. [/QUOTE]
Point well taken. Possibly the top example of where work product is hardly ever disputed as "intellectual property", in stark contrast to work product from other fields, which is NOT technically intellectual property. The disparity is what I was alluding to when I wrote "loosely." If I were talking with a software developer, etc., and did not discuss just about everything surrounding software as "intellectual property", he and I would be on two different pages. On the other hand, if I go to speak with a photographer, writer, graphic designer or manufacturer, that type of usage is far too expansive.
[QUOTE=DParker;23076]Quite the opposite. It is the result of those mental processes...their "expression"...that constitutes intellectual property. If what you are saying were the case you could publish a book, piece of software...whatever...that is exactly identical to another work previously published by someone else and then simply claim that you arrived at the same work product via different processes, thus resulting in a new and distinct set of intellectual property rights. [/QUOTE]
Not sure we're not missing each other here. I think I may have phrased poorly, here if not elsewhere. Your rights as an originator are/can be protected by copyright, etc. You can consider the idea of the book and the copyright or other protections your intellectual property. The book itself--or the photograph--is distinct. If I said a photograph is not intellectual property, I would be correct in many if not most contexts. If I said my [I]rights[/I] to a photograph I took are not intellectual property, I would be wrong in any scenario I can think of.
Furthermore, when I say the book or photograph itself is not intellectual property, I am not saying that I have no intellectual property rights to/surrounding that book or photograph. I would receive a pretty good spanking if I did not make that technical distinction in certain contexts, though. You certainly WOULD have protection from someone writing a book that is even [I]essentially[/I] the same book as you had, while claiming he just got there by a different process. You don't even have to hypothesize about [I]exact[/I] copies. But that protection does not arise from lumping the book in or out of the "intellectual property " category.
[QUOTE=DParker;23076]Half right. It's correct that your ideas must be expressed ("go to paper", or to hard disk, or...) before they may be copyrighted, but it is at that point that they also become intellectual property. Intellectual property is precisely what is subject to copyright protection, which is why you can't copyright an unexpressed idea that remains locked up inside your own skull. [URL="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intellectual+Property"]Legal Dictionary: "Intellectual Property"[/URL]
EDIT: OK, even "become intellectual property" isn't really accurate. More correctly stated, expressions of ideas in the form of creative work product become subject to legal protection via intellectual property rights.[/QUOTE]
No, completely right, LOL. We're both saying the same thing differently, I hope, which may be what you're highlighting with your edit. As I said earlier, you can't copyright an idea, only the product of that idea. The idea is the intellectual property and available for protection. However, it cannot be copyrighted. The book or other work product [I]can[/I] be copyrighted, which puts the book and the idea in two distinct categories. I consider it more precise to refer to the idea as intellectual property, and to the book as work product which can be copyrighted, therefore bestowing intellectual property rights upon it.
Good discussion. :grin:
[COLOR="#FF0000"]I originally said that I wasn't sure that the monkey's [B]photograph[/B] was "really intellectual property." I was trying to make a joke about monkey intelligence, but I did not mean to plant a flag contending that the [B]rights to the photograph[/B] are not intellectual property. Obviously I believe that they are, and always have.
I humbly apologize to the entire forum for my imprecision, and beg forgiveness for opening this entire can of worms. :wink
[/COLOR]
[SIZE=5][COLOR="#0000CD"]Now, let's continue our seminar on tarts...:grin:
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
54.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
"Tell me more about these...semantics..."
:grin:
:grin:
55.) bluecat - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23079]Strumpets and bawdy wenches are also both quite acceptable.
[/QUOTE]
They both need chest compressions. Is that clear enough?
[/QUOTE]They both need chest compressions. Is that clear enough?
56.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23082]"Tell me more about these...semantics..."
:grin:
[/QUOTE]
"Why, sointanly...Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck..."
:grin:
[/QUOTE]
"Why, sointanly...Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck..."
57.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Huh...What happened to my wench picture?...won't reload either from URL or computer...Was on here earlier from url...
:tap:
:tap:
58.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
Now sometimes I see my post has a black x, and other times it doesn't...
But in either case, my wench has disappeared. :(
Physics and chemistry conspiring against me, again?
:bang: :td:
But in either case, my wench has disappeared. :(
Physics and chemistry conspiring against me, again?
:bang: :td:
59.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23083]They both need chest compressions. Is that clear enough?[/QUOTE]
Don't you even THINK about compressing any chests. Do you know how many years it took to get them into the inflated state that we're enjoying now?
Don't you even THINK about compressing any chests. Do you know how many years it took to get them into the inflated state that we're enjoying now?
60.) DParker - 08/07/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23087]Huh...What happened to my wench picture?...won't reload either from URL or computer...Was on here earlier from url...
:tap:[/QUOTE]
The web site hosting the pic appears to be experiencing intermittent response problems, hence the now-you-see-her-now-you-don't routine.
But that doesn't mean that physics and chemistry don't still hate you. They do.
:tap:[/QUOTE]
The web site hosting the pic appears to be experiencing intermittent response problems, hence the now-you-see-her-now-you-don't routine.
But that doesn't mean that physics and chemistry don't still hate you. They do.
61.) Swamp Fox - 08/07/2014
LOL...
There she is again! I think I'm in love...
I've moved her to my computer so we'll never be apart again. Some reason, I can't load pics from there to here, though, so I am forced to keep her for myself.
There she is again! I think I'm in love...
I've moved her to my computer so we'll never be apart again. Some reason, I can't load pics from there to here, though, so I am forced to keep her for myself.
62.) DParker - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23093]LOL...
There she is again! I think I'm in love...
I've moved her to my computer so we'll never be apart again. Some reason, I can't load pics from there to here, though, so I am forced to keep her for myself.[/QUOTE]
OK, Joaquin.
There she is again! I think I'm in love...
I've moved her to my computer so we'll never be apart again. Some reason, I can't load pics from there to here, though, so I am forced to keep her for myself.[/QUOTE]
OK, Joaquin.
63.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
Creepy
64.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
LOL...I've heard about that movie. I think I read a review that said they ALMOST pulled off the concept, but not quite...
I'm too upset about a woman taking Thor's place to think a lot about it, though.
I mean, Thor's still Thor, right? He just doesn't have the hammer...
But noooo, that's not the way it's gonna work in la-la land...
I'm too upset about a woman taking Thor's place to think a lot about it, though.
I mean, Thor's still Thor, right? He just doesn't have the hammer...
But noooo, that's not the way it's gonna work in la-la land...
65.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23079]Strumpets and bawdy wenches are also both quite acceptable.
[/QUOTE]
Pale ale and ginger ale for what ails you.
[/QUOTE]Pale ale and ginger ale for what ails you.
66.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
In my mind, the St. Pauli Girl is no saint...:wink
67.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
It's not like I have anything against Viking girls with big hammers, I just think she shouldn't steal some dude's name...
68.) DParker - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23100]Pale ale and ginger ale for what ails you.[/QUOTE]
Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23102]It's not like I have anything against a Viking girl with a hammer, I just think she shouldn't steal some dude's name...[/QUOTE]
Still, you wouldn't kick her out of bed for drinking flavored vodka.
Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23102]It's not like I have anything against a Viking girl with a hammer, I just think she shouldn't steal some dude's name...[/QUOTE]
Still, you wouldn't kick her out of bed for drinking flavored vodka.
69.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23100]Pale ale and ginger ale for what ails you.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DParker;23103] Still, you wouldn't kick her out of bed for drinking flavored vodka.[/QUOTE]
:grin:
Pickled herring, I would, but I could put up with a girl drinking vodka for a while, LOL
[QUOTE=DParker;23103] Still, you wouldn't kick her out of bed for drinking flavored vodka.[/QUOTE]
:grin:
Pickled herring, I would, but I could put up with a girl drinking vodka for a while, LOL
70.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
On second thought, she probably COULD get away with the pickled herring. :wink
71.) DParker - 08/08/2014
It's all fun and games until you discover she has a hammer that's bigger than yours.
72.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
Or, really, any hammer...LOL
No, wait, that ruins my joke above.
I rather like her bouncy hammers. (You know they make no-bounce hammers, right? Unfortunately, they don't seem like they'd be as much fun as the bouncy ones.)
As an amateur gunsmith (supplies catalog reader) I realize hammer bounce can be a problem with the biggest calibers, but I believe I can live with it.
Okay, two little poems to brighten your day...Don't read any sexual innuendo into them unless you want to.
[I]This is my hammer, this is my bludgeon.
It is for pounding, or--politely--for fudgin'.
[/I]
and
[I]This is my hammer, this is my truncheon.
She likes it for nailing, or sometime for munchin'[/I].
Thank you, thank you very much. Look for my latest collection of love sonnets at bookstores everywhere.
No, wait, that ruins my joke above.
I rather like her bouncy hammers. (You know they make no-bounce hammers, right? Unfortunately, they don't seem like they'd be as much fun as the bouncy ones.)
As an amateur gunsmith (supplies catalog reader) I realize hammer bounce can be a problem with the biggest calibers, but I believe I can live with it.
Okay, two little poems to brighten your day...Don't read any sexual innuendo into them unless you want to.
[I]This is my hammer, this is my bludgeon.
It is for pounding, or--politely--for fudgin'.
[/I]
and
[I]This is my hammer, this is my truncheon.
She likes it for nailing, or sometime for munchin'[/I].
Thank you, thank you very much. Look for my latest collection of love sonnets at bookstores everywhere.
73.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
When was the last time you nailed something? :grin:
Don't answer that. Please.
Don't answer that. Please.
74.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23113]When was the last time you nailed something? :grin:
Don't answer that. Please.[/QUOTE]
It's on my to-do list...
LOL
Don't answer that. Please.[/QUOTE]
It's on my to-do list...
LOL
75.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
76.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
I keep writing poems to girls but they don't seem to like them that much... :( :wink
I thought the ladies loved poetry.
:tap:
I thought the ladies loved poetry.
:tap:
77.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
Are they actually getting the notes/poetry you've passed them through a common friend?
78.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
Write some poetry on a 100.00 bill. Works like a charm.
79.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23118]Write some poetry on a 100.00 bill. Works like a charm.[/QUOTE]
LOL...So true...Don't know why I didn't think of that.
[QUOTE=bluecat;23117]Are they actually getting the notes/poetry you've passed them through a common friend?[/QUOTE]
You mean sorta like Cyrano?
LOL...So true...Don't know why I didn't think of that.
[QUOTE=bluecat;23117]Are they actually getting the notes/poetry you've passed them through a common friend?[/QUOTE]
You mean sorta like Cyrano?
80.) DParker - 08/08/2014
This thread makes Kate Upton happy.
81.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
Here's a solution to everyone's powder shortage...Make friends with a pirate wench.
82.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
Woman like poetry about castles and rainbows and crap like that. Hanging stands, Lizard Man and cake...not so much.
83.) Deerminator - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23114]It's on my bucket list...
LOL[/QUOTE]
fixedthat for ya:-)
LOL[/QUOTE]
fixedthat for ya:-)
84.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23117]Are they actually getting the notes/poetry you've passed them through a common friend?[/QUOTE]
Just wait till AFTER gym class.
Just wait till AFTER gym class.
85.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
If at first you don't succeed drop back 10 yards and consider a haiku or a sonnet.
86.) DParker - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23128]If at first you don't succeed drop back 10 yards and consider [B]a haiku[/B] or a sonnet.[/QUOTE]
I thought you'd never say that.
[INDENT][I]Can you help me, Miss?
What does this smell like to you?
Ha! It's chloroform.[/I]
[I]Yes ma'am, hop on in.
So, you can't unlock your door?
Gee, how about that.[/I]
[I]I know what to do.
I'll win her heart by cooking.
Damn! Burned roux again.[/I]
[I]I need a woman.
Piggly Wiggly, here I come.
Oh look, shrimp on sale.[/I][/INDENT]
I thought you'd never say that.
[INDENT][I]Can you help me, Miss?
What does this smell like to you?
Ha! It's chloroform.[/I]
[I]Yes ma'am, hop on in.
So, you can't unlock your door?
Gee, how about that.[/I]
[I]I know what to do.
I'll win her heart by cooking.
Damn! Burned roux again.[/I]
[I]I need a woman.
Piggly Wiggly, here I come.
Oh look, shrimp on sale.[/I][/INDENT]
87.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
:laugh::applause::laugh:
You know how I feel about haiku...but a sonnet's a lot of work, LOL.
You know how I feel about haiku...but a sonnet's a lot of work, LOL.
88.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
:grin:
89.) DParker - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;23135]You know how I feel about haiku...but a sonnet's a lot of work, LOL.[/QUOTE]
Nah. You've just got to wait for the muse to move you.
[INDENT][I]Shall I compare thee to a hunting day?
Thou art more lovely and full of game.
Rough winds do divert the arrow's path,
And my lease hath all too short a date.[/I][/INDENT]
You get the idea.
Nah. You've just got to wait for the muse to move you.
[INDENT][I]Shall I compare thee to a hunting day?
Thou art more lovely and full of game.
Rough winds do divert the arrow's path,
And my lease hath all too short a date.[/I][/INDENT]
You get the idea.
90.) bluecat - 08/08/2014
Oh'est thou fair Teeter Wench
Your bosoms are heaving like blossoms in the wind
Dinest thou with me on burned roux and nectar of the sweet tea?
But alas, I must hang thee royal stands till dawn breaketh.
Your Bronco awaits
Your bosoms are heaving like blossoms in the wind
Dinest thou with me on burned roux and nectar of the sweet tea?
But alas, I must hang thee royal stands till dawn breaketh.
Your Bronco awaits
91.) DParker - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=bluecat;23141]Oh'est thou fair Teeter Wench
Your bosoms are heaving like blossoms in the wind
Dinest thou with me on burned roux and nectar of the sweet tea?
But alas, I must hang thee royal stands till dawn breaketh.
Your Bronco awaits[/QUOTE]
That's good. I think I'm a little turned on.
Your bosoms are heaving like blossoms in the wind
Dinest thou with me on burned roux and nectar of the sweet tea?
But alas, I must hang thee royal stands till dawn breaketh.
Your Bronco awaits[/QUOTE]
That's good. I think I'm a little turned on.
92.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
LMAO...:grin:
Oh, sure, if y'all are gonna call those sonnets...:-)
(But I have to admit they are most excellent...:tu:)
[url]http://www.sonnets.org/basicforms.htm[/url]
Much better than haiku...Though I have to admit y'all's haiku efforts are growing on me. :pop:
Oh, sure, if y'all are gonna call those sonnets...:-)
(But I have to admit they are most excellent...:tu:)
[url]http://www.sonnets.org/basicforms.htm[/url]
Much better than haiku...Though I have to admit y'all's haiku efforts are growing on me. :pop:
93.) DParker - 08/08/2014
Mine was lifted (with some word substitution) directly from the first 4 lines of Shakespeare's famous Sonnet 18. Are you dissing my homie Willy?
94.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=Deerminator;23123]fixedthat for ya:-)[/QUOTE]
Also wanted to give props to this post, before I forgot.
Touche, sir! Touche!
:-)
Also wanted to give props to this post, before I forgot.
Touche, sir! Touche!
:-)
95.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
Oh, I recognized it...Spent many hours pouring over Shakespeare back in the day.
Good times, good times! :-) :-)
:tu:
Good times, good times! :-) :-)
:tu:
96.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23145]Mine was lifted (with some word substitution) directly from the first 4 lines of Shakespeare's famous Sonnet 18. Are you dissing my homie Willy?[/QUOTE]
Oh, I recognized it...Spent many hours pouring over Shakespeare back in the day.
Good times, good times! :-)
:tu:
Oh, I recognized it...Spent many hours pouring over Shakespeare back in the day.
Good times, good times! :-)
:tu:
97.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;23145]Mine was lifted (with some word substitution) directly from the first 4 lines of Shakespeare's famous Sonnet 18. Are you dissing my homie Willy?[/QUOTE]
Well a friend of mine named Will Shakespeare wrote that sonnet
And he told me it was the perfect English sonnet.
I wrote him back a letter and I told him it was not the
Perfect English sonnet because he hadn't said
Anything at all about momma, or trains, or trucks, or prison, or gettin' drunk.
Well a friend of mine named Will Shakespeare wrote that sonnet
And he told me it was the perfect English sonnet.
I wrote him back a letter and I told him it was not the
Perfect English sonnet because he hadn't said
Anything at all about momma, or trains, or trucks, or prison, or gettin' drunk.
98.) Wild Bob - 08/08/2014
Playing into the poetry angle, this is one of my favorites; it is an oldie but goodie and Baxter Black never fails to deliver. The topic also seems apropos for a hunting site...enjoy:
99.) DParker - 08/08/2014
[QUOTE=Wild Bob;23151]Playing into the poetry angle, this is one of my favorites; it is an oldie but goodie and Baxter Black never fails to deliver. The topic also seems apropos for a hunting site...enjoy:
[/QUOTE]
LOL! I remember that one! OK, if we're going that route I'm going to pull out all the stops and go full Gibson, with a lead-in homage by John Wayne...
[video=youtube_share;gWyAN2ZVERk]http://youtu.be/gWyAN2ZVERk[/video]
[/QUOTE]
LOL! I remember that one! OK, if we're going that route I'm going to pull out all the stops and go full Gibson, with a lead-in homage by John Wayne...
[video=youtube_share;gWyAN2ZVERk]http://youtu.be/gWyAN2ZVERk[/video]
100.) Swamp Fox - 08/08/2014
I remember seeing Baxter Black but I don't go back far enough for Gibson, LOL...
Thanks Wild Bob!--Awesome pick!
This has always been one of my favorite bits of cowboy poetry. I was/am a big Jerry Jeff Walker fan, and this was a nice surprise on [I]A Man Must Carry On[/I]:
[I]Luckenbach Moon[/I], by and with Hondo Crouch
Thanks Wild Bob!--Awesome pick!
This has always been one of my favorite bits of cowboy poetry. I was/am a big Jerry Jeff Walker fan, and this was a nice surprise on [I]A Man Must Carry On[/I]:
[I]Luckenbach Moon[/I], by and with Hondo Crouch