Jump to content
Legba3

ATTENTION all weave inventors

Recommended Posts

Long Canyon are selling weaves and weave tutorials without giving credit/ royalties or asking permission. Some people are credited others are not.

I suggest anyone who has invented a weave go look closely at their site, if you find your weave check that you have been given credit. If you find your weave tutorial for sale there, you are entitled to royalties (anywhere between 20% - 50%) plus they need your permission.

All weave inventors still own the weave even if they have posted it for free here or elsewhere.

I have already sent an email to Long Canyon concerning my weaves.

http://www.longcanyon.com/Default.htm

Not only this but they say in their FQA:

"Can I teach someone else to make jewelry with your directions?

No, not unless they purchase their own copy of the directions from my web site."

So they think it's OK to give no credit and sell the tutorials without permission but if you buy the tut you are not allowed to teach someone else!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's low...

And yes, Legba is correct about the permission and royalties. Given the informal nature of the chainmaille community, recorded proof of invention via the M.A.I.L. database is sufficient to push ownership. Unless the company owner can prove that he/she created these weaves before anyone else, they are liable for some bad times.

While their instructions are their own property (unless also taken from elsewhere), they must at least make all efforts to give credit to the original creator. Even in cases of co-creation, this must remain true. Thefore, the statement made saying that no one else can be taught the weave with those directions without buying a copy themself is acceptable. Granted, the likelyhood of _anyone_ printing out the directions and then telling their friends they cannot borrow it is nill.

I would suggest anyone talking to the owner about his/her weaves insist that links must be given to free tutorials that are correctly cited and available to the public. It is an appropriate recourse for the web creator being, at the minimum, extremely careless with their research before setting up that site.

Otherwise... they have quite the collection. The recommended ring sizes for weaves (only the metric is up) is very complete. I hope the owner just made a mistake and is cooperative with fixing the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you buy a physical copy of something, its yours. You can sale it, give it away, loan it to a friend, or throw it on the floor and stomp on it. As long as you are not copying the material you are not violating copyright.

(You own the physical copy, not the copyright BTY.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest anyone who has invented a weave go look closely at their site, if you find your weave check that you have been given credit. If you find your weave tutorial for sale there, you are entitled to royalties (anywhere between 20% - 50%) plus they need your permission.

First, you don't have to give credit for a weave.

Second, you are not entitled to royalties for your tutorial. You're entitled to much more. You are entitled to do whatever you want with your material. If you want a $10,000 royalty per instruction sold, that's up to you to ask for, and her to reject and not be able to use. It's not like she gets to insist to use your material, and all you can do is beg for a reasonable royalty.

When I first saw the comments about this on MAIL, I though "big deal", but, you're saying they're actually selling or hosting *other people's* tutorials? That's illegal.

All weave inventors still own the weave even if they have posted it for free here or elsewhere.

Wrong.

You cannot "own" the arrangement of toruses. You cannot copyright them for sure, you almost certainly can't patent them, and it would make no sense to trademark them (though you could trademark the name, but, Long Canyon renames weaves that suite them anyway).

What is copyright (and enforcably so) are tutorials written about weaves, pictures taken of weaves, text copy of weave descriptions (maybe, though it's so brief probably not), and 3D renders made by you.

Not only this but they say in their FQA:

"Can I teach someone else to make jewelry with your directions?

No, not unless they purchase their own copy of the directions from my web site."

THAT.. is absolute horseshit.

It's also five kinds of laughable. You're not allowed to teach someone else? Hahaha. Knowledge is never owned or copyrighted. The written instructions, if she wrote them, are copyrighted, but you're still allowed to show them to as many people as you'd like. It's like lending someone a magazine. If you send them duplicates (digital or printed) of the PDF, that's duplication and hence covered under their "copy"right, and forbidden.

But, to say you can't even teach someone with what you've learned, is hilarious.

And yes, Legba is correct about the permission and royalties. Given the informal nature of the chainmaille community, recorded proof of invention via the M.A.I.L. database is sufficient to push ownership. Unless the company owner can prove that he/she created these weaves before anyone else, they are liable for some bad times.

Completely and utterly wrong. Weaves are not ownable.

Unless you're referring to a country not part of the U.N., in that case, I don't know their laws.

While their instructions are their own property (unless also taken from elsewhere), they must at least make all efforts to give credit to the original creator.

Instructions are covered under copyright law, yes.

They do not need to give credit, or "make all effort to give credit" or anything of the sort, to the person who created the weave.

I'd even argue they aren't even owed this ethically. Take someone friendly to the community. Zlosk, Phong, or Dave Austin, do their websites give credit for all the weaves they talk about?

Even in cases of co-creation, this must remain true. Thefore, the statement made saying that no one else can be taught the weave with those directions without buying a copy themself is acceptable.

Err.. systematically wrong again.

Whether it's acceptable or not is a judgment call. They can ask all they want, there's no legal backing for it.

1 - In the slightly abstract sense, you can teach anything you'd like unless you've signed a non-disclosure agreement for trade secrets. This is nothing of the sort. This is knowledge you have, you're allowed to share the methods, ideas, all of it.

2 - As to whether you can teach someone else *using the directions you paid for and downloaded*, you are perfectly able to do this as well.

3 - As to duplication, that is "copying", and exactly what "copyright" covers. So, in that respect, their claim is valid, if that's what they're getting at.. that you can't go duplicating their tutorials on other websites or printing or distributing them. But, quite clearly from what they're saying, that's not how they're trying to use it. They're referring to #1 or #2 above.

Otherwise... they have quite the collection. The recommended ring sizes for weaves (only the metric is up) is very complete.

Indeed. Kinda sad that the combined forces of the community haven't been able to match such for tutorials on MAIL, and that people would actually pay for these. Actually, I think that's part of what Phong wanted done with CGmaille according to the descriptions there.. but.. no harm to either of them for it, it's just a bit sad that we can't get it done and available for free to everyone using volunteer efforts.

-----

Please be very careful before giving uninformed legal advice. That's part of what makes what Long Canyon is doing so bad and ignorant.

I'll even disclaim, I've read and debated copyright law several times (several times here), so I'm pretty familiar with it, but, I'm no lawyer either. Pretty sure I have a better grasp of it than those I'm quoting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote taken directly from M.A.I.L (bottom of the page on all submission forms).

All web content copyright 2000-2004 The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.). Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All web content copyright 2000-2004 The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.). Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission.

That's nice. It's not upholdable. I can put a note saying "the color purple is the property of me and any reproduction requires my express written permission". Just stating something doesn't make it so. Actually, mine's easier to uphold, colors have actually been successfully trademarked. If MAIL tries to enforce that the way you've interpreted it, they'll get laughed out of court. And I sit on MAIL's BOD, so, it's not like I'm biased that way.

I believe what the notice means is that the *images* of those weaves, the pictures submitted by people, and maybe their descriptions, have copyrights owned by them.

"reproduction" doesn't mean someone else making the weave, it means duplicating their images elsewhere, on another website or whatnot.

You cannot copyright ideas. You cannot copyright the arrangement of rings.

Articles, tutorials, pictures... yes.

Links? I don't know how that slipped in there. Links are not "owned". I'm not even sure how one could "steal" a link or use it in an unauthorized manner, but, whatever.

[Edited to add -

I found a better way of saying this...

To requote "The Maille Artisans International League (M.A.I.L.). Articles, Weaves, Links, and Gallery submissions are the property of the author(s), and any reproduction requires their express written permission."

Article, weave, link and gallery *submissions* are property of the authors. The entity they submit. Pictures and text are what can't be used elsewhere. The actual weaves are just a concept.

Suppose you think otherwise, and presume the law is on your side... consider the implications of this. Every time you want to use a weave, you need written permission from the creator? Every time you want to refer to the name of a weave or post a picture you took of an weave you didn't create, written permission?

This would surely be the first place I've ever heard of anyone making such a claim. Even people good friends of the community don't do this.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can not copyright ideas or techniques, You CAN copyright how those ideas and techniques are expressed. A new Weave is an expression of an idea and is there for copyrightable the same as any other physical art form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can not copyright ideas or techniques, You CAN copyright how those ideas and techniques are expressed. A new Weave is an expression of an idea and is there for copyrightable the same as any other physical art form.

That might, might, might be true. I think it's very clearly not true, but I'll allow for it to be interpreted otherwise, maybe.

But, as you've been systematically incorrect across the board on copyright issues in the past, I'm not going to consider it unless someone more experienced brings it up.

The MAIL Board of Directors beat this to death in discussions, and I think we've also gone over it here a few times. Probably with you, already.

Weaves are pretty much exactly a textbook case for what is *not* copyrightable material. I really don't want to go digging through law and old threads and quotes again. Do a search and this'll come up.

I liken weaves to recipes. Recipes are not protected under copyright law. You cannot own or control the distribution or use of a particular set of ingredients. Even the exact combinations, even the exact measurements, even the exact process, even if you invented it, even if you can prove you were the first person to do so.

What you can own is the written directions to making a recipe. The words and numbers describing the process. You can own the pictures of the finished product or any intermediate pictures. But *NOT* the actual recipe.

Anyone else can read the recipe and cook it, and not have to give you credit or pay you royalties.

I covered this in like, 10x as much detail last time, but I'm sure everyone's really sick of hearing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I teach someone else to make jewelry with your directions?

No, not unless they purchase their own copy of the directions from my web site.

This is just laughable and arrogant. Not to mention wrong. Its like saying you can't borrow a book to read.

As for the rest of it...well sad to say that its just a bookstore analogy. You can get it for free alot of places(library, friend etc)..but you can go to the bookstore and shell out for it as well. I think the only thing that can be faulted is that there is no credit given for weave origins, however I'm fairly sure thats more courtasy then legality for as rude as it is.

Not saying I like it...but welcome to life. That being said I'm noticeing a few of the weaves have been credited. Blue Buddha's and Metal Designz so far that I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Followup:

I contacted Long Canyon with a summary of the issues and received a reply.

1 - Long Canyon claims that *ALL* of the images are samples fabricated by them and photographs taken by them.

2 - Long Canyon claims that *ALL* images and text in *ALL* tutorials are written or photographed in their entirety, by them.

3 - Long Canyon says that the element in the FAQ referring to using the tutorial to teach others was referring to people making photocopies to use in a seminar or such. They said they were changing the wording on the FAQ to be less ambiguous in this manner (regarding duplication only).

4 - Long Canyon has made efforts (in my opinion, considerable efforts) to contact every person who's weave they're using, especially the original "inventor". Some have been paid, just to "use" their weave for Long Canyon to write a tutorial about. Some have said it was okay to use them for free. If anyone said they didn't want their weave on their site or tutorials made about their weave, Long Canyon did not use it. If anyone contacted them and asked them to be removed, they removed them. In some cases, they've linked back to the inventor's website.

...

1, 2, and 3 cover some of the contentious issues that might not have been true. If #1 or #2 are untrue, please someone say something. I presumed it true and Long Canyon confirms it, so, dead issue?

#4 has a lot of detail they sent me that I didn't post. In my opinion, they're not BSing. They recalled many specific cases and had specific reasons on a couple issues that some people pointed out.

Further... again, in my opinion, they don't need to do anything in this matter. They're seeking out the inventors and asking permission to host tutorials that they made themselves. They're bowing to the inventors if they say no. They're making concessions and cutting deals to convince inventors if they're hesitant.

Keeping in mind.. the inventors are doing *nothing* for Long Canyon except having invented the weave. No pictures, no text, no instructions, nadda.

So, that puts the nail in the coffin on these specific circumstances, no?

... Only, since they're volunteering to go above and beyond, that only leaves the issue of what they're *supposed to* be doing, and how MAIL is going to treat this in the future. (enh, repost from clone thread on MAIL, not so much an issue for you guys).

Everybody happy?

[Edited to add - Oh, and they're an active member both here and MAIL, and some of the weaves aren't credited because they themselves invented them.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I see, all their pictures are not taken from MAIL, they appear to be taken by them. Their toutorials, the free ones as least, are pretty decent too.

they referr to a bead and chain book for a few of them, a book I have on my shelf as it may be.

As long as they are not stealing images and the tutorials from anywhere else, they are not doing anything illegal. BUT, if they know the inventor of the weave, and they don't ask permission, that may be unethical, but not illegal.

When I do something, like a tutorial, with a weave I like, and I know who invented it, I always ask first. I have never been told no, even when it's for a magazine article. I always give credit to the inventor as well. It's just good karma to do so :-)

so, bottom line is, as long as they're not plagiarizing your works, copying word for word your tutorial, or copying your pictures, and calling them their own, they're ok with what they're doing. Even if you can find free tutorials here and on Mail...

Mike B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We Just checked it out, And NO he didn't contact everyone, on the models anyway, he is reproducing and selling kits.

He his Selling the Crystal river instructions, which was first made by us and uses the same name we gave it... WITHOUT any permission from us...

We will obviously contact him and let him know what we think of him stealing design and name of a piece.

What he is selling:

http://www.longcanyon.com/Shop_Kits/BYZ_219.htm

our piece, created and posted here a while back.

http://www.essinchains.com/our_collections/fatally_linked/crystal_river.html

BW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it funny that there are a bunch of weaves there from David Plumlee’s book, and when you click on them it takes you to a link telling you they are by Plumlee, and another link for ordering information from Plumlee’s site.

Crystal River is on the Website.. I know that's Ess and Black Widow's design.

Staggered Corduroy with Japanese Overlay was originally printed in a beading magazine – Bead Style, I think. I recognize it because that was my first attempt at chainmaille.

Empressa, if I’m not mistaken, is already for sale by the original creator. She wouldn’t allow it to be put on any website because she wanted to sell the tutorials…

Aura Weave (listed under the “Pendant” section, is obviously Legba's…

I’ve been making and handing out the Beaded boxchain tutorials for free to anyone who asked. I didn’t invent boxchain, but I decided to try putting beads inside it because my background is beading.. I was doing that before I started maille..

What they call Flat Box, is actually Flatt chain from Plumlee’s book.. just round rings instead of square rings… but they don't give him credit for that..

Egyptian Coils was also a free tutorial in Wire Art Jewelry magazine.. September issue, I think... there abouts anyway.

I’ve only been doing this about 15 months and those are just the weaves I recognize as “original”.. Those of you who have been around longer, probably recognize a lot more…

LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crystal river is not a weave, It is a design we made and the name we gave to that design.

He reproduced the bracelet and sells it under the same name... That is copyrighted infringement.

We would be less upset if at least he would give us credit for the design/name

and/or

at least had contacted us to mention he would be doing it.

Oh and Lawless lady reproduced a crystal river for someone and asked us first, just out of curtesy if we were ok with it... we said yes no prob and were happy someone was copying us.

But what he is doing is copying a piece and giving it the same name without even a heads up to us... that is shameless!

BW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynake,

I understand what your saying. I just don't agree with it. Think someone would have issues if someone were selling instructions on how to reproduce a Gucci handbag?

Kind of odd isn't it? Counterfitting is illegal, but providing instructions to someone to counterfit isn't. Making an explosive device is illegal, but providing instructions on how to make one isn't. Really odd isn't it?

Gaanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....Oh and Lawless lady reproduced a crystal river for someone and asked us first, just out of curtesy if we were ok with it... we said yes no prob and were happy someone was copying us....

BW

Actually, BW, if you go back through our emails, I asked to reproduce it for MYSELF, and you gave me permission. I would never make it and sell it to someone else, knowing that they could easily order it from your website (and it would be better than anything I could produce!) ;)

This was YOUR design. When I wear my bracelet, I get a LOT of compliments on it, but I have never claimed it as "MY" design. I give credit where credit is due.. and that's the main problem with this other person.. the only person getting any credit is Plumlee.

Why should he get credit when no one else gets it?

If we are to believe that weaves can't be copyrighted, they why does Plumlee get credit?

If weaves CAN be copyrighted, then everyone should get it.

We've had the copyright conversaton many, many times. If it's a simple basic weave that's been around for a thousand years, then no one owns it. If on the other hand, it's a design like Crystal River, that is outright theft, pure and simple.

AT THE VERY LEAST, they should have a link to your website and the same information "contact information for ordering".. the way they do for Plumlee.

Originally Posted by MichaelAmigliore viewpost.gif

Cynake, just out of curiosity. What is your legal background, and which state/province/etc. ?

He has none.. he just likes to type.. a lot.... *rolling eyes*

LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jewelry design is considered visual art by the US copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/va-examples.html

Yes, but what constitutes 'jewelry design'? When I first looked at Ess/BW's Crystal River, I immediately thought "that is just Bastardized Weave with crystals added to the large rings". But upon further examination, I found that it is not. The concept of the two is the same...but, the execution is quite different.

I have been told to avoid copyright infringement you must change the design 20%. I have no idea if this is a legitimate statement or not. Given that statement, if I were to make the Bastardized Weave and add crystals to the large rings...would I be accused of copying the beautiful Crystal River design?? And furthermore, should I give credit to both MaxumX and Ess/BW because the two look almost identical (at first glance that is)?

I normally am very quite but this subject is such a pet peeve of mine. I do believe in giving credit where credit is due...but, I believe that we can take it too far sometimes. There have been good people leave this forum because of this very thing. I don't believe that the average person sits in there living room to plot against anyone to "steal" their designs. Sometimes it is a simple mistake and not intended to hurt anyone. I sometimes hate even looking at other people's work in fear that I will (years down the road) make something that I saw and not even remember that it was someone else's.

Ess/BW - I apologize for singling you out in my rant here. Using your design wasn't intended for anything but an example. It is a beautiful piece and I agree that they should have asked for your permission.

Oh, that brings up another thing....

If you list a weave on M.A.I.L., is there some unwritten (or maybe it is written and I just don't know about it) law that you are giving permission for that weave to be made and sold by whomever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crystal river is not a weave, It is a design we made and the name we gave to that design.

He reproduced the bracelet and sells it under the same name... That is copyrighted infringement.

Indeed, it is. I wonder if they thought it was a weave. I doubt they would have actually copied the name too if they were "stealing" it. I'd bet it was a misunderstanding. There are a lot of weaves that I consider to be basically just small projects.

Just send them an email, they'll pull it. They told me they would pull anything anyone asked them to.

I understand what your saying. I just don't agree with it. Think someone would have issues if someone were selling instructions on how to reproduce a Gucci handbag?

Well, instructions on a finished item.. .. hrm. Not sure actually. Legally maybe that's okay. Ethically.. I think okay. It's illegal to act on to duplicate, so that shuts out counterfeiters (unless they're running the law), and leaves it only to people who are curious how it's made or want to make one themselves. A Gucci handbag has a logo on it, and the logo is trademarked. Use it and you're violating trademark laws. If you want to make a Gucci clone, yourself, with no logo.... go nuts?

Cynake, just out of curiosity. What is your legal background, and which state/province/etc. ?

None. Glorified armchair, almost entirely on how it pertains to maille. I've done a lot of research, read the international copyright laws (just about every country shares a common set of copyright regulations), read a ton on how they're interpreted, but, I've no case study experience if that's what you're looking for. I've consulted actual patent lawyers and the like on this specific issue.

If we can get a copyright lawyer in on this, by all means I'll cede to that authority, but, I don't think it's that sticky of an issue. The laws are quite simple and easy to understand, and are further explained in great detail in plain English on the US copyright office's website.

A bit hypocritically, the community was viciously opposed to copyright laws and people daring to protect/enforce copyright on simple projects the last time this came up, (an unliked successful stranger to the community mentioning her designs were copyright), and I was one of the only people defending them. This time, again, an unliked successful stranger to the community acts in the opposite way, and a mob forms there too. Overall I find TRL and MAIL both have a very insider-only perspective on everything and a glaring double-standard. Bugs me a bit.

Jewelry design is considered visual art by the US copyright office.

Yes, jewelry is. Very much so. You can't just clone someone's jewelry and sell it as your own. As above, the Crystal River project is certainly copyright.

But individual methods, patterns, etc, are not. You cannot copy a finished piece, but, a weave doesn't qualify. There's a ton of examples I cited last time we went through this. Crystal River is a select finished product using a technique that might not have a name... a beaded byzantine sheet I guess? That generic technique can be used by anyone, but in this case it's quite obvious the dimensions and project were copied directly (I suspect by mistake, but, I won't speak for them).

You cannot copyright Euro 4-1, as it is a way of arranging rings. But anything you *do* with Euro 4-1, is copyrighted, and others are not allowed to copy. They can make an identical piece even, and also own the copyright on it, as long as it wasn't copied.

If we are to believe that weaves can't be copyrighted, they why does Plumlee get credit?

Hrm. Fuzzy logic. What does giving someone credit have to do with copyright? He got credit because they found out and credited him. They're being pretty awesome about everything. If you want a link, just ask and tell them where your page is.

Giving credit is like saying "Thank you". There's no legal basis for it at all. If it *was* copyright, you can't just "give credit" and then it's okay. You need permission as the rights to duplication.. AKA the "copy rights" are owned by them.

If weaves CAN be copyrighted, then everyone should get it.

No, if weaves can be copyrighted, then no one's allowed to use anything without asking permission. "Giving credit" is meaningless, it doesn't excuse violating their rights. It's like raping someone and then thanking them for not resisting. But, it's moot, weaves have no copyright protection.

I don't even get a moral ground for this. How many people make things or use weaves, then sell their projects, without "giving credit"? Who gets mad at all them?

If on the other hand, it's a design like Crystal River, that is outright theft, pure and simple.

No, it's not theft. It's counterfeiting or copyright infringement. Illegal, but, the word for it is not theft.

And, I think you're wrong. Techniques and methods are not covered under copyrights. Projects are.

The result is the same, we agree Crystal River is covered under copyright, but we differ largely in the reasons. It has nothing to do with whether the weave is ancient or common or new or unique. It has to do with it being a project and not simply a technique.

Weaves so complicated and specific that they become projects on their own are a grey area I'd say. I've questioned this a bit before, in terms of what MAIL should consider a weave versus just something someone did. Is sandwiching two thin bars of Euro 4-1 on either side of a Byz chain a "weave" I just invented, or is it just a project I made?

[Edited to add, since a quote post edited to add]...

He has none.. he just likes to type.. a lot.... *rolling eyes*

Y'know, it's really not necessary to flame/mock/snear me.

Yeah, I type a lot. Excuse me for giving a crap about the way this is interpreted and taking the time to try to explain things to people and calm people down and unruffle feathers. How the community interprets this is a pretty big deal. Copyright law is something many people are ignorant on, and, like I said I'm no lawyer but I feel I'm less ignorant than those I'm trying to teach so I'm investing some time in educating them. It's not something that gets explained or settled in a sentence or two. I don't think they make popup books to explain copyright law.

The implications of this are quite severe for the future and potential of MAIL, something I'm tasked with trying to figure out, so I've put a lot of time into it. It's something I care a great deal about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynake, the problem with most of your posts is they are your OPINIONS dressed up to look like facts. You seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that the more words you throw at something, the more legitimate your OPINION is.

By the way, yes the word IS theft.. they stole the design and replicated it for their own gain. In order for it to be "counterfeit", they would have to replicate it and claim that it was an original by Ess and Black Widow.

And I don't believe I ever claimed at any time, that Crystal River is a "technique". It's an original design. For that reason alone, it's a violation of artistic copyright.

One more thing I just have to say.. you actually believe that you calm people down and smooth ruffled feathers???!!?? You can't be serious!

LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cynake, the problem with most of your posts is they are your OPINIONS dressed up to look like facts.

Fair enough. Can you pick a few examples of this and PM them to me? I try to focus and revise what I write to specifically avoid this, and throw in as many "I think"s as I can without needing to repeat it every sentence.

You seem to be working under the mistaken assumption that the more words you throw at something, the more legitimate your OPINION is.

Well you're wrong. That's not my assumption. I favor being thorough, I see it as an investment in others. I endeavor to say things in a way that they can't be misconstrued or in a way that someone has to guess at what I mean. I'm also replying to 3 or 4 people per post. It takes 1 sentence to say something "wrong", if that's the case. It takes 2 words for me to disagree with that. But it takes a lot longer to explain why. Particularly when it's a complex and commonly misunderstood subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×