Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/22/2025 4:19 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 4/22/2025 3:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/22/2025 2:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 01:03:27 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 12:44:18 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

(...)
>

John, you really need to cite references - This is from a Emo
Phillips comedy routine in the 1980s

>
Why? Do I have to list the reference in order to post the quotation?

>
I like to see attributions and sources because I prefer to read things
as close to the source as possible.  That avoids most interpretation,
distortion, political bias, "improvements" that change the meaning,
etc.  I often lookup the source and their bias in:
<https://www.allsides.com/media-bias>
Incidentally, there are many types of bias besides political:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias>
<https://codlrc.org/evaluating/facts>
Also, fact checking.
>
To add some gasoline to the flames, I don't really care what anyone
thinks.  It's a free country and you can theoretical believe whatever
you want.  However, that doesn't extend to freely distributing (or
redistributing) fake news, distorted information, mangled quotes, etc.
Therefore, what interests me is what logic, thinking and sources were
used to arrive at someone's claims, logic or conclusions.  That means
(to me) that any 2nd hand information without sources is highly
suspect and likely to be wrong or has been adjusted to conform to
someone's agenda.  When someone posts an obvious quotation, using
UTF-8 encoded characters, and fails to provide the source of the
quotation, they are probably hiding something.  They are also not
making it any easier for the reader to research the topic or analyze
the content.
>

After all I didn't claim it for my (or any one's) invention.

>
I hate to give you the bad news, but quoting someone's creative work
and probably copyrighted work is considered plagiarism and possibly a
copyright violation.  I try to provide the sources of all my quotes.
When it's difficult or I can't remember where I found it, I usually a
like "source unknown" or "I forgot where I stole this".

>
I'm going to defend John. He told a joke. Jokes are folk humor that get passed freely from person to person. Yes, every joke must have an original author, but it's very, very rare for anyone to ever know or be able to learn of that author, so nobody ever does research to determine the earliest known author before telling a joke.

 That's  a valid point within the context of simple jokes - much like the recent 'sad seamus' joke I posted earlier. There are dozens of variants of that (different ethnicities, vocations, and beasts). However, in this case it was word-for-word from an original work by Emo Philips. Andrew noted that he's heard variants of the joke, I haven't (not that Andrew is wrong, just that I have never heard any variants of it before).

I'm with Andrew. I've heard the joke before. I couldn't tell you even now if it was "word for word" from your guy's monologue, in part because I didn't listen to the video beyond the beginning.
And are we sure Emo Philips didn't hear it elsewhere?
And before telling (or posting) a joke, how would anyone know that it was copyrighted? Would everyone be expected to research every joke they heard before retelling it? That's totally impractical.
John certainly got no monetary reward for posting it here.
Some things need to remain below the radar.
--
- Frank Krygowski