Reason and Force

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's Marko's original work in March of 2007:

why the gun is civilization. the munchkin wrangler.

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's Marko lamenting the fact that Uncle Ted is ripping him off while Uncle Ted is complaining about being ripped off:

fame, obscurity, and intellectual property. the munchkin wrangler.

[rmcrob]

Wow. Bigger deal than I thought. I apologize for not knowing all the circumstances when I posted this thing back in February.

Marko has written a piece that resonates with me and, apparently, with many others as well.

[Kirk Freeman]

Randy, you are not alone and that is the problem.

The thorny dilemma for our aspiring sci fi writer is that he must sue to enforce his rights or the courts will deem him to have slept on his rights. Sue now, or forever hold your peace.

So, his options are : sue people he would rather no vs. screw his family out of a solid roof and warm food.

[rmcrob]

I agree, Kirk. The problem seems to like with someone who styles himself as Major Caudill.

I wonder if you have seen anything that points to who this person might be. I don't think that Front Sight or Ted Nugent are at fault, though they seem to not have responded in way that shows great integrity.

[RogerB]

I think the phrase I've heard in some movies sums it up pretty well...

"God made all men, S&W made them equal"

[cce1302]

Well, there are three Major Caudills, USMC; two are retired, one is in the reserves. My guess is that someone of unknown identity took the essay, and started fowarding it around without attribution, and for some reason when a Major Caudill forwarded it, someone thought that he was the author and continued to forward it with his name on the bottom.
Either that, or someone made up the name of Maj Caudill, USMC to add legitimacy to the essay. Are you more inclined to put stock in an essay written by some nobody on the internet, or someone with a title and agency by his name?

[Kirk Freeman]

Either that, or someone made up the name of Maj Caudill, USMC to add legitimacy to the essay. Are you more inclined to put stock in an essay written by some nobody on the internet, or someone with a title and agency by his name?

It's a well-known rule that you have to be O-4 or higher to be believed on the Internet.

What gravitas does Zug Feldwebel carry? Very little at most.

"Hey, Jasper, read these here squiggly lines that forms them letters."

"Cledus, that boy makes common horse since."

"Goooolly, Jasper, it's done been written by a zook feltwaybal. What's that?"

'I don't know but he ain't from around here."

[JosephR]

Reason and Force are not the only two ways to get things done nor does everything boil down to one or the other.

You are looking at people as animals without any conscious thought. Think of free will. Take me for instance, I may let you into my lane of traffic because I want to, without any reason or force needing to be applied. I may invite you over for dinner; I may do many things you even WANT me to without being told to (using reason) or force.

My girlfriend and I do things without having to resort to reason or force.

You forget, people have a mutual reason for co-existing which precedes this need for reason or force.

What the author says MAY make perfect sense, it does not apply to 70% of situations and isn't true for everything.

[jsgolfman]

I think you are creating dissonance where there is none.
When using free will you are making a decision to either use force or not to accomplish a goal. If you let me into your lane of traffic it is because you have reasoned that is the proper course (opposed to forcing me off the road or me forcing you off the road). Likewise, unless you are forcing me to come to your house for dinner, you have reasoned with me by providing an enticing offer for me to come to your house.
People may have a mutual reason for co-existing, but the manner by which they achieve this goal is determined by the application of either force or reason/coercion/persuasion.
If someone performs some act without interaction with another person, that's not germaine to the authors' premise. Although I could argue that it still holds if said action affects another person directly, even minus the knowledge of the first person.