Dono-hoe-hoe-hoe?

[Serial_Apologist]

While I'm sure Peter Donohoe is an easy-going fellow, is it actually legal or lawful to put something that has been written by another person out into the world without putting it in quotes?

[Stanfordian]

Yes, you did. You said, 'you have to admit that this is funny in its own right'. It provoked a certain curiosity as to what would come next, but the extent of funniness, on a scale of 1 to 5 would probably be 0 to -5 depending on how sympathetic one was with the sentiments [Sympathetic 0, unsympathetic -5 ].

Hiya french frank,

I don't think one has to be in line with its sentiments to find it tiresome.

[ahinton]

While I'm sure Peter Donohoe is an easy-going fellow, is it actually legal or lawful to put something that has been written by another person out into the world without putting it in quotes?

That would depend on circumstance; he does at least identify the author (albeit without citing the source of the publication of the piece which I am assuming IS published) and, who knows, he might have sought and been granted said author's permission to reproduce it on his FB page.

[ahinton]

Hiya french frank,

I don't think one has to be in line with its sentiments to find it tiresome.

One could as easily describe the original as such, given its repetitive nature (and no, I don't think that this confers upon it any place on the recent Schubert thread)...

[jean]

Where are the quotation marks in your introduction, then?

Nowhere, because there isn't one! (see #14).

Yes there is - it's the bit up to the colon:

Just seen on the Facebook page of Peter Donohoe and thought that I'd like to share:

What you haven't properly explained is what moved you to 'share'.

[ahinton]

Yes there is - it's the bit up to the colon:

"What you haven't properly explained" (sorry!) is whether you are referring to the first colon or the second one but, assuming you to mean the first one, what precedes it is only an "introduction" to the extent that it is the opening phrase of the post.

What you haven't properly explained is what moved you to 'share'.

But it is a matter of opinion as to whether it would be necessary to do so, surely?

[ahinton]

Hiya french frank,

You are not wrong there!

But you're quoting me here, not french frank!

[Stanfordian]

But you're quoting me here, not french frank!

Hiya ahinton,

Apologies for the mistaken identity!

[ahinton]

Hiya ahinton,

Apologies for the mistaken identity!

No problem! It seems to have become quite prevalent in this thread, though, wouldn't you say!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No problem! It seems to have become quite prevalent in this thread, though, wouldn't you say!

I trust that my editing of the OP makes all authorship unambiguously clear. I could do nothing, alas, to make the "parody" any funnier.

[Stanfordian]

No problem! It seems to have become quite prevalent in this thread, though, wouldn't you say!

Hiya ferney,

No comprendo!

[ahinton]

I trust that my editing of the OP makes all authorship unambiguously clear.

Thank you very much for doing this. Do you think that it might make matters even clearer if Mr Donohoe's own words were unitalicised and Mr Potter's to remain italicised? Just a wee thought!

[ahinton]

Hiya ferney,

No comprendo!

Dear Mrs Trellis,

Why's that then? I would have thought that french frank's expert editing of the OP clarifies perfectly which is the potter, who dons the hoe and who drops the hints!

[BBMmk2]

Not at all funny. Tiresome at best!

Quite agree. Verging on being rude and it's political, Admin!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thank you very much for doing this. Do you think that it might make matters even clearer if Mr Donohoe's own words were unitalicised and Mr Potter's to remain italicised? Just a wee thought!

It's either all italics or none of it is, alas. But I've changed the font so Mr Potter is now Book Antiqua!