- Joined
- Oct 3, 1998
- Messages
- 3,264
[The following is an update of something I wrote for an old Cal-Knives bulletin, in my pre-Internet days, concerning arguments among knifemakers that reach the intensity of religion and politics.] -
It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, though not in the dark, of course. What mammals have tongues deadlier than their teeth? . . . The others are ant eaters.
There have been some arguments here where disagreements over how knives should be made have gotten personal, seemingly with honor at stake. The old rule, "If you can't think of anything nice to say about someone, don't say it," isn't a bad rule to follow. It is also a good rule to criticize the idea or the thing, but not the person whenever possible. It is also a good idea, if one sees even harsh criticism of the sort of knife that one makes or is otherwise closely involved with, to not take it as a personal attack and respond accordingly.
This sort of thing has been the subject of much litigation, over the ages, as well as occasional duels and ambushes.
One of the wife's old law school textbooks, Cases and Materials on Torts by Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz (1976), page 1103-4, retells the following English lawsuit:
OK. Many "knife people" drink beer, but that was a bit esoteric. I didn't know when I wed that I'd have a lawyer in my bed. She tells me there is a 1985 case wherein the defendant, Polygram Records, had published a joke by Robin Williams, who, in four syllables, accused the plaintiff's wine of committing incest with its mother, an impossibility of course. The defense prevailed under the doctrine that words which a reasonable person would understand as a joke are not actionable. The plaintiffs had been upset by the possibility that their wines might become associated in the public eye with a culture where, in certain circumstances, an improbable comparison to Oedipus Rex could be a complement and not an insult. So, if you must say something that isn't nice, at least smile when you say it.
Especially when around sharp objects.
------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, though not in the dark, of course. What mammals have tongues deadlier than their teeth? . . . The others are ant eaters.
There have been some arguments here where disagreements over how knives should be made have gotten personal, seemingly with honor at stake. The old rule, "If you can't think of anything nice to say about someone, don't say it," isn't a bad rule to follow. It is also a good rule to criticize the idea or the thing, but not the person whenever possible. It is also a good idea, if one sees even harsh criticism of the sort of knife that one makes or is otherwise closely involved with, to not take it as a personal attack and respond accordingly.
This sort of thing has been the subject of much litigation, over the ages, as well as occasional duels and ambushes.
One of the wife's old law school textbooks, Cases and Materials on Torts by Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz (1976), page 1103-4, retells the following English lawsuit:
DICKES v. FENNE, King's Bench, 1639
In an Action upon the Case for Words, the words were these: The Defendant having communication with some of the Customers of the Plaintiffs, who was a Brewer, said, That he would give a peck of malt to his mare, and she should pisse as good beare as Dickes doth Brew. And that the laid ad grave damnum, &c.
Postea, for the Defendant: that the words are not actionable of themselves, and because the Plaintiffs have alleged no speciall Damage, as losse of his Custome, &c, the Action will not lie.
Rolls: That the words are actionable; and he said, that it had been adjudged here, That if one say of a Brewer, that he brews naughty Beare, without more saying, these words are actionable, without any speciall damage alleged.
But the whole Court was against him (Brooke only absent) That the words of themselves are not actionable without alledging speciall damage; as the loss of his Custome, &c. which is not here; And therefore not actionable. And Barkley said, That the words are onely comparative, and althogether impossible also. And he said, that it had been adjudged, that where one sayes of a Lawyer, That he had as much Law as a Monkey; that the words were not actionable, because he hath as much Law and more also. But if he had said, That he hath no more Law than a Monkey; those words are actionable. And so it was adjourned.
OK. Many "knife people" drink beer, but that was a bit esoteric. I didn't know when I wed that I'd have a lawyer in my bed. She tells me there is a 1985 case wherein the defendant, Polygram Records, had published a joke by Robin Williams, who, in four syllables, accused the plaintiff's wine of committing incest with its mother, an impossibility of course. The defense prevailed under the doctrine that words which a reasonable person would understand as a joke are not actionable. The plaintiffs had been upset by the possibility that their wines might become associated in the public eye with a culture where, in certain circumstances, an improbable comparison to Oedipus Rex could be a complement and not an insult. So, if you must say something that isn't nice, at least smile when you say it.
Especially when around sharp objects.
------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001