04-25-2007, 06:09 PM
ok, so i have this english assignment where I have to pick a song, which has an extended metaphor, (a metaphor which goes on throughout the whole poem/song). Then you must describe what the metaphor symbolizes.
04-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Do something by Bob Dylan. Or Bruce Springsteen.
04-25-2007, 06:40 PM
ya, i was definitely thinkin somethin bob dylan
04-25-2007, 06:44 PM
That would be the easiest route.
04-25-2007, 07:26 PM
If pirates should be punished, how about Du Pont, the robber?
Could you (intellectual property proprietors in U.S.A.) avoid shouldering loss for hoodlum Du Pont’s shameful behaviors for profit?
(If you log on www.google.com, copy and paste the 8-Chinese character full name of Du Pont “美国杜邦化学公司”, you could see more than 10 published English or/and Chinese open letters by me on more than 10 pages from the first one.)
All intellectual property proprietors in U.S., how are you?
Your government sued Chinese government for “not doing its best to fight against piracy” to WTO on April 9, 2007. Chinese government publicly reiterated its resolution to strictly crash piracy, and compensated related companies in your country with several billions USD for their loss. As a result, enterprises involved in piracy were devastatingly struck, but related company in your country still thought Chinese government was not in its best to crash piracy. If now your government still fails to convince or force Du Pont to fulfill its obligations in Agreement 1995, world public may have a series of doubt and concern below. Since Du Pont could 100% publicly possessed by power (exclusive possession) Mr. Huang’s patent technology of effective and nontoxic agricultural pesticide, why venders in other countries were accused of violation of law for just selling some piratical disks, which is far from 100% publicly possessing by power the right of production and sales of the disks worldwide? Why could Du Pont distain and trample the law, but venders have to observe all laws? Why must laws be strictly enforced by other country’s government? Although other country’s government has the intention to strictly enforce the laws and take relevant actions, since Du Pont’s behaviors-publicly possession of Mr. Huang’s patent by force, refusing to fulfill its commitments in Agreement 1995 to pay patent fee and license fee to Mr. Huang for many years, slandering China “a raffish country”, and Mr. Huang “a rascal”, writing letter to threaten and intimidate Mr. Huang and bringing false charge against him before Chinese police-did not deserve what they should have, with the feeling of unfairness and negative mentality caused in the public worldwide, would that take the effect of “strictly enforcing the laws” as expected? Whether it would instigate a minority of people to breach your intellectual property as revenge? Whether it will lead to a vicious circle of competitively violating the others’ intellectual property? If these doubt and concerns unfortunately come true, would it be an absurd situation in which other intellectual property proprietors in your country should shoulder the loss for Du Pont’s unashamed violation of agreement? Then why should trade intellectual property proprietors’ legal benefits for illegal benefits of Du Pont and its accomplice? Why? Is it necessary?
Implementation of a law, regulation or agreement should rely on not only compulsory measures adopted by government, but also, or more important, on conscious abidance of related parties worldwide. To achieve that goal, related law-executing departments must bear “all are equal before the law” in mind during execution process, but must not ignore open and brutal trample of laws, regulations and agreements of one certain member, who is with great power or has special interest relations with the executor. Otherwise, any agreement between governments will become blank before public without any sanction.
Disputes between Mr. Huang and Du Pont comprise of adequate fact evidence and clear legal relations (rights and obligations), namely Du Pont has been fully entitled to the rights regulated in Agreement 1995, now simply carrying out the corresponding obligations will solve all problems. What we are waiting for now is just forced fulfillment of Du Pont of obligations in Agreement 1995 by law-executing departments in your country.
Universal Agent: SXF 2007-04-15
（如果您上www.google.com网站搜索，复制“美国杜邦化学公司” 八 个汉字的全名粘贴在“搜索框”中，就可在从第1网页开始的10多个网页内搜索到我已经发表过的10多封英文 或/及中文公开信。）
贵国政府已在2007年4月9日以中国政府“打击盗版不力”为由向WTO提起了诉讼。中国政府严厉打击盗版 是多次向全世界公开过的，并已依法向贵国有关公司赔偿了数以十亿美元计的损失，使有盗版活动的企业受到了毁 灭性的打击，只是贵国有关公司还认为“打击盗版不力”而已（“打击盗版不力”，《参改消息》
2007.04.11.P8援引美联社华盛顿4月10日电）。如果现在贵国政府还不能说服或强制美国杜邦化 学公司履行它在《1995年协议》中所承诺的义务的话，全世界许多公众可能会产生下述一系列疑问和忧虑。既 然杜邦可以公开地100%（“独占性”）地强占黄先生的高效、无毒农业虫剂专利技术，为什么别国的小商贩卖 几张盗版光盘（远远不是公开地100%地强占了那些光盘在全世界的生产、销售权）就违法呢？为什么杜邦可以 蔑视践踏法律，那些小商贩就必须“有法必依”呢？别国政府就必须“执法必严”呢？即使别国政府有“执法必严 ”的意愿并采取了“执法必严”的行动，但是由于杜邦公开强占黄先生的专利、多年来一直拒绝按照它在《199 5年协议》中的承诺向黄先生支付专利费和许可证费并且反而坚持诬蔑中国（P.R.China）是一个下贱的 无赖国家、黄先生是一个下贱的无赖份子、写信对黄先生进行威胁-恫吓、到中国公安机关对黄先生进行诬告陷害，得不到应有的处理，因此在全世界公众中产生受不平等待遇的感觉 和逆反心理，能取得“执法必严”的效果吗？是否甚至反而会激发极少数人报复性地侵犯贵国的知识产权呢？这样 是否会造成一种相互竞赛性地侵犯对方知识产权的恶性循环呢？如果这些疑问与忧虑不幸成为现实的话，那不就成 了一种杜邦无耻违约获利而贵国其他知识产权所有者为杜邦的无耻违约获利行为承担损失的荒谬局面吗？那为什么 要用你们这些知识产权所有者的合法利益来换取杜邦及其合谋者的非法利益呢？为什么?有此必要吗 ？
一个法律、法规、协议的执行，除了依靠政府的强制措施外，还必须、甚至更重要的是全世界相关成员的自觉遵守 ；而要全世界相关成员自觉遵守，相关执法部门在执法时就必做到“在法律面前，人人平等”，而不能因为某一成 员势力较大或执法者与这一成员有某种特殊利益关系就对它公开地、粗暴地践踏法律、法规、协议的行为不给予处 理 ，由他任意公开地、粗暴地践踏法律、法规、协议，否则任何政府间的协议在公众面都很可能仅仅就 是一纸空文 ，对公众没有任何约束力。
黄先生与杜邦之间的纠纷,事实证据充分，法律（权利和义务）关系明确，即杜邦已经完全享受了《1995年协 议》中规定的权利，只要履行《1995年协议》中规定的义务就一切问题都解决了。现在只等待贵国执法部门强 制杜邦履行《1995年协议》中规定的义务。
04-25-2007, 07:42 PM
There's some song about chess that's supposed to be a metaphor about life by REO Speedwagon or some 80's band; Howard Stern plays it all the time but I don't remember the name of it.