We speak of ships, but you point to the heavens saying, "Paradise"

Ref

An old man, brave soul he
With many a tale of you and me
Grumbling, waving at distant ships
Set sailing across the sea,
He spoke of ferocious sea battles;
Tears slowly trickled down his face.

To which, the mistaken crowd
Thought he was talking of death
Then reassured him saying
"You will go to heaven."

Nay, he spoke of the time
When he was a great Captain
Then promoted to an Admiral.
He missed the fighting days
Times when he was In Command
Truly having an impact on the lives
Of real men, real sailors, true warriors.

He stood up. Surveyed the land, sea, and sky.
He stood proud for all to see.
This was the nation he fought for
All he stood for made him free.

Key point

Ships are not the same as Heaven.
Nor is the sky the same as the sea.

When we point, be careful what we are pointing at.
But the audience also has the responsibility
To know what is being pointed at
And what is not.

Precision is the Hallmark of communication.

Insecurity, fear, and excessive control
Are signs of a system that is well beyond its own shores.

Trademarks protection

Does a firm lose it's trademark and appeal as a brand when it uses "the incorrect term" in its URL when referring to itself in the incorrect manner?

When a company has a logo with a distinct name, but then uses the "wrong word" to describe itself, does the company look foolish?

If a firm compels the world to use "a specific term in re the company" [even though the object of the discussion has nothing to do with the company as an entity... is that unreasonable, irresponsible and overbroad?

We leave it to history to decide, but we are persuaded that the answer is affirmative.

Companies have the right to protect their brands; and the consumer also has the right to free speech.

We can discuss "things" in a public forum; and when companies are confused, and their officers do not understand something, it is not the job of the public to assent to "those arbitrary wishes."

Rather, we can use the generic name when talking about a specific product; and we can also use the world "goat" if we want to communicate a type of four-legged creature. But do not mistake the product for the company or its employees; nor confuse the "four legged creature" as evidence that the creature, actually a goat, is a buffalo.

Further, the public may not be compelled to refer to a specific object, when that object of discussion is not the object, but something else.

The world "does not have to use a specific term" when the object of the discussion has nothing to do with the company, but a generic idea or concept.

A product is not the same as a company; nor is a brand the same as a word. If I speak of lemons, I do not mean oranges; and when I say "sky" I am not talking about Paradise in heaven.

If you would like the world to "use words" then at least have the courtesy to demonstrate you are going to comply with that requirement.

If you want me to refer to you in a specific way, then refer to yourself in that way as well. If you want the word "rock" placed prominently when discussing your company, then put "rock" on your images, and in your URLs, and on your websites, and in your links.

But when you compel other to use "rock" when referring to "something other than your company", then you look doubly foolish.

Indeed, it is ridiculous for the company to show its absurdity and "great protection" of what is not theirs to protect. We have the right to speak, or not speak, of things.

If you choose to confuse the two, that is your problem. Not mine.

If we point to the sky, we are not talking about Mother Earth. If we point to a car on the road, we not talking about sailing.

Your error is to confuse the two. Your problem is to mistake the discussion and not understand.

Your error was to inject yourself into a discussion.

Alas, you have comment. Thus, you open the can of worms. Opened the door. Started something that you were not prepared to start.

When we point to a car, do not tell us that we have to use the word "yacht"; or that when we point to a run down, broken house that we should refer to the people by a specific name.

One is a house. The other is a person. A house is not a person. Nor is a person a house.

Yet, this is the nature of things. In this universe we are asked to believe a fiction; that the house is a goat; that the sea is the sky.

Enjoy your fantasy. Enjoy your delusion. It remains unclear to what extent your delusion bleeds into other things; how easily you confuse the simple with the complex.

Indeed, they can't take care of simple things; so why believe they can handle something more difficult.

Alas, the SAS99 indicator. The basis for increasing audit scope. The chance to have an few extra minutes reviewing the working papers. Thank you so much for the reasonable basis to make an additional inquiry on that special information from the whistleblower.

If we wanted to talk about the people, we'd talk about them; but in this case, we're not talking about people, we're talking about a house.

What else do you confuse; what else gets misunderstood; what other extraordinary sensitivity do we hear over issues unrelated to law, yet the basis for the statement completely at odds with the original message?

If those who have a broken house choose to take offense that "someone is talking about a house that is in plain view" -- we are sorry that you are insecure. It is unfortunate that some when their house is spoken of or the color of their mailbox is referred to, treat the remark as if they, themselves, are being referred to.

You are not a house. You are not a mailbox. Some want you to believe you are. But if your mailbox sways in the wind, is that you swaying?

If your house is chipping away and needs more paint, is that you that needs more paint?

What is more amusing is when the people's house is indistinguishable from their own identify; in that, when someone is talking about their house, they come back and say, "If you are going to talk about us, you should refer to us as the Jones."

Hay, your house doesn't have a name; you do.

If you want to talk about yourselves, feel free. If you are having trouble differentiating between yourself and your house, my hats off to you.

You were able to get up today. Some who make such an error have greater difficulties. But you are a grand creature. Full of public acclaim. Stature.

So if you want to wake up and realize that the world can have a conversation about specific terms, we might have a conversation.

At this juncture, it's clear that when someone has a problem and they haven't taken care of it, the real issue isn't to throw it back on others' laps and compel them to "say it the way it isn't."

No, if we truly wanted to talk about you, you wouldn't know it.

So, if you want "your house" to be called by "your name", then feel free to change the sign on "your house" to "your name."

Right now, your house says, "house" but you are asking me to call it what you, yourself have not labeled it: Jones.

You are not your house; and your house is not named "Jones."

You labeled it "house" and want me to call it "Jones." Why the inconsistency? Why the double standard?

Why are you proposing that others "when they choose to speak of yachts, be compelled to speak of the sun, sky, and moon?"

Last time I checked, the only yachts that sailed the skies were in Treasure Planet.

Here's a hint. You can't really do that. They don't fly like that. Those big boats are called yachts, not sky-sailing ships; and they move through the water.

So, if you want me to call you something, use the name on your images; and if you want me to use specific terms, use those terms on your website; if you want specific labels associated with your product include those in your url.

But when you provide inconsistent messages on the names you use; and your images are called something "other than" what you compel others to use....you look foolish.

If you want me to "talk about a topic" then invite me to join. But do not display your stupidity by compelling me to "talk of a specific thing" when I'm not talking about that. You are.

How often do you talk about subjects unrelated to the original point? Ah, but it is not our job to make sure you understand. It is your job. To which you failed.

Can't do the simple thing; no prospect you're going to be able to do something more difficult.

Clearly, we're not communicating. And clearly, you have missed the point.

Congratulations. And you wonder why people who work for you are unwilling to use favorable terms about you; why you must go to extraordinary lengths to promote yourself when you actions are not consistent with what you truly are trying to do.

Don't worry, those whispers behind your back are not really about you. They do not dare share with you their real awe. They are silent because they love you; they grovel in silence at every word you use.

They say nothing resembling a cartoon character behind your back. They are not scheming to take your job while you are preparing for the marathon. Don't worry, the designs are safe. The colors are correct. That advice you got, you can trust it.

If you want to be known as the Jones, the put that up on your house.

If I choose to talk about "your house" I'm still going to call it a "house," and not be fooled into believing that "your house" is called something other than what it is.

Here's a summary for those who missed it

If you want to lecture the world about "what to talk about" when referring to your company name, then at least have the courtesy to consistently use "that name" in all situations.

Further, if you have a conversation on "a topic" make sure that "the remark" is related to "the topic."

If you have a website with a URL in it that uses a name that doesn't match 'the name" you want others to use, you look foolish.

If you have images on your website that use names that are "not what you want to be called" you only have yourself to blame for the trademark dilution.

Your job is to be consistent; it is not the job of the public to fix your mess, point out your errors, not remind you of your responsibility to first do that which you compel others.

But that is not enough. You also have to be reminded to make sure that the lecture you give is related to the subject [Strike 1]; and not so arrogant that you then compel the world to assent to a standard that you do not met [strike 2]; only to show that you are making comments unrelated to the original issue [strike 3].

Three strikes. You're out. Don't have time for your non-sense.

Once you afford yourself the "special immunity" do not dare to compel anyone to assent to such an arbitrary standard. Yet, the fact that you have made so many strikes in such a short time is indicative that you will continue to do more if afforded the same amount of time.

The time has been exhausted. You have exceed the time limit. Your error.

Not mine.

Bluntly, if you want the world to grovel at your website and compel them to "talk in specific terms" [even though you do not realize they are talking about something else], don't be surprised why you lose public standing, or a loss of good will.

This is why companies go bankrupt. Why they lose the ability to raise capital. Why the free markets can pulverize what was once a company of fine standing.

The smallest thing can say much about the prospects, foundation, and credibility of the firm, its officers, and its leaders.

The smallest thing says much. The trick, is to notice the sign well before the decision to freely engage in commerce.

Congratulations, you took the bait. And communicated much without realizing it.

May your future financial instability reflect the tenuous thinking between your ears. I'm sure you'll have nothing to worry about. As your well entrenched habit is clearly this long been uncorrected.

Don't worry. Miracles happen. You'll be just fine. Nobody notices. You're excellent.