On 5/17/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:38:52PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > I guess I don't see the point of all this. > > > > That much, at least, is clear to all observers. Does anyone else have > > any difficulty in following the flow of my argument as given, or in > > finding ample support for it in the statutes and case law I have cited > > over the last few weeks? > > I have had great difficulty, simply due to the sheer volume of text that > has spewed forth from your fingers, which makes your argument not only > difficult to follow, but completely saps any interest I might possibly have > in the subject. The simple observation that you seem unable to communicate > your thoughts concisely makes me feel like you haven't thought things > through particularly well. In addition, much of your argument is caught up > in personal attacks that I have less than no desire to read.
That's mostly a fair critique, although I think you might find on review that the "personal attacks" are more easily separated from the substance of the argument than you imply. May I ask you (and others who bother to reply at this stage) a few questions? Is the summary without case law in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00341.html still not sufficiently concise? If it is sufficiently concise, is it difficult to follow in some other way? If it is easy enough to follow, is it difficult to identify which bits are assertions about law that need support in a given jurisdiction and which bits are factual statements or internal logic? If so, are there defects in the factual statements or internal logic, or are there assertions about the law that you believe to be false based on some particular case law or reputable commentator's public statements? If it is refined to the point that the answers to the above questions are all "No", and if the assertions about law are suitably footnoted with support from statute and/or case law in a given jurisdiction, is there anything left to discuss? > As a result of these and other things (the various thread-breaking RES > mails which aren't your fault, for instance) I've had great difficulty > maintaining the patience to not simply killfile every mail in this thread, > let alone follow the flow of your argument and read the original cases that > you cite. I would agree that there has been no "flow" to this argument as a whole, which has bounced erratically from point of fact to point of law to counterfactual example to set theory to mutual disparagement. But I would kind of like to come away from it with an articulate summary and a sense of what is convincing and what isn't. Cheers, - Michael
