Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated > > reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that "and" > > and "or" are synonymous and that I am insane. All false. > > Since I've explained twice now that the use of "and" or "or" in that sentence > does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately > misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that > your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane.
Thank you for the clarification. I am not surprised by you making another incorrect assumption and I think you should draw yourself some Venn diagrams and consider which cases you ignore by changing "or" to "and" in your interpretation "For the purposes of this clause" later in your message. I am not going to discuss it in detail, because I fear you would respond with some more selective discards or "implicit" meanings. Is there anything which could explain my reasoning to you further and possibly convince you of its validity? > > By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it, > > I'd've implicitly given the details to them. > > I think that would be true. [...] I disagree and I think any credit card system that agreed with you was provably unjust. Of course, if one accepted liability as part of a card agreement, that was their choice and not subject to that controversy. Best wishes, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
