On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:03:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > 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.
yawn. > Is there anything which could explain my reasoning to you further and > possibly convince you of its validity? No, because it doesn't matter to my arguments. My points are the same whether you consider copying, distribution, or both. > > > 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. OK. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
