Anthony writes: > Then you haven't answered how the requirements of trademark > maintenance and > the interests of freedom of speech are in conflict.
I have certainly tried to explain it. Do you need me to try to explain it again and again until you understand what I'm saying? >> Are you just making this up off the top of your head? > > Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good > faith" > memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it? I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?). But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize. >> That's a wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're >> quite proud of it. > Again a very educated and informative response. I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free to disagree. > I see you've incorporated > the "ad hominem" meme quite well. I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here. >> Seriously, since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as >> "little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems >> to >> me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me. > > > You mischaracterize what I think. I am happy to learn that, despite what you have posted in public, you don't really suppose I think of you as "little people" and expect that my views will be "accepted without question." On the other hand, this raises the question of why you attributed such views to me in the first place, but you need not answer here if it would make you uncomfortable to source your assertions. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
