Clark Peterson wrote:
> "A professional who doesn't do his research isn't
> going to get much latitude in court. A hobbyist will
> get more."
>
> Here we go slinging legal conclusions around again.
Yow! And, for that matter, YIKES!
I said in my original message (and should've repeated) that what I'm
saying is *not not not* legal advice. So there.
Furthermore, my meaning was not that a hobbyist *will* get more, but
that the hobbyist *may be* less likely to face formal litigation. But
what the hell do I know? I am not a lawyer and have never been to court.
Now, on another point, all matters in discussion here are
conceptual. These are just viewpoints. Certainly people are thinking
what I wrote. Is what I wrote incorrect? Almost absolutely. But don't go
assuming conclusions where there are none. Hypothesis result in
conclusions. Discussions seldom do.
So, if you have something to say, say it about what I said. Don't
just comment on the fact that I said it. That's demeaning.
And please don't constitute this as argumentative. I assume the
worst attitude when I read something. I imagine that if I could hear you
I wouldn't assume so. We're exploring viewpoints right now. That's all.
Comments like yours above are not condusive to such exploration. It
seems designed to scare folks like me back into lurking.
If I'm wrong, cool. If I'm not, that's cool too.
I just don't like how conversations in here always seem to become
adversarial.
word,
will
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
