Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Rahul Dhesi <c.c.eiftj@xrexxmorex.usenet.us.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes, following up to Rjack:
> 
>>How can there be a contract when there's been no agreement between the
>>parties involved?....
> 
> Rjack already lost this argument under a different subject heading.
> Each time he loses an argument he reposts it under a new subject
> heading. See the previous subject heading "Tom Tom and Microsofts Linux
> patent lock-down ..".
> 
> Rjack found cases where the court used contract law to determine a
> remedy for a license violation. Seeing the word "contract", he came to
> the erroneous conclusion that, just because you can base a remedy on
> contract law, therefore there is no difference between a license and a
> contract. And therefore, you no longer need an offer an an acceptance to
> form a contract.

He seems to be suffering a deal of epistemological confusion.  Whilst
some unfortunate people can't distinguish reality from fantasy, RJack
can't distinguish reality from words.

> So now, let me predict: We will soon see Rjack repost the same flawed
> argument under yet another subject heading.

That's a bit like predicting the sun will come up tomorrow morning.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).