[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:55:07 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
David Kastrup wrote:
Uh no. What you have done is what you have physically done.
This is just sophistry. The question before the court is,
through my actions, have I illegally prepared a derivative
work? The court says, yes you have, or no you have not, and
barring appeal, that is that.
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, (continued)
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Hyman Rosen, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Hyman Rosen, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Hyman Rosen, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Hyman Rosen, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, David Kastrup, 2009/11/16
- Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again,
Hyman Rosen <=
Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/16