gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5


From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Subject: Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.5
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:48:07 +0100

Qua, 2006-07-05 às 11:58 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > Qua, 2006-07-05 Ã s 11:16 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ter, 2006-07-04 Ã s 19:17 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > > > > Q: Bzzzzt, but according to RMS, "intellectual property... is a 
> > > > > mirage,
> > > > > which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term
> > > > > suggests it does." So bzzzzt, what the fuck ... !?
> > > > >
> > > > > A: Well, well, well. But according to one FTC commissioner (and an
> > > > > antitrust attorney),
> > > >
> > > > Alex, please let me understand your reasoning:
> > > >
> > > > Because a text is published by some law authority like FTC "is", or
> > > > Attoneries are, or even Judges... does that have to be taken as Official
> > > > in the Point of View of Law?
> > >
> > > Consider:
> > 
> > (...)
> > 
> > Will you please answer my question, instead?
> > It's a simple 'yes' or 'no'...
> 
> 42. Next question, please.

You refuse to answer this simple question? I merely want to understand
you better...

Your answer reminds me of children in the "NO" phase, when they answer
always "NO" even to sequential directly conflicting questions. I know
you know better than that. :)

Rui

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]