James Freeman on thu 5 aug 10
gging
Steve...
I wrote a point by point refutation of your last post, which I just
deleted unsent. Just not worth it. You laid no trap, I can see no
evidence of my having fallen into one, and I don't recall any of the
various Jeffs being party to this thread, let alone applying a
seemingly nonexistent coup de grace. That was a nice attempt at
salvage, though. And, the conversation was not still going on. It,
like all threads, died out after a few days. You are trying to
resurrect it, which is, of course, your right.
You seem to have found a put down or heavy-handedness where there was
none. The story seemed fishy to me, as I did not see why the Supreme
Court would ever hear a simple copyright case, and it turned out that
they in fact did not. The case was not about copyright at all, but
you ignore this fact. You also conveniently left out the sentence
which I appended to the "powers of the supreme court" quotation which
stated something to the effect of "...and before you even say it, all
Laws of the United States must be based on constitutional
authority...", so it is saying precisely the same thing. You know
this, yet you selectively edited my words in order to take a cheap
shot at something I never said. Your friend you-know-who constantly
misuses the phrase "straw man". You have just employed a straw man
argument in the strictest sense. You apparently believe I am so
stupid that I would not see this. You are also well aware that no one
can TAKE an appeal to the supreme court, but can only ASK the court to
hear the case. The supreme court chooses which cases they want to
hear, and only takes cases in which they feel there is an important
and compelling legal issue which needs definition. A routine
copyright case is hardly such stuff, and you know this too.
Most importantly, however, this ENTIRE conversation about the powers
and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a straw man, and you know
that too. The topic at hand was whether or not, as was claimed, the
Supreme Court had given Walmart and other large corporations the right
to steal our designs, in effect negated the very concept of copyright.
You never engaged this topic at all, but merely set up the "powers of
the supreme court" straw man, pulled from the irrelevant back story of
this thread, then tried to knock it down as though your straw man were
the topic itself.
Here is a link to a definition of the straw man fallacy, so that you
won't have to take the trouble to look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument
Yes, it is quite obvious that you often use this forum for verbal
sport. If you wish to use me as a punching bag to relieve whatever is
frustrating you, have at it. I seem to be the flavor of the month
anyway. Let me know when you are done.
Your current favorite tar-baby,
...James
| |
|
