stock photography archive on p2p
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John McWilliams on 30 Jan 2010 19:38 Ray Fischer wrote: > Classic passice [sic]-agressive dishonesty. You blame others for your own > lack of sense. Wow. -- lsmft
From: sobriquet on 30 Jan 2010 21:07 On 31 jan, 00:43, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > [..] > >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious > >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings. > > >> Whose? > > >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations, > > I do not. Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after all? Glad we've finally cleared that up.
From: sobriquet on 31 Jan 2010 08:23 On 31 jan, 07:54, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious > >> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings. > > >> >> Whose? > > >> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations, > > >> I do not. > > >Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after > >all? > > Nope. Ok, so you do not just lack argumentation skills, you can't even come up with a consistent argument without constantly contradicting yourself every few sentences.
From: Ray Fischer on 31 Jan 2010 13:32 sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 31 jan, 07:54, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious >> >> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings. >> >> >> >> Whose? >> >> >> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations, >> >> >> I do not. >> >> >Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after >> >all? >> >> Nope. > >Ok, so you do not just lack argumentation skills, Stupid people think in binary. That you are incapable of understanding anything but silly extremes reveals your intellectual limitations. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: sobriquet on 31 Jan 2010 14:04
On 31 jan, 19:32, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 31 jan, 07:54, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious > >> >> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings. > > >> >> >> Whose? > > >> >> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations, > > >> >> I do not. > > >> >Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after > >> >all? > > >> Nope. > > >Ok, so you do not just lack argumentation skills, > > Stupid people think in binary. That you are incapable of > understanding anything but silly extremes reveals your > intellectual limitations. Ray, if I need a psychoanalyst, I'll let you know. You're funny though... first you refuse to explain things and subsequently you accuse people of being incapable of understanding whatever it was you refused to explain. So the bottom line is that the people who come up with spurious intellectual property claims are unable to substantiate these claims, while people like me who dispute these claims are both willing and able to refute them and expose them for the wishful thinking it boils down to. So let me reiterate the ultimate conclusion of this discussion: All bitstrings belong to everybody and nobody has the right to claim exclusive ownership of any particular bitstring or to impose controls or restrictions on other peoples activities as far as their access to or use of any particular bitstring is concerned. |