cutting up a post

[Douglas Pollard]

utisoft at googlemail.com wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2009 14:42, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> > Derek Broughton wrote:
> >
> > > Douglas Pollard wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >>      You guys do realize that when a person writes something it is
> >
> > >> automaticly copyrighted and no one has a right to change it.  They do
> >
> > >> have a right to comment on it.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Get a lawyer and sue me.  It's called "fair use".  You do indeed 
> own the
> >
> > > copyright to your whole posts, and I will defend that.  You don't, 
> however,
> >
> > > have the (legal) right to tell anybody how they may quote that. 
>  You don't
> >
> > > want to adhere to the norms of the list, that's your right.  I 
> have an equal
> >
> > > right to ignore you, and will do so.
> >
> > >
> >
> > IF anyone cares to go back and look I stated that what I wrote was a not
> >
> > a legal argument. Here again you took out and posted a small part of my
> >
> > statesmen that had no meaning without the rest of the statement. It is
> >
> > out of context.  I see you as one the cannot make an argument so instead
> >
> > seeks to distort anthers.  You call my arguments silly, look at your
> >
> > statement, "Get a lawyer and sue". WoW!  This also out of context, do
> >
> > you see what I mean.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Arguments that are weak when taken out of context are weak arguments. 
> You can't expect someone to take your view seriously if it is a bunch 
> of weak or incorrect points. If the only merit to your arguments is 
> sheer quantity, then I'm afraid you need to rethink your position, and 
> justify it properly.
>
> Chris 
I disagree,what you are saying is that if you pull a line out of the 
constitution or or some other document it should contain the meaning of 
the constitution. Why would anybody post more than a single statement.   
What that says is the balance of the email is 
irrelevant.                          DOUG