cutting up a post

Chris Rees utisoft at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 26 16:53:49 GMT 2009


2009/10/26 Douglas Pollard <dougpol1 at verizon.net>:
> 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
>


No, the 'balance' of the email must consist consist of several valid,
reasoned arguments. Each should be critically examined separately in
order to judge the merit of the argument.

Chris



More information about the sounder mailing list