On 6/3/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And as several of us have been saying over and over, the GFDL vio is not "clear" in this case and for much of the material can be rectified with a little more work.
Your problem appears to be that you don't know the GFDL that well. Therefor you missed the relivant loophole.
You appear not to know the English language that well, but I'd rather not get into that. Since insults rarely move a conversation in a positive direction.
Maybe your interpretations of the GFDL are incorrect. Please search within yourself for a modicum of humility.