On 6/3/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/3/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.