Anthony writes:
Then you haven't answered how the requirements of
trademark
maintenance and
the interests of freedom of speech are in conflict.
I have certainly tried to explain it. Do you need me to try to
explain it again and again until you understand what I'm saying?
Are you just
making this up off the top of your head?
Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good
faith"
memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as
asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?).
But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in
conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize.
That's a
wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
quite proud of it.
Again a very educated and informative response.
I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good
faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even
degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free
to disagree.
I see you've incorporated
the "ad hominem" meme quite well.
I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here.
Seriously,
since (a) you think I walk around thinking of you as
"little people," and (b) I know that is not how I think, it seems
to
me to be the converse -- a problem for you, not for me.
You mischaracterize what I think.
I am happy to learn that, despite what you have posted in public, you
don't really suppose I think of you as "little people" and expect that
my views will be "accepted without question." On the other hand, this
raises the question of why you attributed such views to me in the
first place, but you need not answer here if it would make you
uncomfortable to source your assertions.
--Mike