From: John McWilliams on
Ray Fischer wrote:

> Classic passice [sic]-agressive dishonesty. You blame others for your own
> lack of sense.



Wow.

--
lsmft
From: sobriquet on
On 31 jan, 00:43, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> sobriquet  <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> [..]
> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious
> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings.
>
> >> Whose?
>
> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations,
>
> I do not.

Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after
all?

Glad we've finally cleared that up.
From: sobriquet on
On 31 jan, 07:54, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> sobriquet  <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious
> >> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings.
>
> >> >> Whose?
>
> >> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations,
>
> >> I do not.
>
> >Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after
> >all?
>
> Nope.

Ok, so you do not just lack argumentation skills, you can't even come
up with
a consistent argument without constantly contradicting yourself every
few sentences.
From: Ray Fischer on
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 31 jan, 07:54, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> sobriquet �<dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious
>> >> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings.
>>
>> >> >> Whose?
>>
>> >> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations,
>>
>> >> I do not.
>>
>> >Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after
>> >all?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Ok, so you do not just lack argumentation skills,

Stupid people think in binary. That you are incapable of
understanding anything but silly extremes reveals your
intellectual limitations.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: sobriquet on
On 31 jan, 19:32, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> sobriquet  <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 31 jan, 07:54, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> sobriquet  <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > that's the subject of this discussion, spurious
> >> >> >> >intellectual property claims pertaining to bitstrings.
>
> >> >> >> Whose?
>
> >> >> >You claim bitstrings can be owned by people or corporations,
>
> >> >> I do not.
>
> >> >Ah ok, so you agree all bitstrings belong to the public domain after
> >> >all?
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >Ok, so you do not just lack argumentation skills,
>
> Stupid people think in binary.  That you are incapable of
> understanding anything but silly extremes reveals your
> intellectual limitations.

Ray, if I need a psychoanalyst, I'll let you know.

You're funny though... first you refuse to explain things and
subsequently
you accuse people of being incapable of understanding whatever it
was you refused to explain.

So the bottom line is that the people who come up with spurious
intellectual property claims
are unable to substantiate these claims, while people like me who
dispute these claims
are both willing and able to refute them and expose them for the
wishful thinking it boils down to.

So let me reiterate the ultimate conclusion of this discussion:

All bitstrings belong to everybody and nobody has the right to claim
exclusive ownership of any particular bitstring or to impose controls
or restrictions on other peoples activities as far as
their access to or use of any particular bitstring is concerned.