Text 43710, 110 rader
Skriven 2006-12-05 12:42:34 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 43697 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Insults
===============
05 Dec 06 16:08, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy!

 MvdV> On Monday December 04 2006 13:13, you wrote to me:

 RW>>>> Since the site is known to belong to Shannon, he is responsible
 RW>>>> for what appears on it, whether he 'typed' it or not.

 MvdV>>> That may be so in the USA. Here the author is responsible for
 MvdV>>> what he/she writes.

 RW>> Really!? Is it not true that whatever enters Fidonet via your node
 RW>> is your responsiblity and not the person who wrote it?

 MvdV> Only according to P4.

And that is the point, isn't it.

 MvdV> Not according to the law.

Then you've never heard of 'family law' and the responsibility of the
parent for their offspring. A parent is responsible for everything their
offspring say and do until the offspring reach a certain age.

 MvdV> As we all know P4 does not override the law.

But it does make a difference in ones thinking.

 RW>> (nevermind the repercussions of that act on his access to Fidonet)
 RW>> Is it not true that when Felten had copyrighted material for free
 RW>> download on his website,

 MvdV> Wrong starting point.

Correct starting point.

 MvdV> According to the laws of his country he didn't.

But not according to international treaty, to which Sveden is a part. And
we're now seeing the corrections in law that Sveden has taken in that
regard.

 RW>> the one where the host found out about it and they - being the
 RW>> responsible people that they are - dropped him like a hot potato?

 MvdV> That host resided in the USA, not here. so wrong premise.

That host was also responsible for complying with international copyright
treaties. The pirate was excommunicated for good cause.

 RW>>>> The site is known to belong to Shannon so one can safely assume
 RW>>>> that he wrote it.

 MvdV>>> An ASSumption nevertheless.

 RW>> After further review, the comment was a bit above the ability of
 RW>> Shannon to piece together such a grammatically correct statement.
 RW>> Looking further,

 MvdV> So you admit yoiu assumption was wrong. Noted.

I made no assumption. I, unlike you and Forrestrom, knew it wasn't written
by Shannon on the surface. The grammar used in that comment wasn't his.

 MvdV>>> There is no dispute about the origin of what is within the
 MvdV>>> quotes. The dispute is about the selection and the
 MvdV>>> interpretation of the reporter.

 RW>> Which is a legtimate review taken from the annals of FidoTel's
 RW>> Fidonews forum. See above for the explanation of the origin.

 MvdV> Legitimiate <> correct.

Oh, I think I already pointed that out. See below.

 MvdV>>> The responsibility for the selection and interpretation
 MvdV>>> is solely the reporter's.

 RW>> Yeup. However, since it's on Shannon's website, it's his
 RW>> responsibility to keep it all correct and in context.

 MvdV> If that is so then he utterly failed by allowing someone to state
 MvdV> that Björn hates all Christians. That is defiitely not correct.

How do we know that without assuming that Forstrrom knows proper English
grammar? It's not very likely that he does, reading what he writes here.

He could very well have meant what he said, but we don't know that for
sure. His saying so after the fact doesn't equate to being truthful. Deep
down he may harbour a hatred for everything that represents religion, but
he want's to take the heat off of himself by accusing Shannon.

 RW>> What's there is merely one users opinion of the stupid claims of
 RW>> Bjorn Forrestrom.

 MvdV> An anonimous user. How cowardly to hide behind an anonymous
 MvdV> user....

Anyone with internet and/or telent capability is free to go there and
challenge the anonymous user, dudemaster. Afterall, your's and Forrstroms
beef is with the author of that rebuttal, not Shannon.

               R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)