[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by gmw

I thought the argument you presented was worse than not important, it was - as a I said - an unwarranted distraction from the real reasons.

The unwarranted distraction remark only came very recently.

Sorry for not using spoilers for the rest, I could not work out how to separate each of your comments, reply to them and wrap it all in spoilers.

Originally Posted by gmw

As for "Neither of which points you made", I offer the following examples (enclosed in spoiler tags so others don't have to suffer the repetition)...

I actually thought "not identical" fairly clearly indicated that I think there are differences. That was my first post on this thread.

So you agree that there are differences but imply and suggest I am wrong if I claim they are not the same. Makes sense....NOT.

Originally Posted by gmw

And there I was admitting that many different types of property are different and treated differently under law. Second post on this thread. Is that not clear?

So you agree that there are many different types of property that are treated differently under the law but imply and suggest I am wrong if I claim IP and PP should not be treated the same under the law. Makes sense....NOT.

Originally Posted by gmw

And here I was explaining that your arguments were distractions and irrelevant (ie. "irrelevant" means they don't matter).

Yes, I'll give you this one. I must have missed the fact that your only point was my arguments were distractions and irrelevant in amongst all the bits that had nothing to do with this point but instead were about how my position was "extreme" and not in the middle ground and my analogies were wrong, etc, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by gmw

And there I state quite flatly that I have no quarrel with different IP being treated differently from each other etc. Hello?

And another statement that I don't believe we should treat copyright the same as physical property.

All those were taken from before the offending post.

And yes I will admit to not remembering these either.

So, I take it back, you did make it clear you agree IP and PP should be treated differently.

The rest I stand by. Could have all been avoided had you concentrated on making your point rather than trying to tell me why I was wrong and my arguments are irrelevant.

I would agree my arguments and analogies would be a distraction and would be irrelevant if no one had actually made the argument that IP rights and PP rights should be treated the same.

You see, to address that argument it is actually quite relevant to firstly determine if IP and PP are actually the same. If IP and PP are the same then it makes eminent sense to treat them the same. It only makes sense to treat IP and PP differently if they are in fact different things.

You jumped in and decided I was wrong, and my arguments a distraction and irrelevant and it was vitally important you informed me why that is so because you had no idea what I was actually responding to and discussing.

Originally Posted by gmw

I think we should call it quits. We seem to be going backwards rather than forwards.

That tends to happen when a poster spends more time and energy trying to convince another poster their thoughts and opinions are irrelevant and wrong than they do in simply trying to first actually understand what the poster was responding to and discussing in the first place and in making their own point clear to begin with.