gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander -- Again


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander -- Again
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:53:57 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> wrote:

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?....

----- PJ, please stop feeding the troll

Authored by: AMackenzie on Tuesday, September 22 2009 @ 02:11 PM EDT

ROFL!

Ah, so you do read Groklaw. Do you get anything out of it? As a matter of interest, do you post there? If so, under what user name?

regards, alexander.


Why would any serious person post at Groklaw? Posters have a choice of
either slavishly stroking PJ's ego, astroturfing propaganda for the
Free Software Foundation or being censored.

Post a message that contradicts PJ and it almost instantly becomes
visible *only* to the original poster. This fact censors the message
and makes it appear to the original poster that he is being ignored by
her merry band of sycophants. PJ's tirades are often little more than
legal gibberish and she intends to suffer no negative criticism

Does she have a crowd of devoted acolytes? Why, yes of course! When
only 2 out of 5 citizens are able to name the three branches of the
federal government, there are plenty of candidates for Groklaw
devotees out there. PJ has simply become the Sarah Palin of the
software World.

I can understand Alan hanging out at Groklaw where he suffers no
responsive criticism while he bows and kisses Pj's royal ass.

Sincerely,
Rjack

-- “The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't
Falling”, Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST Pamela Jones at
Groklaw. --
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

-- "Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.  101-
1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the
federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and
turn to the relevant state law to interpret them."; Automation by
Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) --




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]