Jupiter Jones said:
However Kurt likes to bring up irrelevant points and make what seems like
a valid assumption based on those points.
For the sake of a 'valid' argument, how can an irrelevant point, make
another valid. Kurt gave a facsimile analogy, so what, and how you compare
the analogy is telling, again you avoid it by making it seem irrlevant.
He makes conclusions base on an invalid assumption and wonders how the
conclusion can be incorrect.
He did no such thing. Firstly, and this may help; I am not a kurt apologist,
I simply read his words, and if I disagree with him, I would let him know,
but it would have to be the point of disagreement, and why I disagree, based
on countering his actual point(s), not him as a newsgroups personality. But
I have read him enough where he makes his words mean what they are, and he
does not explain his position based on irrelevant, nor biased points of
view, but from viewing and understanding the basis of what he counters. He's
very deliberate with his words, and his points regarding the EULA, PS, are
very valid, considering how words are meant to be used in an agreement, as
opposed to what the "can or should" mean, outside that agreement.
He may become coarse with some, but I see that mainly when those he
encounters here with his position typically refute hom as a pirate, or
promoting some kind of software theivery, which isn't the case. If he says
things to you that you dislike, I see it as gettting your attention, or his
displeasure with folks like you who really don't address what he states his
position is, if only you and etals go after something other than what he is
getting at regarding the EULA.
To answer the question, I would not buy it with terms I would not be
willing to accept.
Then why not explain your position to him why. His analogy is very similar
to what the MS EULA is, in that it entails something regarding what an OEM
states it should be in the actual aggreement, but is construed by the
copyright owner to mean something almost entirely different. This is what
kurt wants you to address. I think as much as you tell people here to stick
with the points, you've completely, OTOH, made an entirely different point,
irrelevant to kurt's question on how you would treat something very similar,
as he posited to you.
This is where his false assumptions come in.
Again, you are making an irrelevant point, and not addressing his analogy,
this is where false assumptions are made.
It is also assumed I am not aware of the agreement.
He didn't ask you of your awareness of the contract, rather how you think
you would treat his contract for the "TV" thingie, on very similar terms
after the fact that the agreement doesn't follow in terms to what it is
after the fact of a sale. You avoided it with irrelevant, if not, side
stepping points.
The assumption is I bought it and he goes from there, but I would not buy
it.
Look at the point Jupiter, it seems you're only avoiding answering the
analogy because kurt posited it, forget that he did, and look at the terms
again, then answer it.
