On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think > should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to > consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject > matter as well as you think you do. That you stoop to character > assassination as a defense suggests that you are incapable of holding > such a low opinion of yourself.
Can you not tell the difference between "character assassination" and an inquiry into the impartiality of a person held up as an authority? I may well be wrong about the law, and you are welcome to inquire into my motivations as well -- though I claim no authority, only whatever merit the substance of my arguments may carry. I have corresponded (very briefly, on this list) with Eben Moglen and (at greater length) with the FSF, and asked them what basis they have for their position; their argument is, as near as I can tell, _purely_ derived from his personal authority and public stature. To the extent that anyone's motives can ever be deduced from their conduct, don't you think inquiring into his public conduct is fair game under the circumstances? > I suggest that you may need to find yourself a more credible champion > for your position if you want us to accept it. If not taking Eben Moglen's word over my best effort at understanding the law destroys my credibility in your eyes -- or if I could only retain credibility with you by dissembling the implications for his integrity if he himself knows better -- then I can hardly expect another champion to succeed where I fail. Accept nothing I say without evaluating its evidentiary basis; then my credibility doesn't enter into it. - Michael
