Posted by Blinky the Shark on 03/31/07 22:25

Grant Robertson wrote:
> In article <Xns99049067897C8jeremiahneredbojiasc@208.49.80.251>,
> invalid@example.com says...
>> You sound like a lawyer. The statement itself is not only prejudgmental
>> but basically dishonest and unethical to boot. It seems as if obfuscation
>> is your primary conduit to garner favor and/or agreement for your premises.
>
> No. I wanted to know if HTML was patented so that is what I asked. I
> didn't want everyone's opinion about what I should do about my standard.

That's one of the nifty things about Usenet -- you often get even more than
you asked for, at no additional cost. Best deal in town.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

• Next in forum: Re: css selector as alias of another
• Prev in forum: Re: Jump to the top of the screen
• Thread view: Re: Who owns the patent for HTML, if there is one?

[Reply to this message]