|
Posted by Neredbojias on 04/01/07 20:34
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:13:39 GMT Grant Robertson scribed:
> 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. I only wanted to know if HTML was patented. If I had
> explained why I wanted to know then no one would have told me the
> actual information I was seeking but would have gone off on all these
> darn tangents instead.
>
> I'm not trying to garner anything other than information about whether
> HTML was patented and perhaps some guidance on how to protect my
> standard. Why you feel the need to attack me for simply asking a
> question in such a way that I will actaully get a useable answer is
> beyond me.
Yeah, right. First of all, I wasn't "attacking you" for your original
question. I took exception to your statement replicated in my previous
post. Do you see the difference?
I suppose this is just a matter of personal attitude, but one thing I know:
any discussion must be open and honest to be of any real value. When you
try to circumvent that, you are "stacking the deck" so to speak, and
whatever responses emerge are suspect.
Btw, since I believe your question was indeed answered, why do you even
bother to dally in the out-of-focus surplus?
--
Neredbojias
He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|