I figured as much. If you're going to attempt an honest debate and toss accusations along the way, you might consider having some evidence for your position next time.
Unless you have some to show, your accusations have become tiresome and a bit silly.
Well if you figured as much why didn't you respond to the call out rather than weakly attempt to sidestep it by way of ignoring the posts you made previously. I don't need to convince anyone else, they can read the thread just fine.
Well if you figured as much why didn't you respond to the call out rather than weakly attempt to sidestep it by way of ignoring the posts you made previously. I don't need to convince anyone else, they can read the thread just fine.
You're the one who disappeared rather than answer my very easy question. What did I write that I needed to dig out from under? You're still going out of your way to avoid admitting that you couldn't find anything and just might be wrong.
As for Florian's post about the damages report that Groklaw had blogged about, he never said Grok was wrong. Instead he said they didn't have a firm basis to claim they were correct. . . .
Which has little to do with today's blog (Did you read it? I linked it for you) where he's honest enough to admit he was wrong about how good a case Oracle had.
You should contemplate doing the same with your mistaken accusations, obvious since you're unable to provide backup despite several requests for even one. See post 115, 116, 118, 119 and reread this one if you happen to have missed any. You've been unable to show a single example, so resorting to deflection seems to be your current choice of debate tactics.
We all make mistakes. Part of being adult is admitting them.
You're the one who disappeared rather than answer my very easy question. What did I write that I needed to dig out from under? You're still going out of your way to avoid admitting that you couldn't find anything and just might be wrong.
Well, I didn't disappear. I just didn't answer at your own personal whim and timeline. This isn't a chat channel you know, some of us actually have lives. Jobs, maybe even think a day of rolling in the hay beats dealing with the likes of you. The whole idea of a message board is to enable asynchronous participation.
Quote:
As for Florian's post about the damages report that Groklaw had blogged about, he never said Grok was wrong. Instead he said they didn't have a firm basis to claim they were correct. . . .
That's grasping at straws at best. You probably should have just left that one alone as it just make you look petty and needy.
Quote:
You should contemplate doing the same with your mistaken accusations, obvious since you're unable to provide backup despite several requests for even one. See post 115, 116, 118, 119 and reread this one if you happen to have missed any. You've been unable to show a single example, so resorting to deflection seems to be your current choice of debate tactics.
My gawd man! You still don't know how to look "up" the page. Sorry, I cannot move your eyeballs for you.
Quote:
Which has little to do with today's blog (Did you read it? I linked it for you) where he's honest enough to admit he was wrong about how good a case Oracle had.
We all make mistakes. Part of being adult is admitting them.
New information from a legal proceeding hardly makes discussions based on previous proceedings mistakes unless you are one of the lawyers involved. Mueller didn't admit to any mistakes as much as he commented on his surprise at one unexpected new USPTO ruling. I agree with everyone that the new USPTO ruling does rather put the damper on Oracle's case. Sux to be them, this may make licensing JavaME for profit an all but impossible task.
But until that ruling was made, everything in the thread prior to that was still completely valid based on existing reports and in-play patents. Yes, I agree the situation changed, but it didn't change until the 23rd so I won't abide by revisionist history. -- And OBTW, yes I hadn't read that last link of yours so mea culpa (end of Friday and just about at the due deadline for a project with a run of help requests -- probably wasn't best to post before having fully read #120). Not mea culpa because you try to extract one though. I DO admit when I miss something and have a track record of it. Something sorely lacking in most of the rest of these boards. <looking squarely back out the monitor, does the shoe fit?>
Well, I didn't disappear. I just didn't answer at your own personal whim and timeline. This isn't a chat channel you know, some of us actually have lives. Jobs, maybe even think a day of rolling in the hay beats dealing with the likes of you. The whole idea of a message board is to enable asynchronous participation.
Since you still can't answer without admitting there isn't anything I claimed that I now need to "cover my ass" for, it's pretty plain who's being dishonest. It's a shame too since I used to consider you one of the more trustworthy posters.
I made the request 5 times now in just this thread and not once have you been willing to give one clear example to support your personal accusations, instead just a vague "it's up there somewhere, you know, on this page, or maybe another page". You've made no attempt to apologize either. I can't argue with someone who puts more value in avoiding fault than speaking the truth. Nor can I argue with the accuser won't even define what he specifically refers to.
Without either a clearly linked quote of what I said that got you started on your attack, or an apology for being mistaken, there's nothing more to be gained from continuing the exhange. I really did consider you a well-educated, reliable, fair and honest member up until the past couple of days, and very disappointed to find it may be not be true.
Over half this thread has been you trying to figure out how to cover your ass for post this post, where you ignited the whole idea of cherry picking by well, cherry picking part of Galbi's post and then further boldfacing part of it.
There are a few dozen counter-reply posts directly spawned by that very precise cherry-pick and the best you could come up with later was ~it was Galbi's post~ and ~I really meant the rules in Groklaw, not the sublicensing~. Both of which are part of the weak and ineffective ass-covering I accuse you of. There's lots more too, but anyone who reads the thread can see it for themselves. I don't need to bore those readers with another rendition that in some way might lend some credibility to your terribly flawed thought process.
Please show us more of that faux indignation trying to distract from your own "post-ly" shortcomings. Which they are only more hilarious since you continue the process of cherry-picking quotes from larger posts to try to make your incredibly weak point look stronger. Problem for you this last time is the post you cherry-picked from is just one up. Kinda hard to miss and easy for everyone to see your true MO. But hey, if they want to revisit 45 and on, all they need is some popcorn for a very entertaining ride that is remarkable consistent in it's inconsistency and need for revisionist history. Why you feel the need for me to apologize for pointing out the problems with your posts is beyond me. I guess it must just be part of the entertaining charade.
Over half this thread has been you trying to figure out how to cover your ass for post this post, where you ignited the whole idea of cherry picking by well, cherry picking part of Galbi's post and then further boldfacing part of it..
Sorry. You're well aware that was Galbi's bold post, not mine, and it was quoted in it's entirety, not cherry-picked. At no point did I make the statement that sub-licensing was important at all, again something your're well aware of, or should be. In fact I had no opinion whatsoever on the sub-licensing issue. You also know that from reading the posts.
At this point it's become "whatever dude". Apparently you wish to continue on a dishonest path. You know the truth of the matter and, apparently for personal reasons, have decided not to admit it.
EDIT: I noticed that when going back to my first post, the actual Oasis licensing that Galbi linked and that I responded to doesn't get included in my subsequent quote. I'm fairly certain it did originally, but the license link fails too in Hill60's quotes (48 and 54), Pendergast's (#61) and your own (#91). If the license link never appeared, I can understand some confusion on what I was referring to. Try quoting Galbi's original post again and you'll see the license part disappears. No idea why, and again I don't think it originally did.
I still never made any sub-licensing claim myself and it should be clear even to you that I consistently referenced the entire Oasis license or Groklaw article, never cherry-picking anything about sub-licensing, which it what seems to bother you so much. So I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you've honestly misunderstood rather than intentionally being dishonest.
EDIT: I noticed that when going back to my first post, the actual Oasis licensing that Galbi linked and that I responded to doesn't get included in my subsequent quote. I'm fairly certain it did originally, but the license link fails too in Hill60's quotes (48 and 54), Pendergast's (#61) and your own (#91). If the license link never appeared, I can understand some confusion on what I was referring to. I still never made any sub-licensing claim myself and it should be clear even to you that I consistently referenced the entire Oasis license or Groklaw article, never cherry-picking anything about sub-licensing, which it what seems to bother you so much. So I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you've honestly misunderstood rather than intentionally being dishonest.
It was never there. The reply function on vBulletin only goes one level deep in nested quotes and replaces everything deeper with blank space, which leads to all kinds of hard-to-comprehend replies. It was a quote in his post originally, so it was never included in your reply - that is why it looked like you were focussing on the sub-licensing thing that Galbi had bold-faced. I thought the issue had been put to rest days ago.
It was never there. The reply function on vBulletin only goes one level deep in nested quotes and replaces everything deeper with blank space, which leads to all kinds of hard-to-comprehend replies. It was a quote in his post originally, so it was never included in your reply - that is why it looked like you were focussing on the sub-licensing thing that Galbi had bold-faced. I thought the issue had been put to rest days ago.
Many thanks Muppetry. I didn't realize vBulletin did that and didn't notice it until today.
I too thought it was dealt with days ago and no one was more surprised than me to see it continuing.
Sorry. You're well aware that was Galbi's bold post, not mine, and it was quoted in it's entirety, not cherry-picked.
At no point did I make the statement that sub-licensing was important at all, again something your're well aware of, or should be. In fact I had no opinion whatsoever on the sub-licensing issue. You also know that from reading the posts.
Ummm no. I'm still calling you on revisionist hisatory. You quoted less than half of Galbi's post, specifically picking what you did and didn't keep because the part you removed was in the middle and spanned across two paragraphs. Not a possible cut-paste error.
Quote:
At this point it's become "whatever dude". Apparently you wish to continue on a dishonest path. You know the truth of the matter and, apparently for personal reasons, have decided not to admit it.
Exactly, especially since you keep getting appraised of little omissions you just "suddenly" became aware of (referring to muppetry's post) where you now admit what I have been saying with regards to you #45 post for quite some time. And frankly, with more than 2800 posts on your record, it is entirely too unbelievable that you didn't know posts don't recursively quote and this suddenly makes an innocent mistake.
I have been calling you out based on that post, and your inability to actually address your follow-on debate shortcoming this entire thread. Now you call me dishonest when you finally admit to not knowing how the boards work and that your post didn't say whet you though it said.
Right.
Yeah.
Sure.
I do not accept your "Never made a sub-licensing claim myself". It is all to obvious exactly where and how you did. We can even go back to post 114 and see you really didn't quit it, you just kind of stopped addressing it and trying to deflect the issue.
I also do not accept your innocent mistake I don't know how vBulletin works excuse as it does nothing to address your other attacking posts whenever factual inaccuracies were brought up.
And for the Coup de grâce. You have spent several of your past posts accusing me of dishonesty and never admitting a mistake (except I did actually admit the mistake earlier), yet here you claim to have made a doozy which created the whole enduring thread, and your solution is to say oops! And call me dishonest as a distraction. You would be right at home in the power stratus of a totalitarian dictatorship with that intellectual sleight of hand.
And in your own words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
You really think I have a history of dodging a discussion or not supporting my arguments?
Ummm no. I'm still calling you on revisionist hisatory. You quoted less than half of Galbi's post, specifically picking what you did and didn't keep because the part you removed was in the middle and spanned across two paragraphs. Not a possible cut-paste error.
I didn't cut and paste any more than you did. I used the reply button just as you and most others do. Now you're sounding dishonest. I guess I was mistaken when I assumed you may have innocently misunderstood. Your failure to comprehend isn't something I can cure online, tho I now very much doubt that's what this is.
Didn't you say you had a really busy life? I'm sure there's something more important than pestering me with continual personal assaults even after giving you a polite way out. You're aware of the ignore button aren't you? You should consider using it.
Comments
I figured as much. If you're going to attempt an honest debate and toss accusations along the way, you might consider having some evidence for your position next time.
Unless you have some to show, your accusations have become tiresome and a bit silly.
Well if you figured as much why didn't you respond to the call out rather than weakly attempt to sidestep it by way of ignoring the posts you made previously. I don't need to convince anyone else, they can read the thread just fine.
Well if you figured as much why didn't you respond to the call out rather than weakly attempt to sidestep it by way of ignoring the posts you made previously. I don't need to convince anyone else, they can read the thread just fine.
You're the one who disappeared rather than answer my very easy question. What did I write that I needed to dig out from under? You're still going out of your way to avoid admitting that you couldn't find anything and just might be wrong.
As for Florian's post about the damages report that Groklaw had blogged about, he never said Grok was wrong. Instead he said they didn't have a firm basis to claim they were correct. . . .
Which has little to do with today's blog (Did you read it? I linked it for you) where he's honest enough to admit he was wrong about how good a case Oracle had.
You should contemplate doing the same with your mistaken accusations, obvious since you're unable to provide backup despite several requests for even one. See post 115, 116, 118, 119 and reread this one if you happen to have missed any. You've been unable to show a single example, so resorting to deflection seems to be your current choice of debate tactics.
We all make mistakes. Part of being adult is admitting them.
You're the one who disappeared rather than answer my very easy question. What did I write that I needed to dig out from under? You're still going out of your way to avoid admitting that you couldn't find anything and just might be wrong.
Well, I didn't disappear. I just didn't answer at your own personal whim and timeline. This isn't a chat channel you know, some of us actually have lives. Jobs, maybe even think a day of rolling in the hay beats dealing with the likes of you. The whole idea of a message board is to enable asynchronous participation.
As for Florian's post about the damages report that Groklaw had blogged about, he never said Grok was wrong. Instead he said they didn't have a firm basis to claim they were correct. . . .
That's grasping at straws at best. You probably should have just left that one alone as it just make you look petty and needy.
You should contemplate doing the same with your mistaken accusations, obvious since you're unable to provide backup despite several requests for even one. See post 115, 116, 118, 119 and reread this one if you happen to have missed any. You've been unable to show a single example, so resorting to deflection seems to be your current choice of debate tactics.
My gawd man! You still don't know how to look "up" the page. Sorry, I cannot move your eyeballs for you.
Which has little to do with today's blog (Did you read it? I linked it for you) where he's honest enough to admit he was wrong about how good a case Oracle had.
We all make mistakes. Part of being adult is admitting them.
New information from a legal proceeding hardly makes discussions based on previous proceedings mistakes unless you are one of the lawyers involved. Mueller didn't admit to any mistakes as much as he commented on his surprise at one unexpected new USPTO ruling. I agree with everyone that the new USPTO ruling does rather put the damper on Oracle's case. Sux to be them, this may make licensing JavaME for profit an all but impossible task.
But until that ruling was made, everything in the thread prior to that was still completely valid based on existing reports and in-play patents. Yes, I agree the situation changed, but it didn't change until the 23rd so I won't abide by revisionist history. -- And OBTW, yes I hadn't read that last link of yours so mea culpa (end of Friday and just about at the due deadline for a project with a run of help requests -- probably wasn't best to post before having fully read #120). Not mea culpa because you try to extract one though. I DO admit when I miss something and have a track record of it. Something sorely lacking in most of the rest of these boards. <looking squarely back out the monitor, does the shoe fit?>
Well, I didn't disappear. I just didn't answer at your own personal whim and timeline. This isn't a chat channel you know, some of us actually have lives. Jobs, maybe even think a day of rolling in the hay beats dealing with the likes of you. The whole idea of a message board is to enable asynchronous participation.
Since you still can't answer without admitting there isn't anything I claimed that I now need to "cover my ass" for, it's pretty plain who's being dishonest. It's a shame too since I used to consider you one of the more trustworthy posters.
I made the request 5 times now in just this thread and not once have you been willing to give one clear example to support your personal accusations, instead just a vague "it's up there somewhere, you know, on this page, or maybe another page". You've made no attempt to apologize either. I can't argue with someone who puts more value in avoiding fault than speaking the truth. Nor can I argue with the accuser won't even define what he specifically refers to.
Without either a clearly linked quote of what I said that got you started on your attack, or an apology for being mistaken, there's nothing more to be gained from continuing the exhange. I really did consider you a well-educated, reliable, fair and honest member up until the past couple of days, and very disappointed to find it may be not be true.
There are a few dozen counter-reply posts directly spawned by that very precise cherry-pick and the best you could come up with later was ~it was Galbi's post~ and ~I really meant the rules in Groklaw, not the sublicensing~. Both of which are part of the weak and ineffective ass-covering I accuse you of. There's lots more too, but anyone who reads the thread can see it for themselves. I don't need to bore those readers with another rendition that in some way might lend some credibility to your terribly flawed thought process.
Please show us more of that faux indignation trying to distract from your own "post-ly" shortcomings. Which they are only more hilarious since you continue the process of cherry-picking quotes from larger posts to try to make your incredibly weak point look stronger. Problem for you this last time is the post you cherry-picked from is just one up. Kinda hard to miss and easy for everyone to see your true MO. But hey, if they want to revisit 45 and on, all they need is some popcorn for a very entertaining ride that is remarkable consistent in it's inconsistency and need for revisionist history. Why you feel the need for me to apologize for pointing out the problems with your posts is beyond me. I guess it must just be part of the entertaining charade.
Over half this thread has been you trying to figure out how to cover your ass for post this post, where you ignited the whole idea of cherry picking by well, cherry picking part of Galbi's post and then further boldfacing part of it..
Sorry. You're well aware that was Galbi's bold post, not mine, and it was quoted in it's entirety, not cherry-picked. At no point did I make the statement that sub-licensing was important at all, again something your're well aware of, or should be. In fact I had no opinion whatsoever on the sub-licensing issue. You also know that from reading the posts.
At this point it's become "whatever dude". Apparently you wish to continue on a dishonest path. You know the truth of the matter and, apparently for personal reasons, have decided not to admit it.
EDIT: I noticed that when going back to my first post, the actual Oasis licensing that Galbi linked and that I responded to doesn't get included in my subsequent quote. I'm fairly certain it did originally, but the license link fails too in Hill60's quotes (48 and 54), Pendergast's (#61) and your own (#91). If the license link never appeared, I can understand some confusion on what I was referring to. Try quoting Galbi's original post again and you'll see the license part disappears. No idea why, and again I don't think it originally did.
I still never made any sub-licensing claim myself and it should be clear even to you that I consistently referenced the entire Oasis license or Groklaw article, never cherry-picking anything about sub-licensing, which it what seems to bother you so much. So I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you've honestly misunderstood rather than intentionally being dishonest.
EDIT: I noticed that when going back to my first post, the actual Oasis licensing that Galbi linked and that I responded to doesn't get included in my subsequent quote. I'm fairly certain it did originally, but the license link fails too in Hill60's quotes (48 and 54), Pendergast's (#61) and your own (#91). If the license link never appeared, I can understand some confusion on what I was referring to. I still never made any sub-licensing claim myself and it should be clear even to you that I consistently referenced the entire Oasis license or Groklaw article, never cherry-picking anything about sub-licensing, which it what seems to bother you so much. So I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you've honestly misunderstood rather than intentionally being dishonest.
It was never there. The reply function on vBulletin only goes one level deep in nested quotes and replaces everything deeper with blank space, which leads to all kinds of hard-to-comprehend replies. It was a quote in his post originally, so it was never included in your reply - that is why it looked like you were focussing on the sub-licensing thing that Galbi had bold-faced. I thought the issue had been put to rest days ago.
It was never there. The reply function on vBulletin only goes one level deep in nested quotes and replaces everything deeper with blank space, which leads to all kinds of hard-to-comprehend replies. It was a quote in his post originally, so it was never included in your reply - that is why it looked like you were focussing on the sub-licensing thing that Galbi had bold-faced. I thought the issue had been put to rest days ago.
Many thanks Muppetry. I didn't realize vBulletin did that and didn't notice it until today.
I too thought it was dealt with days ago and no one was more surprised than me to see it continuing.
Sorry. You're well aware that was Galbi's bold post, not mine, and it was quoted in it's entirety, not cherry-picked.
At no point did I make the statement that sub-licensing was important at all, again something your're well aware of, or should be. In fact I had no opinion whatsoever on the sub-licensing issue. You also know that from reading the posts.
Ummm no. I'm still calling you on revisionist hisatory. You quoted less than half of Galbi's post, specifically picking what you did and didn't keep because the part you removed was in the middle and spanned across two paragraphs. Not a possible cut-paste error.
At this point it's become "whatever dude". Apparently you wish to continue on a dishonest path. You know the truth of the matter and, apparently for personal reasons, have decided not to admit it.
Exactly, especially since you keep getting appraised of little omissions you just "suddenly" became aware of (referring to muppetry's post) where you now admit what I have been saying with regards to you #45 post for quite some time. And frankly, with more than 2800 posts on your record, it is entirely too unbelievable that you didn't know posts don't recursively quote and this suddenly makes an innocent mistake.
I have been calling you out based on that post, and your inability to actually address your follow-on debate shortcoming this entire thread. Now you call me dishonest when you finally admit to not knowing how the boards work and that your post didn't say whet you though it said.
Right.
Yeah.
Sure.
I do not accept your "Never made a sub-licensing claim myself". It is all to obvious exactly where and how you did. We can even go back to post 114 and see you really didn't quit it, you just kind of stopped addressing it and trying to deflect the issue.
I also do not accept your innocent mistake I don't know how vBulletin works excuse as it does nothing to address your other attacking posts whenever factual inaccuracies were brought up.
And for the Coup de grâce. You have spent several of your past posts accusing me of dishonesty and never admitting a mistake (except I did actually admit the mistake earlier), yet here you claim to have made a doozy which created the whole enduring thread, and your solution is to say oops! And call me dishonest as a distraction. You would be right at home in the power stratus of a totalitarian dictatorship with that intellectual sleight of hand.
And in your own words:
You really think I have a history of dodging a discussion or not supporting my arguments?
Why yes I do!
Ummm no. I'm still calling you on revisionist hisatory. You quoted less than half of Galbi's post, specifically picking what you did and didn't keep because the part you removed was in the middle and spanned across two paragraphs. Not a possible cut-paste error.
I didn't cut and paste any more than you did. I used the reply button just as you and most others do. Now you're sounding dishonest. I guess I was mistaken when I assumed you may have innocently misunderstood. Your failure to comprehend isn't something I can cure online, tho I now very much doubt that's what this is.
Didn't you say you had a really busy life? I'm sure there's something more important than pestering me with continual personal assaults even after giving you a polite way out. You're aware of the ignore button aren't you? You should consider using it.