True, and yet not so true. I can't count the number of times I've witnessed person B's attempt to trump the argument of person A by a purely sophistical attempt to claim B's own "expert" status. I often take that as a sign of a lack of confidence in one's own argument because it doesn't stand on its own without erecting a jargon-based scaffolding around it. Expert status in no way guarantees one's being correct in any individual instance or interpretation. Particularly when it isn't a forum limited to a conversation between experts it's probably more fruitful to accept that the conversation is to be guided by common sense and freely used vernacular speech. I'm not sure that here it matters so much where the dividing line stands between theft and infringement. Since this is not a court of law it's probably more helpful to discuss it in moral terms rather than veering off into legalese. What you all are really talking about is what you think is right and wrong, and the references to the law are more used as evidence than ends in themselves. Elliot Berlin Alexander Georgiadis wrote: > Oh, and fuck the semantics. Words are the most important tool we have for communicating with other people, so questions of what they mean are among the most crucial questions. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/dd-b Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
