Explain biff's position?
Message ID: 353250
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-03-12 10:00:00
Subject: explain biff's position?
Recs: 6
I never get a direct answer out of biff, so I won't try.
I have never agreed with biff, but I used to understand what he was arguing. At least to the extent that I understood his basic premises. It seems there was a time when biff didn't flip-flop that often.
Biff used to argue that novell owned the Unix copyrights, and that novell transferred those copyrights to scox.
Then, on the novl board, biff argued that novl owned the copyrights, and novl still owns the copyrights. When I pointed out, to biff, that this contradicted his previous position about scox owning the copyrights. Biff claimed that scox both owned the copyrights, and did not own the copyrights.
Now biff is flip-flopping again. Now biff is arguing that novl never owned the copyrights. Or is it that novl both owned them, and didn't own them?
It's 07:53 here in denver. As I write this, I'm not sure what biff's present position is. But, within the last month, biff has held all three of the above positions.
Biff argues in manner so similar to scox. He sees no problem with arguing mutually exclusive positions. No problem with contradictions. And, for the most part, his entire arguement is pointless anyway. It doesn't matter what novl owned or didn't own, what matters is: what rights over IBM does scox have?
Out of curiousity, why all the recent flip-flopping? Has something happend that biff has to change his position to support the scox scam?
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "walterbyrd"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-03-12 10:00:00
Subject: explain biff's position?
Recs: 6
I never get a direct answer out of biff, so I won't try.
I have never agreed with biff, but I used to understand what he was arguing. At least to the extent that I understood his basic premises. It seems there was a time when biff didn't flip-flop that often.
Biff used to argue that novell owned the Unix copyrights, and that novell transferred those copyrights to scox.
Then, on the novl board, biff argued that novl owned the copyrights, and novl still owns the copyrights. When I pointed out, to biff, that this contradicted his previous position about scox owning the copyrights. Biff claimed that scox both owned the copyrights, and did not own the copyrights.
Now biff is flip-flopping again. Now biff is arguing that novl never owned the copyrights. Or is it that novl both owned them, and didn't own them?
It's 07:53 here in denver. As I write this, I'm not sure what biff's present position is. But, within the last month, biff has held all three of the above positions.
Biff argues in manner so similar to scox. He sees no problem with arguing mutually exclusive positions. No problem with contradictions. And, for the most part, his entire arguement is pointless anyway. It doesn't matter what novl owned or didn't own, what matters is: what rights over IBM does scox have?
Out of curiousity, why all the recent flip-flopping? Has something happend that biff has to change his position to support the scox scam?
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "walterbyrd"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------