Begone, slime. Not all FAQ authors have renounced rights to their works
in general, and in fact I think even the ones who say they are doing it
out of altruism would happily embrace a system where they are
monetarily compensated, and soon they *will* be. Why are you so
presumptuous as to think that no one here would be delighted with
actual compensation for their work? you are a hypocrite. you have been
virtually implying that `strangers' have the *right* to profit from the
voluntary work of others, and since the `volunteers' have already
agreed to `forfeit' rights, they have no right to object. You have
totally twisted the concept of volunteerism and profit around to imply
that those who volunteer are the `whiners' and the parasites are the
noble entrepreneural Knights. Who are you? From whence did you come?
Please, go back to where you came from.
>The
>analogy also confuses a legal issue with a motivational issue; I'm
>asking a question about the author's motivations, not about the law.
You are an obnoxious jerk for implying that anyone who wishes to make
profit for a FAQ or reserve the right to do so is a `covetous,
egotistical, selfish hypocrite'.
You have no concept of honesty and fairness, and you think that `that
which cannot be enforced should not be prohibited.'
Begone, begone. Stop tormenting us with your sleazy, sordid provocations.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved