Re: [Gnu-arch-users] OT: Slavery???

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>

    > I apologize for my bad temper.

    > But it's fish-slap time.

Um, I had a little trouble getting much out of your next ~100 lines,
which I would like to presume is just a communication snafu, so let's
take this one step at a time, shall we?  "Stepping through in a
debugger", so to speak.  As you said:


    > While I can't give a one line proof, it should be plausible to
    > you that the communication problem can be solved by an
    > interative process


So, in that stepping-through-in-a-debugger spirit,  do we agree 
that you asked:

Stephen> What justifies "outrage" at the offer of a private contract
Stephen> that one is not party to, and one is free to accept or refuse
Stephen> as he chooses, and one is free to advocate publically that
Stephen> others not accept, either?

and, if so, do you agree or disagree (and if so why) that this is a
fair restatement of your question:

        Stephen's question, restated by Tom:

        The offer of a private contract that one is not party to, that
        one is free to accept or decline, and that one is free to
        advocate against is presumptively an exercise of the
        legitimate rights of the offering party and impinges on the
        rights of no one who declines the offer.

        A claim that such an offer is ethically and/or morally
        "outrageous" therefore requires a positive defense
        to overcome our presumption that the offer is simply an
        exercise of the offering party's legitimate rights.

        I have seen no such positive defense for your expressed 
        outrage over the BK public license.   What is your defense
        for that outrage?



-t