What follows is more useful as an instance of how Ed Stone's mind works
than for any historical accuracy:
> > > says...
> > Don't simply repeat yourself in a response--which has been proof by
> > assertion thus far. I've made my case and supported it, and you've said
> > you disagree, without making a comparable case on the other side. Feel
> > free to disagree, but without a credible analysis it's just your
> > unsupported opinion.
> > David
> To recount the point of this thread:
> 1) Sternlight bandied the label "felony" and "infringer" on the acts
> of PZ..
No. I quoted a Microtimes article of an interview with him. That was the
initial post and the presenting symptom was an apparent act of Phil's in
saying what he did. Note also your weasel words "bandied the label". Are
you trying to say I made the accusation unconditionally? If so, say so
and then we'll see just who is doing the defaming here.
Quote:> 2) I reported the absence of any judicial finding of crime,
> indictment, lawsuit, liability, and requested the civility of not
> calling PZ a criminal or infringer.
Nonsense. You did not "request the civility". That's some wild fantasy
in your own mind. What you did was attack me because no court had
convicted. You took the position that it didn't happen unless there was
a conviction. Later, you acknowledged in passing (but not in any way to
move off your irrational position), that there could be an "existential"
commission in and of itself, without the need for judicial
Quote:> I reported on the implicit
> accusation of criminality in the term "felon", and described the forum
> designated to bring findings in such matters.
You did no such thing. You're dreaming. Let's see some quotes of what
you actually said, and its tone and context, rather than this sanitized
piece of self-justification.
Quote:> 3) Sternlight cited the "public person" defenses to charges of
> defamation and has now moved to use the word "hypothetical".
This was entirely separate from the logic or discussion of the above,
and a reader of this sequence alone can see how much of a non sequitur
that introduction is. You are concatenating two separate discussions
(whether Phil did something; whether I did something), threads, and
maybe even some private e-mail.
Quote:> 4) I have urged that neither PZ nor anyone else, be branded a felon or
> an infringer on the basis of assertion, rather than judicial finding,
> and that we not give that which we would be unhappy to accept.
FIne, but the acts which define an infringement are in the law. The law
doesn't say that you infringe only if you're found liable. Rather the
law specifies what it takes to infringe. Someone brings an accusation
and the court tries the accusation and either confirms or rejects it.
The acts, however, stand independently of a court confirmation that the
acts took place, and if you're found liable, you were infringing the
whole time, not just after the finding. You clearly have no conception
of how the law works.
It doesn't take a verdict to make someone a *er. All it takes is
that he kills in cold *, with malice aforethought and without
mitigating circumstances or State sanction. The verdict simply confirms
a charge and leads to societal penalties. If OJ killed Nicole and Ron,
he IS a *er, even if the State can't prove that beyond a reasonable
doubt. If he were to have confessed (without duress), there wouldn't be
any doubt. Phil gave an interview in which he confessed certain acts
which seem to me to be clearly defined as infringing in patent law (and
even tried to mitigate them, albeit with bogus logic having no basis in
that same patent law).
Consider the following hypothetical. Suppose I say unconditionally that
Phil infringed. Phil charges me with defamation. I show that he admitted
the elements of infringement out of his own mouth. Voila! No defamation
EVEN IF he's never brought to court and charged with infringement.
Or consider the OJ Simpson case. It would be fair public comment to
label him a *er even though the State hasn't convicted him of
*. Notice that OJ hasn't sued Ron's father for repeated references
to him on national TV as "the *er". It would be wrong to call OJ a
"convicted *er" just as I've never called Phil "found liable by a
court for infringement" or "a convicted ITAR felon", nor do I do so now.
The above concepts aren't just notional but codified in the concepts of
the law. We have, for example, the legal rubric of "an unindicted
co-conspirator". It doesn't take a conviction to name someone in that
way as a co-conspirator.
We've already discussed this fully, and your attempt to revive it is
just more nonsense. Time for you to stop.
Quote:> 5) Sternlight now says my argument is "proof by assertion".
Because you've never offered a shred of evidence to defend your kooky
view that it didn't happen unless there's a conviction.
Quote:> 6) My final point in this thread is that no case has been made that PZ
> is a felon or an infringer, other than as made by "proof by assertion"
> in recent mean-spirited smears.
To the contrary, the CASE has been made out of Phil's own mouth if the
Microtimes interview quotes him accurately. No CONVICTION or LEGAL
FINDING OF LIABILITY has been made--quite another matter.
Quote:> Such arguments remain proof by
> assertion until relevant judicial findings are brought forward, rather
> than rumors, hearsay, personal vendetta, hallway scuttlebut and
> weasel-worded meanness.
Bullshit. I didn't make up an accusation as to the facts of the case.
Phil (if the interview is accurate) admitted to them, and I simply
analyzed those admissions.
If someone says 'Yeah, I tried to get a license, was turned down, and
made and circulated the patented invention anyway' then it is not
"rumors, hearsay, personal vendetta, hallway scuttlebut(t), and
weasel-worded meanness" to assert he's admitted to infringement. It is a
logical conclusion. But analysis and logic seem beyond you this morning.
Instead you resort to what seems to me to be clearly defamatory
phrasing. That tells us who YOU are. It seems to me it is you who are
peddling "personal vendetta and weasel-worded meanness" here. If even a
friend or colleague of mine had publicly admitted to the facts of
infringement, he'd be a self-confessed infringer.