|Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 338):|
I haven't felt the need to post because there is nothing more to discuss.
The community thinks otherwise, ma'am.
The original "legal response" has been challenged multiple times with actual legal decisions backing the arguments up, and there's nothing more to discuss?
The exchange between posts 262 and 338 can be pretty much summed up as this:
: IntelliText is perfectly legal.
A.net: We don't think so, and here are precedents to support our case.
: Oh, well, we already told you it's legal ... you'll have to take our word it.
Whether you think
there's a need to discuss things or not ... members here like Lincoln have presented a convincing case against
the IntelliTXT ads using legal precedents, and all you have done is throw the same response back at us which cites NOTHING to back it up. Putting an argument without any citation to back it up against a well-cited argument is, as Lincoln put it, like telling us the sky is red when we're looking up and can clearly see it is blue.
I, for one, intend on watching this legal debate very closely. DM
seems to disregard the legal issue as just a point of whining for the "inconvenience" of the IntelliTXT ads ... but the community sees a real legal issue here, with precedents to support. Such a consideration should be taken seriously.
It'll be interesting how this plays out.
© 2007 J. Bowler. All rights reserved. No part of this post may be used, modified, or reproduced in any manner whatsoever except as direct quotes on this forum.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.