|
|
Posted by Frank ess on 12/08/06 21:49
Spex wrote:
> PTravel wrote:
>> "Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9892DFF233D73BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
>>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in
>>> news:elagvr02264@news3.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:22:55 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
>>>>> And that is the point I'm making, is that the original
>>>>> concept of copyright was to incease the learning of Science,
>>>>> and useful arts, which is the practical application of
>>>>> Science (today called engineering), not to protect works of
>>>>> entertainment.
>>>> Note that there was no distinction between books by content.
>>>>
>>> Not in the law itself, but one must include the authority for
>>> creating the law, the Constitution, That stated to promote the
>>> progress of Science. and the title of the law "An act to promote
>>> Learning.... ...
>>>
>>> I sorta take that as excluding "To promote the progress of
>>> Politics...
>>
>> Ah, now I get it. Laws and the Constitution mean what you take
>> them
>> to mean. So it's safe to ignore history, hundreds of years of
>> jurisprudence, the Supreme Court and all others charged with
>> construing the Constitution, etc. Wow. Even Judge Bork was that
>> much of a text-bound constructionist. Sorry. The Constitution was
>> NEVER intended to be understood and
>> construed at such a basic and primitive level.
>>
>
> Why is it when I listen/read Americans waxing lyrical about their
> justice system OJ immediately springs to mind?
Because you're a specious-minded dipshit looking for attention?
Yeah. That's the ticket.
Well, this is more attention than you deserve.
--
Frank ess
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|