DragonMaci

I think that they limitation of "unless they 'result in a physical transformation of an article' or are 'tied to a particular machine" is false and silly. It is true that a lot of software that should not get patents does, but the proper solution is to clean up the patent system not to virtually eliminate software patents altogether. I agree with you that some things like MP3 should be allowed to be patented.

On the subject of our solar system it is our sun that is called Sol right? And not our solar system? Either way, the name, Sol is another good example of a proper name.

Yeah, that was my thought when I read the quoted section on capitalism. That is my opinion of the section on capitalism. It isn't funny; it is utterly disgusting and vulgar for making fun of the good. Proper humour makes fun of the evil and/or silly not the good.

Yes, I am aware of that law. I strongly disagree with the wording. Buty more importantly, that is clearly not wjat I meant. I clearly meant magic as in spells and the like. That isn't exactly real now is it? Also, please don't anyone be smart arse and point out that Komodo dragons and bearded dragons are real because that isn't what I meant.

As does the fantasy genre. I mean dragons and magic aren't exactly real now are they?

I assume Nick meant his teacher didn't show any factual evidence for global warming.

This not true; many can and do. They do do so through their productive effort. Of course. Those at the top earn more than those at the bottom. Natural resources are tapped through productive effort by those at the top, so it is those at the top that deserve compensation not those at the bottom. No man has the right to the fruits of another man's labour except by trade; there is no automatic right.

You misconstrued me again. I said automatic permission not universal permission. Also, you ignored me saying Goodkind was an example not the point and treated my comment about him as the point not an example. You have developed a trend of such behaviour in this debate, one that is clearly deliberate. There is and I already gave an example of it - and author authorizing a website to be the official website for his books but not expressly giving permission to quote. Remember that the official website comment is an example not the point. The point is that automatic permission does exist. ' They are not forced. They can, as DavidOdden said, keep it private, which is not dependent on the amount of copies published as you assumed. Keeping it private means not publishing it, not placing it in the public eye. Dirstly, I said not publish him. I didn't say "give him the boot". The former means he book never gets published, the latter means they stop publishing his book. Secondly, it is related. The conditions the publishers set for him to publish his works are related, it is a matter of his rights and their rights. They have the right to refuse to publish an author that will shoot himself and, more importantly, the publishing company in the foot in such a manner. And the author has no right to forbide quotes when the publisher made him not doing so as a condition of publishing.

Firstly, I was trying to use Goodkind as an example of the general point not as the point. The point was that you were wrong when you said there is no such thing as automatic permission. The official Goodkind website was merely an example of how automatic permission sometimes occurs. This comment is just silly. I clearly never meant it has such bearing and you have no reason to think I did. I see you haven't given up on misconstruing me. I highly doubt that you will ever do so. You might also want to consider what the publishers would do if an author didn't let quotes be used. They'd probably not publish a book by such an author. They wouldn't want to lose out on the potentially positive effect of quotes appearing in a good review, a fan site, etc.

Of course but it is an improvement over not being allowed at all.

Well, it is an improvement at least.

Wrong. Do you think Terry Goodkind bothered to give the official site for his books express permission to quote from his books? I bet he didn't. When an author authorises a web site to be the official site for his books he need not give express permission for them to quote the books; it is an automatic part of being the official site. You might want to consider that that is because no one has argued that and in thinking they have you have misconstrued them.

I am not "back to the debate". However, unless I state otherwise you can assume I support everything DavidOdden says in this debate. Everything he has said so far about the issue is my view as well. He has simply argued the point better than I have.

It turns out that it is not yet illegal to pay less to those that have KiwiSaver than those that do not - but it will be soon.

I refuse to explain how you are misconstruing me because I have already tried many times and each time you either ignored me or misconstrued that as well. What makes you think that that? Don't get me wrong, it'd be nice if UI did, but I am unsure what makes you think that.

Indeed. Over half a million have subscribed to the scheme since it was first created about a year ago. That is a lot for a nation of only 4.2 to 4.3 million.

Sadly, the other of the two major parties said they will not get rid of KiwiSaver and will instead only make "minor changes" - without saying what they are.

No. I meant it when I said I am not debating until you stop willfully evading things I say. Until you can prove that you are willing to stop doing so I am not debating with you. You also need to prove an understanding of what I say rather than misconstruing what I say. Until you prove you can do those two things it is a waste of my time to debate with you. I see you have not yet decided to change anything and are continuing to misconstrue me rather than making an effort to understand me. Until that changes I will not debate with you. So either stop trying to debate with me or make an effort. It is one or the other, not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. That is still reproduction of them.

See, this kind of misconstruing is why I refuse to argue with you any more. Since you refuse to stop doing so i am not even going to explain how you misconstrued it. I am not talking about forum rules. I am talking about the principle of quoting someone else's words.

They are creators; they are creating a review, a website for fans on the book, or something else that is a creation of the mind of one or more human. Let me ask you this: why is it moral for you to quote the words of me and David in your posts but not for a reviewer to do the same with a book? After all, our posts are the works of our minds and hands just like is the case with author and his book. Edit: fixed a grammar error.

Wrong. read ITOE for a good answer to why that is not so. I don't feel like covering a topic Rand has already covered better than I possibly could. Again you blatantly ignore me saying I am trying to deal with the concept and not the law. The law is the implementation of the concept. Before the implementation of a concept can be dealt with one must first deal with the concept. That is what I have been trying to do and been trying to say. But you keep willfully evading those comments. Until you stop doing that I am not even going to debate the concept. I do not debate with those that willfully evade my comments. Addition: ITOE will also point out the error in this comment:

What part of Atlas Shrugged? Sadly, I cannot recall right now.

Is that taking into account the exchange rate? Because NZ$12 is worth a lot less than US$12.

There are good chances it could become $15 in NZ by 2011. I remember when it was $9 and I easily got a job a few months out of school. Now I have more experience and more skills and I cannot get a job at the $12 minimum nor could I at the last two rates of $10.20 and $11.25. Edit: Added a comment.

Nonsense. That is either an attempt at evasion or is rather silly. Discussing why you think Rand was NOT being immoral does not breach forum rules, nor does saying why you think people that quote from books, articles, etc are immoral. Addition 1: I see you are still trying to rope me into addressing particular measurements despite me constantly saying I refuse to do so. What part of me refusing to do so do you not understand? I mean it. I won't debate measurements. Concepts omit measurement and I want to discuss the concept so measurements are beside my point. As i said earlier I refuse to get sidetracked from my point. Addition 2: Not to mention that you have misconstrued David as well now.