Re: Intel v. Hamidi
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this, John -- if not for you I'd have missed it
> altogether, since I bozofilter the author.
Translation: you're man enough to dish it out, but not man enough to
take it. When you find people who are willing to stand up to your
snotty attitude and second-rate mind, you bravely run away.
> My use of "trivial", of course, was meant to echo Kent's use of the
> same word, and the question itself was meant to raise a particular
> equitable question that is relevant when the remedy sought is an
> equitable one (injunction).
Yes, Mike, probably no one in the entire world grasped that except
you. Neither in common usage nor in legalese is blocking Hamidi
trivial, because it simply cannot be accomplished without legal
action or unplugging the entire Intel network, and I think the
burden's on you to show that receiving 35,000 messages from Hamidi as
often as he wants to send them is somehow such a minor burden to
Intel that the law should not recognize it as such.
If you'd like, Mike, we could conduct a test. I'll send a message
to you each day for the next seven days. I assure you that you will
receive each and every one of them, regardless of your attempts to
block my email out. It's trivial, right?
--
Michael Sims The Censorware Project
http://censorware.org
I read the book of Job last night - I don't think God comes out well in it.
Partial thread listing: