From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:18:07 GMT

In article <BZS.92Sep25214624@ussr.std.com>,
  bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

| I honestly do not believe you know what you are talking about, and you
| are just recording some personalized, internal belief system.

Barry, I honestly do not believe you know what you are talking about,
and you are just recording some personalized, internal belief system.

| Have you ever heard someone, for instance, criticize
| the US Internal Revenue Code [...]

Yes.  Myself.  Frequently.  However not soley on the basis that 
I can accidentally violate the code, but on the basis that 
(paraphrasing another poster) it is nearly *impossible* to avoid
violating the code and still conduct a going concern.  The two
concepts are not identical.

| What you have done here is inverted necessary and sufficient (in
| applicable cases.) You are arguing that because accidental violation
| is not sufficient therefore it is not necessary and, you further
| claim, is therefor of no value at all, quite a series of leaps.

No.  Your argument was that it was sufficient, and my intent was to
refute that.  In <ussr.BZS.92Sep24214509> you said ``This is often
used to overturn common laws...''.  In <1992Sep25.161720.22708@rwwa.COM>
I said ``The single fact that a law can be violated `accidentally''
is rarely used by thinking people as an argument for repealing a law''.

| Yet I cited instances in recent legislation which reversed laws (e.g.
| Roe v Wade) which stand as clear and factual counter-examples to your
| belief system.

In <ussr.BZS.92Sep24214509> you said ``Although not "accidental", 
consider Roe v. Wade...''  Since you yourself admitted that this had
nothing to do with ``accidental'' violations of the law, I ignored
it.  Pray tell me, how can you divine from one posting my ``belief
system'', and how a one sentence statement about abortion can demolish
it?

| But you chose not to address the facts and, instead, prefer to merely
| repeat your beliefs with absolutely nothing resembling a fact to base
| them on.

Well, I was hard pressed to find the ``facts'' you are referring to, in
<ussr.BZS.92Sep24214509>, unless it is all of the places where you say
``I think'' or ``I wrote'' or ``I wonder''.

| You cannot have it both ways, you can't say nothing needs reforming
| but of course those silly examples (of which there are many) need to
| be changed.

Perhaps you will be so kind as to point out where, in 
<1992Sep25.161720.22708@rwwa.COM>, I mad the claim that ``nothing needs
reforming''.  I *did* say that I believe in the *system*, but that
is certainly a long way from claiming perfection.  In another section
I criticised part of the system; that seems hardly consistent with
your claim that I believe ``nothing needs reforming''.

| >But your claims seem to be much broader....
| 
| I said nothing of the sort.

You are right, you said nothing of the sort.  The reason I used the
word ``seem'' is that it was difficult for me to determine exactly
what it *is* that you *are* saying.  You ``seem'' to be saying that
software should not be patentable, but, of course, you don't actually
say that anywhere in <ussr.BZS.92Sep24214509>.  If in fact you
believe software *should* be patentable, then please accept my
appology for imputing the opposite.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5992 misc.int-property:1029 alt.suit.att-bsdi:353