Re: Writing for Free Software Magazine
On Saturday 26 March 2005 20:59, Michael Z Daryabeygi wrote:
> actually it is defined both ways. absolute and relative.
> http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=P#POVERTY
Well, when it comes to poverty, I will not choose the definition that means
least work. In this country at least, it is generally defined in terms of
average resources.
> again I said I agree with your ideals. But your absolutism is silly
> We are talking about a luxury here.
What you consider to be silly is irrelevant to my argument. In fact, your
statement is an ad hominem attack, and therefore a fallacy. If you do not
like my argument, you can disprove it, or ignore it and go about your day. I
simply made a comment, with the original poster of this thread can take on
board or forget too. But your personal dislike of what I have said has
nothing to do with this.
> A printed copy and advanced viewing.
> You are only speculating that that time period is unreasonable for the
> content.
No, if you read my post again, you will find that I have said something quite
different.
> I guess I am in the open and free as in freedom camp and not
> the free as in beer camp.
As am I.
> Are you against all pay for service business
> models that leverage Free as in Freedom intellectual property?
No, and I have already said so on this very topic.
--
Lee.
Reply to: