On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 10:09:53PM +0200, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:27:25PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > So you agree that using permission bits is obstructing the reading, as
> > defined in the GFDL?
> > >From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
> > obstruct
> > v 1: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His
> > brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: {blockade}, {block},
> > {hinder}, {stymie}, {stymy}, {embarrass}]
> The following is my reasoning (and similar for "control").
> "Progress or accomplishment" means that the process that is being
> hindered or prevented has already started. Hence you can not
> "obstruct the reading" if the process of reading has not started yet.
> When the permission bit for reading is not set then the reading can
> not start.
You must be an aspiring lawyer, because this attempt to twist common English
words is stupid. That, or you need to look up the meaning of "prevent" as
well; sorry, I'm having a hard time guessing whether there's a language
barrier here, or you're being deliberately perverse. Your argument is
equivalent to saying that since the police failed to stop you, there was no
arrest, and therefore you were not resisting arrest.
There's also a nice charge called "obstruction of justice", btw, for which
shouting "TANJ" at the judge is not a defense...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature