RS> If you dont have the mental horsepower to grasp that it isnt possible
RS> to provide to you what I did not save at the time, thats essentially
RS> your problem Dave.

DB> Rod, it's not the lack of evidence being provided, but the attitude
DB> that if it was possible to provide that evidence, you wouldn't
DB> provide it anyway.

Bullshitting Dave. I said in words as close to one syllable as I could
find, that I had a detailed discussion on that issue with with a lawyer
in that field who cited all sorts of detail which I did not actually
save so I could quote it. I said you would have to do the research
yourself if you didnt like that. How the hell you manage to turn that
into a 'you wouldnt provide that anyway' escapes me completely. Not that
I give a stuff about how you manage to make these leaps of logic basically.
Here is the quote again

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RS> In fact its not true that there has been no testing whatever of the
RS> 'shrinkwrap contract' stuff.

DB> Please - cite precedent;  I most eagerly await your references to
DB> such test cases, as they would prove most important and indeed useful.

You can wait as eagerly as you like Dave. I was discussing the matter a
while ago in an international echo with a lawyer working in that field
in the US and didnt save any of that thread. You will just have to do
the research yourself if you want to chase it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not one mention of 'wont provide it anyway' or even anything faintly
resembling that.

DB> Rod, if you want to present an opposing view, then sure go right
DB> ahead - nobody can (nor should they) stop you.  Just don't pretend
DB> that what you're saying is reality unless you can back it up

RS> Go and fuck yourself Dave.

DB> Gee, Rod;  you sure have this phobia against reality, don't you..

Nope, just have a problem with kids still in school attempting to tell
other people how to conduct themselves. I usually tell people like that
to go and fuck themselves. They usually dont care for that much |-)

RS> Again, I didnt save any of that tho with 20:20 hindsight, that
RS> may also be handy in the future too. Thats life, like I say, I
RS> often regret not saving stuff.

DB> See?  It wasn't so difficult to just come out and say it after all.

RS> Pathetic Dave. Thats precisely what I did say when you bombastically
RS> demanded proof initially.

DB> Rubbish;  you said "It has already been tested, so there",

Nope, the quote is now back in the dotted lines above Dave. Saying
something quite different. Quotable this time so its easy to rub you
nose in it.

DB> without any further information.  When I requested more, you
DB> complained bitterly, but came ahead and told me anyway.

Complete crap. I said I didnt save it. So I couldnt quote it. Thats
complaining bitterly ?  The most I did was to tell you to go and fuck
yourself when you demanded a particular type of proof. It told you it
was not available and that if you didnt like that, you would have to do
the research yourself. its just as true now as it was the first time I
said it. Nothing has changed.

DB> Now Rod, you've raised an interesting point here - just let me
DB> remind you that you're talking about the American jurisdiction,

RS> Thats supposed to be news is it Dave ? You aint reminding me of
RS> a damned thing.

DB>> when the discussion was originally centred (by situation) on
DB>> the Australian jurisdiction.

RS> Nope, it aint that simple.

DB> OH YES IT IS;

Nope, it aint, it aint that simple. You can shout it if you like Dave,
wont change a damned thing.

DB> ask any lawyer, foreign precedent in jurisdictions like the U.K.,
DB> U.S., N.Z. and Canada are merely "persuasive", but are in no way
DB> binding.

And saying 'it aint that simple' is an accurate way of characterising
the difference between binding and persuasive dave.

DB> If you can't fathom that, or aren't willing to do the research
DB> required to realise this, then that's essentially your problem.

Bullshitting Dave. In fact in the specific situation where shrinkwrap
contracts have not been explicitly tested in Aust courts and are not
explicitly mentioned in Aust law, those overseas jurisdictions are
indeed why 'it aint that simple' on the Aust jurisdiction.

RS> We were in fact talking about purported contracts inserted by
RS> US software majors and whether they were binding on the users
RS> of the software.

DB> Nope - we were talking *generally* in *Australia*;

Nope, we were talking specifically about the question of use of object
code produced by compilers and what the compiler producer may or may not
have purported to allow in that regard in what purported to be contracts
with the user of that compiler.

DB> there was no original reference to U.S. companies,

The thread started about OS2 compilers. There aint too many of those
written in Aust Dave.

DB> major *or* minor. Paul (the Aust., or U.S. one, I don't care) -
DB> do *you* recall any original reference to U.S. software vendors?

Yep, the whole discussion was about OS2 compilers. Name some locally
produced ones Dave.

DB>> You have stated emphatically that shrinkwrap licences *have*
DB>> been tested in a court of law - but only in the U.S.; to date,
DB>> you haven't addressed the Australian scene.

RS> You know as well as I do that the fundamentals of what purports to
RS> be a contract situation is just a tad more complex than that Dave.

DB> You're blind, Rod;  that paragraph doesn't address the fundamentals
DB> of contract law - it's a statement that you're splashing in the wrong
DB> pool (U.S. instead of Australia).

Bullshitting Dave. In a situation where a specific type of purported
contract, shrinkwrap contracts, has not been tested at all in Aust law,
and is not specifically mentioned in Aust law, it aint quite that simple
Dave. Deny that as loudly as you like Dave, it wont change a damned thing.

DB> While it is certainly possible that the matter *has* been addressed
DB> locally, relying on foreign cases isn't the way to prove this.

RS> Never said it was, but there can indeed be situations where a foreign
RS> decision on some stuff does in fact matter. You know that as well as
RS> I do.

(Continued to next message)

--- PQWK202