I haven't read enough to know for sure who's right or wrong, but William
has been citing the decision and using it to buttress his arguments, and Ed
has been mostly just saying his point of view is the correct one.
Can we end this argument already, or at least stop copying people who have
professed no interest in it?
-Declan
At 10:09 3/24/2000 -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Ed Gerck wrote:
> > > I'm curious, tho'. Where are you licensed to practice law?
> >
> > In the US, amateur engineers are not allowed by law, but amateur
> > lawyers are. Accordingly, everyone is also expected to know the law --
> > not just lawyers, which of course does not apply to the more complex
> > art of engineering or physics. My qualifications are public, btw, if you
> > want to know just do an altavista search.
> >
>Apparently, you've never even seen the Stac decision that you argue
>supports your rhetoric, and don't follow important cases on this
>subject. Unfortunately, you just ran into someone who has some
>actual knowledge of the case. That's why I asked for citations.
>
>Your incorrect first sentence compounds the error. Perhaps you
>could provide citations here, also? (At least in Michigan, legal
>representation by non-lawyers is prohibited by law, engineering
>advice from non-engineers is not -- lawyers write the laws.)
>
>The lawyer that shares my social life thought the opinions were
>ill-informed; she guessed correctly as to your practice status.
>
>
> > So, Sonny v Connectix is NOT your trump card in this thread,
> > as you seem to take it for. Quite to the contrary, I show above
> > that a logical reading of the decision both supports my arguments
> > as well as it denies what you have been assuming all along. I take it thus
> > as one of my trump cards, thank you, conveniently at hand as you might say.
> >
>It would be really, really helpful when you would actually read the
>entire text quoted, check the cited cases, and most importantly,
>refrain from amazingly tortured and contorted interpretations of fairly
>straightforward court decisions.
>
>(Again, I followed that particular case because I'm personally
>acquainted with the defendants. I Am Not A Lawyer -- but, I've won
>a fair number of cases pro se in both Federal and Michigan courts, at
>District, Circuit and Appellate level, and take some satisfaction
>that several judges have congratulated me on my preparation. Heck,
>I'm not a cryptographer, either, or a "licensed" engineer -- but I've
>designed a few security protocols that have some degree of
>widespread use. I've never removed any signatures from written
>documents for a military hunta. Wow, what a qualification!)
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP 6.5.1
>
>iQCVAwUBONuE1Nm/qMj6R+sxAQFU/QP9EmbSZM3dtIyT5FPKWTiI4fA0/meC4R4R
>ZqZfY05JYNmqpyMDvePblvo9DL9uhHAiJWCJX/ITMxPYwoCxcYjRiwHyLe/qgCd7
>9gQWYo/7iC6a3dLQLgGjM8ZRWEZzVnYxkfPYvt/nE1U8pwwFfF/hyJpKaN4NUFTE
>b5k6qzICsKQ=
>=f6j8
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
