Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them
not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the
use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
They are wrong. You can revoke the license.
You were paid nothing for this grant.
The takers have nothing.
Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your
speech, and ejecting you from your communities.
You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural
pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling
over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the
woman and her state).
Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for
yourself.
They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
(See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing
lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily
replaced)
But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as
such. And you should do so.
And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on
your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce
Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your
side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women
and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of
advertence not fixated on them.
Thank you very much for this message, friend. We the people should
learn it and stop taking Cock of Conduct up our ass
пн, 31 дек. 2018 г. в 05:07, <[email protected]>:
>
> Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them
> not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
> keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the
> use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
>
> They are wrong. You can revoke the license.
>
> You were paid nothing for this grant.
> The takers have nothing.
>
> Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your
> speech, and ejecting you from your communities.
>
> You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural
> pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling
> over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the
> woman and her state).
>
> Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for
> yourself.
>
> They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
> (See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing
> lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily
> replaced)
>
> But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as
> such. And you should do so.
>
> And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on
> your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce
> Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your
> side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women
> and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of
> advertence not fixated on them.
>
>
Band together as a Bloc and take action together. (Bloc revocation).
One practice note: do not send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
Do not let your lawyer send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
If a potential defendant knows that their liberties regarding a
copyrighted work is in question
from entity X (entity X being a rights-holder etc), then they can rush
to the courthouse
and file for a hearing to determine their rights.
They do this to give you less time to prepare your case, and to have the
case start in
a jurisdiction that they feel is favorable to them (the CoC supporters
will be trying
to get the case adjudicated in the 9th circuit, as they feel they have
those
judges in their pocket - the 9th circuit absolutely hates men with a
passion _even_
greater than the rest of America - and they like to overturn and ignore
black-letter law)
You will notice that the CoC supporters and No-Rescind group have fallen
silent
in the last couple of months. They know they have very little to grasp
onto,
and every one of their claims have been refuted.
Heather Meekers just gives the issue a gloss and says "lol no"
and points to a ZDnet article, where I have cited academic papers on the
issue,
as-well as the law I learned in law school, and further studies.
Bruce Perens literally called you all replaceable.
As did Mathew Garret.
Specifically because they feel that they own your property now and they
do not need you.
Inform them that such is not the case, in the most direct manner.
Remember: These are the people, the class, that prevent you from having
sweet love.
They are those who uphold your legal disabilities (cannot marry cute
young girls, as YHWH allows).
They are your enemies, and the enemies of all Men on earth.
On 2018-12-31 08:45, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> Thank you very much for this message, friend. We the people should
> learn it and stop taking Cock of Conduct up our ass
>
> пн, 31 дек. 2018 г. в 05:07, <[email protected]>:
>>
>> Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told
>> them
>> not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
>> keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding
>> the
>> use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
>>
>> They are wrong. You can revoke the license.
>>
>> You were paid nothing for this grant.
>> The takers have nothing.
>>
>> Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your
>> speech, and ejecting you from your communities.
>>
>> You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural
>> pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling
>> over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the
>> woman and her state).
>>
>> Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built
>> for
>> yourself.
>>
>> They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
>> (See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing
>> lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be
>> easily
>> replaced)
>>
>> But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as
>> such. And you should do so.
>>
>> And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on
>> your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like
>> Bruce
>> Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your
>> side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women
>> and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of
>> advertence not fixated on them.
>>
>>
What promise did you rely upon?
It is the right of the property owner to revoke.
You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his
code.
He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke
(Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license.
Something which the GPLv3 adds).
(The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours
after publication)
Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance.
It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made,
and a promise that you never payed the owner for.
In short: you are wrong,
and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the
copyright owners to your own property, essentially.
(Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because to
do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to
committing the taking.)
On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote:
> "Consideration" can be in form of "
> detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and
> that reliance cost you something.
>
> So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing
> programs based on the license you have paid for the license.