patrick.net

ch_tah says

And you were a prick above to TechGromit, not just me.

Sure, and I owned up to the fact that I made a mistake in terminology, unlike TechGromit and you, ch_tah. Just to make it clear: I used the wrong terminology above, and ch_tah called me out on it.

The other difference is that my mistake made no substantive difference because I understood the concept -- you will note that IHB's lawyer actually did exactly what I said. In contrast, TechGromit's and ch_tah's mistakes showed that they didn't understand the concepts, and further questioning proved that with respect to ch_tah.

It's like if I said "X's lawyer filed the order." Technically X's lawyer *lodged* the order, but substantively, there is no problem. When you start talking nonsense about the secondary market for non-public stocks and don't understand 6 month lockups after IPOs and can't explain what each of those things mean and what they do, that's substantive, and using the wrong terminology was indicative of that in that case.

Speaking on a forum on the internet doesn't really connote tone, so maybe that's why you thought I was being a prick, ch_tah (you said you didn't understand something, and I agreed and provided the right terminology for you). As for TechGromit, if you read carefully above, you would see that he was being a dick ("Before recommending someone take a reckless action, perhaps you should educate yourself a little about copyright law"), so I responded similarly aggressively.

corntrollio says

Sure, and I owned up to the fact that I made a mistake in terminology, unlike TechGromit and you, ch_tah. Just to make it clear: I used the wrong terminology above, and ch_tah called me out on it.

Okee dokee. Yes, using "cause of action" instead of "defense" is a mistake of terminology. Just like when I said you were being a "prick," I just used the wrong terminology and really meant "nice guy."