RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]

>Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback
>
>On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 18:30 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
>>
>> >I interpolate, reasonably I think, that such unauthorized
>> >use would be objectionable to these vendors because it
>> >would lower the use value of renting a font from them.
>> >If that is not the main concern, let me know.
>>
>> He is letting you know and you keep ignoring it. Do not be surprised
>if
>> others end up giving you the same treatment.
>
>
<snip>
>Now, you appear to contradict what we've heard.  You
>appear to say that such unauthorized use is of no
>concern to font vendors.
>
<snip>

Last attempt: since Thomas Phinney and others with professional expertise in the matter have repeatedly stated that
your 'interpolation' is neither accurate nor 'reasonable', I find it dishonest on your part to repeat your theory yet again
and then ask them to let you know if that is not their main concern.

In essence, the exchange sort of looks like this:

'You're child molesters !
'No we're not'
'You're child molesters ! You're child molesters !'
'No. We're decidedly not'
'Well, according to my reasonable interpolation, you're child molesters. If that is not the case though, please let me know'.

I grant you that it has its entertainment value. But it is unnecessary, unhelpful, absurd and increasingly tiresome.
But then I am under the illusion that you are attempting to engage in a conversation as opposed to a monologue. Maybe
that's my mistake ?

I, for one, will no longer respond to such commentary. Whatever theories you have about Microsoft, font vendors or anyone else, and
however reasonable *you* believe them to be, they do not entitle you to using this tone with anyone who disagrees and it certainly does not
deserve more responses. At least I've tried. Good luck.

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 21:48:03 UTC