> John Fields wrote:
> > The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know
> > it. Here's the original:
> > "Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing
> > as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual
> > property."
> > And here's its second even more heinous incarnation, from above:
> > "recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to
> > use the invention"
> That's your statement not mine!
Specifically, by dropping the "as virtual property" from my original,
John constructed a new statement with a nearly opposite meaning of the
original, then fradulently attributed his new statement to me so that
he could argue against an outrageous straw man, rather than the
reasoned arguments I actually presented.