Changes

::AH, OK now I see it.  Perhaps it could be worded somewhat more transparently?  Though, now I think about, that's really two points, isn't it? First off, there should be a prohibition (I suppose)against copying and claiming copyright.  Then there needs to be an additional prohibition saying that if you do violate the first one then you shouldn't subsequently claim that Conservapedia has violated the copyright you have fraudulently claimed.  But - if the first point is enforceable and demonstrable then the second one isn't necessary is it? And if it's not demonstrable then the second one is unenforceable.  I guess that's why people pay lawyers are rich. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::AH, OK now I see it.  Perhaps it could be worded somewhat more transparently?  Though, now I think about, that's really two points, isn't it? First off, there should be a prohibition (I suppose)against copying and claiming copyright.  Then there needs to be an additional prohibition saying that if you do violate the first one then you shouldn't subsequently claim that Conservapedia has violated the copyright you have fraudulently claimed.  But - if the first point is enforceable and demonstrable then the second one isn't necessary is it? And if it's not demonstrable then the second one is unenforceable.  I guess that's why lawyers are rich. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)