Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
> Peter> Nonsense, it's valid fair use. Learn copyright law.
>
> Nonsense, there's caselaw that says that letters sent from person A to B
> were owned by A, because B wanted to publish them when A became famous.
>
> I forget the specifics, but it's been decided.
>
> That is why I said *arguable*.  I don't think anyone's argued the email case,
> but the physical mail case has precedent.
>
> Don't wave "fair use" so broadly.  It really isn't that broad.
>
>   
Note: the subject heading was "Re: Fear and loathing of the 
"perification" of Smalltalk".

Hi,

Fair use applies in this situation.

There are also other laws other than copyright to consider. In British 
Columbia, where I am located, a party to a conversation may make it 
public if it's in defense of their person as my posting clearly was. End 
of story.

Also I didn't retaliate with any personal attack. I simply stated the 
facts of what was said and asked the person to stop their attacks, which 
seems to have occurred as the subsequent email-posting exchange shows. 
Furthermore, out of a desire to have positive conversions subsequently 
follow, I provided suggestions of how to ask appropriate questions 
rather than initiate ad hominem attacks.

I suppose that you support ad hominem attacks upon the person even if 
they are sent privately to attempt to influence, "bully" or "inflame" 
someone's behavior in a negative way with false accusations?

How would you have handled it in a way that would positively influence 
the person's initiating the ad hominem person attack?

All the best,

Peter William Lount
peter at smalltalk.org