> It's not nonsensical. It had nothing to do with the passage you were quoting. So yes it was nonsensical. > That guy is conflating violating a copyright with

> It's not nonsensical. It had nothing to do with the passage you were quoting. So yes it was nonsensical. > That guy is conflating violating a copyright with violating a trademark You keep saying that but I’ve not seen anyone discuss IP violations apart from you. They didn’t even mention copyright, the OP was discussing trademark preventing Mickey Mouse from being public domain. Ok they lacked eloquence but at least they weren’t making bullshit up like you were. > I even gave examples. Rather than acknowledge this, he doesn't. They literally replied to it. Which is more than you deserved given it was a stupid straw man argument. By the way, what makes you so sure they identify themselves as “he”? Another of many assumptions you’ve made about them today.