No, your statement doesn't follow my logic. 1 OP: Hopes for Copyleft license. 2 My reply: [The public video] would belong to the State [therefore to US cit

No, your statement doesn't follow my logic. 1 OP: Hopes for Copyleft license. 2 My reply: [The public video] would belong to the State [therefore to US citizens.] 3 Your smart-ass reply: [Something else owned by the state, not public] belongs to the State, so it should be public. I think yours qualifies as refuse by converse fallacy of accident. But you don't just make a wrong generalization, you also change the reason: copyright vs. disclosure. If you followed my logic, it would be: The plans of American nukes were produced by the government, therefore they belong to US citizens. In fact, my post has a question mark as I am not a US citizen and I don't fully understand state ownership, so I wasn't even making a statement. While there, as you came full aggressive, let's review your grammar: * After ellipsis, capitalize (perhaps it should just be a comma.) * [It's] American, not "american." * Again capitalize after quotation mark. [Edit: Capitalize after question mark, not after quotation mark.] And you are not quoting me or anybody else so there is no need of quotation marks. My disclaimer: my English is poor as I am foreign and last time I studied logic was over 15 years ago.