Wow

[jberryhill]

"Obviously both."

So, your objection to the UDRP is that it is in "violation of law".

And a few months ago, you went after Ari Goldberger on Icannwatch about how he was another "corrupt lawyer" for participating in this system that doesn't follow the law.

But, it turns out, your objection is completely hollow, because when it comes down to it, you don't like the law either.

Why, Garry, do you complain about the UDRP not following the law if you object to the law?

"You say it is me being stupid believing that it is unlawful."

No, Garry, I just don't understand what your problem is with things being "unlawful" if you object to what the law says. You want the UDRP to conform to a body of law with which you disagree. Is that your point?

Or is it that you just want the world to work the way you want it to work?

Don't we all.

[Garry Anderson]

J> But, it turns out, your objection is completely hollow, because when it comes down to it, you don't like the law either.

J> Why, Garry, do you complain about the UDRP not following the law if you object to the law?

You misrepresent me - you know I talk about trademark overreach.

> No, Garry, I just don't understand what your problem is with things being "unlawful" if you object to what the law says.

Again - you misrepresent me - I object to when trademark holders abuse their rights - as would any person of good conscience.

I object to innocent people being threatened with $100,000 fines - when they have done nothing wrong.

You KNOW what I object about - stop trying to divert attention away from it.