wrote:
John Fields wrote:
The fact is, you've done yourself in twice and you don't even know
it. Here's the original:

"Recognizing the originator of an idea is not nearly the same thing
as granting them ownership of the idea or its use as virtual
property."

And here's its second even more heinous incarnation, from above:

"recognizing an inventor need not include granting them the right to
use the invention"

That's your statement not mine!

Specifically, by dropping the "as virtual property" from my original,
John constructed a new statement with a nearly opposite meaning of the
original, then fradulently attributed his new statement to me so that
he could argue against an outrageous straw man, rather than the
reasoned arguments I actually presented.