A rude commenter on Catallarchy's post about the C&D letter to ALP made me think about how new evidence in the depate over Wal-mart is filtered by preconceived notions, and generally how these pieces are fit into one's view of the world.
In some people's minds, Wal-Mart is evil, and this seems to explain everything. I don't share this view, even after the C&D order.
One guy thinks the potential lawsuit should change my mind about WM:
I'm quite pleased that even legal threats from the company he boosts hasn't broken through to Brancato. Well, amused, anyways.
To which I replied:
If by "broken through" you mean "reduced his brain to the consistency and usefulness of jello, and made him a hyperemotional nut guided by snap judgments", then no, WM's legal threat hasn't "broken through".I'm still quite capable of rational assessment.
In another instance, on MetaFilter, some commenter noted that WM had to send in the goons to stop me, when I had specifically noted that Wal-Mart did NOT send in the goons.
I replied on MetaFilter:
I have openly stated that Wal-Mart�s intention is not to stifle free speech (they have no apparent problem with walmartsucks.com and the like), but to rightfully defend the integrity of its intellectual property. ALP just happens to be in their way.
That in my case there is a conflict between property and speech goes without saying. I understand that legal conflict is not a battle to the death; it's just another form of conflict, but one which we don't face everyday.
Posted by Kevin on April, 7 2005 at 08:47 AM
