No, no change except if anything I have become even more pro-openness.I have since been made aware of this comment Kinsella made on his Facebook page (My highlight)
If you want to talk, I propose we do it in a way that is mutually beneficial. So I think this means we arrange a discussion-not one-sided, not an interview; no side dominant. Just a discussion. A dialogue. And a sincere, and mutually respectful one.
And one that permits time to hash this out. I think this requires at least an hour, though that will also be insufficient; but anything less would be a joke.
I think we should both commit ahead of time to be respectful, sincere, and civil, and give each other adequate time. No ad hominem, no personal stuff--just an Austrian and libertarian-oriented focus on truth. I will not try to baffle you with legalistic bullshit just b/c I know the IP statutes better than you, for example. If you can agree to this, let's consider it.
Wenzel [writes]:BTW: Here is the full post that Kinsella clipped from, along with his comment which was approved (most likely with an hour or two of his making it), along with my response and a further Kinsella comment for thanking me for my "clarification."
"I have a major philosophical disagreement with Stephan Kinsella over his views on IP, which we will debate in early April. However, I am not an IP attorney and hold no strong opinions on how current IP law is interpreted by various legal and other ruling bodies. I find it fascinating, though, that Kinsella, who is an IP attorney, has stated that he doesn't think that Ron Paul will be rewarded ronpaul.com.
During an appearance on Adam vs the Man he states flat out, "My guess he [Ron Paul] is going to lose this suit." (12:58 to 13:56). So I guess the Ron Paul suit is going to also provide insight into how good an IP rulings handicapper Kinsella is."
My reply .. not yet approved, and I failed to copy it. but my response was basically that this is weird that the focus is on my "guess" about the future. As if a false prediction of the future by stephan kinsella is the final proof that IP is legitimate. I mean what is the relevance?
What a clown. Antoher prediciton: he will not debate me. He will find a way ot [sic] weasel out of it, like a worm.
As for Kinsella's prediction that I won't debate him, I will walk through hell, if I have to, to debate him and chop up his defect laden anti-IP views.