I think Neil claimed that his "solution" would "make everyone happy." Then this? Why did he pretend he was going to be amiable when Ian changed his tone? Ian should feel pretty good about improving his attitude, because he clearly comes out as the gentleman in this.
I was probably only eight years old when I realized that socialism is nothing more than a fancied-up excuse for stealing other people's property and killing them if they resist, that collectivism is just a shabby attempt to make theft and murder appear respectable. Later on, I came to understand that this is true of all "philosophies" of government.
...including "intellectual property" and the ability to own the thought processes of others and their applications...
next....I had to write Neil, after that. Following is the text of my email:
We met at FreedomFest '09 and discussed writing and firearms, and you were quite friendly and loquacious. I came away with that experience with an even greater appreciation of you than I had already absorbed through others. Yet, your behavior over this latest dust-up spoils it all.
Before I begin, I want you to know that I am not a signatory to either document. If I had gotten around to digesting either (and I had planned to), I would not have approved of either article one, which seem to imply an objectivist (rather than principled libertarian) view of so-called "intellectual property," at least without clarification. I do not wish to get into the specifics of the IP issue here, but suggest you consult your friend Stephen Kinsella and his tomes of elaboration on the issue. I believe he has addressed each and every bogus claim you expressed in regard to IP.
The Shire folks could have been more thoughtful in their initial actions, and certainly could have been more conciliatory in response to your tirade, but they were essentially in the right (though it would have been gentlemanly for them to give you literary credit in their document.) When Ian Freeman came back to you with apologies and a wish to make amends, that was your cue to find a respectful tone. Yet, even after he tried to work with you, you appear to have spit in his face, and into the face of everyone who disagrees with your position. I cannot even imagine what possessed you to write such a hateful pack of lies and publish it in response to that effort. I think anyone would understand your initial dismay from seeing a strikingly similar document to the one you wrote, posted online, without direct attribution, but your continued unwillingness to handle the misunderstanding as a gentlemen is astoundingly disappointing.
Though the monopoly force view of IP is commonly held by principled libertarians as outdated, at best, amongst libertarians, and Ayn Rand's clinging to it as pathetic and uncharacteristically unprincipled, I would still have hoped that you would be capable of discussing the issue with a peace-loving arbitrator both parties could accept. Yet, the attitude of "liberty minus my pet state-sanctioned issue" showed its ugly head. I'd bet the "thieves" would have been willing to compensate you for reasonable "losses" and give you more direct attribution, if only you had decided to behave maturely, after the initial rage and name-calling subsided. Instead, it appears you wish to drag your reputation through the mud, along with collectivists' view of libertarians. I give you a hearty thanks for that!
Good luck with your odd interpretation of liberty, peaceful human cooperation, and the advancement of human dignity.
<signature>
PS: You forgot to give attribution for the phrase "Hole-In-The-Head Gang."
Added clarification pointing to the start of the email.