[What'saCobra?]

Perhaps i am too stupid to see how Adams' quote applies to this situation. Shelby/FORD have at least two types of private property at risk here.

The papers and the protected logos/trade copy are both private property Adams would strive to protect both from the King and from conversion without compensation.

This does not mean the case is settled, for perhaps SAAC has theory better than the compromised issues currently visible.

SAAC have acknowledged both are Shelby's. In published writings.

i am reading the SAAC reply in plain English and see a foolish insult, which can be of no good benefit to SAAC in either the short or long run.

Which part of the reply would you suggest reading more carefully?

Insulting a FORD partner and then asking for a legal defense fund contribution certainly doesn't seem to be the best way to get people exactly warmed-up to the idea of compromise. With those antics, IMHO, the fund will be indeed necessary.

i had refrained from criticizing the Fund thingy, but it does seem rather Monica to me. Isn't the SAAC a for-profit corporation, mostly owned by the investor/directors? Rather than sending them money to support their use of lawyers to help them retain others property (to whichever items), wouldn't it be more helpful to advise them to restrain themselves, rather than risk any donations on perhaps preventable lawyer's fees?

You did note the part where i suggested that FORD has not competently communicated to their corporate partners, viz our dear Ms Amy? Hung out to dry, was she?

Should we similarly donate to the OJ defense fund, to help him keep the properties he removed, to which he may have had ownership at one time?
-----------
Ps: only my more recent posts contain Adams' quote. The more pacifist/chicken-hearted/BHS's i see claiming we have lost this war, the more convinced i remain that Adams' comment remains appropriate to our times.