Anyway, the things are different if you look for the whole context: in fact you are the only one here playing the innocent card for Mark, and no one seems to defend it. Creationists or evolutionists, various people with various legal expertize.
Certainly some things you stated (at least for the last argument) are obviously (emphasis mine) wrong:
- you stated that one thing is obviously a parody, even for me Supersize me is not a parody, compared with Fat Head which it is. Supersize me is a critical as Fix Ubuntu is. Anyway isn't it for you FixUbuntu not a critical site on Ubuntu and is made obvious by reading its content?
- you stated that Canonical did not misbehave, but almost every public outlet said that Canonical did it. Are all this dumb?
- you state "evolutionism" vs "creationism" in the idea that you live as a smart guy in a world of fanatics. Isn't it a red herring?
Maybe I'm a guy that lives by a different standard, but all people around seem to be fairly on the same line. Isn't it you who seem to be a bit out of touch with reality?
At last: your arguments will never go to a court, and I think what you say hopefully does not apply in a state of law. The reason is simply because courts should operate "beyond a reasonable doubt", and as you are here a tiny minority makes me think that (your arguments don't hold any water) is it very unlikely that attacking FixUbuntu (tm) in court would change anything, a jury will not be persuaded and the site will stay intact. Free speech allows sites like: Boycott Novell to be alive