Re: Reclassification - Wordperfect

["Quantum_Cat" <anonymous@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Arkain

 *>Congratulations! you completed an insult-free post! 
These are the
 *>kinds of
 *>posts that people don't mind responding to. ;-)

Well, now that I've shown it can be done, I can got back 
to my nasty self.  ;)

*snip*

 *>>I.e. You have a right
 *>> to point
 *>>  *>fingers only if you point them everywhere where 
it is due,
 *>>  *>including at yourself.
 *>>
 *>> You assert that these law breaking episodes 
areequivalent and
 *>> that to report criminal activity is not "right" 
unless the
 *>> person doing so is perfect.  That is absurd.

 *>Yes. It is absurd. Maybe you didn't read that last 
line. Look at
 *>it again. I
 *>basically said that it is hypocritical to report 
someone else's
 *>crimes when
 *>you have crimes of your own that need reporting. 
Please don't try
 *>to read
 *>between the lines with me. I don't usually put 
anything there.
 *>::-D

You said we don't have a right to point fingers unless 
we point at all faults.  Oddly enough, your own 
assertion was quite focused.  ;)

Since such a worldview is so unworkable and absurd, I'll 
leave it to the more morally  inclined to try to make it 
work.

 *>> No, Arkain.. Not to the LAW.. but to your little 
flight of
 *>> fancy claiming that one can't point fingers unless 
they are
 *>> perfect.  You missed my point.  You're the one with 
the
 *>> extreme view of how things should be.  ;)

 *>Flight of fancy? Trust me when I say that my feet are 
squarely
 *>planted on
 *>solid ground. My view isn't extreem at all. If there 
is no
 *>reasonable limit
 *>to the law and it's pervue, then why did you make the 
comment that
 *>"the

The limits to the laws are in the code itself, Arkain.  
Your "reasonable limit" is entirely subjective and 
undefined.  And you wonder why us vogons prefer the law 
to you?

 *>police would be crippled because they have probably 
broken laws
 *>too"? It
 *>seems that in your view, the law is an all or nothing 
situation.
 *>Doesn't
 *>that mean that the police who have broken whatever 
laws should be
 *>prosecuted? If not, then your statements are 
contradictory.

Geez, Arkain... Yes.  Police who have broken whatever 
laws should be prosecuted.  

Your strategy is a common one of misdirection.  You 
claim that someone pointing out an injustice must point 
at ALL misjustice.  You claim that someone who has 
broken a law is a hypocrit for pointing at the actions 
of any others.

Basically, you're trying to water done the "opposition".  
It's not going to work.  ;)

 


 *>>  *>> Lets stick with comparing apples with apples 
here, OK?
 *>>
 *>>  *>Apples w/ apples, eh? So if Copyright laws(<-key 
word) are
 *>> apples
 *>>  *>then old Victorian laws(<-same key word) are 
what? Looks
 *>> like an
 *>>  *>apple to apple comparison to me. The only way 
that this
 *>> cannot be
 *>>  *>true is if the issue isn't about **breaking the 
law**,
 *>> copyright
 *>>  *>that is.
 *>>
 *>> Oh, great...  Next you'll be equating shoplifting 
laws with
 *>> homicide codes.  I already went through this with 
Bob.  I'll
 *>> simplify for you..
 *>>
 *>> Breaking laws are illegal.
 *>>
 *>> OK?

 *>Actually no, I wan't going to go there, but since you 
brought it
 *>up...

 *>You've made the point that despite the fact that the 
software in
 *>question
 *>has been completely de-valued by it's copyright 
holders for an
 *>extended
 *>period of time (more than a decade), the violation of 
such
 *>copyrights is
 *>still something to worry about. I think that such 
violations are
 *>trivial,
 *>that it is pointless for such actions to be illegal.