Re: Old Apple 2 Crackers & Pirates forum

[Jeff Lemke <lemke@terra.cira.colostate.edu>]

Supertimer wrote:
> 
> "Aaron Pulver" <apulver@mhtc.net> wrote:
> 
> >I'm not in favor of closing down csa2. Far too many new users (or Apple II
> >users who are new to the Internet, to be exact) find this place first.
> >However, it would be nice if this place was a little more respectful. It's
> >not very nice to discourage an Apple II user who has suddenly become excited
> >after finding out that yes, others still use these wonderful machines. I
> >wonder how many people have come to csa2 that way, and after seeing what
> >this place is like, left it, AND the Apple II, for good.
> 
> The problem is not one sided.  I happen to not agree with much of
> Rubywand's views on Asimov, etc., but I still feel the principle reason
> csa2 has turned into a flamefest is the actions of Nathan Mates.
> WHO discourages new users who get excited?  Nathan Mates.
> 
> According to old timers who I talked to via email, Nathan was not
> always like this. Charles Turley, they say, had a lot to do with turning
> Nathan into what he is today.  However, who is starting most of the
> flamewars today?  If you don't like Charles Turley, ignore him.  If
> he pirates your software, take action.  Whatever you do, DON'T go
> around flaming every new user who walks in like Nathan Mates does.


Nathan was cordial enough to me when I first discovered this group a
year ago.  But while I agree that piracy of currently-sold new software
or software under development is wrong (I'm not getting into the realm
of 10 or 15-year old software from extinct companies), it certainly is
nothing new.  Bill Gates and his new company Microsoft was already
having problems with piracy of his new BASIC for the Altair (on paper
tape) back in 1975.  Piracy has always been and always will be.  Theft
is one of the facts of human nature.  If it throws a software developer
into temper tantrums at the mere thought of it, he should move on to
something else, as I see Nathan has done.  He may have had some valid
points, but his foulness of language greatly diluted his effectiveness
at arguing his case, and only made people want to retaliate rather than
listen to him very long.

But Nathan wasn't and isn't the only one with that problem, and I don't
think he should be singled out for that.  But I'm happy to see that this
group has cleaned up and lightened up in the last few months.  This
black pall of anger and profanity has lifted a good deal, and this site
is becoming more fun to visit again.

Jeff Lemke