Re: Appleworks is STILL commercial, rubywanker is a pirate

[PJ Killian <pkillian@NMSU.Edu>]

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Nathan Mates wrote:

> In article <35231454.8A3F3A5F@swbell.net>,
> Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> I need help finding the Appleworks software for the Apple //e on 5.25
> >> disks. ....
> >     You can find Appleworks II as two disk image files on Asimov at ...

[snip]

>    Rubywanker has made his living off the theft of ideas and software
> of others. If you want anything new, why should you tolerate his
> behavior along these lines, and his mere presence? Continually remind
> him that his slimeball behavior is tainting all of his words and that
> he should go back under the rock and never post again, or change his
> ways. 

[de-lurking]

Listen. I realize it is hard to understand some times that there are other
people in the universe, but give it a shot. You can have all the reason in
the world on your side--and in this case you certainly seem to--but would
you please calm down? There are any number of people who might be
perfectly willing to accept your arguments if they weren't clothed in this
thick veneer of ad hominem vitriol. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD, DO YOU
UNDERSTAND? IT DOES YOU NO GOOD! Try this:

1. There are people who are still producing and selling Apple II software.
2. In order to encourage these people, we should buy software instead of
copying it.
3. Furthermore, it is illegal to copy commercial software.
4. It is unethical to do things that hurt other people financially, and it
is wrong to do things that are illegal.
5. Therefore, people should not copy commercial software.

It's not a 100% airtight argument, and people can nitpick my assumptions
1-4, but it's a logical argument, and as such it has more strength with
the average schmoe wandering into this newsgroup than a bunch of
hysterical ravings about "liars," "thieves," "drug-addicts," etc., etc.,
etc. After six months of reading this newsgroup, I have come to two basic
conclusions about your behavior:

1. You are on the fundamentally ethical side of this ongoing debate.
2. You are an arrogant, hysterical prick who needs to shut up for a while
and take a long, hard look at how the way you behave is regarded by
others.

If I were you, I wouldn't spend to long at gloating over 1. because in the
long run, the debate is going to matter even less in a few years than it
does now. But if you can't make a person come to conclusion 1 without also
reaching conclusion 2, you have more serious problems than people pirating
Apple II software.

>    You cannot make peace with a mugger and a thief who is unwilling to
> change his ways. 

Maybe.

Does the fact that crime occur somewhere compell us to be 24 hour a day
vigilantes everywhere? And if so, have we accomplished anything by making
ourselves look more foolish and unpleasant than those with whom we do
battle? What is gained by this constant public display of your
righteousness? Is it supposed to persuade anybody, or is it solely for
your own benefit? You know the Bible, Mr. Full-Time Christian? Try Matthew
5:5-6 on for size and ask yourself if you're not acting like a Pharisee.
It sure looks that way to me.

It is, in short, time to ask some serious questions that can't be waved
off with homilies from Heinlein or anyone else.

To put it another way: "Who's the wanker here?"

> --
> <*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
> # What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
> # Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
> # think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein

The presence of this .sig beneath that post is so patently Orwellian as to
strain credulity.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Didn't you ever read 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'?"
"Sure...boy cries wolf, has a few laughs...I forget how it ends."

PJ Killian (pkillian@nmsu.edu)
TCFA home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~godot22/TCFA/