Re: I'm at a loss for words

[swhite@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Steve White)]

In article <54qmlp$od4@client3.news.psi.net>, smentzer@pacbell.net (Steve
Mentzer) wrote:


> You know, actually I bought close to 100 software titles during my days of 
> using an apple II. And I probably pirated twice that amount. The funny thing
> is that I bought what I liked.  


Which makes me wonder why you pirated -- just the stuff you didn't like,
eh? That makes even less sense.


> BTW, labeling me as a thief is doing no more to validate your argument that 
> calling me random explicatives. While the "label" thief may have some merit
> in a legal and moral sense, I dont expect you or anyone else to side with me
> and quite frankly, I dont care.


Ah, an arrogant, unapologetic thief.

 
> When you consider the vast number of "copied" or "bought once, installed
many" 
> versions of Windows v3.1 and 95 in use, I think your argument loses a little
> weight. I guess that makes an unimaginable number of businesses and 
> individuals responsible for the downfall of microsoft.. hmmm.. they haven't 
> gone away... hmmm..  and they also admit that the number of pirated copies 
> of windows software put them where they are today.. ill shut up now..


Neither Microsoft's market strategy or the number of illict copies of
Win95 are the question. The question is your behavior.


> Lets get something straight. You *anti-pirate* people have repeatedly 
> attempted to brand anyone who "pirates" warez as pyschopath, immoral thugs
> who are viscously attempting to kill an entire software industry. I have
> *never* once denied that what I do is *wrong* in a legal and moral sense.


No, not psychopathic or thuggish.

Just an arrogant, unapologetic thief.



> But, why is it that *every* one of my points has been completely rebuffed 
> because of you labeling me as a thief? Are all my points invalid (such as 
> software availability etc).


It does make one wonder why I should consider anything you say.


> >Overpricing: It's called a market economy. Apple charged what the market
> >was willing to pay. Not that this ever stopped you, eh pirate?
> >
> 
> So, you advocate "screwing" the public? Do you mind the government paying
> $800.00 for a hammer, $1200.00 for a toliet seat, $200.00 an hour for
contract 
> labor?  The government is willing to pay for it... does that make it right?


Trust a thief to condone the actions of other thieves. Contractors who
bilk the government are thieves, which you of course understand.

Apple didn't steal from anyone. They offered a product which many,
including me, purchased. Frankly, I got good value for what I paid. That
the price was higher than you would have liked is a reflection of a market
economy.

But then, perhaps you are angry because you couldn't steal an Apple II,
you actually had to spend money.


> >The IBM PC ROM wasn't licensed, it was cloned by Phoenix and other
> >companies using "clean-room" techniques. That cloning had to survive a
> >stiff legal challenge from IBM. The first couple generations of cloned
> >ROMs were NOT 100% compatible, to the grief of those who bought early PC
> >clones (TI, Tandy, etc.).
> 
> 
> Yes, and if IBM would have won that battle, I *guarantee* that the PC would
> have never become as popular as it is today. 


So? The issue isn't popularity. If IBM owns a copyright or a patent, they
have every right to enforce it (I know, I know, you don't understand this
because it's a moral issue). IBM lost the legal battle because Phoenix
proved that it engineered an acceptable substitute WITHOUT improper use of
proprietary technology. That was legal.


> There we go with the thief argument. I am beginning to see a pattern here. 
> If you couldn't call me a thief, you wouldn't have an argument.


Trust me, buddy boy, I can argue rings around you. I just have.




steve