Re: Another Modest Proposal: Pirating vs Archiving

[nathan@mixer.visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <31FD358F.7141@concentric.net>,
Michael Dobropolski  <DobroDad@aol.com> wrote:

   Yo. Your Reply-To: field isn't set to go back to you, but to
someone else. This makes your post look very suspicious in coming from
two ISPs as above.

   Further, it is good style to trim what you're responding to (hint:
look up how to delete) to only the sections, as I noted in my last
followup. Interesting how you deleted only the attempt to improve your
netettiquette in your followup, but left everything else intact.

>Anyway, (not tomorrow, not years from now, no time machines) 
>the changing of law is not really temporal. Actions, that 
>are as identical as we can have as interacting social 
>beings, can get one perpetrator heavy sanctions, another 
>will never be charged, another will be charged and 
>acquitted, and so forth, all on the same day. 

   [10 more lines of dense stream of consciousness prose
deleted. Please note that James Joyce is the exception, not the rule
in good literature.]

   So what you argument is that Asimov might pull an OJ Simpson and
evade justice, or it might bear the full brunt of copyright law, so
who cares? The occasional miscarriage of justice in this country is
NOT an excuse to break the law. If and when you have a _real_
argument, one that is based on facts, not delusions from fantasyland,
we can talk further.

Nathan Mates