NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/sys/apple2/19563

Text File | 1992-08-27 | 5.1 KB | 119 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Perennial Piracy Debate (was Re: Bilestoad)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 00:30:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <m#4m![e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 108

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Ung) writes:
>In article <m#4m![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Ung) writes:
>||In article <![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>|||In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (tuu) writes:
>||||
>||||In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>||||}It's simple, but absolutely wrong as stated. I use some freeware that
>||||}I have not paid for, and I have committed no crime. I have much software
>||||}that I have written for my own use, who the hell are you to tell me
>||||}that it is a crime to use it?
>||||
>||||    You know, you are really off the deep end..  You're being
>||||semantically picky, when you should know very well what Jawaid was talking
>||||about.
>||||
>||||    Of COURSE freeware and software that you've written are legal to
>||||use.  Don't be a bonehead.
>|||
>|||I may be a bonehead, but I can read. You omitted the text where Jawaid
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(see below)
>|||clearly said that if you did not -pay- for the software you are committing
>|||a crime. I said that it's absolutely wrong as stated, and it is.
>||
>||No, it is not.  FREEWARE is paid for.  The price tag is $0.00, paid in
>||full upon receipt.  Software you have written you've paid for in terms
>||of time and effort.  You can set the price tag at $0.00 or $1000.00, in
>||either case, I doubt you'll have a problem paying yourself whatever
>||price tag you choose ... and if you do, well, that probably belongs in
>||some psychotherapy newsgroup.  So therefore, in both cases, the software
>||IS paid for.  Just for the record, I'll have to agree that being a
>||bonehead is stupid.  Argue intelligently and don't waste bandwidth on
>||things like picky semantics.
>|
>|You can post the above twaddle and complain that I am being picky about
>|semantics in the same sentence?  You pay nothing for freeware, if you
>|pay, it ain't free.  And your hypocrisy is showing.
>
>All I'm saying is if something is free, then I consider it automatically
>paid for.  You did pay the full 0 dollars and 00 cents upon receipt, did
>you not?  Straight and simple logic:  If $paid (0.00) == $owed (0.00)
>then paid_for = TRUE.  Heck, you even paid for the sales tax (also $0.00).
>Also note that nobody would be quite this picky about semantics if you
>weren't in the first place.  Since you started in on it, we all have the
>right to a rebuttal.

You cannot "pay" $0.00, you are mixing mutually exclusive concepts.
And you are both being pendantic, and complaining about it, ergo, you
are a hypocrite. Do one or the other, but not both. If it's a problem, then
you are just as wrong in doing it. If -you- are right in being pendantic,
then you have no basis for claiming that I am wrong.

>|||I'd
>|||rather be a bonehead that have a reading problem and be quoting impaired.
>||
>||Perhaps he was saving bandwidth?  I'll agree, he probably should have
>||quoted it though.
>||
>|||And BTW, I find your bonehead assertion rather a personal attack.
>||
>||But not undeserved?
>|
>|Completely, absolutely, 100% undeserved. Next...
>
>Difference of opinion.  Next...
>
>|||Add in also that many have such strong personal feelings that at the
>|||first hint of piracy, they froth at the eyes and cannot read straight.
>|||And that others must just jump in to make unwarrented personal attacks.
>||
>||You yourself agreed that you are a bonehead.  That doesn't make it
>||unwarranted (note spelling), in fact, just the opposite.
>|
>|You may be picky, but you are again wrong. I never admitted that I was
>|a bonehead, go back and reread.
>
>A quote from you (also see above):  "I may be a bonehead, but I can read"
>
>Sounds like an admission to me.

No, an admission would have used the word "am" instead of "may be". You
may be pendantic, but you ain't too sharp.

Since you do not understand it, let me spell it out for. Read it slowly!
I  h a v e  o n l y  a d m i t t e d  t o  t h e  p o s s i b i l i t y
t h a t  I  - m a y -  b e  a  b o n e h e a d.

You, on the other hand are giving a good demonstration of how a bonehead
would actually post. I see no reason to belabor the obvious here.

>|And is not there a rule that the first
>|person to complain about spelling errors automatically loses the debate?
>
>Hah!  You've gotta be kidding.  If you can't win your debates by your
>arguements, why bother having them?  That's about the stupidest rules
>I've ever heard of.  "Oh, but I won because he complained about my
>spelling!!!" ... yeah, right.

At least it dosen't take me 3-4 weeks (whatever) to respond.

>|||Rich
>||Bill Ung
>|Rich again
>Bill Ung
>  [e-mail]

Rich again