RE:[UKS #3089] (abuse) Re: Slanderous allegations

This is truly becoming tiresome. Now your subscriber is accusing me of "slander" -- I have a complete archive of his posts on this subject, and about a hundred newsgroup members who've seen the same crap posted, so there's no lack of evidence of what he's been saying. I'm sure you think I'm a crackpot, but I absolutely and positively despise theft, especially that insidious theft where the perpetrator says "Ah, who's it gonna hurt?" It hurts everybody when Photoshop costs $US700. Anyway, thanks again for your ear... Bart Brown Path: newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!feeder.qis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!rift.ukshells.co.UK!not-for-mail From: [email hidden] (Michael Lapsley) Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Subject: Slanderous allegations Date: 5 Sep 2000 17:13:44 GMT Lines: 18 Message-ID: <[email hidden]> NNTP-Posting-Host: rift.ukshells.co.uk (194.205.220.45) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 968174024 12821949 194.205.220.45 (16 [37446]) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) Xref: newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net rec.autos.simulators:301890 I have just received mail from my shell provider stating that I have been accused of posting concerning hacking and illegal activity, almost certainly from the readers of this NG. This is a gross outrage, as no amount of torturing the English language could extract any such meaning from my posts. I suppose it is too much to expect the toad(s) to reveal him/theirselves as it is more comfortable, not to say cowardly, to remain anonymous. For the everyone else, though, it does no harm to know what kind of creatures inhabit this particular pond. Note: I for one do not hide behind pseudonyms; I believe that if one is prepared to say something in public then one should be prepared to defend it. Michael

Yep.... you are a crackpot.... -<+>-I'm sure you think I'm a crackpot, Thanks, Mike Alexander ([email hidden]) Torch Red 1986 C4 "ITIS4FN" Pictures available at http://alexander.dyndns.org My 2nd Baby!!! (Note:remove the no_tickets. to send email)

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > I'm sure you think I'm a crackpot, but I absolutely and positively > despise theft Who are you to judge about the correct values and morals of a society Barton? You are a simple and unique person and in no way you have the tools or the intelligence you can judge the actions of a single person within that same society. Is the law to your eye always black and white? There is absolutely no grey zone? Or even better, do you personally think that everything in which we live is good, that all the laws are perfect and that every action that slightly goes (even a little) against the sailboat that is our society is a pure sin and action should be taken upon that person? Pathetic fascist you are if so. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

I'm starting a collection to get barton brown a life........ Sudesh "ymenard" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:Rfit5.235652$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > > I'm sure you think I'm a crackpot, but I absolutely and positively > > despise theft > > > Who are you to judge about the correct values and morals of a society > Barton? You are a simple and unique person and in no way you have the

tools > or the intelligence you can judge the actions of a single person withinthat > same society. > > Is the law to your eye always black and white? There is absolutely no grey > zone? Or even better, do you personally think that everything in which we > live is good, that all the laws are perfect and that every action that > slightly goes (even a little) against the sailboat that is our society isa

Quoted text (12 lines)

> pure sin and action should be taken upon that person? > > Pathetic fascist you are if so. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.WeRace.net > -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't

realise > how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. > > >

sudesh wrote: > > I'm starting a collection to get barton brown a life........ No need, he already has one that he's enjoying Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

ymenard wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Who are you to judge about the correct values and morals of a society > Barton? You are a simple and unique person and in no way you have the tools > or the intelligence you can judge the actions of a single person within that > same society. > > Is the law to your eye always black and white? There is absolutely no grey > zone? Or even better, do you personally think that everything in which we > live is good, that all the laws are perfect and that every action that > slightly goes (even a little) against the sailboat that is our society is a > pure sin and action should be taken upon that person?

Drop it already Frank, if Barton wants pursue this, that's his choice, in fact some people were almost daring him to do so in another thread You wanna get into a philosophical discussion about the legal systems around the world, fine, but the laws against software piracy are fairly clear, and if Barton wants to do something about the people who post about warez in here, I'm not going to stop him, part of me wants to do the same thing, but as my presence in this NG is not only of a personal matter, but also as a representative of "The Pits", I can't afford the luxury to speak my own mind at all times, let me just tell you that if I was here merely as a private citizen, I would voice my opinions on the matter in hand more strongly There was a time when some gaming companies were represented in this forum in what seemed to be an official manner, where are they now ? Yes, some of the Papy guys hang out here, but I'm pretty sure they're not doing it in an official manner, Ed from Hasbro is here, how long do you think he'll stay if the we keep posting warez links and talk openly about using warez He can't, especially if people start talking about using a warez version of their product, as a representative of Hasbro/MGI he's obligated to make sure that his employers interests are protected, he can either leave or pursue the matter I'm starting to wonder what this place is turning into, RAS has always been a place for people with strong opinions on certain matters, and flame wars are a part of our history, but I can't remember people talking openly about using warez when I first stumbled into this place, and those few that tried certainly got told a thing or two, now it seems to be the other way around, if you're buying the game instead of using the warez version you're some sort of freak ? I refuse to go along with that line of thinking <starts looking for the link to the sportsims forum> Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... <major snip>

Quoted text (12 lines)

> There was a time when some gaming companies were represented in this > forum in what seemed to be an official manner, where are they now ? > > Yes, some of the Papy guys hang out here, but I'm pretty sure they're > not doing it in an official manner, Ed from Hasbro is here, how long do > you think he'll stay if the we keep posting warez links and talk openly > about using warez > > He can't, especially if people start talking about using a warez version > of their product, as a representative of Hasbro/MGI he's obligated to > make sure that his employers interests are protected, he can either > leave or pursue the matter

I understand your concern that publishers' reps may not continue to participate, however, in Ed's case specifically, he has said he kinda liked having warez sites identified in threads here and in other forums, 'cuz it gave him specific info to provide to their attorneys...who would then be taking *very* aggressive steps to counter the actions at the source. Gotta love that stance to defend the publishers' rights! > I refuse to go along with that line of thinking ...and an ubiquitous 'Me too' from me. > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy Make mine a Stout... -- Tom...North of Dallas AP - 1980-2000

> "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > Coming from someone we know has stolen intellectual property Hmmm... I used 1 different acronym in my life since the days on Genie and it was LeChicken. It has always been ymenard. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote > Drop it already Frank, if Barton wants pursue this, that's his choice, > in fact some people were almost daring him to do so in another thread Your right Goy. It's a waste of time/bandwidth indeed. Rather spend my mind on less pejorative things in life, like practicing Watkins Glen for the ALBANY Lan ;-) > You wanna get into a philosophical discussion about the legal systems > around the world, fine, but the laws against software piracy are fairly > clear Not in our international world I would think. It's fairly difficult to draw the line between black and white in that case, and I don't feel such thing can exist. A grey zone is and will always be there in any society. It's up to common sense to judge sins as they uniquely happen with their own circumstances. And you bet that it was wrong on this one. You really think that Barton never taped something on TV, or taped a cassette, or borrowed a CD from a friend to try it? Or he never did anything illegal on the road, even once? If he wants to treat others with his vision that everything wrong should be punished, then he should also look at himself. It's impossible to say you never did anything wrong. C'mon here, we ain't a bunch of dumb people. It's not possible, we all know that except Barton who thinks he's some sort of Jesus <g>. > There was a time when some gaming companies were represented in this > forum in what seemed to be an official manner, where are they now ? They are still here, but have no interest in joining discussions with weirdos psycho's like him. But hey I did my share of stupid moves in the past also ;-) > Yes, some of the Papy guys hang out here, but I'm pretty sure they're > not doing it in an official manner, Ed from Hasbro is here, how long do > you think he'll stay if the we keep posting warez links and talk openly > about using warez That's why many people will simply flame the people who post or ask about Warez. It has always been like this, back at least 2 years ago with GPL. I see no problem to talk about the software itself, but not to talk about Warez or how to access it. If the person needs to ask people on how to gain access to it, then he's stupid enough to not have it. Is this elistist? Well, yes. > I refuse to go along with that line of thinking Your right about that. The current state is very pathetic, but remember that most of those threads start with a stupid newbie or L33T-wannabe asking for warez, or posting a warez URL. People have discussed those software for years. SCGT, GPL, NR99, N3, F12k, <insert EVERY title since GPL was released>. So it's those rookies who should shut their mouths and think a little. Just friggin open a web search and you'll find everything you want. But nooooo, those trolls have appeared since about the release of F12000. It was the first time I saw somebody post a real Warez URL in this ng. I see nothing wrong with people discussing of warez material. It all goes back to your personnal social indifference, and the grey zone you have. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

ymenard wrote: > Hmmm... I used 1 different acronym in my life since the days on Genie and it > was LeChicken. It has always been ymenard. Time to put down the math book and brush up on that English, Frank -- I was referring to a certain sim track you had -- ahem! -- "made available" for a while ... until the rightful publishers convinced you of the error of your ways. BB

Thomas Duwe wrote: > > I understand your concern that publishers' reps may not continue to > participate, however, in Ed's case specifically, he has said he kinda liked > having warez sites identified in threads here and in other forums, 'cuz it > gave him specific info to provide to their attorneys...who would then be > taking *very* aggressive steps to counter the actions at the source. I agree, and as long as they get useful info they will read this NG, but if we all start using those warez versions and talk openly about it, do you think they will post here ? > Make mine a Stout... I prefer Abbotts myself :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

ymenard wrote: > > Your right Goy. It's a waste of time/bandwidth indeed. Rather spend my mind > on less pejorative things in life, like practicing Watkins Glen for the > ALBANY Lan ;-) Bastard.....

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Not in our international world I would think. It's fairly difficult to draw > the line between black and white in that case, and I don't feel such thing > can exist. A grey zone is and will always be there in any society. It's up > to common sense to judge sins as they uniquely happen with their own > circumstances. And you bet that it was wrong on this one. You really think > that Barton never taped something on TV, or taped a cassette, or borrowed a > CD from a friend to try it? Or he never did anything illegal on the road, > even once? If he wants to treat others with his vision that everything wrong > should be punished, then he should also look at himself. It's impossible to > say you never did anything wrong. C'mon here, we ain't a bunch of dumb > people. It's not possible, we all know that except Barton who thinks he's > some sort of Jesus <g>.

Ask the people over at MP3.com if they still feel that the copyright laws are open for interpretation, well, I guess the answer would be yes, but what do you think they *honestly* feel ? > They are still here, but have no interest in joining discussions with > weirdos psycho's like him. But hey I did my share of stupid moves in the > past also ;-) No comment :-) > That's why many people will simply flame the people who post or ask about > Warez. It has always been like this, back at least 2 years ago with GPL. I > see no problem to talk about the software itself, but not to talk about > Warez or how to access it. If the person needs to ask people on how to gain > access to it, then he's stupid enough to not have it. Didn't you read one of the posts in one of those other threads, some guy asked for warez links that didn't get him to all these porn sites, according to him someone took the time to give him those.... > I see nothing wrong with people discussing of warez material. It all goes > back to your personnal social indifference, and the grey zone you have. There's where we differ in our opinion Frank, there are no gray zones as far as I'm concerned, if you DL warez you break the law, the only thing that's open for discussion is how severe this crime is, in my opinion it's not a capital crime.... But they could at least keep it out of this NG Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Goy Larsen wrote: > > There's where we differ in our opinion Frank, there are no gray zones as > far as I'm concerned, if you DL warez you break the law, the only thing > that's open for discussion is how severe this crime is, in my opinion > it's not a capital crime.... > That is the job of the law, to clearly state what is wrong and what is right. However, law and morale are not exactly the same. Law is black and white, it is the morality and even appropriateness of laws that can and should be under discussion, as plenty of debates regarding gun control, death penalty and abortion shows. The law in most places is very clear regarding the copying of intellectual property; it is illegal. However, discussing whether the law should be that way or not, isn't. In fact, discussing it only helps show people why indeed it must be the way it is, if we accept the moral and ethical standards of the western world. -Gregor

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:16:32 +0200, Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote: >ymenard wrote: ......

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> I see nothing wrong with people discussing of warez material. It all goes >> back to your personnal social indifference, and the grey zone you have. > >There's where we differ in our opinion Frank, there are no gray zones as >far as I'm concerned, if you DL warez you break the law, the only thing >that's open for discussion is how severe this crime is, in my opinion >it's not a capital crime....

Well, sure it is illegal... But I think this is one of those cases where the law mainly serves as a stick behind the door to catch the more extreme forms of warez abuse(at least in my country). Not to absolutely catch the "warez-user type 3" that I mentioned in another thread. Ok, when they wouldn't have anything else at hand they might search more actively. But now? Mind you: don't know about how it is treated in the US. Apparently, over there police officers encourage you to cut your grass if it's too high compared to local regulations. Sounds like "-5 tolerance" to me. <G> And do you get a better society with such attitude? Not so sure about that one... JoH

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:43:54 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Goy Larsen wrote: >> >> There's where we differ in our opinion Frank, there are no gray zones as >> far as I'm concerned, if you DL warez you break the law, the only thing >> that's open for discussion is how severe this crime is, in my opinion >> it's not a capital crime.... >> > >That is the job of the law, to clearly state what is wrong and what is >right. However, law and morale are not exactly the same. Law is black >and white, it is the morality and even appropriateness of laws that can >and should be under discussion, as plenty of debates regarding gun >control, death penalty and abortion shows.

Please don't let us start discussing THOSE. From experience I can tell you that you don't get ANYWHERE. It just consumes valuable sim-racing time :-) JoH

Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:43:54 +0200, Gregor Veble > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >That is the job of the law, to clearly state what is wrong and what is > >right. However, law and morale are not exactly the same. Law is black > >and white, it is the morality and even appropriateness of laws that can > >and should be under discussion, as plenty of debates regarding gun > >control, death penalty and abortion shows. > > Please don't let us start discussing THOSE. From experience I can tell > you that you don't get ANYWHERE. It just consumes valuable sim-racing > time :-) > > JoH

Oh, please don't! It was just an example, not a spark! However, if there is no final outcome to a discussion, it doesn't mean you didn't get anywhere. If you are not overly blinded by your views, at least you can always learn the many valid points the other side (usually) has, so you can clearly distinguish which are the points that you disagree upon, rather than the whole idea itself. -Gregor

Jo Helsen wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Well, sure it is illegal... But I think this is one of those cases > where the law mainly serves as a stick behind the door to catch the > more extreme forms of warez abuse(at least in my country). Not to > absolutely catch the "warez-user type 3" that I mentioned in another > thread. Ok, when they wouldn't have anything else at hand they might > search more actively. But now?

Well, to me it's very simple, if people don't buy stolen goods, we wouldn't have many burglars....we tend to put all the blame on the people who break into our houses, but in a simplified way, they are just business people filling a demand, same with warez, if people didn't DL, we wouldn't have too many warez sites Not saying that burglars are lilly white innocents or anything, I'm just saying that the average person isn't without blame.... > Mind you: don't know about how it is treated in the US. Apparently, > over there police officers encourage you to cut your grass if it's too > high compared to local regulations. Sounds like "-5 tolerance" to me. > <G> And do you get a better society with such attitude? Not so sure > about that one... Don't get us started on the US society, please ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > Goy Larsen wrote: > > > > There's where we differ in our opinion Frank, there are no gray zones as > > far as I'm concerned, if you DL warez you break the law, the only thing > > that's open for discussion is how severe this crime is, in my opinion > > it's not a capital crime.... > > > > That is the job of the law, to clearly state what is wrong and what is > right. However, law and morale are not exactly the same. Law is black > and white, it is the morality and even appropriateness of laws that can > and should be under discussion, as plenty of debates regarding gun > control, death penalty and abortion shows. > > The law in most places is very clear regarding the copying of > intellectual property; it is illegal. However, discussing whether the > law should be that way or not, isn't. In fact, discussing it only helps > show people why indeed it must be the way it is, if we accept the moral > and ethical standards of the western world.

Good post, law and moral/ethics are two vastly different things, if your crime doesn't hurt anyone in any way, is it still a crime ? Any philosophy majors in here ? :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:34:47 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:43:54 +0200, Gregor Veble >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > >> >That is the job of the law, to clearly state what is wrong and what is >> >right. However, law and morale are not exactly the same. Law is black >> >and white, it is the morality and even appropriateness of laws that can >> >and should be under discussion, as plenty of debates regarding gun >> >control, death penalty and abortion shows. >> >> Please don't let us start discussing THOSE. From experience I can tell >> you that you don't get ANYWHERE. It just consumes valuable sim-racing >> time :-) >> >> JoH > >Oh, please don't! It was just an example, not a spark! > >However, if there is no final outcome to a discussion, it doesn't mean >you didn't get anywhere. If you are not overly blinded by your views, at >least you can always learn the many valid points the other side >(usually) has, so you can clearly distinguish which are the points that >you disagree upon, rather than the whole idea itself.

UNFORTUNATELY, these discussions mostly end up with

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:34:47 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: (sorry for the double post)

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: >> >> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:43:54 +0200, Gregor Veble >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> > >> >That is the job of the law, to clearly state what is wrong and what is >> >right. However, law and morale are not exactly the same. Law is black >> >and white, it is the morality and even appropriateness of laws that can >> >and should be under discussion, as plenty of debates regarding gun >> >control, death penalty and abortion shows. >> >> Please don't let us start discussing THOSE. From experience I can tell >> you that you don't get ANYWHERE. It just consumes valuable sim-racing >> time :-) >> >> JoH > >Oh, please don't! It was just an example, not a spark! > >However, if there is no final outcome to a discussion, it doesn't mean >you didn't get anywhere. If you are not overly blinded by your views, at >least you can always learn the many valid points the other side >(usually) has, so you can clearly distinguish which are the points that >you disagree upon, rather than the whole idea itself.

UNFORTUNATELY, these discussions mostly end up with the participants just trying to WIN the argument. Because most people (Barton? :-) )want to take a clearly defined position. They hate it when they would have to admit that actually both sides have a point. They simply feel very uncomfortable thinking about "grey". JoH

Goy Larsen wrote: > > Well, to me it's very simple, if people don't buy stolen goods, we > wouldn't have many burglars....we tend to put all the blame on the > people who break into our houses, but in a simplified way, they are just > business people filling a demand, same with warez, if people didn't DL, > we wouldn't have too many warez sites Thanks for keeping the focus, Goy. I've been reading your exchanges, and thank God there's someone who can discuss this stuff without flying off the handle (unlike me, obviously). Someone stated that there's no harm in discussing the morality of the copyright laws (vis � vis "Warez" MP3, etc.), and of course that's absolutely correct. What I was trying to say, and what you have been saying more successfully, is that these people who think there is some shading to the LAW ("Warez user type 3"; Good grief!) are simply talking through their hats -- and not just in the US: internationally, copyright law is very standardized, as it has to be in a global market (unlike the "mowing your lawn" example -- ! -- or the situation in Sydney, Australia, where if your car is visible from one of the designated "VIP" Olympic routes, it's an automatic $AUS5000 fine). Where the degree of severity comes in (the difference between DLing a single Warez copy of "Stink Snakes From Saturn" or a corporate-wide mass copying of MSOffice) is in the trial process, not in the application of the law itself. I just don't understand why that's such a difficult concept for some people. At any rate, your observation that it's *demand* that fuels criminality is right on the money, literally -- same reason we're never going to "win" the drug war by arming the Colombian army with cruise missiles. Drugs are just too easy to grow or synthesize, and as long as there's demand -- meaning lots of money -- it simply cannot be shut down. We'd all better hope that's NOT the case with stolen software, and we'd all better hope that the law has teeth and is used. If producers of "marginal profit" software like games see the results of their labors posted all over the net for the free use of the conscienceless, why should they bother to produce any more titles? The situation is somewhat different, but just as bad for consumers, with big-ticket software packages -- rampant pirating "justifies" higher and higher costs. I love paying $600+ for Photoshop and then 3 months later having to shell out another $200 for an upgrade. The situation is exactly analagous to "shrinkage" in the retail world: theft loss has to be made up *somewhere*, and the place it's made up is in consumer prices. What these "Warez dewdz" refuse to recognize is that they're cutting their own throats AND everyone else's when they engage in and encourage software piracy. It's as simple as that: no "gray" areas, no shadings, no mitigating circumstances as the LAW is written and enforced. Thanks again for holding up the banner while I lay here groaning in a heap, having kicked myself in the cojones. Cheers and more beers! Bart

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > Time to put down the math book and brush up on that English, Frank -- I > was referring to a certain sim track you had -- ahem! -- "made > available" for a while ... until the rightful publishers convinced you > of the error of your ways. Well, everybody does errors. If you never made mistakes, you could not create your own morals based upon your experiences. Everything would be unclear, without any grey zone whatsoever. It is a way to evolve, to behold and perceive your own values. I never regretted the gesture as I became a better person, and that for me is much heavier in my personal balance than anything else. A little bad thing in the past for a whole lot of good things in the future. imho... -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:46:23 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Goy Larsen wrote: >> >> Well, to me it's very simple, if people don't buy stolen goods, we >> wouldn't have many burglars....we tend to put all the blame on the >> people who break into our houses, but in a simplified way, they are just >> business people filling a demand, same with warez, if people didn't DL, >> we wouldn't have too many warez sites > >Thanks for keeping the focus, Goy. I've been reading your exchanges, and >thank God there's someone who can discuss this stuff without flying off >the handle (unlike me, obviously).

Well, acknowledging it is the first step..... :-)

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Someone stated that there's no harm in discussing the morality of the >copyright laws (vis � vis "Warez" MP3, etc.), and of course that's >absolutely correct. What I was trying to say, and what you have been >saying more successfully, is that these people who think there is some >shading to the LAW ("Warez user type 3"; Good grief!) are simply talking >through their hats >Where the degree of severity comes in (the difference between DLing a >single Warez copy of "Stink Snakes From Saturn" or a corporate-wide mass >copying of MSOffice) is in the trial process, not in the application of >the law itself. I just don't understand why that's such a difficult >concept for some people. >At any rate, your observation that it's *demand* that fuels criminality >is right on the money, literally -- same reason we're never going to >"win" the drug war by arming the Colombian army with cruise missiles. >Drugs are just too easy to grow or synthesize, and as long as there's >demand -- meaning lots of money -- it simply cannot be shut down.

Hmmm... The "lots of money" is also (even MAINLY) caused by (certain) drugs being ILLEGAL. Demand on itself is not enough. Just imagine what would happen if heroine, cocain, crack, XTC, LSD and the whole bunch would be sold legally(be it controlled to some degree, of course). Drug-related crime would just about disappear COMPLETELY. The product would become 100x cheaper. No more giant gain for dealers and drug barons. Yeah, some users would get a drug problem. Maybe even more than now. But first of all this is debatable, and secondly the resources necessary to take care of these problem cases are just a *fraction* of the resources that are spent on *battling* drugs. And thirdly we don't seem to have too much trouble with thousands of people dying every year because of other drug use (alcohol and tobaco) anyway. So why making so much trouble about a few more drug addiction cases? Body count would still be much lower than now surely. Is legalisation the ideal solution? Of course anyone claiming to know for sure that it would be better probably underestimate the complexity of the issue. But, and here I draw a parallel with some forms of warez use, maybe as a society we sometimes need a bit more flexibility. Like in the drugs war, you can stubbornly maintain your "The Law is The Law" attitude and refuse to consider any alternative approach or nuance. So people keep getting shot in the streets, drug barons keep getting richer and richer... possibly all because of a stupid "principle". Because of the inertia of an unrealistic "holyer than holy" attitude. Clearly a lot of perfectly normal people see no harm in warez use like in my third example. MP3 same story. Although my sentiments about MP3 are a little different(did somebody seriously investigate the real consequences of the MP3 issue, though?) , maybe it is time to recognise that it could be better to adapt the laws to these new phenomenons. Not only in how we handle it in practice, but also in the letter of the Law.

Quoted text (11 lines)

>We'd all better hope that's NOT the case with stolen software, and we'd >all better hope that the law has teeth and is used. If producers of >"marginal profit" software like games see the results of their labors >posted all over the net for the free use of the conscienceless, why >should they bother to produce any more titles? The situation is somewhat >different, but just as bad for consumers, with big-ticket software >packages -- rampant pirating "justifies" higher and higher costs. I love >paying $600+ for Photoshop and then 3 months later having to shell out >another $200 for an upgrade. The situation is exactly analagous to >"shrinkage" in the retail world: theft loss has to be made up >*somewhere*, and the place it's made up is in consumer prices.

IS it "theft loss", or is it just "assumed" theft loss? Maybe they just use it as an excuse to ask crazy sums. This is the central question, and why software warez ISN'T "theft like any other theft". The industry is a little *too* convinced of the methods and assumptions it uses to determine the impact of warez use. >What these "Warez dewdz" refuse to recognize is that they're cutting >their own throats AND everyone else's when they engage in and encourage >software piracy. Same remark. >It's as simple as that: no "gray" areas, no shadings, no mitigating >circumstances as the LAW is written and enforced. Please shut up and DISCUSS it instead of simply REPEATING it all over and over. >Thanks again for holding up the banner while I lay here groaning in a >heap, having kicked myself in the cojones. Even Babylon didn't help me here :-) JoH

On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:57:20 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Jo Helsen wrote: > >>They simply feel very uncomfortable thinking about "grey". > >I'm not uncomfortable at all thinking about grey -- my point (lost in >the dust, apparently) is that the LAW AS WRITTEN AND ENFORCED does not >contain any grey, at least not until the trial phase. International law >regarding intellectual property and copyright is very specific, and >utterly black and white. Does that mean if you DL "Warez", the FBI is >going to knock your door down 5 minutes later? Not likely. Because the >FBI DOESN'T knock your door down after you DL "Warez", does that mean >software piracy is -- ipso facto -- legal in your case? Not hardly! "Not >getting caught" is most emphatically NOT the same as "not breaking the law."

And "breaking the law" is only the same as "being morally wrong" if that law makes SENSE. >If you're really interested, read some of Goy Larsen's posts, and my >last reply to him. People can debate the morality of the copyright laws >till the cows come home -- that's fine. But the laws on the books don't >recognize such farcical concepts as "warez user type 3" or any other >such wishful thinking. I read it and responded. CU there ;-) JoH

Goy Larsen wrote: > > Now you're embarrassing me...:-) I love you, man! BB

EldredP wrote: > > WTF? What's the charge, trespassing...? I'm misunderstanding this one... I have a friend (many here will find THAT statement difficult to accept!) in Sydney who's been telling me about the madness surrounding the preparations for the Olympics. My friend happens to live between two Olympic venues. Here's some of what's going on: The New South Wales government has designated several motor routes as "VIP Routes" -- and NOT just for the Olympics -- the law has been written so that the NSW gov't can invoke these VIP Routes at their discretion ANY time in future, as in times of national emergency. During the Olympics, these routes are for the exclusive use of Olympic bigwigs. If Joe Citizen is caught driving on one of them, it's an automatic $AUS15,000 fine. My friend's location between two sites and the placing of the VIP Routes mean that when the venues are in use, he and his wife are locked into their neighborhood. Like many people in Sydney, they're going to try to wait out the first couple weeks by staying on a friend's farm 350 miles away. So the Olympic VIPs won't be offended by unsightly clutter, no parked personal vehicle can be visible from a VIP route: Joe Citizen either has to put his car out of sight in his garage (if he has one), or move the vehicle elsewhere where it can't be seen -- and NOT on his lawn. Fine: $AUS5000 Huge amounts of money have been voted for the use of the SOC (Sydney Olympic Committee), so far at least three times the SOC's original "maximum" estimate. This money will be replaced by countrywide taxes over the next several years. There's much more, but I can't remember it all -- except that many "public" areas -- huge ones -- around Sydney Harbor have been appropriated by the SOC for high-buck admission for the yachting events. BB

ymenard wrote: >...It is a way to evolve, to behold.and perceive your own values. I never > regretted the gesture as I became a better person [!] ... > A little bad thing in the past for a whole lot of good things in the future. > imho... Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back, Frank! I've never read such self-congratulatory poetry concerning the spiritual path of becoming a better person through immoral acts. As a French-Canadian, I would have thought you to be a Catholic -- somehow the section on "Grace Through Robbery" got left out of *my* Catechism! BB

In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > ymenard wrote: > > >...It is a way to evolve, to behold.and perceive your own values. Inever > > regretted the gesture as I became a better person [!] ... > > A little bad thing in the past for a whole lot of good things inthe future. > > imho... > > Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back, Frank! I've > never read such self-congratulatory poetry concerning the spiritualpath > of becoming a better person through immoral acts. As a French-Canadian, > I would have thought you to be a Catholic -- somehow the section on > "Grace Through Robbery" got left out of *my* Catechism! > > BB > good gawd, im another lurker comin out of the woodwork, but geeeeez, BB! Seeing as how ive NEVER seen anyone as self-righteous as yourself in this newsgroup, to condemn ymenard for self-congratulatory words seems, well, a bit ironic. Remember, seeing the world in black and white leaves out a lot of color...not to mention grey <G> BTW, ymenard, coming from someone who has actually done some things ive regretted... COULDNT AGREE MORE! dunk Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back, Frank! I've > never read such self-congratulatory poetry concerning the spiritual path > of becoming a better person through immoral acts. I've just repent myself, it's as simple as that. It's not what you insinuate ;) In some way, people could say it was my redemption. > As a French-Canadian, > I would have thought you to be a Catholic -- somehow the section on > "Grace Through Robbery" got left out of *my* Catechism! I have my own spiritual opinion, and it's none of your business. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 08:02:11 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson and >rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear >COMPLETELY overnight. He is talking about drug-related CRIME, not drug use. The illegality of drugs is cheifly responsible for the profit motive in their trafficking. That profit motive is responsible for the crime associated with their distribution. If you took the "profit motive" out of any of the crimes you mentioned they *would* disappear. If murder no longer resulted in death (the profit of murder), arson no longer resulted in burned buildings (or insurance payoffs), theft no longer resulted in fenceable stolen goods and rape no longer resulted in violent sexual release, those crimes would drop off dramatically. Likewise, if trafficking drugs no longer made a monetary profit for the dealers, they would no longer do it. ~daxe

Quoted text (10 lines)

>What a brilliant idea....I wonder why nobody has thought of this before now, >Jo? > >Jo Helsen wrote: > >> Hmmm... The "lots of money" is also (even MAINLY) caused by (certain) >> drugs being ILLEGAL. Demand on itself is not enough. Just imagine what >> would happen if heroine, cocain, crack, XTC, LSD and the whole bunch >> would be sold legally(be it controlled to some degree, of course). >> Drug-related crime would just about disappear COMPLETELY.

Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson and rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear COMPLETELY overnight. What a brilliant idea....I wonder why nobody has thought of this before now, Jo? Jo Helsen wrote: > Hmmm... The "lots of money" is also (even MAINLY) caused by (certain) > drugs being ILLEGAL. Demand on itself is not enough. Just imagine what > would happen if heroine, cocain, crack, XTC, LSD and the whole bunch > would be sold legally(be it controlled to some degree, of course). > Drug-related crime would just about disappear COMPLETELY.

[email hidden] wrote: >BTW, ymenard, coming from someone who has actually done some things iveregretted... Wait a minute ... do you regret some things *you've* done, or some things Frank Menard has done? I mean, everybody regrets a LOT of things Menard has done -- except Menard, who climbs the failed stepping stones of his dead self to achieve greater godhood than he could have imagined even, say, 15 minutes ago...but to regret things you yourself have done is just so ... so ... admirable, so ... human. I'm verklemmt... BTW, "self-evident" is not the same as "self-righteous", nor vice versa ... really -- look it up!

ymenard wrote: > > I've just repent myself, it's as simple as that. It's not what you > insinuate ;) > In some way, people could say it was my redemption. If they could understand what you were saying, I suppose it's not entirely impossible "some people" might be moved to say that. What do do figure as a percentage? 01.3%? 32.1%? Would these be people who knew you personally? Relatives? Lodge brothers? Grade school classmates? Ex-girlfriends? > I have my own spiritual opinion, and it's none of your business. Egad! That must be the ONLY thing you have an opinion about that isn't EVERYBODY's immediate business. It's good to know you have SOME limits! Keep it up!

In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>The New South Wales government has designated several motor routes as >"VIP Routes" -- and NOT just for the Olympics -- the law has been >written so that the NSW gov't can invoke these VIP Routes at their >discretion ANY time in future, as in times of national emergency. During >the Olympics, these routes are for the exclusive use of Olympic bigwigs. >If Joe Citizen is caught driving on one of them, it's an automatic >$AUS15,000 fine. > >My friend's location between two sites and the placing of the VIP Routes >mean that when the venues are in use, he and his wife are locked into >their neighborhood. Like many people in Sydney, they're going to try to >wait out the first couple weeks by staying on a friend's farm 350 miles away. > >So the Olympic VIPs won't be offended by unsightly clutter, no parked >personal vehicle can be visible from a VIP route: Joe Citizen either has >to put his car out of sight in his garage (if he has one), or move the >vehicle elsewhere where it can't be seen -- and NOT on his lawn. Fine: >$AUS5000

That's pretty f'ing stupid, if the Aussies here don't mind me saying that... So if you're at home, and don't have a garage, just park your car in your backyard, but you can't put it on the grass? Why not - it's *your* grass...? So what happens if you have to work on a day they're using the roads? Of course, I'd *hope* your boss would understand WHY you can't come to work... Sheesh. Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> >BTW, ymenard, coming from someone who has actually done some thingsive > regretted... i guess that was too subtle for you..or you're choosing to ignore the jab, either way, bah. water under the bridge... > BTW, "self-evident" is not the same as "self-righteous", nor viceversa > ... really -- look it up! >oh. believe it or not, i used self-righteous--get this--On Purpose!?!? BTW...(again)...i looked em up, purely to help you..help yourself: self-evident is, well self-evident;) FROM dictionary.com.... self-righteous adj. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic. Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks. __that is what i meant___ :) dunk Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Yeah, but who ever signed up for any of these laws? None of us. If we all agreed at the age of 16 to be bound by the countries laws for the rest of our lives then fair enough, but we don't. We're forced to adhere to someone elses moral standards just because of where we're born. And what are these moral standards based on? An irrelevant two thousand year old work of fiction. Your time would be better spent sending the addresses of the warez pages to people who can shut them down, rather than ratting on individuals. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I'm not uncomfortable at all thinking about grey -- my point (lost in > the dust, apparently) is that the LAW AS WRITTEN AND ENFORCED does not > contain any grey, at least not until the trial phase. International law > regarding intellectual property and copyright is very specific, and > utterly black and white. ><etc> > BB

[email hidden] wrote: > > Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic. > Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks. Ahhhh....but I'm not "pious" -- there's the problem.

Again, it wasn't Back Office he admitted to downloading, as many many people have since pointed out. And he bought GP3. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Where the degree of severity comes in (the difference between DLing a > single Warez copy of "Stink Snakes From Saturn" or a corporate-wide mass > copying of MSOffice) is in the trial process, not in the application of > the law itself. I just don't understand why that's such a difficult > concept for some people. > > Bart

Can we leave the religious crap for somewhere else, or i'll have to start quoting all the hundreds of inconsistencies in your "bible"... <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8pbiil$jd1$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > > ymenard wrote: > > > > >...It is a way to evolve, to behold.and perceive your own values. I > never > > > regretted the gesture as I became a better person [!] ... > > > A little bad thing in the past for a whole lot of good things in > the future. > > > imho... > > > > Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back, Frank! I've > > never read such self-congratulatory poetry concerning the spiritual > path > > of becoming a better person through immoral acts. As a French- > Canadian, > > I would have thought you to be a Catholic -- somehow the section on > > "Grace Through Robbery" got left out of *my* Catechism! > > > > BB > > > > good gawd, im another lurker comin out of the woodwork, but geeeeez, BB! > Seeing as how ive NEVER seen anyone as self-righteous as yourself in > this newsgroup, to condemn ymenard for self-congratulatory words seems, > well, a bit ironic. Remember, seeing the world in black and white > leaves out a lot of color...not to mention grey <G> > BTW, ymenard, coming from someone who has actually done some things ive > regretted... COULDNT AGREE MORE! > > dunk > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Simon Brown wrote: > > Your time would be better spent... Ahhh ... I get it: *You* shouldn't be "forced to adhere to someone elses moral standards", but *I* should be forced to adhere to YOURS? I don't THINK so. Nobody forces you to adhere to the laws of the country that has the fortune (good or ill) to host your existence, but if you choose to break those laws, you should accept the consequences without whining about how unfair those laws are. No one chooses the laws of his country, and even *you* would probably miss the protection of some of those laws if they weren't there -- the laws against murder, assault, robbery, and forcible rape, for example, seem pretty universally well-received. If your country's laws are especially onerous -- Nazi Germany comes to mind -- it's best to leave if you can. But you can't be a part of a society and pick and choose which of that society's laws you're going to accept, while rejecting others that you *feel* limit your "self-expression.". That's what I mean when I say (over and over and over and over and over and over) The Law is The Law. For good or ill, the law is what it is written to be, period. As my attorney told me during my rather difficult divorce from my first wife: "There is NO Justice; there's only the Law." Get it yet? No moral shadings that can change the law for one person but present a different shading for another; the law is binary -- as dumb as a computer.

Simon Brown wrote: > > Again, it wasn't Back Office .... Are you dense on purpose? My use of "MSOffice" was simply an example. And MSOffice is not the same as Back Office is not the same as Back Orifice...

Simon Brown wrote: > > Can we leave the religious crap for somewhere else, or i'll have to start > quoting all the hundreds of inconsistencies in your "bible"... Well, I'm glad you quoted three different posts to "clarify" this goofball statement. I don't give a rat's ass what you think of religion, vegetarianism, public school education, the Masons, cosmology, or the Roswell incident. Believe it or not, I didn't even *write* the Bible (Menard did...), so there.

Sorry if that didn't make sense, I accidentally reposnded to the wrong message. I've cancelled the message and reposted it in the correct spot. > Well, I'm glad you quoted three different posts to "clarify" this > goofball statement. I don't give a rat's ass what you think of religion, > vegetarianism, public school education, the Masons, cosmology, or the > Roswell incident. Believe it or not, I didn't even *write* the Bible > (Menard did...), so there.

Can we leave the religious rhetoric for somwhere more appropriate please. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> ymenard wrote: > > Try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back, Frank! I've > never read such self-congratulatory poetry concerning the spiritual path > of becoming a better person through immoral acts. As a French-Canadian, > I would have thought you to be a Catholic -- somehow the section on > "Grace Through Robbery" got left out of *my* Catechism! > > BB

In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> [email hidden] wrote: > > > > Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic. > > Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks. > > Ahhhh....but I'm not "pious" -- there's the problem. >

lol, but... you wrote: "somehow the section on "Grace Through Robbery" got left out of *my* Catechism! BB" :) for some reason i thought it fit... dunk Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

> Ahhh ... I get it: *You* shouldn't be "forced to adhere to someone elses > moral standards", but *I* should be forced to adhere to YOURS? I don't > THINK so. The difference is my morals are not restrictive. If every tiny offense was prosecuted to the fullness of the law then probably more than half the population would have convictions against their names or be in prison. Who exactly has suffered through this guy downloading PhotoShop? Adobe haven't lost any money, since he wouldn't have bought it anyway. Most likely he's not going to be selling the artwork produced with it. I just don't see it as a big deal. > Nobody forces you to adhere to the laws of the country that has the > fortune (good or ill) to host your existence, but if you choose to break > those laws, you should accept the consequences without whining about how > unfair those laws are. There are such things as immoral laws, obviously I'm not talking about piracy here, but apartheid in South Africa comes immediately to mind. Tell those people to stop whining.

Ok :), but it's a poor example, since no one has admitted to or being accused of corporate copying of anything on this ng. Where does downloading PS or whatever it was fit into this scale? That hardly amounts to corporate copying now does it, but that's what you complained to his ISP based on. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Simon Brown wrote: > > > > Again, it wasn't Back Office .... > > Are you dense on purpose? My use of "MSOffice" was simply an example. > And MSOffice is not the same as Back Office is not the same as BackOrifice...

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > I didn't even *write* the Bible (Menard did...), so there. Whoa here. I quoted the Bible? I wrote the Bible? I'm unsure of the information your trying to pass here ;) I just wrote what I felt about my previous actions. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

"Barton Brown" and I wrote in some funny thread lost in a newsgroup of humanity... :

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > I've just repent myself, it's as simple as that. It's not what you > > insinuate ;) > > In some way, people could say it was my redemption. > > If they could understand what you were saying, I suppose it's not > entirely impossible "some people" might be moved to say that. What do do > figure as a percentage? 01.3%? 32.1%? Would these be people who knew you > personally? Relatives? Lodge brothers? Grade school classmates?

Ex-girlfriends? Everybody should be moved with the words I have chosen /megives tissue to r.a.s. citizens <vbg>. Seriously, I think the percentage is more 25.52%, �1 <another grin> > > I have my own spiritual opinion, and it's none of your business. > > Egad! That must be the ONLY thing you have an opinion about that isn't > EVERYBODY's immediate business. It's good to know you have SOME limits! See? I'm a better person now! All hail Frank the newborn good person. Still, I keep those religious posts for the N3.discussion newsgroup <third grin> -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

On 08 Sep 2000 23:37:05 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>That's pretty f'ing stupid, if the Aussies here don't mind me saying that... >So if you're at home, and don't have a garage, just park your car in your >backyard, but you can't put it on the grass? Why not - it's *your* grass...? >So what happens if you have to work on a day they're using the roads? Of >course, I'd *hope* your boss would understand WHY you can't come to work... >Sheesh. > >Eldred

Its not Aussies fault. Its Sydney peoples fault!!!!! ___________________ Macca http://skyboom.com/jpn7/PalPalaceParade3.html A page about me, from a friend!! (outdated) "And i love her, but do you think she can see? When i tell her, its the end for you and me It was over, ever since you went and shot me like a harpoon, like a harpoon, like a harpoon in my heart!!" Jebediah - Harpoon

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:04:10 GMT, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Yeah, but who ever signed up for any of these laws? None of us. If we all >agreed at the age of 16 to be bound by the countries laws for the rest of >our lives then fair enough, but we don't. We're forced to adhere to someone >elses moral standards just because of where we're born. And what are these >moral standards based on? An irrelevant two thousand year old work of >fiction. Tell 'em like it is Simon! If we all followed the laws to the tee we would still be living in the dark ages. Oh, we are. Sorry. :-) -- Nos

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:32:04 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Get it yet? No moral shadings that can change the law for one person but >present a different shading for another; the law is binary -- as dumb as >a computer. But, there is such a thing as mitigating circimstances which the law does take into account. At least in some countries. Laws can be changed and are not written in stone as you imply. If I stole a car to get someone to hospital to save the life of a person bleeding to death do you really think I would be prosecuted for it? There is a slim chance I would, but I doubt very much that it would happen. Not here in Canada anyway. -- Nos

I think you've missed the point: in whose eyes, exactly, has Frank "become a better person"? The answer is, without any doubt, "his own". [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > ymenard wrote: > > > > >...It is a way to evolve, to behold.and perceive your own values. I > never > > > regretted the gesture as I became a better person [!] ... > > > A little bad thing in the past for a whole lot of good things in > the future. > > > imho... > to condemn ymenard for self-congratulatory words seems,well, a bit ironic. > Remember, seeing the world in black and white leaves out a lot of > color...not to mention grey <G>

A crime is a crime is a crime.....drug-related, physical-abuse-related, death-by-intent-to-kill-related, taking-it-because-I-want-it-related. It doesn't matter....you can't have your cake and eat it too, citizen daxe. As Mr. Brown so correctly stated somewhere in all this mischief, you can't get a little bit preganant. By-the-way, do you understand the meaning of the words "crime" and "law"? I mean in the legislative sense? Your line of reasoning (below) is admirable. Unfortunately, Xanadu and Utopia are myths. daxe wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 08:02:11 +1000, Leaky_Valve > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson and > >rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear > >COMPLETELY overnight. > > He is talking about drug-related CRIME, not drug use. > The illegality of drugs is cheifly responsible for the profit motive > in their trafficking. That profit motive is responsible for the crime > associated with their distribution. If you took the "profit motive" > out of any of the crimes you mentioned they *would* disappear. If > murder no longer resulted in death (the profit of murder), arson no > longer resulted in burned buildings (or insurance payoffs), theft no > longer resulted in fenceable stolen goods and rape no longer resulted > in violent sexual release, those crimes would drop off dramatically. > Likewise, if trafficking drugs no longer made a monetary profit for > the dealers, they would no longer do it. > >

Many businesses in the affected areas (most denizens of Sydney would say "all of Sydney"!) are closing down for two weeks simply to get over this ridiculous situation. As a fellow Aussie, but not a Sydney-dweller, I can sympathise with the citizens of the State capital. But not without a big, brassy, "I TOLD YOU SO"!! (Six years ago , in fact!) Incidentally, the so-called "VIP Routes" are simply clearways (no parking between certain hours, such as peak-periods, otherwise a hefty fine) that have been upgraded to "super clearway" status! National emergencies have nothing to do with this....it is NSW State legislation, not Commonwealth (Federal). EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > That's pretty f'ing stupid, if the Aussies here don't mind me saying that... > So if you're at home, and don't have a garage, just park your car in your > backyard, but you can't put it on the grass? Why not - it's *your* grass...? > So what happens if you have to work on a day they're using the roads? Of > course, I'd *hope* your boss would understand WHY you can't come to work... > Sheesh. > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +50.77 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Anarchy.com" is just over there, you sad little person. You remind me of an acquaintance who was, I think, born with a chip on his shoulder. He hated authority from Day 1. It was hilarious when his car was broken into and all his (Uni) text books were stolen! He didn't know just who to turn to but of course, it was Authority's fault for not having sufficient security in the University parking area!!! Simon Brown wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Yeah, but who ever signed up for any of these laws? None of us. If we all > agreed at the age of 16 to be bound by the countries laws for the rest of > our lives then fair enough, but we don't. We're forced to adhere to someone > elses moral standards just because of where we're born. And what are these > moral standards based on? An irrelevant two thousand year old work of > fiction. >

Why? Does "religion" make you uncomfortable/ Have a nasty experience during your formative years? And really, is this venue any less appropriate than any other? Simon Brown wrote: > Can we leave the religious rhetoric for somwhere more appropriate please.

In case you haven't read the paper recently, apartheid in SA sort of came to a fairly final end a few years ago. ("those people" are now whining about toher things, like employment and food and all the other annoyances of democracy). Oh, and the Berlin Wall is down, the USSR has been split up and man landed on the moon in 1969. There...that just about brings you up to date with world affairs. Simon Brown wrote: > > There are such things as immoral laws, obviously I'm not talking about > piracy here, but apartheid in South Africa comes immediately to mind. Tell > those people to stop whining.

Wrong. Under British law (which most of the Commonwealth nations base their legal system upon) you'd be charged but (a) those charges could be dropped before you went to court or (b) you be prosecuted but the magistrate could find you guilty but dismiss the case. The point is, Nos, UNDER THE LAW you would be guilty of stealing. The law cannot be re-written by a magistrate or a policeman....therfore due process has to occur. The only thing that the court can do is find you either guilty or not guilty. Nos wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:32:04 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> > thus spoke: > > >Get it yet? No moral shadings that can change the law for one person but > >present a different shading for another; the law is binary -- as dumb as > >a computer. > > But, there is such a thing as mitigating circimstances which the law > does take into account. At least in some countries. Laws can be > changed and are not written in stone as you imply. If I stole a car to > get someone to hospital to save the life of a person bleeding to death > do you really think I would be prosecuted for it? There is a slim > chance I would, but I doubt very much that it would happen. Not here > in Canada anyway. > > -- > Nos

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 17:34:09 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> thus spoke:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Wrong. >Under British law (which most of the Commonwealth nations base their legal >system upon) you'd be charged but (a) those charges could be dropped before >you went to court or (b) you be prosecuted but the magistrate could find you >guilty but dismiss the case. >The point is, Nos, UNDER THE LAW you would be guilty of stealing. The law >cannot be re-written by a magistrate or a policeman....therfore due process >has to occur. The only thing that the court can do is find you either guilty >or not guilty.

Laws are bent all the time. I would have to be charged first which probably would not happen. -- Nos

In article <[email hidden]>, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> writes: >Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson >and >rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear >COMPLETELY overnight. Theft, murder, arson, and rape are all crimes AGAINST SOMEONE. Drug use harms no one, except in some cases the user. There's a huge difference. He didn't say if drugs were legal, no one would use them, he said if drugs were legal all the associated crime would disappear. When was the last time you heard of a drive by shooting over an aspirin territory? Remember, if the USA had never had alcohol prohibition, two of the most horrible organizations in this country would have never come to the prominence they have. Just think how much better this country would be if the Mafia and the Kennedy family hadn't been catapulted to power by prohibition. MAJOR WOODIE www.lp.org

<sign again> You've got the wrong end of the stick *again*. I have no problem with authority at all, and I'm certainly no 'anarchist'. In fact, I think most anarchists are kinda pathetic. Since you couldn't figure it out yourself, it was a comment on religion and the power it wrongly (in my opinion) has within my countries statute. Also you've read from the tone of my message things I didn't say. I didn't say any particular law was wrong or right, I was just pointing out that as individuals we have no part in the writing of laws, nor are we ever consulted about them, nor are we ever asked whether we agree to be bound by them. That's all I said, and it's all I was trying to say, I wasn't proposing the abolition of all laws. "Leaky_Valve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Anarchy.com" is just over there, you sad little person. > You remind me of an acquaintance who was, I think, born with a chip on his > shoulder. He hated authority from Day 1. > It was hilarious when his car was broken into and all his (Uni) text bookswere > stolen! He didn't know just who to turn to but of course, it wasAuthority's > fault for not having sufficient security in the University parking area!!! > > Simon Brown wrote: >

<sigh> that was an example of an immoral law, I never commented on whether it was still in operation. I know it's not in operation anymore, and what's more, you already knew that. Stop attacking things I'm not saying. "Leaky_Valve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In case you haven't read the paper recently, apartheid in SA sort of cameto a > fairly final end a few years ago. ("those people" are now whining abouttoher > things, like employment and food and all the other annoyances ofdemocracy). > Oh, and the Berlin Wall is down, the USSR has been split up and man landedon > the moon in 1969. > > There...that just about brings you up to date with world affairs. > > Simon Brown wrote: >

<sigh for the third time> Religion does not make me even slightly uncomfotable, it's a topic I enjoy discussing in the right forum. This is a forum for discussing racing simulators, not spiritual beliefs. I object to BB making the assumption that because someone was from Canada they must be a Catholic, and then accusing them of being a bad Catholic. Statements he had no basis for in my opinion. "Leaky_Valve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Why? Does "religion" make you uncomfortable/ Have a nasty experienceduring > your formative years? And really, is this venue any less appropriate thanany > other? > > Simon Brown wrote: > > > Can we leave the religious rhetoric for somwhere more appropriateplease. >

Wasn't that exactly as alternative (a) in my scenario? Hello.....there IS intelligent life out there? Nos wrote: > On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 17:34:09 +1000, Leaky_Valve > <[email hidden]> thus spoke: > > Laws are bent all the time. I would have to be charged first which > probably would not happen.

You are living in a dream world if you really believe that "The Mafia" and the Kennedy family achieved prominence simply because of prohibition. Or would not have existed if prohibition hadn't occurred. How old are you......ten-and-a-half? And your stunning statement that "Drug use harms no one, except in some cases the user"?! My word.......what a wonderful pair of rose-coloured glasses you are wearing, laddie. do a lot of social work, do you? Involved in State, Territory or Federal budgeting? How about Public Health......that your portfolio? When you grow up and leave school and become a daddy, get back to me on this one, would you? Woodie 83 wrote:

Firstly, Simon, let me congratulate you on your discovery that we who read other's posts are NOT mind-readers. Unless the author is prepared to clearly state what it is that they mean then confusion WILL arise. (This retort also applies to your other come-backs to my most recent posts.) Secondly.....you said "I was just pointing out that as individuals we have no part in the writing of laws, nor are we ever consulted about them", to which I say "WRONG". I can't speak for your country but in mine we, the citizens, do get consulted about laws and do have a part in writing them. How is this, you ask? Simple....laws are written by our elected members of government. (They don't, as some cretins believe, get churned out by the police or by the local judiciary.) How do we play a part? We ELECT those representatives. Occassionally we also have referendums and that's where Mr. and Mrs. Citizen are consulted and have a direct effect upon whether a proposal will be passed into the law of the land. Here endeth the lesson. Simon Brown wrote: > <sign again> (Ithink that you meant "sigh"!)

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:59:24 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Wasn't that exactly as alternative (a) in my scenario? Hello.....there IS >intelligent life out there? Why are you such a prick who thinks he/she is above everyone. Every post you have made has been a put down of someone. You're pathetic. -- Nos

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:30:00 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>A crime is a crime is a crime.....drug-related, physical-abuse-related, >death-by-intent-to-kill-related, taking-it-because-I-want-it-related. It doesn't >matter....you can't have your cake and eat it too, citizen daxe. >As Mr. Brown so correctly stated somewhere in all this mischief, you can't get a >little bit preganant. >By-the-way, do you understand the meaning of the words "crime" and "law"? I mean in >the legislative sense? > >Your line of reasoning (below) is admirable. Unfortunately, Xanadu and Utopia are >myths.

Let me ask you a question: In the USA, in the 20s, people were shot and killed over territorial right to distribute alcohol, then the subject of prohibition. Now that alcohol is legal again, when was the last time you heard about anyone driving through a neighborhood shooting up a building over the right to distribute whiskey? Alcohol is just as much an addictive drug as the ones mentioned earlier. As a member of the legal profession, I wouldn't expect you to see the logic in anything that had the potential to decrease your income. ~daxe

Simon Brown wrote: > Who exactly has suffered through this guy downloading PhotoShop? Adobe haven't > lost any money, since he wouldn't have bought it anyway. Most likely he's > not going to be selling the artwork produced with it. I just don't see it > as a big deal. You don't. Adobe does. If you were the CEO of Adobe, I have a suspicion you'd feel differently.This is not conjecture by the way: I'm very familiar with a case of an educational institution making copies of Photoshop for its classes, and being informed upon by a disgruntled (don't the newsies always say that?) student. And no, it wasn't me! Adobe came down like the wrath of (pick any) god, and the school escaped prosecution by dint of furious backpedaling, abject apology, destruction of the copies, and purchase of a site license. > There are such things as immoral laws, obviously I'm not talking about > piracy here, but apartheid in South Africa comes immediately to mind. Tell > those people to stop whining. See my example of Nazi Germany. Yes, there are such things as "immoral" laws, but "immorality" is highly subjective. I'm sure if I polled my rural, whitebread neighbors, I'd find that many people think there are laws that are unjust and unfair. Then if I polled, say, the housing projects in the city of New Haven, I'd find that many people *there* think there are laws that are unjust and unfair. I'd bet the two sets of people would agree on some of the same laws being unjust and unfair, but would completely disagree on others. But the law is the law until it's no longer the law, and in a democracy, the only way laws are changed is through legislative (subject to executive veto) and judicial action. As long as a law is on the books, it is in force and enforceable -- mute, implacable, written in stone. That's what I've been saying here since day one (which seems years ago now!). Some people here have opined that copyright law somehow has (or *should* have -- which is simply wishful thinking, so let's dismiss that) "latitude" built into it to "accomodate" the mythical "type 3 Warez user". This is simply, and provably, NOT the case. BB

ymenard wrote: > > Whoa here. Frank -- it was a joke. I think it's time for jokes -- I hope you agree... BB

ymenard wrote: > > "Barton Brown" and I wrote in some funny thread lost in a newsgroup of > humanity... : Frank -- You ARE the man!

On 09 Sep 2000 10:15:59 GMT, [email hidden] (Woodie 83) wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> writes: > >>Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson >>and >>rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear >>COMPLETELY overnight. > >Theft, murder, arson, and rape are all crimes AGAINST SOMEONE. Drug use harms >no one, except in some cases the user. There's a huge difference. He didn't >say if drugs were legal, no one would use them, he said if drugs were legal all >the associated crime would disappear. When was the last time you heard of a >drive by shooting over an aspirin territory? Remember, if the USA had never >had alcohol prohibition, two of the most horrible organizations in this country >would have never come to the prominence they have. Just think how much better >this country would be if the Mafia and the Kennedy family hadn't been >catapulted to power by prohibition. > > >MAJOR WOODIE >www.lp.org

Thank you. At least someone in here has a brain and the ability to comprehend what they read. ~daxe

Macca wrote: > Its not Aussies fault. Its Sydney peoples fault!!!!! Any the Sydnonians (!) think it's the SOC and NSW government's fault!

Leaky_Valve wrote: > > The law cannot be re-written by a magistrate or a policeman There is the simple sentence I was looking for. Exactly! BB

Nos wrote: >I would have to be charged first which probably would not happen. A vast ocean of conjecture can be filled with that monstrously volumetric word "probably"

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:29:38 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >You are living in a dream world if you really believe that "The Mafia" and the >Kennedy family achieved prominence simply because of prohibition. Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger. No word on whether he was a murderer or rapist like some of his progeny. The Mafia rose to power based on several things, one of the main ones being prohibition.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>And your stunning statement that "Drug use harms no one, except in some cases the >user"?! >My word.......what a wonderful pair of rose-coloured glasses you are wearing, >laddie. do a lot of social work, do you? Involved in State, Territory or Federal >budgeting? How about Public Health......that your portfolio? > >When you grow up and leave school and become a daddy, get back to me on this one, >would you?

You are confusing the negative effects of drug use with the point, which is that crime associated with drug distribution would stop if they were legal. Drug abuse is not going to go away whether or not they are legal and is certainly not going to decrease because of the stupid and ineffective war on drugs. A problem that begins with demand doesn't disappear when you attempt (ineptly, I might add) to truncate the source, it simply makes the remaining sources more profitable. The solution (as far as it can go) to substance abuse problems is education. A sensible person can understand that waging a very expensive and ineffectual war against the wrong parties makes zero sense. The govt profits from the drug war both monetarily and politically and that's why it continues. It has done nothing and will do nothing to curb drug use and therefore, demand. It has and does make illegal drug trafficking more profitable and therefore increases the crime associated with the trafficking while doing nothing to stop the problem. ~daxe

Leaky_Valve wrote: > >Here endeth the lesson. One of my favorite Sean Connery lines!

Nos wrote: >Every post you have made has been a put down of someone. You're pathetic. Earth to pot! Earth to pot! Your message to kettle seems to have rebounded off the kosmic mirror...

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:18:16 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Earth to pot! Earth to pot! Your message to kettle seems to have >rebounded off the kosmic mirror... Go lick your masters feet, you silly little lap dog. -- Nos

"Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Whoa here. > > Frank -- it was a joke. I think it's time for jokes -- I hope you agree... Yes, and 31.543% of the population of this newsgroup agree with that statement, under my scientific poll I did last night ;-P I also found out that 50.004% of the people don't like Ubisoft, thereof it's a majority and I have the right to use the dreaded and infamous *we* in my future messages when I flame the company ;) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.WeRace.net -- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world.

daxe <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 08:02:11 +1000, Leaky_Valve ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson and >>rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear >>COMPLETELY overnight. > >He is talking about drug-related CRIME, not drug use. >The illegality of drugs is cheifly responsible for the profit motive >in their trafficking. That profit motive is responsible for the crime >associated with their distribution. If you took the "profit motive" >out of any of the crimes you mentioned they *would* disappear. If >murder no longer resulted in death (the profit of murder), arson no >longer resulted in burned buildings (or insurance payoffs), theft no >longer resulted in fenceable stolen goods and rape no longer resulted >in violent sexual release, those crimes would drop off dramatically. >Likewise, if trafficking drugs no longer made a monetary profit for >the dealers, they would no longer do it. > >~daxe

Apparently I was reasoning a little bit too fast for some around here <G> Thanks for showing enough patience to *explain* it step by step, Daxe. I'm sure he gets it now :-) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

>Simon Brown wrote: >> >> Your time would be better spent... > >Ahhh ... I get it: *You* shouldn't be "forced to adhere to someone elses >moral standards", but *I* should be forced to adhere to YOURS? I don't >THINK so. > >Nobody forces you to adhere to the laws of the country that has the >fortune (good or ill) to host your existence, but if you choose to break >those laws, you should accept the consequences without whining about how >unfair those laws are. No one chooses the laws of his country, and even >*you* would probably miss the protection of some of those laws if they >weren't there -- the laws against murder, assault, robbery, and forcible >rape, for example, seem pretty universally well-received. If your >country's laws are especially onerous -- Nazi Germany comes to mind -- >it's best to leave if you can. But you can't be a part of a society and >pick and choose which of that society's laws you're going to accept, >while rejecting others that you *feel* limit your "self-expression.". >That's what I mean when I say (over and over and over and over and over >and over) The Law is The Law. For good or ill, the law is what it is >written to be, period. As my attorney told me during my rather difficult >divorce from my first wife: "There is NO Justice; there's only the Law." > >Get it yet? No moral shadings that can change the law for one person but >present a different shading for another; the law is binary -- as dumb as >a computer.

I promised I wouldn't... but here I am again :-) BARTON: AND HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT "DUMB-AS-A-COMPUTER" LAW? Are you too LAZY to try to make it SMART? Too FATALISTIC maybe? Too SCARED? Too much "one of the herd"? Too LOYAL to Uncle Sam? Surely not too STUPID? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Simon Brown wrote: >> >> Can we leave the religious crap for somewhere else, or i'll have to start >> quoting all the hundreds of inconsistencies in your "bible"... > >Well, I'm glad you quoted three different posts to "clarify" this >goofball statement. I don't give a rat's ass what you think of religion, >vegetarianism, public school education, the Masons, cosmology, or the >Roswell incident.

Now just ad "The Law" at the end (and act according to it), and eveybody is happy. Hehe.. JoH (being sarcastic here) ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >A crime is a crime is a crime.....drug-related, physical-abuse-related, >death-by-intent-to-kill-related, taking-it-because-I-want-it-related. It doesn't >matter....you can't have your cake and eat it too, citizen daxe. >As Mr. Brown so correctly stated somewhere in all this mischief, you can't get a >little bit preganant. You can't even get "preganant" at all <G> >By-the-way, do you understand the meaning of the words "crime" and "law"? I mean in >the legislative sense? > >Your line of reasoning (below) is admirable. Unfortunately, Xanadu and Utopia are >myths. And of course, the absolute LAST thing we should do is trying to get a little bit CLOSER to Xanadu and Utopia. No sir, catastrophic the situation is and catastrophic it shall remain! We have our holy PRINCIPLES, you know! "Yes, I admit that the situation is getting a little bit out of hand at the moment, but at least we are handling according to The Law so we have nothing to blame ourselves for." Oh God that attitude makes me p-u-k-e! Dear mister Leaky_Valve: what about enlightening us with your so down-to-earth vision of WHY legislation of drugs will a) NOT reduce drug-related crime b) make the situation WORSE than it is now. Convince the world! I bet you won't even try, though: I wouldn't be surprised at all if you turned out to be one of the crazy Creationist Christian fundamentalist bunch. Hope you make it to the Ark. JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>In case you haven't read the paper recently, apartheid in SA sort of came to a >fairly final end a few years ago. ("those people" are now whining about toher >things, like employment and food and all the other annoyances of democracy). >Oh, and the Berlin Wall is down, the USSR has been split up and man landed on >the moon in 1969. > >There...that just about brings you up to date with world affairs.

How smart. But whether Apartheid still exists or not is completely irrelevant to the argument. You still loose, ha! JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

[email hidden] (Woodie 83) wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, >Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> writes: > >>Using this same stunning line of reasoning, if we make theft, murder, arson >>and >>rape legal then the crimes of theft, murder, arson and rape disappear >>COMPLETELY overnight. > >Theft, murder, arson, and rape are all crimes AGAINST SOMEONE. Drug use harms >no one, except in some cases the user. There's a huge difference. He didn't >say if drugs were legal, no one would use them, he said if drugs were legal all >the associated crime would disappear. When was the last time you heard of a >drive by shooting over an aspirin territory?

ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!! This single sentence does more than the lengthy almost idiot-proof explanation by Daxe. :-D :-D :-D > Remember, if the USA had never >had alcohol prohibition, two of the most horrible organizations in this country >would have never come to the prominence they have. Just think how much better >this country would be if the Mafia and the Kennedy family hadn't been >catapulted to power by prohibition. Isn't it a matter of time before the same happens to now-illegal drugs as what happened to the now-legal drug alcohol? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >Wasn't that exactly as alternative (a) in my scenario? Hello.....there IS >intelligent life out there? Yes, "out there" from where you are, there is..... JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Firstly, Simon, let me congratulate you on your discovery that we who read >other's posts are NOT mind-readers. Unless the author is prepared to clearly >state what it is that they mean then confusion WILL arise. (This retort also >applies to your other come-backs to my most recent posts.) > >Secondly.....you said "I was just pointing out that as individuals we have no >part in the writing of laws, nor are we ever consulted about them", to which I >say "WRONG". >I can't speak for your country but in mine we, the citizens, do get consulted >about laws and do have a part in writing them.

Yeah, and we know every 5000 pages of them....

Quoted text (10 lines)

>How is this, you ask? Simple....laws are written by our elected members of >government. (They don't, as some cretins believe, get churned out by the police >or by the local judiciary.) >How do we play a part? We ELECT those representatives. > >Occassionally we also have referendums and that's where Mr. and Mrs. Citizen are >consulted and have a direct effect upon whether a proposal will be passed into >the law of the land. > >Here endeth the lesson.

What happens between elections? I mean: what if you stumble upon a stupid, unjust law the day after the elections? Or what happens between two... dictatorships, let's say??? You sit it out until the next "elections", right? JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Simon Brown wrote: >> Who exactly has suffered through this guy downloading PhotoShop? Adobe haven't >> lost any money, since he wouldn't have bought it anyway. Most likely he's >> not going to be selling the artwork produced with it. I just don't see it >> as a big deal. > >You don't. Adobe does. If you were the CEO of Adobe, I have a suspicion >you'd feel differently.This is not conjecture by the way: I'm very >familiar with a case of an educational institution making copies of >Photoshop for its classes, and being informed upon by a disgruntled >(don't the newsies always say that?) student. And no, it wasn't me!

THERE'S ANOTHER ONE!!! THERE'S ANOTHER ONE!!! :o) ...

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> There are such things as immoral laws, obviously I'm not talking about >> piracy here, but apartheid in South Africa comes immediately to mind. Tell >> those people to stop whining. > >See my example of Nazi Germany. Yes, there are such things as "immoral" >laws, but "immorality" is highly subjective. I'm sure if I polled my >rural, whitebread neighbors, I'd find that many people think there are >laws that are unjust and unfair. Then if I polled, say, the housing >projects in the city of New Haven, I'd find that many people *there* >think there are laws that are unjust and unfair. I'd bet the two sets of >people would agree on some of the same laws being unjust and unfair, but >would completely disagree on others. But the law is the law until it's >no longer the law, and in a democracy, the only way laws are changed is >through legislative (subject to executive veto) and judicial action.

You skip a few steps. Like, the first step is probably someone noticing that the current law is not as it should be. The second step is this "someone" pointing it out to people and explaining/reasoning WHY. The third step is people starting to understand and mobilizing for the fourth step: public pressure to change the damn stupid Law! The fifth step is where YOU start. >As >long as a law is on the books, it is in force and enforceable -- mute, >implacable, written in stone. That's what I've been saying here since >day one (which seems years ago now!). Some people here have opined that >copyright law somehow has (or *should* have -- which is simply wishful >thinking, so let's dismiss that) So in the end we are not allowed (or you are not willing to participate) to discuss the validity of a law. You start with step five. If we would have had Barton Brown instead of Mozes, we would still have the Ten Commandments as Law!!!!! >"latitude" built into it to >"accomodate" the mythical "type 3 Warez user". This is simply, and >provably, NOT the case. I never said, pretended nor tried to prove that it has. I am not even interested in knowing whether it has or hasn't. I'm merely wanting to argue that it *should* if it doesn't. Or that at least the practical execution of the law should take note of the "latitude". JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

daxe <[email hidden]> wrote: .... >Thank you. At least someone in here has a brain and the ability to >comprehend what they read. > >~daxe We are growing in numbers, daxe! The future looks bright :-) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent post btw. In the case of a uni making numerous copies of PS, I would agree with you, afterall Uni's have part of their budget set aside for purchasing software so there's no excuse really. But this guy said he wouldn't have bought PS if he couldn't have downloaded it since it's about �700, so Adobe have lost nothing. Another example would be 3d Studio MAX, which cost �3500 uk (i kid you not!). It's the industry standard 3d modelling package (on the PC at least) so it's the only one worth learning, and most individuals cannot afford that kind of money. That means someone who is unemployed, or on a low to medium income has no opportunity to learn this package. If your talents lie in 3d modelling you are denied the chance of taking up a new career because of one companies pricing policy. "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > You don't. Adobe does. If you were the CEO of Adobe, I have a suspicion > you'd feel differently.This is not conjecture by the way: I'm very > familiar with a case of an educational institution making copies of > Photoshop for its classes, and being informed upon by a disgruntled > (don't the newsies always say that?) student. And no, it wasn't me! > Adobe came down like the wrath of (pick any) god, and the school escaped > prosecution by dint of furious backpedaling, abject apology, destruction > of the copies, and purchase of a site license. > > See my example of Nazi Germany. Yes, there are such things as "immoral" > laws, but "immorality" is highly subjective. I'm sure if I polled my > rural, whitebread neighbors, I'd find that many people think there are > laws that are unjust and unfair. Then if I polled, say, the housing > projects in the city of New Haven, I'd find that many people *there* > think there are laws that are unjust and unfair. I'd bet the two sets of > people would agree on some of the same laws being unjust and unfair, but > would completely disagree on others. But the law is the law until it's > no longer the law, and in a democracy, the only way laws are changed is > through legislative (subject to executive veto) and judicial action. As > long as a law is on the books, it is in force and enforceable -- mute, > implacable, written in stone. That's what I've been saying here since > day one (which seems years ago now!). Some people here have opined that > copyright law somehow has (or *should* have -- which is simply wishful > thinking, so let's dismiss that) "latitude" built into it to > "accomodate" the mythical "type 3 Warez user". This is simply, and > provably, NOT the case. > > BB

You clearly have more confidence in the democratic process than most people. How many people ever meet their elected representative in their lives? How many people ever write to them? How many people could even tell you the name of their representative? And on how many issues does an elected representative consult with his electorate to find their views? Unless it's a local issue which applies very specifically to his own constituency, the representatives vote largely the way their party tells them to. On some ocasions they vote with their own conscience, but very rarely do they take the time to find the opinion of their constituents. No need to pick on typos btw :) "Leaky_Valve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Firstly, Simon, let me congratulate you on your discovery that we who read > other's posts are NOT mind-readers. Unless the author is prepared toclearly > state what it is that they mean then confusion WILL arise. (This retortalso > applies to your other come-backs to my most recent posts.) > > Secondly.....you said "I was just pointing out that as individuals we haveno > part in the writing of laws, nor are we ever consulted about them", towhich I > say "WRONG". > I can't speak for your country but in mine we, the citizens, do getconsulted > about laws and do have a part in writing them. > > How is this, you ask? Simple....laws are written by our elected membersof > government. (They don't, as some cretins believe, get churned out by thepolice > or by the local judiciary.) > How do we play a part? We ELECT those representatives. > > Occassionally we also have referendums and that's where Mr. and Mrs.Citizen are > consulted and have a direct effect upon whether a proposal will be passedinto

Quoted text (10 lines)

> the law of the land. > > Here endeth the lesson. > > Simon Brown wrote: > > > <sign again> > > (Ithink that you meant "sigh"!) >

Barton Brown wrote: > > Leaky_Valve wrote: > > > > The law cannot be re-written by a magistrate or a policeman > > There is the simple sentence I was looking for. Exactly! It's done all the time, when the policeman looks the other way for, shall we say, "select" members of the community. -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Leaky_Valve wrote: > Secondly.....you said "I was just pointing out that as individuals we have no > part in the writing of laws, nor are we ever consulted about them", to which I > say "WRONG". > I can't speak for your country but in mine we, the citizens, do get consulted > about laws and do have a part in writing them. I'm jealous then. Representatives around here don't consult with us individually prior to their vote! > How is this, you ask? Simple....laws are written by our elected members of > government. (They don't, as some cretins believe, get churned out by the police > or by the local judiciary.) > How do we play a part? We ELECT those representatives. As if they know everything they're going to be coming across during their term of office, and discuss it with the electorate in detail! Hardly. -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Leaky_Valve wrote: > > You are living in a dream world if you really believe that "The Mafia" and the > Kennedy family achieved prominence simply because of prohibition. Although I'm not for legalizing drug use in any way, you better rethink this right here. Go find out where the Kennedy clan got their money from. They were the crack dealers of their day. And now they're a respected (??) part of American society with access to the corridors of power. -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Woodie 83 wrote: > Just think how much better > this country would be if the Mafia and the Kennedy family hadn't been > catapulted to power by prohibition. Gotta hand it to you. Never thought I'd see the day we actually agreed on something! <g> -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

Nos wrote: > > Go lick your masters feet, you silly little lap dog. Bit of a reach from lap to feet. If my tongue was that long, I'd have made my fortune in porn movies. Nice try though .. are you sure this wasn't a reply you were saving for someone else you adore? BB

ymenard wrote: > > I also found out that 50.004% of the people don't like Ubisoft I abstain

In the Orient, in the Victorian period and well before, opium was used and traded openly. Yet people died through not only its use but also its trade. Simply because a commodity or practise is made "legal" doesn't make it morally, socially or any other way "right". We could save enormous sums of money simply by making certain things "legal". I don't know if I'd want my children to live in that type of society any more than I'd want them to grow up under Big Brother. It has been widely recognised, even by those who pushed for it, that Prohibition in the USA was stupid. What IS interesting is to study how it came about; now THAT is evidence of how the common man (or woman in this case) can change a nation's laws! Oh...and most laws are not founded on logic, daxe. If that were so then our politicians would have the Wisdom of Solomon! daxe wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Let me ask you a question: > > In the USA, in the 20s, people were shot and killed over territorial > right to distribute alcohol, then the subject of prohibition. Now > that alcohol is legal again, when was the last time you heard about > anyone driving through a neighborhood shooting up a building over the > right to distribute whiskey? Alcohol is just as much an addictive > drug as the ones mentioned earlier. > > As a member of the legal profession, I wouldn't expect you to see the > logic in anything that had the potential to decrease your income. > >

Exactly right. The "normal" Sydneyite (!) has, and had, absolutely no control over the situation. The NSW governement ran riot and gave SOCOG cart� blanch� in all matters "Olympic". Barton Brown wrote: > Macca wrote: > > > Its not Aussies fault. Its Sydney peoples fault!!!!! > > Any the Sydnonians (!) think it's the SOC and NSW government's fault!

daxe mentioned that: crime associated with drug distribution would stop if they were legal. Of COURSE it would! So let's make all those annoying social ills go away by legalising them.....is THAT your message? Or do you get selective and only legalise those crimes that daxe considers to be suitable for decriminalisation? Ride a skateboard, do you? Peeved at not being allowed to ride it on the crowded city footpath? Okay....stupid law....let's dump it. Next! This is the real world inhabited by real people.....you're living in dreamland, daxe. (My word....it IS difficult to get the message across in here, isn't it?) daxe wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:29:38 +1000, Leaky_Valve > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >You are living in a dream world if you really believe that "The Mafia" and the > >Kennedy family achieved prominence simply because of prohibition. > > Joe Kennedy Sr. was a bootlegger. No word on whether he was a > murderer or rapist like some of his progeny. > > The Mafia rose to power based on several things, one of the main ones > being prohibition. > > >And your stunning statement that "Drug use harms no one, except in some cases the > >user"?! > >My word.......what a wonderful pair of rose-coloured glasses you are wearing, > >laddie. do a lot of social work, do you? Involved in State, Territory or Federal > >budgeting? How about Public Health......that your portfolio? > > > >When you grow up and leave school and become a daddy, get back to me on this one, > >would you? > > You are confusing the negative effects of drug use with the point, > which is that crime associated with drug distribution would stop if > they were legal. > > Drug abuse is not going to go away whether or not they are legal and > is certainly not going to decrease because of the stupid and > ineffective war on drugs. A problem that begins with demand doesn't > disappear when you attempt (ineptly, I might add) to truncate the > source, it simply makes the remaining sources more profitable. The > solution (as far as it can go) to substance abuse problems is > education. > > A sensible person can understand that waging a very expensive and > ineffectual war against the wrong parties makes zero sense. The govt > profits from the drug war both monetarily and politically and that's > why it continues. It has done nothing and will do nothing to curb > drug use and therefore, demand. It has and does make illegal drug > trafficking more profitable and therefore increases the crime > associated with the trafficking while doing nothing to stop the > problem. > > ~daxe

Glad you recognised it! Barton Brown wrote: > Leaky_Valve wrote: > > > >Here endeth the lesson. > > One of my favorite Sean Connery lines!

Nos, you REALLY have to get a grip! I was not deliberately being obnoxious nor arrogant. If that is the way that my written messages have come across, I'm sorry. Just put it down to my education and life circumstances please, where the attempt at impartiality can often give the impression of arrogance or that one is being patronising. I cannot change a lifetime of writing habit, I'm afraid. Nos wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:18:16 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> > thus spoke: > > >Earth to pot! Earth to pot! Your message to kettle seems to have > >rebounded off the kosmic mirror... > > Go lick your masters feet, you silly little lap dog. > -- > Nos

No, Jo. I don't "get it". But that is one of the delights of free-speech and the ability to debate a subject. You have your opinion and I have mine and so the Universe continues to expand. Ciao. Jo Helsen wrote: > > > Apparently I was reasoning a little bit too fast for some around here <G> > Thanks for showing enough patience to *explain* it step by step, Daxe. I'm sure > he gets it now :-) >

Leaky_Valve wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > The important words that you missed, Fester, was "simply because of". > I did not say that neither the Kennedy's nor the Mafia did NOT profit from > Prohibition. > > Uncle Fester wrote: > > > Although I'm not for legalizing drug use in any way, you better rethink > > this right here. Go find out where the Kennedy clan got their money > > from. They were the crack dealers of their day. And now they're a > > respected (??) part of American society with access to the corridors of > > power.

Yes, you did say that. I'll back away from my previous statement & ask if you care to expand upon the other paths that took them (Kennedy's) to power. The Mob would have expanded with or without, I'll agree. But as I recall, (getting older, maybe memory getting dim?) they were just nobody everyday folks before this period. I'm not a NorthEasterner, so if I'm mistaken I fully expect I'll be getting corrected on this one. <g> -- Chuck Kandler Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

"Most people"? You have facts and figures or are you simply conjuring up your own quantifier? All that I can say (without spending an hour or so!) in response to your questions, Simon, is that under democratic processes the electorate has the freedom and ability to lobby their elected reps. Whether they take that opportunity or not is entirely up to them. (For example, your nation [you ARE in the USA?] has an election system that does not require people to vote. You vote by choice. That's fine, but those who don't avail themselves of that opportunity shouldn't complain about any outcome.) That about sums it up. Simon Brown wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> You clearly have more confidence in the democratic process than most people. > How many people ever meet their elected representative in their lives? How > many people ever write to them? How many people could even tell you the > name of their representative? > > And on how many issues does an elected representative consult with his > electorate to find their views? Unless it's a local issue which applies > very specifically to his own constituency, the representatives vote largely > the way their party tells them to. On some ocasions they vote with their > own conscience, but very rarely do they take the time to find the opinion of > their constituents. >

That, friend Fester, is not "re-writing the law". That is corruption. Uncle Fester wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Barton Brown wrote: > > > > Leaky_Valve wrote: > > > > > > The law cannot be re-written by a magistrate or a policeman > > > > There is the simple sentence I was looking for. Exactly! > > It's done all the time, when the policeman looks the other way for, > shall we say, "select" members of the community. > > -- > Chuck Kandler > > Windows--computing for the Unwashed Masses > > Registered Linux User #180746 > http://counter.li.org

The important words that you missed, Fester, was "simply because of". I did not say that neither the Kennedy's nor the Mafia did NOT profit from Prohibition. Uncle Fester wrote: > Although I'm not for legalizing drug use in any way, you better rethink > this right here. Go find out where the Kennedy clan got their money > from. They were the crack dealers of their day. And now they're a > respected (??) part of American society with access to the corridors of > power.

Barton Brown wrote: > > ymenard wrote: > > > > Whoa here. > > Frank -- it was a joke. I think it's time for jokes -- I hope you agree... If you ask me I think it's *way* overdue ....... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "Mountain climbing, auto racing and bullfighting are the only true sports...all others are games." --Ernest Hemingway--

On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 08:23:45 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>daxe mentioned that: >crime associated with drug distribution would stop if they were legal. > >Of COURSE it would! >So let's make all those annoying social ills go away by legalising them.....is THAT >your message? >Or do you get selective and only legalise those crimes that daxe considers to be >suitable for decriminalisation? Ride a skateboard, do you? Peeved at not being >allowed to ride it on the crowded city footpath? Okay....stupid law....let's dump >it. Next! > >This is the real world inhabited by real people.....you're living in dreamland, daxe.

and you are too goddamn dense to understand the issue. ~daxe

I'm in the UK in England. I did a 2 year course in government and politics and even my lecturer agreed that our representatives do a pretty poor job of being 'representative'. The whole demoratic process is very far from perfect. Every five years the parties issue manifestos, which no one reads. It's no good to just say that everyone has 'the opportunity' to read the manifestos, that's just denying reality. The fact is most people never read them. Also these manifestos are compiled nationally by the parties, and not by the individual candidates, so there's no opportunity to find out what your actual candidates in your area stands for. People identify with the national party and have virtually no knowledge of their candidate. Also parties don't stick to manifestos, mainly because all manifestos contain unacheivable aims. For instance think of George Bush and that famous line "read my lips - no new taxes" or whatever he said. Manifestos just play on peoples greed, promising tax cut after tax cut, none of which the country can actually afford, because they know it'll get them into power. UK taxes are about 20p/pound at the moment, and they get cut about 1p every 2 years. What is the inevitable consequence of this selfish policy? When taxes are down to 5p/pound how will the countries roads/hospitals/schools/police/parks/courts/transport be maintained? People continually vote for the party promising the biggest tax cuts so they can have more money in their pockets, even if the country's infrastructure falls apart (which started to happen long ago here). Also a large percentage of people vote blindly how their parents voted, without any consideration of the policies of the political parties. Many people couldn't tell you even what their parties' policies were, except in the broadest of terms. Many people vote on the 'national mood' or based on the image of the national party leaders. It's no exaggeration to say that many people see the election in the UK as a simple choice of who they want to be the next Prime Minister, even though their vote only counts within their local constituency. The UK isn't like the US, we don't get a vote for the Prime Minister at all, just for our local candidate. Even the US system is far from perfect. In the US the majority of people voted for Clinton, who then spends 4 years sitting on his rear end doing nothing because the Republicans control the House of Representatives, so he can't get some of the most important legislation through. And it's no secret that elected representatives everywhere vote largely the way their party tells them to. Very few have the guts to stand up and be counted, and when they do, that destroys their chances of getting into the Cabinet. MP's vote the way they're told to. Also what if none of the candidates standing in your area represent your views? People feel they have to vote for one of the three main parties or they feel their vote is wasted. The only parties here in the UK that actually propose raising taxes have no chance of winning anyway. And of course, the most obvious point, how are the people who voted for the losing candidates being represented? Ok, last point, it's actually possible for a party to get a majority in the UK parliment (ie more than fifty percent of the seats) even though they get less than fifty percent of the votes. This has actually happened as well. Anyway, sorry for going on so much :) "Leaky_Valve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Most people"? You have facts and figures or are you simply conjuring upyour > own quantifier? > > All that I can say (without spending an hour or so!) in response to your > questions, Simon, is that under democratic processes the electorate hasthe > freedom and ability to lobby their elected reps. Whether they take that > opportunity or not is entirely up to them. > (For example, your nation [you ARE in the USA?] has an election systemthat does > not require people to vote. You vote by choice. That's fine, but thosewho > don't avail themselves of that opportunity shouldn't complain about any > outcome.) > > That about sums it up.

In article <[email hidden]>, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>In case you haven't read the paper recently, apartheid in SA sort of came to >a >fairly final end a few years ago. ("those people" are now whining about toher >things, like employment and food and all the other annoyances of democracy). >Oh, and the Berlin Wall is down, the USSR has been split up and man landed on >the moon in 1969. > >There...that just about brings you up to date with world affairs. > >Simon Brown wrote: > >> >> There are such things as immoral laws, obviously I'm not talking about >> piracy here, but apartheid in South Africa comes immediately to mind. Tell >> those people to stop whining. >

And...Elvis is dead...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Quoted text (9 lines)

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 08:23:45 +1000, Leaky_Valve ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>daxe mentioned that: >>crime associated with drug distribution would stop if they were legal. >> >>Of COURSE it would! >>So let's make all those annoying social ills go away by legalising them.....is THAT >>your message?

My message is exactly what I have been saying. I am not speaking in code or implying anything I haven't stated clearly more than once. Apparently you are too stupid to grasp the issue as presented since you insist on inserting unrelated things in your quest to seem superior and muddy the argument. Explain to me logically, taking into account human nature, why crime would NOT decrease if the profit motive was removed? I suspect you won't because you can't. >>Or do you get selective and only legalise those crimes that daxe considers to be >>suitable for decriminalisation? Ride a skateboard, do you? Peeved at not being >>allowed to ride it on the crowded city footpath? Okay....stupid law....let's dump >>it. Next! I don't think it's me that is in dreamland, Leaky. You conjured this up out of nothing, as far as I can tell. There is no logic to that statement and it bears no relation to what I am saying. >>This is the real world inhabited by real people.....you're living in dreamland, daxe. And if you can't see the clear logic in my argument, hinging on the nature of those same real people, you should spend a little less time deliberately antagonizing people on usenet and take your big head out of your ass long enough to grasp some reality, yourself. I would argue against your position, but you haven't got a position. If you stated one and someone argued against it, you would just shift your position. You would make a great politician. You say whatever is necessary to accomplish your short-term personal goals and have no convictions or courage to go with them when confronted. Go back in your hole, weasel. ~daxe

On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 21:53:51 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> thus spoke: >Bit of a reach from lap to feet. If my tongue was that long, I'd have >made my fortune in porn movies. Nice try though .. are you sure this >wasn't a reply you were saving for someone else you adore? > >BB lap dog (lp d�g) n. Informal. One that is eager to do another's bidding, especially so as to maintain a position of privilege or favor: �a bunch of intellectual lap dogs for anybody who holds a big job in government� (Mike Barnicle). Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition -- Nos

I'm sorry but I haven't researched the history of Joe and his forebears...or his ancestors, for that matter. If they were penniless prior to Prohibition then I certainly stand corrected. Uncle Fester wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Yes, you did say that. I'll back away from my previous statement & ask > if you care to expand upon the other paths that took them (Kennedy's) to > power. The Mob would have expanded with or without, I'll agree. But as > I recall, (getting older, maybe memory getting dim?) they were just > nobody everyday folks before this period. I'm not a NorthEasterner, so > if I'm mistaken I fully expect I'll be getting corrected on this one.

Too dense.....or maybe not dense enough? daxe wrote: > > and you are too goddamn dense to understand the issue. >

Either that or he's got really bad B.O.. EldredP wrote: > > > > > And...Elvis is dead...<g>

[You would make a great politician] I take that as a compliment, daxe. daxe wrote:

Nos wrote: > especially so as to maintain a position of privilege or favor Oh, well then ... you've found me out. My well-known position of privilege or favor allows me to live like an Eastern Potentate, with Houri-eyed dancing girls at my beck and call (the "lap-to-foot" tongue helps), and eunuchs bearing silver trays of McDonald's Happy Meals all day long, while a garage-full of powerful Trabants and '61 Rambler Americans waits silently to whisk me speedily away to my various pre-fab palaces. What a life! BB

Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >No, Jo. I don't "get it". >But that is one of the delights of free-speech and the ability to debate a subject. >You have your opinion and I have mine and so the Universe continues to expand. >Ciao. But... you're not "debating" anything at all. Debating is MORE than time after time simply REPEATING an "opinion". And about "opinions"... I can show you people with the following "opinions": - whites are superior to blacks - the Holocaust is a hoax - the Earth is 4000 years old and Adam ate apples These are all "opinions", Leaky_Valve. And they all have one thing in common: when you ask the people behind them to explain and justify the "opinion", they don't get much further than repeating it all over again. Or if they are stupid enough to try anyway: expose their narrow-mindedness, lack of education and overall dumbness. Opinions are worthless if they are uninformed or not backed up by facts. So if you don't want us to classify your "opinion" into the same class as some of the examples above, you better start outputting some arguments. Arguments that convince us that controlled legalisation of drugs is the Devil's plan and will make things so much worse than they are. You even get a free tip: you can enumerate all the great successes of the current anti-drug war to defend it! JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, Leaky_Valve ><[email hidden]> writes: > >>In case you haven't read the paper recently, apartheid in SA sort of came to >>a >>fairly final end a few years ago. ("those people" are now whining about toher >>things, like employment and food and all the other annoyances of democracy). >>Oh, and the Berlin Wall is down, the USSR has been split up and man landed on >>the moon in 1969. >> >>There...that just about brings you up to date with world affairs. >> >>Simon Brown wrote: >> >>> >>> There are such things as immoral laws, obviously I'm not talking about >>> piracy here, but apartheid in South Africa comes immediately to mind. Tell >>> those people to stop whining. >> > >And...Elvis is dead...<g>

You're kidding! I saw him yesterday coming out of that flying saucer that landed in our backyard? ;-) JoH ------- The best way to accelerate a Mac is 9.81 m/s2 -------- --------------------------------------------------------------

In article <[email hidden]>, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote: > EldredP wrote: > > > > WTF? What's the charge, trespassing...? I'm misunderstanding thisone... > > I have a friend (many here will find THAT statement difficult to > accept!) in Sydney who's been telling me about the madness surrounding > the preparations for the Olympics. My friend happens to live betweentwo > Olympic venues. Here's some of what's going on: your "friend" is pulling your leg. > > The New South Wales government has designated several motor routes as > "VIP Routes" true -- and NOT just for the Olympics -- the law has been > written so that the NSW gov't can invoke these VIP Routes at their > discretion ANY time in future, as in times of national emergency. False >During > the Olympics, these routes are for the exclusive use of Olympicbigwigs. False A lane in these routes is for olympic use - for buses and Olympic transport > If Joe Citizen is caught driving on one of them, it's an automatic > $AUS15,000 fine. False, the amount is no where that. What do you mean by "automatic" fine?? > > My friend's location between two sites and the placing of the VIPRoutes > mean that when the venues are in use, he and his wife are locked into > their neighborhood. False, they are just unable to travel in that Olympic lane. > Like many people in Sydney, they're going to try to > wait out the first couple weeks by staying on a friend's farm 350miles away. The whole Olympics is only for 2 weeks. And the vast majority of people in Sydney will still be going to work. > > So the Olympic VIPs won't be offended by unsightly clutter, no parked > personal vehicle can be visible from a VIP route: Bullshit >Joe Citizen either has > to put his car out of sight in his garage (if he has one), or move the > vehicle elsewhere where it can't be seen -- and NOT on his lawn.Fine: $AUS5000 Bullshit > Huge amounts of money have been voted for the use of the SOC (Sydney > Olympic Committee), so far at least three times the SOC's original > "maximum" estimate. This money will be replaced by countrywide taxes > over the next several years. The Olympics have already been almost paid for, and as it is in NSW, why or how would the Government of say, WA, tax their citizens for the NSW Olympics. > > There's much more, but I can't remember it all -- except that many > "public" areas -- huge ones -- around Sydney Harbor have been > appropriated by the SOC for high-buck admission for the yachtingevents. Bullshit > > BB > Very funny. Of course, your friend can tell you the actual legislation enacted for the above laws? Thought Not. -- Email to me may be deleted unread, forwarded to Usenet, twisted, distorted and changed, or posted on a Web site. If you do not want this to possibly happen to your email sent to me, do not send me any. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <gAwu5.16709$[email hidden]>, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Another example would be 3d Studio MAX, which cost �3500 uk (i kid you >not!). It's the industry standard 3d modelling package (on the PC at least) >so it's the only one worth learning, and most individuals cannot afford that >kind of money. That means someone who is unemployed, or on a low to medium >income has no opportunity to learn this package. If your talents lie in 3d >modelling you are denied the chance of taking up a new career because of one >companies pricing policy.

So WHY does it cost so much? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > In article <gAwu5.16709$[email hidden]>, "Simon Brown" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >Another example would be 3d Studio MAX, which cost �3500 uk (i kid you > >not!). It's the industry standard 3d modelling package (on the PC at least) > >so it's the only one worth learning, and most individuals cannot afford that > >kind of money. That means someone who is unemployed, or on a low to medium > >income has no opportunity to learn this package. If your talents lie in 3d > >modelling you are denied the chance of taking up a new career because of one > >companies pricing policy. > > So WHY does it cost so much? > > Eldred > -- > Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 > Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > GPL hcp. +50.77 > > Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you > with experience... > Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

I don't think its price is set by the illegal copying, but because the main markets to which 3D Studio is targeted for can afford it, be it architects, designers, 3D animators or game developers. However, I do believe the company (Kinetix, I think) recognized the fact that others have uses for their product as well, so they plan to release a stripped version called gMax (g as in games) for free. It is mostly targeted to function as an editor for producing 3D models for games by gamers. I think it's a clever strategy, as some of the people who will use it, and would never buy the full version, will find their jobs in the gaming or any other 3D modelling industry, where they would probably opt for the full MAX product due to their familiarity with it. -Gregor

It sounds delightful, Barton. Please forward a ticket to this Nirvana poste-haste. Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Nos wrote: > > especially so as to maintain a position of privilege or favor > > Oh, well then ... you've found me out. My well-known position of > privilege or favor allows me to live like an Eastern Potentate, with > Houri-eyed dancing girls at my beck and call (the "lap-to-foot" tongue > helps), and eunuchs bearing silver trays of McDonald's Happy Meals all > day long, while a garage-full of powerful Trabants and '61 Rambler > Americans waits silently to whisk me speedily away to my various pre-fab > palaces. What a life! > > BB

Was it a Shakespearean line that proclaimed something about "tiring of this charade", Jo? Opinion is as opinion does and that about tallies it all up, don't you think? Whatever....I bow to your persistence and am crushed by your persuasive argument and will now commit harikari. Jo Helsen wrote:

Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > I don't think its price is set by the illegal copying, but because the > main markets to which 3D Studio is targeted for can afford it, be it > architects, designers, 3D animators or game developers. > > However, I do believe the company (Kinetix, I think) recognized the fact > that others have uses for their product as well, so they plan to release > a stripped version called gMax (g as in games) for free. It is mostly > targeted to function as an editor for producing 3D models for games by > gamers. > > I think it's a clever strategy, as some of the people who will use it, > and would never buy the full version, will find their jobs in the gaming > or any other 3D modelling industry, where they would probably opt for > the full MAX product due to their familiarity with it.

Smart move, MS has done this for years now with their products to students and such, they get about 80% discount on many Office related products Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

I dunno, it's not because of piracy though. Autodesk/Kinetix are a small company selling to a small market of professionals. If they didn't charge this much they'd probably go out of business. Maybe I was wrong to criticise their pricing policy, it's probably not their fault it has to cost so much, but the consequences are still the same nevertheless. Compare with Visual C++ 6.0, which cost �390 for the full version, �195 for the full version if you own a previous version and �80 for the Standard cut-down edition. Almost anyone can afford �80, so learning C++ is way more accessible. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > So WHY does it cost so much? > > Eldred

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:45:16 +1000, Leaky_Valve <[email hidden]> wrote: >Was it a Shakespearean line that proclaimed something about "tiring of this charade", >Jo? Wasn't it Shakespeare who wrote "You shall recognise a coward when he runs away"? No? Then surely somebody else did! You disappoint me, really. I had expected you to be one of those right-wing chaps with a strong conservative opinion based on the Bible, family values and stuff. With nevertheless a bit of brains and reason. I overestimated you, and it will not happen again I promise you. Leaky_Valve want some candy and sweet stuff? Maybe uncle JoH will buy Leaky_Valve some if he is sweet and polite. >Opinion is as opinion does and that about tallies it all up, don't you think? In your tiny microscopic little world it probably does, yeah. >Whatever....I bow to your persistence and am crushed by your persuasive argument and >will now commit harikari. Great. But post pictures to prove it please. JoH

Uh? Err... Yer all wrong!!! My cat is named Crunchie. Francois Dubuc, [email hidden] Simulator Cyberworld, http://www.simracing.com/simcyberworld/

In article <[email hidden]>, Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> writes: >You even get a free tip: you can enumerate all the great successes of the >current anti-drug war to defend it! The (US) government isn't trying to win the war on drugs. They make too much money off drugs - why would they want to screw that up...? Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Jo Helsen <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>And...Elvis is dead...<g> > >You're kidding! I saw him yesterday coming out of that flying saucer that >landed >in our backyard? ;-) > >JoH

We need *pictures*, Jo... <g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 12 Sep 2000 10:58:30 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, Jo Helsen ><[email hidden]> writes: > >>>And...Elvis is dead...<g> >> >>You're kidding! I saw him yesterday coming out of that flying saucer that >>landed >>in our backyard? ;-) >> >>JoH > >We need *pictures*, Jo... <g>

I'm sorry, I was still thinking in Leaky_Valve terms. I.e. no facts or decent arguments needed. Elvis came out of his flying saucer in MY little world, and that's enough for me ;-) JoH

In article <GA5v5.368$%[email hidden]>, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>I dunno, it's not because of piracy though. Autodesk/Kinetix are a small >company selling to a small market of professionals. If they didn't charge >this much they'd probably go out of business. Maybe I was wrong to >criticise their pricing policy, it's probably not their fault it has to cost >so much, but the consequences are still the same nevertheless. > >Compare with Visual C++ 6.0, which cost �390 for the full version, �195 for >the full version if you own a previous version and �80 for the Standard >cut-down edition. Almost anyone can afford �80, so learning C++ is way more >accessible. > >"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> So WHY does it cost so much? >> >> Eldred

No, I didn't believe it was because of piracy. It's always intrigued me just HOW people come up with pricing for their applications. We got Visual Basic for work, but I don't know how much it cost. BTW, are you the same Simon Brown who asked me about using a server for your league? I responded with the info you needed, but I never heard back from you... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +50.77 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Whoa...didn't think anyone responded to messages this far down the board :) Sorry Edlred, it took me ages to spot your post, but in answer to your question, it wasn't me who contacted you I'm afraid. I don't have a league, and I never have had. It must have been someone else. Imagine that, another Simon Brown who plays GPL :) What are the chances of that? Maybe there's a load of clones of me running about :) Visual Basic costs the same as Visual C++ more or less btw. "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > No, I didn't believe it was because of piracy. It's always intrigued mejust > HOW people come up with pricing for their applications. We got VisualBasic > for work, but I don't know how much it cost. > > BTW, are you the same Simon Brown who asked me about using a server foryour > league? I responded with the info you needed, but I never heard back from > you... > > Eldred

In article <Bffw5.1735$[email hidden]>, "Simon Brown" <[email hidden]> writes: >Whoa...didn't think anyone responded to messages this far down the board :) AOL reads 'em ALL...<g> >Sorry Edlred, it took me ages to spot your post, but in answer to your >question, it wasn't me who contacted you I'm afraid. I don't have a league, >and I never have had. It must have been someone else. Imagine that, >another Simon Brown who plays GPL :) What are the chances of that? >Maybe there's a load of clones of me running about :) It was Simon *Goodwin*...<my mistake> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +49.67 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.