XP Home License

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Shenan said:
I have to interject here - only because I first thought Bruce to be
over-stepping saying that he never used the word "crime". That being
pretty accurate in the purest sense - but he had used the word
"steal" and I thought to myself, "That implies criminal activity -
certainly." -- but I took it upon myself to look up the word "steal"
-> just out of curiosity.
While it can imply criminal activity in the mind of many - it is not
defined as "criminal" in - for example - the Merriam-Webster Online
does not mention criminality any where in the definition. Unfair,
dishonest, wrongfully, without permission, etc... Even unjust - but
never a mention of criminal activity.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/steal

While it surprised me, it did make sense. While the word certainly
could be used to describe a criminal act - it is more a description
of a moral action, and not "criminal" until someone makes it (or
takes it) as such. Consider children taking something from another
child - unless someone comes in and presents a rule that makes it a
crime - all that happened is that something was taken from someone
else without their consent. Is that against the written laws? Yes.
Is it criminal - only if taken to that level. One can steal material
goods, looks, hearts of others, bases and other such things - but
they are not criminal - unless someone else interjects their written
law system into the matter.
Would it be sensible to think most people would interject such law
systems into a discussion? Yeah - it is. However - in the pure
sense of the word steal - by definition - is not a criminal act.

In other words - one persons interpretation of stealing and the
context in which it was used (which may not be what was interpreted
by people other than those who presented the idea) - like many other
things, may or may not be criminal.

If I were to steal a glance in your direction - I suppose you could
sue me for it - but you would need to seek professional help at the
same time (unless I was stalking you - but then you are not suing me
for stealing that glance.) I can steal third base in a baseball game
- but I am pretty sure no one has ever been taken to prison for that
(some have been arrested for the drug use that gave them the ability
to do that, however. *grin*)
While arguable that Bruce was implying criminal activity when he
presented this sentence:

"And you plan to start off my teaching an 8-year-old that it's OK to
steal?"
It could be interpreted that Bruce was just stating his own moral
belief that any act of "taking surreptitiously or without permission
" is wrongful. As he did not go further and express any punishment
for such act - it very well could be that was the case - and not
"criminal" in that interpretation..

Do I believe that is what Bruce meant? Not meaning that it was a
criminal act?
*shrug* It's plausible - but I do think it was said in the heat of
the moment and the true intention is only known to Bruce.

I know I took it to mean "criminal act" when I first read it. That
is the way I interpreted the word "steal" at that time.
Click to expand...

Stealing is a criminal offense in every civilized nation in the world.

Breeching a contractual term is at most a civil offense but only under
certain circumstances where one party was materially damaged, and can
prove it in a court of law.

Comparing stealing, theft of property, a crime, to a mere civil
contractual dispute has absolutely no basis in reason.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
 
Bruce said:
I don't believe I ever used the word "crime," now did I? I
described the action, only. Period.
Click to expand...
Stealing is a criminal offense. You words show you for a fool.
Click to expand...

Shenan said:
I have to interject here - only because I first thought Bruce to be
over-stepping saying that he never used the word "crime". That
being pretty accurate in the purest sense - but he had used the
word "steal" and I thought to myself, "That implies criminal
activity - certainly." -- but I took it upon myself to look up the
word "steal" -> just out of curiosity.
While it can imply criminal activity in the mind of many - it is
not defined as "criminal" in - for example - the Merriam-Webster
Online does not mention criminality any where in the definition. Unfair,
dishonest, wrongfully, without permission, etc... Even
unjust - but never a mention of criminal activity.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/steal

While it surprised me, it did make sense. While the word certainly
could be used to describe a criminal act - it is more a description
of a moral action, and not "criminal" until someone makes it (or
takes it) as such. Consider children taking something from another
child - unless someone comes in and presents a rule that makes it a
crime - all that happened is that something was taken from someone
else without their consent. Is that against the written laws? Yes. Is it
criminal - only if taken to that level. One can steal
material goods, looks, hearts of others, bases and other such
things - but they are not criminal - unless someone else interjects
their written law system into the matter.
Would it be sensible to think most people would interject such law
systems into a discussion? Yeah - it is. However - in the pure
sense of the word steal - by definition - is not a criminal act.

In other words - one persons interpretation of stealing and the
context in which it was used (which may not be what was interpreted
by people other than those who presented the idea) - like many
other things, may or may not be criminal.

If I were to steal a glance in your direction - I suppose you could
sue me for it - but you would need to seek professional help at the
same time (unless I was stalking you - but then you are not suing
me for stealing that glance.) I can steal third base in a baseball
game - but I am pretty sure no one has ever been taken to prison
for that (some have been arrested for the drug use that gave them
the ability to do that, however. *grin*)
While arguable that Bruce was implying criminal activity when he
presented this sentence:

"And you plan to start off my teaching an 8-year-old that it's OK
to steal?"
It could be interpreted that Bruce was just stating his own moral
belief that any act of "taking surreptitiously or without
permission " is wrongful. As he did not go further and express any
punishment for such act - it very well could be that was the case -
and not "criminal" in that interpretation..

Do I believe that is what Bruce meant? Not meaning that it was a
criminal act?
*shrug* It's plausible - but I do think it was said in the heat of
the moment and the true intention is only known to Bruce.

I know I took it to mean "criminal act" when I first read it. That
is the way I interpreted the word "steal" at that time.
Click to expand...
Stealing is a criminal offense in every civilized nation in the
world.
Click to expand...
<snip>

Stealing (the definition of the word) may be *interpretted* as a "criminal
offense" in most places - it is not defined as such until someone decides it
should be. Otherwise it is "taking surreptitiously or without permission".
I

s it a crime to steal most things? It can be defined as such - but doesn't
have to be taken to that level. I can steal your significant other, I can
steal your car, I can steal your heart or Icould steal some candy from a jar
in your office.. While all of them are "taking surreptitiously or without
permission", until you press charges - is it defined, exclusively - as a
criminal act? Or is it just interpretation that I did you wrong (or did
someone/something wrong?)

I am not defending or berating Bruce's use of the word - I know how I first
interpretted it, how I felt he meant it - but that does not mean my
interpretation and his intentions for it were the same.

It's a small point and off-topic (as are most of the responses in this
thread in light of the OP) - but it followed one small off-shoot --> where
the definition of the word "steal" seemed to be in question.
 
Bruce said:
True, there are some countries in the world that do not recognize or
respect the intellectual property of other countrys' citizens.
Click to expand...

And while we are at it, remember recognition or non-recognition is
a two-way street and, typically, both sides are equally guilty of
infringing on the other to the same degree. The shame of all this,
however, is that the robber barons tend to prevail through the use
of brute force tactics. In the true classical sense, developments
from the intellect are gifts to humanity on which there should be
no constraints.
 
kurttrail said:
Jone Doe wrote:




Wrong. Just go to New Egg, or Walmart. There in no longer any hardware
requirement when purchasing OEM software.
Click to expand...

True. The physical constraint seems to be been removed but the
fine print still exists between the buyer and Microsoft. Of course,
it comes down to what was written in the EULA that is specifically
enclosed with the product.
 
colinlam said:
It came installed on a computer I had built and I've just had a look and it
says "For distribution with a new PC only". I suppose that answers my
question offically but will it activate if I use it again
Click to expand...

The easiest way to know whether you have an OEM version is by opeing the
file:

D:\i386\setupp.ini (D = your CD-DRIVE letter and it contains your
original OS CD)

It should tell you whether you have an OEM version or not in the various
numbers you see on this file.

As you have built your own system, any information on the sticker is not
reliable!

Asking questions about licensing and EULA always generate heated
argumnts on this NG. The best advice to anyone is to try and see what
happens. I can can assure you that hanging is no longer possible for
simple mistakes of installing a MS software!!

hth
 
It may activate, if it's a generic OEM CD. This, of course, doesn't
make doing so "right."
Click to expand...

If it activates then clearly it must be "right"!! Why would MS activate
a product if it is not "right"? are you suggesting that the activation
system is flawed to the detriment or against all law abiding citizens of
this planet?
 
Bruce said:
Why would you believe that? His post didn't specify any compies,
but askied about EULAs in general.




You've just contradicted yourself. If, as you admit, no Microsoft
EULAs have yet been challenged in court, how could one possibly have
been found to be unconscionable?
Click to expand...

That's my opinion. Please note that when I write a post, I am stating my
opinion even if I don't type IMHO, IMO, etc. This is English 101, Bruce.
Can't you mindlessly anti-Microsoft hacks come up with any better
arguments that crudely crafted (and self defeating) attempts at
mis-direction?
Click to expand...

Maybe if I put it another way: MS is afraid to take anyone to court for
fear that their EULAs will be deemed unconscionable. Get it now? Hell,
the court might even rule that one can put XP on as many PCs as one owns
and then where would WPA, WGA1, WGA2 and WGA3 be left, holding the
virtual bag? Even worse for MS, the general public might be informed as
to the scam that these EULAs are.

Alias
 
Bruce said:
You've just contradicted yourself. If, as you admit, no Microsoft
EULAs have yet been challenged in court, how could one possibly have
been found to be unconscionable?
Click to expand...

Microsoft first has to file a lawsuit for breech of the EULA.

The consumer is waiting on the big corporation to repeat the mistake it
made in /Microsoft v. Zamos/.

The fact that Microsoft has not attempted to bring such a suit is
telling.
Can't you mindlessly anti-Microsoft hacks come up with any better
arguments that crudely crafted (and self defeating) attempts at
mis-direction?
Click to expand...

I'm not mindless, and I'm not anti-Microsoft, Bruce. Or at least I
wasn't until I had extra time to read in-depth about the company as a
result of being banned in this group.

Now I really don't know what to think.

rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

What we're really after is simply that people
acquire a legal license for Windows for each
computer they own before they move on to Linux
or Sun Solaris or BSD or OS/2 or whatever.
Bill Gates
 
Shenan said:
<snip>

Stealing (the definition of the word) may be *interpretted* as a
"criminal offense" in most places - it is not defined as such until
someone decides it should be. Otherwise it is "taking
surreptitiously or without permission". I

s it a crime to steal most things? It can be defined as such - but
doesn't have to be taken to that level. I can steal your significant
other, I can steal your car, I can steal your heart or Icould steal
some candy from a jar in your office.. While all of them are "taking
surreptitiously or without permission", until you press charges - is
it defined, exclusively - as a criminal act? Or is it just
interpretation that I did you wrong (or did someone/something wrong?)

I am not defending or berating Bruce's use of the word - I know how I
first interpretted it, how I felt he meant it - but that does not
mean my interpretation and his intentions for it were the same.

It's a small point and off-topic (as are most of the responses in this
thread in light of the OP) - but it followed one small off-shoot -->
where the definition of the word "steal" seemed to be in question.
Click to expand...

Thou shalt not steal.

Can't get much older of a law without diggin' up Hammurabi.

You and I and most people know what the implications of using the word
"steal" is. In no reasonable manner is "stealing" analogous to a civil
contract terms dispute.

Someone who paid good money for software and wants to use it for their
own "fair use" is not analogous to a stealer, a pirate, a thief. The
pirates, the stealers, the thiefs are those that distribute software to
other people, without permission of the owner.

Would you call a person that read a book they bought into a voice
recorder, for their own personal use, a thief, a stealer, a pirate?

Look at it another way. SCO claims IBM breeched the UNIX license.
ASSuming against all likelihood that SCO wins in court, would you feel
justified in calling IBM a thief, a stealer, a pirate, or would you be
reasonable enough to call a spade by it true name, and call IBM
contract/licence breaker. And that is ASSuming that SCO eventually
would prevail in its law suit against IBM, and that is a really big
ASSumption. When it comes to shrinkwrap license v. an individual's
right to "fair use," there isn't even any pending case, so it is even a
bigger ASSumption to think that "fair use" is actually a breech of a
hidden post-purchase shrinkwrap license, let alone that it is STEALING.

But if you feel some overriding need to keep apologizing for Bruce
calling paying customers, stealers, please be my guest, but that will
only show you to be as unreasonable as Bruce is on the matter at hand,
and I really wouldn't have thought you were the unreasonable type,
Shenan.

Hell, I even think Bruce would be able to see reason on this subject if
it came from someone like you, instead of me. If one wants to be
reasonable about this subject, then saying that it is breech of contract
would be reasonable. Calling it stealing is way beyond reason. And
again, a breech of contract is not even civilly illegal unless the
plaintiff can prove a material loss, and MS would have a hell of a time
proving that against an individual that actually paid for their copy of
software BEFORE any contract/post-purchase shrink-wrap license was
accepted.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
 
Bruce said:
I don't believe I ever used the word "crime," now did I? I
described the action, only. Period.
Click to expand...
Stealing is a criminal offense. You words show you for a fool.
Click to expand...

Shenan said:
I have to interject here - only because I first thought Bruce to be
over-stepping saying that he never used the word "crime". That
being pretty accurate in the purest sense - but he had used the
word "steal" and I thought to myself, "That implies criminal
activity - certainly." -- but I took it upon myself to look up the
word "steal" -> just out of curiosity.
While it can imply criminal activity in the mind of many - it is
not defined as "criminal" in - for example - the Merriam-Webster
Online does not mention criminality any where in the definition. Unfair,
dishonest, wrongfully, without permission, etc... Even
unjust - but never a mention of criminal activity.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/steal

While it surprised me, it did make sense. While the word certainly
could be used to describe a criminal act - it is more a description
of a moral action, and not "criminal" until someone makes it (or
takes it) as such. Consider children taking something from another
child - unless someone comes in and presents a rule that makes it a
crime - all that happened is that something was taken from someone
else without their consent. Is that against the written laws? Yes. Is it
criminal - only if taken to that level. One can steal
material goods, looks, hearts of others, bases and other such
things - but they are not criminal - unless someone else interjects
their written law system into the matter.
Would it be sensible to think most people would interject such law
systems into a discussion? Yeah - it is. However - in the pure
sense of the word steal - by definition - is not a criminal act.

In other words - one persons interpretation of stealing and the
context in which it was used (which may not be what was interpreted
by people other than those who presented the idea) - like many
other things, may or may not be criminal.

If I were to steal a glance in your direction - I suppose you could
sue me for it - but you would need to seek professional help at the
same time (unless I was stalking you - but then you are not suing
me for stealing that glance.) I can steal third base in a baseball
game - but I am pretty sure no one has ever been taken to prison
for that (some have been arrested for the drug use that gave them
the ability to do that, however. *grin*)
While arguable that Bruce was implying criminal activity when he
presented this sentence:

"And you plan to start off my teaching an 8-year-old that it's OK
to steal?"
It could be interpreted that Bruce was just stating his own moral
belief that any act of "taking surreptitiously or without
permission " is wrongful. As he did not go further and express any
punishment for such act - it very well could be that was the case -
and not "criminal" in that interpretation..

Do I believe that is what Bruce meant? Not meaning that it was a
criminal act?
*shrug* It's plausible - but I do think it was said in the heat of
the moment and the true intention is only known to Bruce.

I know I took it to mean "criminal act" when I first read it. That
is the way I interpreted the word "steal" at that time.
Click to expand...
Stealing is a criminal offense in every civilized nation in the
world.
Click to expand...
<snip>
Thou shalt not steal.

Can't get much older of a law without diggin' up Hammurabi.

You and I and most people know what the implications of using the
word "steal" is. In no reasonable manner is "stealing" analogous
to a civil contract terms dispute.

Someone who paid good money for software and wants to use it for
their own "fair use" is not analogous to a stealer, a pirate, a
thief. The pirates, the stealers, the thiefs are those that
distribute software to other people, without permission of the
owner.
Would you call a person that read a book they bought into a voice
recorder, for their own personal use, a thief, a stealer, a pirate?

Look at it another way. SCO claims IBM breeched the UNIX license.
ASSuming against all likelihood that SCO wins in court, would you
feel justified in calling IBM a thief, a stealer, a pirate, or
would you be reasonable enough to call a spade by it true name, and
call IBM contract/licence breaker. And that is ASSuming that SCO
eventually would prevail in its law suit against IBM, and that is a
really big ASSumption. When it comes to shrinkwrap license v. an
individual's right to "fair use," there isn't even any pending
case, so it is even a bigger ASSumption to think that "fair use" is
actually a breech of a hidden post-purchase shrinkwrap license, let
alone that it is STEALING.
But if you feel some overriding need to keep apologizing for Bruce
calling paying customers, stealers, please be my guest, but that
will only show you to be as unreasonable as Bruce is on the matter
at hand, and I really wouldn't have thought you were the
unreasonable type, Shenan.

Hell, I even think Bruce would be able to see reason on this
subject if it came from someone like you, instead of me. If one
wants to be reasonable about this subject, then saying that it is
breech of contract would be reasonable. Calling it stealing is way
beyond reason. And again, a breech of contract is not even civilly
illegal unless the plaintiff can prove a material loss, and MS
would have a hell of a time proving that against an individual that
actually paid for their copy of software BEFORE any
contract/post-purchase shrink-wrap license was accepted.
Click to expand...

Where did you miss that I was defining the word "steal"?
Was it when I said that was what i was doing?

I never said anyone was stealing - I said that perhaps Bruce was making a
moral judgement call as opposed to a legal one. This is possible with the
ambiguity of the word "steal". It is NOT a legal term only. You are the
one that jumped to the conclusion that Bruce meant it strictly in a criminal
act manner. Just like you jumped to the conclusion (how - after reading
everything I wrote - I will never know) that I was blaming anyone for doing
anything. I defined a word in its strictest sense. Pointed out that the
word did not have to describe a criminal act - but could describe something
that someone else just felt was a moral wrong. Criminal act only comes into
play when the actual written laws get applied to the act of stealing. Bruce
may have very well (and as I said before - I believe he did) meant "in the
law-applied meaning of the word steal" - but I had to point out that there
was a slight "jump to conclusion" that anything more than a moral belief was
involved.

You even brought the point home using the Ten Commandments quote of "Thou
shall not steal" and assuming that everyone had the same believe system. To
many people on the planet - the Ten Commandments are a list of "words to
live by" in the Christian Religious Faiths. For many others - they are just
part of a story book. For some, they are as you point out - "the highest
law of the land".

You started your better argument with the "stealing" (as a criminal act
term - not just a morally wrong term) is not the proper terminology for a
"breech of contract" act AFTER I had my definition of stealing. I'll quote
it - as, if you'll notice - I left it out before when I explained my
intentions was to clearly define the word "steal"..

kurttrail wrote:
Breeching a contractual term is at most a civil offense but only
under certain circumstances where one party was materially damaged,
and can prove it in a court of law.

Comparing stealing, theft of property, a crime, to a mere civil
contractual dispute has absolutely no basis in reason.
Click to expand...

I left that out on purpose - it had no use in my defining the word "steal"
in the strictest sense. It is a good argument - short and to the point. I
was hoping someone would carry that argument on with you - I had no interest
in the argument as a whole - only in defining a single word.

I did that. Several times over. I still have no interest in the argument
as a whole. If you wish to continue discussing the definition of the word
steal (which is all I have been doing) - I will continue this discussion
with you.

However - as for discussing whether or not anyone actually "legally" stole
anything or had a "breech of contract" with Microsoft -> I have no
interest - never did. I have never disagreed with you on the fact that the
whole OEM/licensing/private use thing is up in the air for interpretation
and the over-zealous" law-abiders have their stance and the private
"I-think-I-gave-enough-already" citizens have their stance.

I do not make a judgement call on such things - and almost always give
people the answers they are looking for (asked for) here in the newsgroups -
whether it is against or with my belief systems. You will find many
examples of this in the way I word my response to those who ask, "Can I
install my OEM Windows XP onto my new system if I take it off the old one
first?"

Why do I choose to answer the way I do? I believe pushing a belief system
on anyone is wrong. The way I believe should have nothing to do with the
technically correct and accurate answer. I may let it leak out on
occassion - but I am careful with it and only state it as "what is written
in" or "if you go by the strict guidelines of".

Continue with your argument about "breech of contract" and "never been in
courts" if you wish - I have no interest there.

I defined a word - in the strictest sense - that is all. Being an ambiguous
word - in that if you apply belief systems or written "law" to it - I gave
different interpretations of the word. I have no idea what the author meant
by it without doubt - but pointed out I thought they meant to apply it as a
"criminal act" myself - in which case - no - I do not agree with them for
the very argument you brought up - "breech of contract" vs "stealing". If
it was intended only as a moral belief - a "somebody's done somebody wrong"
song.. Yeah - I can see that argument as valid.
 
Shenan said:
<snip>


Where did you miss that I was defining the word "steal"?
Was it when I said that was what i was doing?

I never said anyone was stealing - I said that perhaps Bruce was
making a moral judgement call as opposed to a legal one. This is
possible with the ambiguity of the word "steal". It is NOT a legal
term only. You are the one that jumped to the conclusion that Bruce
meant it strictly in a criminal act manner. Just like you jumped to
the conclusion (how - after reading everything I wrote - I will never
know) that I was blaming anyone for doing anything. I defined a word
in its strictest sense. Pointed out that the word did not have to
describe a criminal act - but could describe something that someone
else just felt was a moral wrong. Criminal act only comes into play
when the actual written laws get applied to the act of stealing. Bruce
may have very well (and as I said before - I believe he did)
meant "in the law-applied meaning of the word steal" - but I had to
point out that there was a slight "jump to conclusion" that anything
more than a moral belief was involved.
You even brought the point home using the Ten Commandments quote of
"Thou shall not steal" and assuming that everyone had the same
believe system. To many people on the planet - the Ten Commandments
are a list of "words to live by" in the Christian Religious Faiths.
For many others - they are just part of a story book. For some, they
are as you point out - "the highest law of the land".

You started your better argument with the "stealing" (as a criminal
act term - not just a morally wrong term) is not the proper
terminology for a "breech of contract" act AFTER I had my definition
of stealing. I'll quote it - as, if you'll notice - I left it out
before when I explained my intentions was to clearly define the word
"steal"..
kurttrail wrote:


I left that out on purpose - it had no use in my defining the word
"steal" in the strictest sense. It is a good argument - short and to
the point. I was hoping someone would carry that argument on with
you - I had no interest in the argument as a whole - only in defining
a single word.
I did that. Several times over. I still have no interest in the
argument as a whole. If you wish to continue discussing the
definition of the word steal (which is all I have been doing) - I
will continue this discussion with you.

However - as for discussing whether or not anyone actually "legally"
stole anything or had a "breech of contract" with Microsoft -> I have
no interest - never did. I have never disagreed with you on the fact
that the whole OEM/licensing/private use thing is up in the air for
interpretation and the over-zealous" law-abiders have their stance
and the private "I-think-I-gave-enough-already" citizens have their
stance.
I do not make a judgement call on such things - and almost always give
people the answers they are looking for (asked for) here in the
newsgroups - whether it is against or with my belief systems. You
will find many examples of this in the way I word my response to
those who ask, "Can I install my OEM Windows XP onto my new system if
I take it off the old one first?"

Why do I choose to answer the way I do? I believe pushing a belief
system on anyone is wrong. The way I believe should have nothing to
do with the technically correct and accurate answer. I may let it
leak out on occassion - but I am careful with it and only state it as
"what is written in" or "if you go by the strict guidelines of".

Continue with your argument about "breech of contract" and "never
been in courts" if you wish - I have no interest there.

I defined a word - in the strictest sense - that is all. Being an
ambiguous word - in that if you apply belief systems or written "law"
to it - I gave different interpretations of the word. I have no idea
what the author meant by it without doubt - but pointed out I thought
they meant to apply it as a "criminal act" myself - in which case -
no - I do not agree with them for the very argument you brought up -
"breech of contract" vs "stealing". If it was intended only as a
moral belief - a "somebody's done somebody wrong" song.. Yeah - I can
see that argument as valid.
Click to expand...

Morally or legally, a contract dispute is not analogous to "stealing" in
any reasonable sense, no matter how long you go on and on about it.

I really am not arguing this, as I feel it is rather self-evident to any
reasonable thinker.

You must remember that people here have been calling paying customers,
stealers, thieves, and pirates, since the inception of this group, over
differing interpretations of contractual terms, and to me, there is
absolutely no moral, let alone legal, foundation for any of it,
especially when it comes to people that paid big bucks for their copy of
software.

But if you think it is morally reasonable for someone to calling paying
customers, stealers, thieves, and pirates, over a mere contract dispute
that has never been legally found to be even a civil offense, let alone
STEALING, THEFT, or PIRACY, I guess that says more about you than you
may be willing to admit to yourself.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
 
kurttrail wrote:
But if you think it is morally reasonable for someone to calling
paying customers, stealers, thieves, and pirates, over a mere
contract dispute that has never been legally found to be even a
civil offense, let alone STEALING, THEFT, or PIRACY, I guess that
says more about you than you may be willing to admit to yourself.
Click to expand...


I defined a word. I will not be dragged into your conversation beyond
defining said word. If you have a problem with the definition - take it up
with Merriam-Webster. I didn't "define" it - I merely relayed the
definition.

What ever you believe I have said is your own misunderstanding (or
interpretation if that seems friendlier.)

I always thought of the Microsoft Agreements like Uhaul agreements. You
have in-town and one-way agreements. Different rates for different
purposes. If Microsoft would add "mileage rates" (ie: some way to pay a
little more and use something more/elsewhere), I always thought that would
be cool. Or sell it outright instead of all this convoluted EULA crap. Buy
a copy - go. But NO.. there had to be something to interpret instead of
one-size-fits-all -- or there wouldn't be many newsgroup posts that serve no
purpose. =)
 
Shenan said:
kurttrail wrote:



I defined a word. I will not be dragged into your conversation beyond
defining said word. If you have a problem with the definition - take
it up with Merriam-Webster. I didn't "define" it - I merely relayed
the definition.
Click to expand...

Actually you did much more.

"I said that perhaps Bruce was making a moral judgement call as opposed
to a legal one."

So by means of implication, you are saying it is morally alright to
calling a contract dispute, stealing.

To me, calling an apple, an orange, is wrong in reality, and morally.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
 
kurttrail wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:
kurttrail said:
<snip>
But if you think it is morally reasonable for someone to calling
paying customers, stealers, thieves, and pirates, over a mere
contract dispute that has never been legally found to be even a
civil offense, let alone STEALING, THEFT, or PIRACY, I guess that
says more about you than you may be willing to admit to yourself.

I defined a word. I will not be dragged into your conversation
beyond defining said word. If you have a problem with the
definition - take it up with Merriam-Webster. I didn't "define"
it - I merely relayed the definition.
Click to expand...
Actually you did much more.

"I said that perhaps Bruce was making a moral judgement call as
opposed to a legal one."

So by means of implication, you are saying it is morally alright to
calling a contract dispute, stealing.

To me, calling an apple, an orange, is wrong in reality, and
morally.
Click to expand...

As I said - your misunderstanding (or interpretation) is your own.
Not mine.

I presented you with the options, you drew conclusions that have nothing to
do with the options given.

I presented you with an optional possibility..

You believed that Bruce's use of the word "Steal" implied "Criminal Action".
I presented to you the option that Bruce meant the word morally instead of
criminally.
I presented the definition of the word "steal" and explained it.

There was the option part - the definition of the word Bruce chose to use..

I did not present my opinion on whether Bruce's implication (either way) was
correct or incorrect.
If I cared - I would have. I did/do not.

There is no need to *imply* anything in life. You either give an opinion,
state a fact or you choose not to.

You have decided that defining a word beyond what you believe it to mean
implies I have presented some opinion. If I want to say something - I will.
I did not imply anything and I will not be pulled into giving an opinion on
something I could care less about - I gave the definition of a word.
 
Shenan said:
kurttrail wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:



As I said - your misunderstanding (or interpretation) is your own.
Not mine.

I presented you with the options, you drew conclusions that have
nothing to do with the options given.

I presented you with an optional possibility..

You believed that Bruce's use of the word "Steal" implied "Criminal
Action". I presented to you the option that Bruce meant the word
morally instead of criminally.
I presented the definition of the word "steal" and explained it.

There was the option part - the definition of the word Bruce chose to
use..
I did not present my opinion on whether Bruce's implication (either
way) was correct or incorrect.
If I cared - I would have. I did/do not.

There is no need to *imply* anything in life. You either give an
opinion, state a fact or you choose not to.

You have decided that defining a word beyond what you believe it to
mean implies I have presented some opinion. If I want to say
something - I will. I did not imply anything and I will not be pulled
into giving an opinion on something I could care less about - I gave
the definition of a word.
Click to expand...

And more. If you refuse to see that, that is up to you.

Instead of dealing with perhapses, you should ask Bruce what he actually
meant.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."
 
kurttrail said:
And more. If you refuse to see that, that is up to you.

Instead of dealing with perhapses, you should ask Bruce what he
actually meant.
Click to expand...

And more.. in your mind.
If you use compression, you might fit more in there. =)
 
Back
Top