"but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?"

"are you afraid to talk to honest people when you aren't afraid to stand
up in a crowd and say you have a criminal mind?"

"you would easily have found that out if you didn't first conclude that
you had to cheat and steal."

Hartmann Schaffer

Please use an actual, working e-mail address so that I don't have to
post to c.l.l. (I wanted to follow up privately and it bounced).

No. Erik Naggum says Zachary was "looking for a _copy_", my point
being that Zachary used the phrases "purchase" and "licensed copy",
all in his original message.

Erik Naggum's paraphrase might apply to both messages, as well as to a
later followup by Zachary:

In any case, calling Erik Naggum's rewrite "paraphrase" is an
understatement. He is indeed twisting the thruth at the border of
malice. I don't see why referring to _all_ of Zachary's posts were
necessary to establish this.

  you're quoting the wrong article, dude, and I wasn't responding to the
  original article in the first place.  get it straight or shut up.  try
  <4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DCC793D4D1.593A48AFDF2C5...@lp.airnews.net>
  instead, with my response in <3159728504708...@naggum.no>.

  if you need evidence that quoting doesn't really help in understanding
  what's going on in a debate, consider your own reactions to what you have
  read.  you, too, make assumptions about what people mean that go far
  beyond any actually quotable text.  so, too, with everybody else.  the
  sooner you understand this, the less you will fall prey to assigning
  malicous intent to people, which it _seems_ you don't want others (i.e.,
  me) to do, but keep doing yourself, towards me.  I don't particularly
  respect such hypocricy, if that has been unclear up until now.  oK?

  since you're clearly engaging in the same practices you criticize, what's
  your problem?  did I merely fail to ask _you_ permission to do what you
  consider OK when you do it yourself?

  I sincerely wish people who want to criticize others wouldn't be so
  interminably stupid as to do exactly the same thing themselves.  it
  doesn't invalidate any criticism per se, but it makes me wonder whether
  the real issue they have is that _I_ do whatever, not whatever it was I
  did, in which case I will summarily dismiss them as raving lunatics with
  a personal axe to grind.

  just don't do what you don't want others to do.  how hard can the merit
  of this principle be for people to grasp?

  I'm somewhat disappointed that you have the mental wherewithal to know
  that this would be the only defense for your incredibly malicous postings
  against me for as long as you have been using this newsgroup.  however, I
  keep wondering what you gain from it, if .anything  very few people have
  such a fucked-up psyche that malice _alone_ is considered constructive to
  their goals and personal needs, but you seem to have nothing else to
  contribute.  however, since you know you can't be punished for your
  actions, it would still be nice to know what would satisfy the personal
  needs that drives your malice.  do you have the mental wherewithal to
  explain that to us, too?

Some of you seem to throw in words like 'copy' needlessly, like: "I bought a
copy of Times Magazine." Not always though; buying a copy of a pop record sounds
fishy, so you probably don't say that.

You may hold that 'copy' is just a filling-in word with no meaning, to be
ignored. But does one buy a 'copy' of MS Word from a PC Shop? No, you buy MS
Word, period. And: "I want to buy a copy of MS Word" - how does that sound? To
me, it means that you want a duplicate of someone's instance of MS Word.

Zachary was unfortunate when he said "copy" in connection with software,
especially when buying and selling it. He was probably not aware of it. But to
me, buying a copy means buying a (privately made) duplicate. Erik's questions to
Zachary were pointed, maybe even malicious, but were they unneccessary? I don't
think so.

Regards,

[snip]

Maybe in most other languages this overloading does not happen, and an
international version of English will emerge, which improves on this
source of confusion.

Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3160459740154...@naggum.no...

But that was o.k. as I learnt later, it was your way of communicating. I
knew immediately that I was defenseless against you as I am still sticking
to my 19th century ideals of tolerance and freedom of thought and decency
above all.

Then you started blaming me for being a German:

original Erik Naggum:
  "...does the world _really_ have to remind some of you Germans that you
have   a history of prosecuting and killing people based on racial, tribal,
and   other genetic properties, and that it looks particularly bad when some
of   you guys keep posting stuff that tells us all you have learned nothing
from that "experience"?  so you're fighting for Lebensraum for idiots in
this newsgroup, aren't you?  you learn nothing from anything, so this
conclusion seems very well supported by the evidence you have posted."

You hinted here, that I was a nazi, though you did not tell it explicitly.
That was funny, taking into account my personal life and the personal fate
of my family during the war as I explained to you. (Also, it was a bit
ignorant, as you should have noticed that Janos was not a usual German
surname. It seems, you have extremely deep insights into Lisp (and into the
nature of time) buth that is all.)

And when I told you about my family, you said it served them right. And
there was no excuse for that. So I am asking you again: What kind of man are
you? Where does this extreme hatred you seem to be full of, come from?

You spoke about my people. Now let us talk about your people. Did not they
behave heroically during the war, setting an example for ever? It is really
hard to believe you are one of them.

I have been watching this newsgroup for months and you are always busy
flameing somebody. Why are you doing this?

I did not have an argument after our feud last year but after some time I
posted a question an received an answer from Robert Monfera that hurt my
feelings. I told so and then you started attacking me again, though it was
none of your business. So it was you who started again.

Erann Gat said in one of his postings that it was hard to believe but in
real life you are a really nice person, Erik. It is really hard to believe.
But tell me: What would you do if we met in real life (at a Lisp conference
for example)?

Now you have defeated me again. I am writing to you earnestly and still
friendly and now you will respond with you usual filth.

Janos Blazi

however, I

I admit that my recent postings were malicious. But this is even good for
you as those who do not know what you have done to me, believe that I am an
idiot (I hope they are not right).

Janos Blazi

Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3160459740154...@naggum.no...

  geez, talk about attributing malice to people!  get a grip on yourself.

  when a person with criminal intent asks a person who has a licensed copy
  of a program for a copy of it, does this necessarily imply that the copy
  he is asking for is licensed and legitimate or could it also imply that
  the copy will be a pirated copy, and that the only reasons to ask for the
  holder of a licensed copy are to obscure the intent and make sure he is
  himself not screwed?

  I'm inclined to believe that the best reason to explain why you think
  other people "have to" omit words and meaning is that you're so goddamn
  good at it yourself, but it reflects on yourself, not on your targets.
  you could stop doing it, you know, and actually try to make a _point_,
  instead of proving that it is legitimate for others to do what you do.

  precisely, being malicious on purpose is actually seen as constructive to
  your personal needs and goals.  I'm impressed.  yes, you _are_ an idiot,
  and your insistence on proving it is your own personal problem, not mine.
  you could just quit, you know.  it is better to keep quiet and be thought
  a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

  ... which apparently includes being purely malicious as the sole purpose.
  it doesn't to me, and I never am.  it does not cease to amaze me that
  some people suddenly relinquish all concepts of ethics once they have
  found an excuse -- but that's the evidence I need of their being evil.

  if you haven't even figured out that I respond to something people _do_
  and quit when they no longer do it, not to who they _are_ (and don't quit
  after they don't bug me anymore, quite fundamentally unlike you, which I
  don't respond to unless you openly attack me), you're even more of a
  drooling idiot than I had feared you _could_ be -- I thought so low IQs
  were flushed out as spontanous abortions.

  next time you wish to pretend to be upholding "decency", please let it
  include "not lying through your teeth".  you are the most _indecent_ punk
  who has been on this newsgroup in all its history, far exceeding anything
  I could ever imagine doing.

| Then you started blaming me for being a German:
|
| original Erik Naggum:
|   "...does the world _really_ have to remind some of you Germans
| that you have a history of prosecuting and killing people based on
| racial, tribal, and other genetic properties, and that it looks
| particularly bad when some of you guys keep posting stuff that tells
| us all you have learned nothing from that "experience"?  so you're
| fighting for Lebensraum for idiots in this newsgroup, aren't you?
| you learn nothing from anything, so this conclusion seems very well
| supported by the evidence you have posted."

He did not say that in any of the referenced articles, making it
rather difficult to verify your quote, as well as to place it in
context.  Please include a proper reference next time, or don't say it
at all.

| You hinted here, that I was a nazi,

No, I don't think he did, though the distinction is a subtle one.
Apparently he was out of line here, but not *that* far out.

| You spoke about my people. Now let us talk about your people. Did
| not they behave heroically during the war, setting an example for
| ever? It is really hard to believe you are one of them.

I assume you mean the Norwegian people, not the Naggum family (about
which I know absolutely nothing at all).  It is true that in Norway
there were many examples of heroic resistance to the occupying nazi
forces during the war.  It is also true that there were many examples
of treachery and treason.  You know what a quisling is, right?  If you
don't know where the word came from, go look it up.  And Vidkun
Quisling was not alone.  All in all, it's not a pretty story, but as I
said, there is also much to be proud of in the Norwegian war record.

Worse, there are many skeletons in the Norwegian closet, and Norway's
treatment of ethnic minorities, both before and after the war, is
something to be deeply ashamed of.  (I am sure that every nation has
similar skeletons in their closets -- it's just that, being Norwegian,
I am more familiar with the domestic ones.)

So, while Germany has a bitter lesson to learn, so does everyone else,
if not to the same degree.  And we are all more or less reluctant to
learn our lessons, since it is a painful one.  (And *that* is what I
think Erik accused you of, not of being a nazi.  See the difference?)
I suggest we all go somewhere else to learn these lessons, however;
comp.lang.lisp is hardly the proper place for them.  (Now having said
my piece, I promise it will be my last word on this topic in this
newsgroup.)

| I have been watching this newsgroup for months and you are always
| busy flameing somebody. Why are you doing this?

Please don't take this as some kind of offense. I just wanted to clear things
up. (I suppose everything looks different from somene not involved in such a
hot discussion).

Again, no offense intended.

Although those persons did not look like ones at first, after reading
Erik's posts it became obvious. Those guys really don't read Erik's posts.
They just fight off trying to tell themselves and everybody else that they
are not idiots, lunatics or whatever Erik calls them. But they really are
(at least they act like that).

Don't take this personally. I just hope there would be more guys like Erik
so we could learn more.

2.Erik Naggum expressed a legitimate concern about piracy in a very harsh
manner.

3.It has been reasonably established that no criminal intent was behind the
request.

4.Some useful discussion of copyright issues followed.

5.This has now degenerated into a great deal of  bickering with a lot of
confused quotes and crossed responses.

6.Everyone has made their points, there will be no winners.

How about letting this one die?

And, as far as the "you've been had" remark, where did you learn to
distinguish criminals from non-criminals with a glance?  Do you hire
yourself out to police departments in your spare time?

The original poster said he wanted to do something that is perfectly
permissible under copyright law, assuming that there are no other
legal obstacles.  Now, I've gleaned from this thread that there are
other legal obstacles in the case of some distributions, in the form
of Franz licenses.  I haven't read that this is the case for all
Franz licenses.

In other words, nobody has posted, as far as I have seen, anything
to indicate that there is any problem with actually doing what
the original poster wanted to do.  Unless the Personal Edition is
also sold with a license specifying non-transferrability, which
is something I don't know (and which I don't care right now, for
any purposes outside this thread), then the original poster was
asking if somebody wanted to perform a perfectly legal transaction.

Even if the Personal Edition does come with such a clause, there is
no evidence of criminal intent in asking about a transaction that
might well look legitimate.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.  The above is a description of my
understanding of US law, including laws common to various states.
Consult a lawyer if you want to libel somebody.

  in case you wonder, such lack

And what about this is worth keeping up for four years?  I saw some
incomprehensible behavior, unworthy of a sentient being.  I asked about
the cause.  I got insulted.  I assure you that this is unlikely to
occupy my attention for four years.  If you want to start a vendetta,
please go away.  I'd rather not deal with losers.

You can accomplish nothing by lashing back at Erik Naggum.  I heartily agree
that he is verbally abusive to a disturbing degree and does not hesitate to
stomp heavily through very sensitive issues.  Nor does he shy away from very
personal and insulting tactics in otherwise technical discussions.

But the only proper response is the tolerance you yourself put forward as
one of your important values.  You will gain much more "face" and keep much
more of your dignity by not engaging him or anyone else who risks lowering
the decency level by getting personal.  If you don't, you are only
responding in kind and increasing the general noise level of the group.
(And you must acknowledge that at the moment you are the one guilty of
reviving, and increasing, the hostilities between you two).

Get past the hurtful things people may say to you and forget the vengeance.

We can all accomplish so much more by example than any of this
pseudo-intellectual verbal fencing.

Coby

(2)
When I asked myself rethorically, if I was an idiot, I was waiting for some
witty answer of yours. Instead of this you simply say "yes, you are an
idiot". But probably this has been a hard day for you, flaming all day and
even you get tired.

I am trying to imagine your day. You start out for work in the morning. Then
you come across idiotsimmediately. Idiots in the streets, in the trains, in
other cars, etc. Indecent idiots everywhere! You would like to flame them
and beat them, wouldn't you, Eric? But alas! that would be dangerous. So you
have to wait until you get home. There you change your clothes, switch on
your PC and start fighting the Evil Forces. And they are everywhere. Am I
right, lad?

The Forces of Evil are threatening you and other good people like you.
Am I right, lad? Lisp is good. C is evil. Franz is good. Microsoft is evil.
But a thorough analysis of the localtime function will finally solve all
problems of the universe.
Am I right, lad?

Now calm down, laddy. Everything will be good. C will fall into oblivion.
Your enemies will die. Those who do not dies will be defeated and
humiliated.
Just take your medicine and consult your analyst regularly.

(3)
 May I remind you that some other patients are wating for a treatment too,
doc?

J.B.

Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3160483397132...@naggum.no...

Harald Hanche-Olsen <han...@math.ntnu.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
pco9009429p....@math.ntnu.no...

Just ignore his

I think that the tone is getting harsher in this newsgroup due to EN's
fierce attacks and this is a very bad thing. Just look at the responses
students get who ask the community to do their homework for them!

Janos Blazi

(Actually, I wouldn't buy [a copy of] Word anyway, because
I hate it, and I'm not sure you can buy it without the
rest of Office anyway. But that's not important right now.)

Obviously it would be better if this whole argument would
go away, but hoping for that might be overoptimistic.

  then do your own piece and cut your own tone.  you can't cut mine, but
  you might be very surprised, especially considering your personality,
  that some people don't go around with thoughts of revenge all the time
  and that hatred and malice have no part of _their_ personality, even
  though _you_ are filled to the brim with both.  if you don't annoy and
  harrass people, they don't react to you, either.  instead you, and Xah
  Lee, and this Larry dude recently, behave as if your thinking is you have
  a _right_ to annoy me in particular and think that the more you annoy me,
  the more right you get in doing whatever it was you were once critized
  for, that if you can somehow _prove_ I'm "bad" to people, as opposed to
  what I really am: really harsh on stupidity, you don't have to listen to
  the arguments I present that you have made some very serious mistakes
  that reflect badly on you.  that is not how things work, because such is
  the actual ad hominem argument, and you're the stupid jerks making it.
  you can _never_ invalidate the argument by going for the person, but you
  can make the _person_ change his ways if the person makes particular
  mistakes through sloppiness or carelessness which produces bad arguments,
  which means the argument may get improved if the person gets the point of
  the message "pull yourself together", but you guys are so confused about
  this and refuse to think, instead defending your intellectual sloppiness
  and going on a rampage with hostilities towards those who show you that
  you don't use your brain, and thereby you only prove you don't have any.

  stupidity is the result of not being required to think, or believing one
  can get away with not thinking.  I don't tolerate stupidity at all, but I
  actually believe that stupidity is worse, and reflects worse on people's
  personality, than malice, but the two combined, as in Janos Blazi, is too
  much.  note that stupidity has nothing to do with intelligence or lack
  thereof, it has to do with insufficient expenditure of mental effort as
  required by the task at hand.  intellectual laziness is the only sin.  I
  punish such sinners, and like any sinner who knows he is one and has no
  intention of changing his ways, Janos Blazi and his like-minded ilk need
  to defend themselves rather than stop sinning, which means they will use
  any evil means and unlimited malice to try to stop the criticism, apart
  from using their brains and realize that they _could_ just start to think
  and not post idiotic drivel that wastes everybody's time.  apparently, it
  is just too much to demand of Janos Blazi that he do that, and he has all
  the time in the world to attack me and vilify me and shower me with his
  idiotic malice, instead.  what more proof do I need of who Janos Blazi is?

  and now he complains about the tone.  he can fix his own.  it would help
  a lot, and I certainly wouldn't dream of speaking badly of someone who
  has stopped attacking me, but someone who keeps attacking me with a tone
  so malicious as Janos Blazi's and who is so demented as to complain about
  the tone of _others_, should have been taken care of by the mental health
  services and just be locked up.  the only way you could possibly have any
  credibility when you criticize something is to stay above it, and the
  more you stay above it, the more you show it possible to do without it.
  if you have to engage in the same thing you want others to stop in the
  belief that this will stop them, you're just an idiot who doesn't like
  _who_ uses a particular means.  so why prove you're an idiot when that is
  what the criticism was all about?  don't you morons realize that when I
  think you're idiots, you do nothing but prove my case with your behavior?
  what do you _think_ you could possibly accomplish with that?

  Janos Blazi, it is obvious by now that you are beyond reach, and you seem
  to be retarded or at least psychotic if not, which means there's no point
  in trying to reach you, either, but if you wish for a better tone in this
  newsgroup, you could do your part and stop attacking _me_ all the time.
  get an argument about _something_ for once -- don't obsess about people.
  it's your obsession with people that causes your problems with the fact
  that others are concerned about actions, principles, and ideas, because
  you can't see beyond people, but people are uninteresting except to their
  close ones.  and you're not close to me, if that needs stressing, so it's
  what you do and what you argue through your actions is true and good that
  is of my concern.  what you seem to argue is true and good is stupidity,
  the right to be intellectually lazy, the right to make false accusations
  and claims, the right to distort arguments and be ridiculously stupid in
  not understanding them, etc.  you're the champion of any idiot around who
  doesn't want to be told it's not OK to be an idiot.  we're going to have
  to disagree on that, to put it mildly, but you're not going to convince
  me it's OK to be an idiot the way you go about it.

  sigh, I don't seem to learn, either, talking sense to Janos Blazi.