Allegro CL 5.0 Win32
Zachary Turner
sell, please let me know.
- Zach
Eugene Zaikonnikov
<AA33EEDB1A1BA46D.0D72DACC...@lp.airnews.net>,
"Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com> wrote:
> If anyone has a licensed copy they're looking to
> sell, please let me know.
>
version btw is 5.01.
If you strongly need to own a second-hand package, make a search
through this newsgroup archives. I recall a guy who wanted to get rid
of his copy some months ago.
--
Eugene.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Zachary Turner
think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much if I really
really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway, and b) that's
alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to get rid of theirs
I could get it for much cheaper.
"Eugene Zaikonnikov" <vik...@cit.org.by> wrote in message
news:88e1bh$2ir$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hartmann Schaffer
"Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com> writes:
> Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one. I
> think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much if I really
> really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway, and b) that's
> alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to get rid of theirs
> I could get it for much cheaper.
any particular reason why you want acl5.0? there are a few other lisp
implementations available for win32 (e.g.clisp, corman)
--
Hartmann Schaffer
It is better to fill your days with life than your life with days
Zachary Turner
"Hartmann Schaffer" <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote in message
news:38ab1...@flint.sentex.net...
> In article
<4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com> writes:
> > Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for
one. I
> > think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much if I
really
> > really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway, and b)
that's
> > alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to get rid of
theirs
> > I could get it for much cheaper.
>
> any particular reason why you want acl5.0? there are a few other lisp
> implementations available for win32 (e.g.clisp, corman)
I've become accustomed to having all that power at my fingertips. Allegro
seems to be one of the most powerful and easy to use environments on the
market, so I want it. I've been using the trial for a while, and now I want
the whole thing. I've tried Harlequin LispWorks, I've tried Corman, I've
tried clisp, I just don't like any of them. I like Allegro. :)
- Zach
Erik Naggum
| Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
| I think it's something like $800.
why don't you ask them, 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 actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1
for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if you
didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
#:Erik
Robert Monfera
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com>
> | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
>
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
My optimistic guess is that Zachary didn't think that a developer
license is not negotiable, which is (true or pretended) naiveness. It
is, however, license holders' responsibility not to sell if it's
excluded in the contract.
Robert
Robert Monfera
Larry Elmore wrote:
> What laws, contracts and/or licenses?
Every piece of software comes with a license.
> I'm not very familiar with what
> might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making
> something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a
> contract seems very unreasonable.
Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button,
broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree.
There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived
expensive or not.
> Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the
> Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of
its price tag? Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps? It's
the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits
and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they
can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to
pay. Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of
contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the
very changes you seem to wish. And if you became bitter and aren't
interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation
more difficult?
Robert
tej...@my-deja.com
> the whole thing. I've tried Harlequin LispWorks, I've tried Corman,
I've
> tried clisp, I just don't like any of them. I like Allegro. :)
I'm curious to know what you like about Allegro better than
LispWorks. I'm planning to try them both soon and want to
see if I notice the same differences.
Kenneth P. Turvey
>
>Larry Elmore wrote:
>
>> What laws, contracts and/or licenses?
>
>Every piece of software comes with a license.
You must believe that the license is valid for the rest of this argument
to make sense. Many people believe that the extent to which we protect
`intellectual property' in this country goes beyond that which the
government legitimately has the authority to regulate...
The exact text from the US constitution is:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
The argument is simply that this protection does nothing to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts. When applied to software, this
argument may not be unreasonable.
>> I'm not very familiar with what
>> might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making
>> something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a
>> contract seems very unreasonable.
>
>Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button,
>broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree.
>There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived
>expensive or not.
Most of these `agreements' require you to purchase the product before
you see the terms of the contract. If this is enforcible it shouldn't
be.
>> Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the
>> Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
>
>Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of
>its price tag? Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps? It's
>the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits
>and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they
>can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to
>pay. Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of
>contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the
>very changes you seem to wish. And if you became bitter and aren't
>interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation
>more difficult?
I think you missed the point here. I don't believe the poster was
ignorant of copyright law, he just didn't believe in it. You can
disagree.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-...@SprocketShop.com>
--------------------------------------------
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government
inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty. -- George Washington
Larry Elmore
"Robert Monfera" <mon...@fisec.com> wrote in message
news:38AB66D6...@fisec.com...
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>
> > What laws, contracts and/or licenses?
>
> Every piece of software comes with a license.
No kidding. I've just never seen one that prohibits you from selling the
product to someone else as long as you completely remove the software from
your system.
> > I'm not very familiar with what
> > might be standard in more expensive development packages, but making
> > something completely non-transferable without actually _signing_ a
> > contract seems very unreasonable.
>
> Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button,
> broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree.
> There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived
> expensive or not.
Duh. Did you actually read what I wrote? I only said that giving up any
right to sell something I've purchased _merely by opening the shrink-wrap_
seems extreme to me. I seriously wonder if that would stand up to a vigorous
legal challenge? Or has it? (That's _just_ a question)
> > Especially when it's something like this. Ah, but this is the
> > Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
>
> Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable because of
> its price tag?
Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? If I was angry at all, it was only
at Erik for the rude and snotty way he responded to someone's question.
Whatever Franz's licensing terms are, I assure you they're not common
knowledge! And I'm certainly not angry because ACL's price tag is more than
I can afford. That'd be like getting pissed off at Porsche because I can
only afford a 14-year old Oldsmobile. (P.S. I'm _not_ pissed at Porsche! I
_do_ wish I had the money for one after more important things are taken care
of.)
> Do you think that flaming Franz publicly helps?
Just _where_ did I publicly (or even privately) flame Franz? Where?
> It's
> the commercial vendors' natural right and interest to maximize profits
> and ensure sustainability of the business model, so unfortunately they
> can't offer products at the lowest of the prices people are willing to
> pay.
Duh. Where did I say this was wrong? Where did I bemoan anything except my
own lack of funds?? You're reading a lot more into what I wrote than is
actually there!
> Every instance of demonstrated ignorance and disrespect of
> contract law is a further warning for vendors to think twice about the
> very changes you seem to wish.
Oh Good Lord. Is it now almost criminal for someone _not yet in_ part of a
field to be ignorant of some aspects of it, and to question those parts that
seem strange? And what changes do you think I'm wishing for? I'd like to
know, because I'm not aware of any! At the very most, all I've said is that
making something non-transferable _simply by opening the damned thing_ seems
unreasonable to me, and if that's truly the case with ACL or some others,
then even when I do have the money, I will do business elsewhere, if
possible. Where do you get the idea I'm willing to break the law or
encourage others to do so? There's a number of laws that I think are
unreasonable, but you don't see me going out and breaking them, either!
> And if you became bitter and aren't
> interested in changes any more, why are you making others' situation
> more difficult?
Huh?
Larry
Zachary Turner
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:31597285...@naggum.no...
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com>
> | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for
one.
>
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
>
>
> why don't you ask them, 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 actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1
> for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if
you
> didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
>
> #:Erik
Who said anything about breaking laws and contracts and licenses? If I pay
another person for his/her software, and he hands me over the box, manuals,
original media, and either destroys or gives me all copies of original
media, no laws were broken and no licenses were violated. It is perfectly
legal to buy/sell software this way.
Brush up on your legal knowledge before you start flaming.
- Zach
Zachary Turner
"Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com> wrote in message
news:17469987431B6F31.46F41E77...@lp.airnews.net...
non-transferrable, as Mr. Monfera pointed out. Is this true of all licenses
for ACL?
- Zach
Zachary Turner
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:31597285...@naggum.no...
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com>
> | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for
one.
>
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
>
> | I think it's something like $800.
>
> why don't you ask them, instead? are you afraid to talk to honest
people
> when you aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd and say you have a
criminal
> mind?
>
> you actually don't have to pay for the Lite Edition of Allegro CL 5.0.1
> for Windows 95/98/NT at all. you would easily have found that out if
you
> didn't first conclude that you had to cheat and steal.
You aren't very happy to be alive are you? I'd buy you a hooker if I knew
you. I don't know where you got the idea that I had "concluded that I had
to cheat and steal". Especially since I mentioned in the original post that
I was willing to pay Franz's price if I was unable to find someone willing
to sell me their box.
- Zach
Janos Blazi
It is like buying a book. You can buy it and sell it as you like, at least
in Germany. You can make copies. But using the software on two machines at
the same time would break the law.
In Germany, the general scheme is this:
You have certain rights as a customer. All agreements that limit your legal
rights are considered invalid.
But you must be new to this newsgroup. Otherwise you would not be surprised
at being flamed for things you vahe never said.
Janos Blazi
Larry Elmore <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
88h7un$b82$1...@news.campuscwix.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Janos Blazi
Eric is all right (as long as he is taking his medicine).
Janos Blazi
Zachary Turner <ztu...@bindview.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
F01E3D2E0D28CE73.4B157D3D...@lp.airnews.net...
Robert Monfera
Zachary Turner wrote:
> I didn't know developer licenses were
> non-transferrable, as Mr. Monfera pointed out.
To be specific, a license may or may not be transferable, depending on
the agreement, and of course you can't tell it as the prospective buyer
- it's the prospective seller's responsibility. Of course, you'd want
to see the license for details when buying, irrespective of who you buy
from. I suspect that (developer) licenses in general may well be
non-transferable, but I've never checked.
Robert
Zachary Turner
the only viable option would be for me to purchase the software from Franz,
Inc. However, let it be stated for the record that I never intended on
obtaining an illegal copy of the software, which is why I plainly stated in
the original post that I'm willing to pay Franz's price for the software if
absolutely necessary.
- Zach
Robert Monfera
"Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:
[thoughts on protection of intellectual property are noted, but are
irrelevant - let's assume we can't change laws on c.l.l.]
> >Either explicitly or implicitly a contract is signed ("I agree" button,
> >broken seal, license in source text...). No one is forced to agree.
> >There is nothing special about it, whether the price is perceived
> >expensive or not.
>
> Most of these `agreements' require you to purchase the product before
> you see the terms of the contract.
I believe you wanted to say "Most companies require you to pay the
purchase price before you see the terms of the contract."
This is true and unfortunate (especially the way OEMs make you pay for
Microsoft products), but chances are you have the right not to agree
with the license and simply return it for a refund before opening the
envelope etc.. Personally I also don't like doing it this way, so
sometimes I read agreements or clarify terms in advance. Probably we
don't disagree here.
In any case, it's also irrelevant for the issue at hand, as obviously
people holding licenses have already entered into an agreement.
> If this is enforcible it shouldn't be.
I understand your opinion, but now, after rephrasing your sentence
above, I'm not sure what "enforcible" is referring to.
> LE: Ah, but this is the
> LE: Law we're talking about, not Reason. [...]
[...]
> I don't believe the poster was
> ignorant of copyright law, he just didn't believe in it.
> You can disagree.
Yes, I do:
LM: Do I have a criminal mind because I've _never_ bought a new
LM: automobile, but always a used one at a much better price?
When someone buys a car, he will own the car. When someone buys a
license, he will usually be permitted to use the software - maybe he'll
be permitted to transfer this _right_, maybe not. Believing that buying
software and buying cars are similar things, or owning a used car and
owning a transferred software are similar fits in the category of
ignorance (being uneducated, unaware or uninformed on something),
whether we think in terms of relevant US law or just the fundamental
nature of the deal. Please don't think I imply something beyond what
ignorance means when I use this word.
Robert
Robert Monfera
Larry Elmore wrote:
> > Every piece of software comes with a license.
>
> No kidding. I've just never seen one that prohibits you from selling
> the product to someone else as long as you completely remove the
> software from your system.
I yield to your experience, if you considered that the lack of specific
prohibition usually does not imply granted rights.
> Duh. Did you actually read what I wrote? I only said that giving up
> any right to sell something I've purchased _merely by opening the
> shrink-wrap_ seems extreme to me. I seriously wonder if that would
> stand up to a vigorous legal challenge? Or has it? (That's _just_ a
> question)
> > Are you angry because you like ACL a lot, but is unreachable
> > because of its price tag?
>
> Where do you get the idea that I'm angry?
[...]
> You're reading a lot more into what I wrote than is
> actually there!
Thanks, I am glad to learn that. Your vivid words on credit history
analysis, vigorous legal challenges and security checks have misled me.
I still think it's better for us to express trust in laws in addition to
merely obeying them. If law does not prohibit it, vendors may restrict
license transfers* for valid reasons, and calling restrictions unknown
to us _extreme_ is not something that builds confidence that they will
be unconditionally observed. (I'm not implying anything about anybody.)
If limitation of transfer rights seems impossible and extreme to you,
and you would not mind obtaining a license for a lower price, how come
we have seen only one guy looking to buy a used development tool on
c.l.l. during years, and it wasn't you?
* I'm not stating that laws allow transfer restrictions or that ACL
licenses are non-transferable, but would not be surprised to learn so.
Robert
Larry Elmore
What I was disagreeing with was not copyright law in general, or software
licensing in general. I simply stated that I think that something where the
contract in question is merely implied rather than explicit, as in a
shrinkwrap license, being able to legally forbid you from transferring the
product to someone else under any conditions at all is in my view
unreasonable and over the top. It wouldn't greatly surprise me if this was
in fact the law, given the number of truly outrageous examples of bad law
that are out there. If you've actually signed an explicit contract with
those terms (which Franz requires you to do, as I've been informed by
email), that's something else entirely. Depending on the product and the
situation, I might find that reasonable and agree to it, or I might find it
unreasonably draconian and paranoid and go do business elsewhere.
Larry
Erik Naggum
| I simply stated that I think that something where the contract in
| question is merely implied rather than explicit, as in a shrinkwrap
| license, being able to legally forbid you from transferring the product
| to someone else under any conditions at all is in my view unreasonable
| and over the top.
it's the willingness to break any licenses with which one does not agree
that defines the criminal mind. moreover, such criminal attitudes is
what makes it necessary in the first place to tighten up the licenses.
in the absence of the criminal mind, licenses are much shorter and much
simpler. if you conclude from this that Franz Inc in particular or the
software industry in general has had a lot of contact with criminal
minds, consider the attitude towards the "best" criminal mind around:
Bill Gates. large fractions of the population consider him a hero, yet
he has zero respect for law, contract, or license, and breaks anything he
thinks he can get away with. this has led concerned people everywhere to
become even more cautious about giving other criminal minds any leeway.
the real target for your anger is Microsoft's business practices. don't
take it out on any single company that tries to live in a world where
Microsoft would steal everything they did if they had the skills to know
how good it is. so if you retarget your complaints, maybe they'll have
merit.
#:Erik
Robert Munyer
Kenneth P. Turvey <kt-...@SprocketShop.com> wrote:
> Most of these `agreements' require you to purchase the product
> before you see the terms of the contract. If this is enforcible
> it shouldn't be.
If you don't like the idea of being legally bound by contract terms
that you have never even seen, you should read about UCITA at:
and
http://www.infoworld.com/opinions/morethegripeline.html
UCITA is a proposed law that will repeal many of the basic protections
of contract and consumer law that have been in place for 100 years.
That's not just my opinion; dozens of state Attorneys General, and
the Federal Trade Commission, have said essentially the same thing.
-- Robert Munyer <mun...@mcs.com>
Hartmann Schaffer
to recapitulate this thread: larry asked whether somebody had a used
copy of ACL to sell because he felt that franz'es price was too stiff
for his purposes. as far as i recollect he gave no indication that he
was aware of acl licenses not being transferrable (is that true in
general? wouldn't it have been enough to inform him of that fact (if
that's the case) rather than accusing him of criminal intentions without
any evidence of criminal intent?
and please: continue this discussion on alt.copyright.whatever
Robert Monfera
Larry Elmore wrote:
> Like I said, I have little experience with higher-end development
> systems. I'm not a lawyer, either. I'm only referring to my own
> (limited) personal experience.
You shouldn't assume that most developers don't have a satisfactory
understanding or at least suspicions in this matter irrespective of
experiences. Speaking of statistics, in the past years there was only
one person looking to obtain a copy of ACL this way, and even he reacted
reasonably after being informed.
> The parts about checking credit history and security checks were
> _jokes_ that I thought were obvious and unambiguous,
It's very difficult to tell how edgy sentences come out in writing, in
the absence of body language. Some researchers say that 70-80% of
communication is through body language (when interpreting basic
intentions, rather than discussing technical details, I guess). Flame
wars are partly caused by this lack of bandwidth. But reading your
other jokes (e.g., sterilized nickels), I think they don't come through
either way. Telling that they were meant to be jokes are not excuses
for the motives behind them.
> The concept of shrink-wrap licenses appears to
> rest on somewhat shaky legal ground,
c.l.l. is really not an appropriate place to try to change this.
> Do you express trust in laws that you feel are poorly written,
Contract laws, while they may have their flaws, represent a pretty solid
standard, trustable enough to be assumed that it is a given for purposes
of forming a business strategy and license contracts. I would choose it
any time over some layman's misconceptions on what laws should be like.
> I never said that part seemed extreme to me _except_ in regards to a
> shrink-wrap license which you often don't see until you've already
> bought the product.
Here you unnecessarily paint people who buy shrink-wrapped software
victims. There are things they can do about it, and they are at best
losers if they put up with it while they are deeply irritated about it.
I don't know of an authority (except maybe Microsoft) who can extort
money from you. Your postings don't reflect much research in this area
though, even though your insistence would have come across more credible
if you'd put in the legwork.
> Do you
> actually know all the terms of all the shrink-wrap licenses on every
> piece of software _you_ own?
I don't own software except what I wrote - I hold licenses. But to the
supposed point: for example, when I bought LapLink or Alpha Centaury, I
checked whether one license allows me to install it on one, two or more
computers - an obvious thing to check the same way it is obvious to be
interested in a lot more details of a developer license. I didn't check
for license transferability, as I had no plans to sell it.
> Until this discussion came up, I never thought
> of any development system being non-transferable except in the case
> of legitimate trade secrets, such as getting all the source code, in
> which case there would certainly have been explicit contracts signed
> and the seller would be knowingly breaking the law, which I usually
> object to vehemently.
I don't know why you stop with source code, maybe you just haven't spent
significant time thinking about it. You gain insights, disassemble
functions, develop and demonstrate your applications, which you would
probably not erase from your hard drive. It's a little like wanting to
transfer TurboTax 2000 in March after you prepared your own tax return.
> how in the world could my transferring the license to someone else
> possibly hurt Franz, Inc. in any way whatsoever as long as I
> completely removed it from my system?
Your lack of empathy and imagination is disturbing. If a customer buys
from the secondary market, then he does not pay the vendor. This is yet
another example of your misconceptions on contract law, the nature of
immaterial goods and economics at work. Trust the law, buddy, and if
you will have grown up to it, and identified real shortcomings,
influence lawmaking on appropriate forums and don't scare away your
potential business partners.
> (I can't object to bad laws being broken [...]
> [for example,] Nazi Germany's Racial Purity Laws
In case you didn't consciously think about it, this is very offensive to
both your readers and people using law in any way that you feel it's not
obvious. Did you raise it as something that invalidates the usefulness
of laws? (It's a question to answer to yourself only, don't bother
following up.)
* * *
Reading your other postings, it seems that they are attacking Erik's
sometimes markedly explicit language in the name of civility. They may
not have had any impact other than eroding the credibility of a
potentially valid concern, but rest assured, you went so far that the
difference in quantity and abusiveness amounts to a qualitative leap.
I've never in my life heard or seen a language that you use, except
maybe the movie "Pulp Fiction", which I had stopped watching after a
miserable 15 minutes. I think there is a mounting evidence for Erik to
sue you and get you off of your ISP (it truly works) if he cares to.
Larry, please clarify to yourself what you have achieved here in terms
of changing others, learning and exposing parts of your personality to
everybody in the World. If you can't quit posting abuses, rate your
postings 'R' in the subject line.
Take care,
Robert
Larry Elmore
> * h...@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer)
> | to recapitulate this thread: larry asked whether somebody had a used
> | copy of ACL to sell because he felt that franz'es price was too stiff
> | for his purposes. as far as i recollect he gave no indication that he
> | was aware of acl licenses not being transferrable (is that true in
> | general? wouldn't it have been enough to inform him of that fact (if
> | that's the case) rather than accusing him of criminal intentions without
> | any evidence of criminal intent?
>
> and what could have been different. some believe that we are faced with
> any number of options at all times and are responsible for every choice
> we make. some believe that such responsibility is localized and thus
> that it is a good reason _not_ to ask the principal question of every
> participant in a process, which is commonly called "blame-shifting".
>
> the answer to such "wouldn't it have been" is "maybe. so what?".
>
> speaking rhetorically, only: wouldn't it have been enough for him to
> state his explicit desires
He did.
> and his lack of knowledge of the licensing terms
That was implied as a strong possibility by the way the question was
phrased. If one has never heard of any personal software licenses being
non-transferable, it's rather unreasonable to expect them to investigate a
possibility that has never occurred to them. The equivalent Inprise
(Borland) Delphi system, or Microsoft, or Symantec systems, don't have such
a restriction, so why would one even suspect Franz ACL is different?
> instead of making a bunch of weird assumptions that would lead
> others to think he was out to cheat others? any number of questions can
> be asked in the same vein, with exactly the same result: _nothing_.
I'm interested in knowing what "weird assumptions" you assume he made. I can
only think of one assumption, and that was in assuming the ACL license was
transferable just like a number of similar products for different languages
by different companies. That's not even a bad assumption, especially if one
has never previously encountered a non-transferable license for such a
system.
As far as leading others to think he was out to cheat Franz, you're the only
one I know of that leapt to that conclusion. Others assumed he must not be
aware of the non-transferable nature of their licenses, or else saw nothing
wrong with the question because they didn't know about the nature of the
license either. Psychologically speaking, it _is_ interesting that you
_immediately_ assumed that he was knowingly attempting to cheat Franz, Inc.
. . .
Larry
Lars Lundback
>
> well, he (actually, it was not larry) was looking for a copy (presumably
> because he wanted to use it). some people apparently felt that the acl
> license would make handing over a used copy a crimainal offense. so
> what's your problem?
>
Your last remark sounds unkind, and implies that I should go away. I will, but I
remain curious. Now you talk about "used copy". I cannot see the meaning of
"copy" at all, in this context. Your summary of this thread was unsatisfactory
to me, and it still is. Can we leave it at that?
Lars Lundback
I don't want to antagonize you, but I, for one, find it hard to understand
("that a lot of people ...") . However, the original poster is evidently one of
them.
I am somewhat puzzled about "_buying_ a license is misleading if you can't sell
it". If you read my posting again, you will see that I said "renting". If
pressed, I would use 'pay for', from "Cambridge's Dictionaries Online", since to
you 'buying' seems to automatically imply transfer of ownership (with no strings
attached)? But this is quibbling.
What is not, is this notion that anything bought (paid for) is automatically
resellable. It is not acceptable to me.
>
> Erik's response was arrogant ...
Had a gentle rebuff served his purpose, which, I think, was to condemn this
phenomenon generally? I too got a sour feeling when reading the request.
Jonathan Guthrie
WHAT phenomenon? The resale of copyrighted material?
Anything bought IS automatically resellable unless you have a valid
contract that says that it isn't. This is as true of copyrighted
materials as it is of anything else. People buy "used" books, audio,
and video recordings all the time and that is not considered something
that deserves a lot of ire. Why should software be any different?
Now, there's a lot of meaning tied up in the word "valid", and the laws
are, no doubt, different in your part of the world, but that's a general
legal principle in the United States and is derived from English Common
Law. If you own something, it's YOURS and, unless you choose to give up
that right, you can do with it what you wish.
Of course, the software vendors would have you think that you purchased
a "license" rather than software. I've read a variety of legal opinions
about how that view matches with the legal principles in the United States
and the general consensus is that it's nonsense. That's why the UCITA is
so important. Again, I can't say what the laws are like in your part of
the world, but you seem to be assuming that the way things are where you
are is the way things are generally, and such is not the case.
Pierre R. Mai
> WHAT phenomenon? The resale of copyrighted material?
>
> Anything bought IS automatically resellable unless you have a valid
> contract that says that it isn't. This is as true of copyrighted
In the case currently under consideration there _is_ a valid, signed
(licence) contract between the parties concerned, which excludes
transfer of licence. The same is the case in any number of cases
involving software, chemical or mechanical processes, and other
intellectual properties.
> materials as it is of anything else. People buy "used" books, audio,
> and video recordings all the time and that is not considered something
> that deserves a lot of ire. Why should software be any different?
At least outside of the US, even in the "simple" case of books, there
are usually restrictions on your right to resell:
"Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to
the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be
lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the
publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than
that in which it is published and without a similar condition
including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."
> Now, there's a lot of meaning tied up in the word "valid", and the laws
> are, no doubt, different in your part of the world, but that's a general
> legal principle in the United States and is derived from English Common
> Law. If you own something, it's YOURS and, unless you choose to give up
> that right, you can do with it what you wish.
And to gain ownership or right of use, you often have to agree to
accept to give up some of those rights. That's contract law.
> Of course, the software vendors would have you think that you purchased
> a "license" rather than software. I've read a variety of legal opinions
> about how that view matches with the legal principles in the United States
> and the general consensus is that it's nonsense. That's why the UCITA is
> so important. Again, I can't say what the laws are like in your part of
> the world, but you seem to be assuming that the way things are where you
> are is the way things are generally, and such is not the case.
AFAIK only the validity of so called "shrink-wrap licences" are under
heavy legal dispute (and rightly so, IMHO). The general validity of
normal, written and signed, licence contracts has to my knowledge not
been challenged (again rightly so, IMHO). And these contracts are the
rule in certain parts of the software market.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre Mai <pm...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
Larry Elmore
news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> Dear Larry,
>
> I don't want to antagonize you, but I, for one, find it hard to understand
> ("that a lot of people ...") . However, the original poster is evidently
one of
> them.
I don't know why. The vast majority of computer software is in fact bought
and sold just like books, music and videos. BTW, I'm not at all antagonized
and I've learned something I didn't know before. A little puzzled,
perhaps...
> I am somewhat puzzled about "_buying_ a license is misleading if you can't
sell
> it". If you read my posting again, you will see that I said "renting". If
> pressed, I would use 'pay for', from "Cambridge's Dictionaries Online",
since to
> you 'buying' seems to automatically imply transfer of ownership (with no
strings
> attached)? But this is quibbling.
I know you said renting. I was trying to make clear the distinction in most
people's minds, and call attention to the fact that most computer software
is _not_ rented, but is bought and sold. I'm not renting Visual C++ or NT
4.0 Wkst. from Microsoft, I _bought_ them and may keep them, use them, throw
them away, or _sell_ them to whomsoever I wish, subject of course to
copyright restrictions just like books, music or videos. This, of course,
causes no damage whatsoever to Microsoft and I would be interested in
knowing why someone might think it would. In fact, I wasn't aware that any
personal software was covered by non-transferable licenses until this thread
got started.
> What is not, is this notion that anything bought (paid for) is
automatically
> resellable. It is not acceptable to me.
If it's clear that you are renting, leasing, or subscribing to a service,
then of course it's obvious that it's not resellable. IF you have _bought_
something, then it is yours to do with as you please except where restricted
by copyright law or contract. My problem was with the idea that a
"shrink-wrap" license could go so far as to make the product
non-transferable. That seems to me an extreme extension of copyright law and
it's validity as a binding contract seems questionable. Looking into this
matter, it's clear that I'm not alone in this -- the whole question (in
America, at least) is rather unsettled. The question in this thread,
however, is moot because in ACL's case, one must actually sign contracts and
it's explicit that the software is not resellable. That's fine and that's
perfectly within Franz's rights.
To expect someone who hasn't done business with Franz to know that their
software is non-transferable seems a little unreasonable to me. As to why
Zachary didn't contact Franz first, it appears obvious to me that he knew
their prices were very high and he would buy from them directly only if
there wasn't a cheaper alternative. I attempted to contact Franz, but never
heard from them, and then from other sources discovered that their prices
were as high as I had feared, and since I can't afford that right now, there
didn't seem to be any point in trying to contact them again. So I never
found out about their somewhat draconian licensing restrictions, either.
> > Erik's response was arrogant ...
>
> Had a gentle rebuff served his purpose, which, I think, was to condemn
this
> phenomenon generally?
If Erik had withheld his ire long enough to determine whether Zachary knew
that ACL licenses were non-transferable or not, and thus whether his
intentions were honorable or not, that would've been wonderful. If it turned
out that Zachary _knew_ the details about ACL's licensing and was actually
trying to cheat Franz, Erik's response would _then_ have been entirely
appropriate and I would've joined him! If it was actually ignorance in
action, then a polite but firm introduction to the reality of the situation
would be in order. My only problem with Erik is that he appears to have a
hair-trigger. He goes to right to the limit right off the bat, sometimes
without waiting to find out if his own assumptions are correct. In wartime,
a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy may be appropriate and
necessary to ensure one's own survival, but in a newsgroup it's out of line.
If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail of
dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.
> I too got a sour feeling when reading the request.
There's a couple of stores here where I live that sell used computer
software. It's perfectly legal and I've purchased software there that I
would not otherwise have because the "new" price is too high for my budget.
As long as illegal copies are not made and kept or sold, there's nothing
wrong with it. Do you think that copyright law should be rewritten so that
this practice can be banned?
Do you also get a sour feeling when walking by a used book store? After all,
one might argue that the publisher and author are being "cheated" there
also.
Larry
Robert Monfera
Larry Elmore wrote:
> I'm not renting Visual C++ or NT 4.0 Wkst. from Microsoft, I _bought_
> them
I think you didn't buy them, you have licensed them.
Another difference is that development tools are probably not profit
centers for Microsoft, and just because they do something in a certain
way does not mean it's right.
Robert
Jonathan Guthrie
>> WHAT phenomenon? The resale of copyrighted material?
>> Anything bought IS automatically resellable unless you have a valid
>> contract that says that it isn't. This is as true of copyrighted
> In the case currently under consideration there _is_ a valid, signed
> (licence) contract between the parties concerned, which excludes
> transfer of licence. The same is the case in any number of cases
> involving software, chemical or mechanical processes, and other
> intellectual properties.
I understand that, for the case in question, there is a contract (the
validity of which has not been conclusively demonstrated to me, but I
will stipulate that it is valid) that restricts resale of the item.
My point is that, for the person who got dumped on originally, that sort
of restriction is far less likely than the situation he was expecting.
It is, therefore, unreasonable to think that he's trying to break the
law simply because the situation he is expecting, and which his past
experiences have led him to believe he has every right to expect, isn't
the way that it is.
>> materials as it is of anything else. People buy "used" books, audio,
>> and video recordings all the time and that is not considered something
>> that deserves a lot of ire. Why should software be any different?
> At least outside of the US, even in the "simple" case of books, there
> are usually restrictions on your right to resell:
> "Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to
> the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be
> lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the
> publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than
> that in which it is published and without a similar condition
> including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."
I don't think that's the example you had in mind. All that says is the
purchaser can't sell it unless it's in the same cover and is in the same
binding.
>> Now, there's a lot of meaning tied up in the word "valid", and the laws
>> are, no doubt, different in your part of the world, but that's a general
>> legal principle in the United States and is derived from English Common
>> Law. If you own something, it's YOURS and, unless you choose to give up
>> that right, you can do with it what you wish.
> And to gain ownership or right of use, you often have to agree to
> accept to give up some of those rights. That's contract law.
Again, we are agreed that you can certainly give up the right to freely
sell an item. I believe I said as much in the third sentence of mine
that you quoted above. An example of this is a "buy-sell agreement"
that would be executed when stock in a privately-held companies is sold.
>> Of course, the software vendors would have you think that you purchased
>> a "license" rather than software. I've read a variety of legal opinions
>> about how that view matches with the legal principles in the United States
>> and the general consensus is that it's nonsense. That's why the UCITA is
>> so important. Again, I can't say what the laws are like in your part of
>> the world, but you seem to be assuming that the way things are where you
>> are is the way things are generally, and such is not the case.
> AFAIK only the validity of so called "shrink-wrap licences" are under
> heavy legal dispute (and rightly so, IMHO). The general validity of
> normal, written and signed, licence contracts has to my knowledge not
> been challenged (again rightly so, IMHO). And these contracts are the
> rule in certain parts of the software market.
My understanding (and IANAL) is your paragraph is correct as it stands.
In some circumstances it is common practice to exercise restrictive
contracts before software is delivered, and those contracts are generally
considered valid.
On the other hand, it could be asserted that when you pay money for
software, you aren't actually buying anything. It could be claimed that
you're exchanging money for the use of the software and that no transfer
of ownership happens. It is that claim I was attempting to address as
my understanding is that if you walk into a store and give money to a
cashier for a cardboard box full of stuff, you get ownership of that box
and its contents whether those contents are software or breakfast
cereal. Of course you do not purchase the right to copy (commonly
called a "copyright") that software (or, for that matter, the cereal)
but you own one copy that, absent other agreements to the contrary,
you can use pretty much as you wish including reselling.
And now I've said my peace, so I'll go away.
Larry Elmore
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
>
> > I'm not renting Visual C++ or NT 4.0 Wkst. from Microsoft, I _bought_
> > them
>
Well then, I bought a license. :)
If they get stolen from me in a burglary, it's my property that's been
stolen and I'm the one that suffers and I'm the one the insurance company
will pay for them. Microsoft suffers not at all unless the thieves start
making illegal copies and distributing them. So I own them, but I don't have
unlimited rights regarding their use. Just like a book.
> Another difference is that development tools are probably not profit
> centers for Microsoft, and just because they do something in a certain
> way does not mean it's right.
True, but it's not just Microsoft, and it's only with shrink-wrap licenses.
ACL is apparently covered by explicit signed contracts, so is in a whole
different league altogether.
Larry
Hartmann Schaffer
Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> writes:
> Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>
>>
>> well, he (actually, it was not larry) was looking for a copy (presumably
>> because he wanted to use it). some people apparently felt that the acl
>> license would make handing over a used copy a crimainal offense. so
>> what's your problem?
>>
>
> Your last remark sounds unkind, and implies that I should go away. I will, but I
you sound surprised; do you mind explaining why?
> remain curious. Now you talk about "used copy". I cannot see the meaning of
> "copy" at all, in this context. Your summary of this thread was unsatisfactory
> to me, and it still is. Can we leave it at that?
sinmce you seem to jump into discussions without without bothering to
check what went on before, gladly
William Deakin
> If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail of dead
> bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.
But only if you lived in a country where the police are routinely armed.
Elsewhere they would just end up with a lot of bruised, but very much alive,
bodies ;)
:) will
Janos Blazi
> "Lars Lundback" <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.
*All* of them unnecessarily. But real criminals would feel fine in that
country.
Janos Blazi
Lars Lundback
>
> Larry Elmore <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 88ptbf$2em$1...@news.campuscwix.net...
> > news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> > dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them unnecessarily.
>
> country.
Please check whom you quote before posting your replies. That comment has
nothing to do with me.
Lars Lundback
Janos Blazi
So the author was wrong but the message is still true.
J.B.
Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
38B2BD25...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> Janos Blazi wrote:
> >
> > Larry Elmore <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > 88ptbf$2em$1...@news.campuscwix.net...
> > > "Lars Lundback" <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote in message
> > > news:38B00FCF...@eralslk.ericsson.se...
> > > If Erik was a police officer, I fear he would be leaving a long trail
of
> > > dead bodies behind him, many (perhaps even most) of them
unnecessarily.
> >
> > *All* of them unnecessarily. But real criminals would feel fine in that
> > country.
>
> Please check whom you quote before posting your replies. That comment has
> nothing to do with me.
>
> Lars Lundback
Erik Naggum
| If Erik had ...
| If Erik was ...
then pigs would fly and Larry Elmore would have figured out that making
yet more projections and conjectures based on his own experiences would
not communicate anything but his own ability to deal with traumatic input.
just coincidentally, if I were a police officer, my take on this is that
Larry would accuse me of police brutality if I looked at him, and would
sue the entire police department if I did my job well and had to give him
a citation for something he actually did. there are a lot of people who
have personal issues with the concept "authority" and work very hard to
make sure they are never mistaken for one while fighting against all that
looks like authorities, even if it is _really_ stupid to do so. I won't
conjecture on anyone's upbringing, even though it's very tempting, now.
#:Erik
Larry Elmore
> * "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@montana.campuscw.net>
> | If Erik had ...
> | If Erik was ...
>
> then pigs would fly and Larry Elmore would have figured out that making
> yet more projections and conjectures based on his own experiences would
> not communicate anything but his own ability to deal with traumatic
input.
>
> just coincidentally, if I were a police officer, my take on this is that
> Larry would accuse me of police brutality if I looked at him, and would
> sue the entire police department if I did my job well and had to give
him
> a citation for something he actually did.
I can't see any reason why I would do something silly like that. Nor did I
do so when the police actually did give me a citation. I _was_ angry with
myself for being stupid, but I was nothing but respectful to the police
officer and I have no idea why you think I wouldn't be.
> there are a lot of people who
> have personal issues with the concept "authority" and work very hard to
> make sure they are never mistaken for one while fighting against all
that
> looks like authorities, even if it is _really_ stupid to do so.
Yes, there are people like that and I'm glad I'm not one of them. My father
was career Navy and I served in the Air Force, so I certainly understand and
respect authority. I also don't follow it blindly. Even in the military, one
is not obliged to carry out illegal orders or blatantly stupid orders that
will get you or others in some sort of trouble -- though you had better be
damned sure of your position because if you're wrong, you will most
certainly pay for your mistake. Sometimes authority is wrong.
Tell me, Erik, if you had lived in the northern United States in the 1850's,
would you have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and turned in a runaway
Southern slave and those who helped him? It _was_ the law of the land,
remember. Or would you have helped the slave to freedom? Or a Jew in
Nazi-controlled Europe? What would you have done? Sometimes the authorities
and the law are just simply _wrong_ and are so evil that they must be defied
to preserve one's own integrity regardless of the cost to oneself. Those
kinds of things are rare in democracies today, but they can happen. I
_don't_ advocate the breaking of any laws unless those laws are so
egregiously wrong that there is no way to follow them and remain morally
clean.
> I won't
> conjecture on anyone's upbringing, even though it's very tempting, now.
I'm pleased. It appears you're learning. Thank you.
Larry
Erik Naggum
| Tell me, Erik, if you had lived in the northern United States in the
| 1850's, would you have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act and turned in a
;
| I'm pleased. It appears you're learning. Thank you.
I'm always learning -- consider the alternative: repeating mistakes like
asking hypothetical-rhetorical questions and posting hypothetical insults.
#:Erik, just sighing
David Thornley
Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
>In article <38B00F33...@eralslk.ericsson.se>,
> Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> writes:
>> Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>>
First, is the Personal Edition sold with a non-transferrability clause?
It would appear that the more expensive Franz systems are sold with
such. However, nobody in this entire idiotic thread has said plainly
whether the Personal Edition is covered with such a clause.
Second, if it were, where would an inquiring person find this out?
Is it clear on Franz' web site?
For my next question, I will point out that I have purchased some
development systems in the past. I have never actually noticed
non-transferrability clauses, and have in some products noticed
clauses that define what must be done to legally transfer ownership,
which implies that it is permissible. I would assume that any
piece of softwafe is transferrable, under the provisions of copyright
law, unless otherwise stated. (FWIW, I have also bought a large number
of used books in my life.)
Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
intelligent person assume criminal intent? It seems to me that
a reasonable answer would be "No, the licenses are not transferrable,
and therefore you cannot get a used copy legally." This isn't even
a matter of ignorance of the law, but rather ignorance of a certain
company's policy as expressed in what contracts it agrees to.
Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which nobody
has said is the case.
At home, I have a copy of "The Conduct of War", by Colmar von der Goltz,
translated by some British officer whose name I forget. It was printed
in 1899. It is likely, but not certain, to be public domain according
to applicable copyright laws. Suppose I were to state that I wanted
to put a copy of this book on my web site. Would people claim that
this was an attempt to commit a criminal act, or would they assume
that I might just be concerned about copyright law, and possibly
were interested in doing the copying only if it were legal?
I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US. It is
considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
accusations lightly.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Robert Monfera
David Thornley wrote:
> A few questions on this thread:
>
> First, is the Personal Edition sold with a non-transferrability
> clause?
Er.. why don't you ask Franz, if you are interested? (I'm not facetious
- I don't know the answer, but I would not have the idea of asking
anybody other than _them_ if I was interested.)
It's possible for a license to limit the public or private disclosure of
licensing terms. Personally, I would not disclose terms unless I made
sure it's OK, which is a bit of effort, which you could invest
yourselves just by asking Franz. Probably it's not an extreme view, as
there hasn't been much discussion on terms before on c.l.l.
[...]
> Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which
> nobody has said is the case.
Just to get facts straight, at least one person has said so in this
thread.
[...]
> I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
> public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.
I'm sure Larry would have appreciated this argument as he would not have
had to resort to other means of convincement :-)
Robert
Zachary Turner
> copy of ACL to sell because he felt that franz'es price was too stiff
> for his purposes
Actually I am the one that originally asked for a used copy of ACL. Not
that it matters, but I thought I'd make the correction anyway.
- Zach
Erik Naggum
| Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
| intelligent person assume criminal intent?
the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay Franz Inc's
prices and the fact that he had already established that he was looking
for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus, he's trying to
deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite it. you've been had.
| Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which nobody
| has said is the case.
if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to stop denying replies to
your questions. otherwise, it becomes necessary to believe that you have
an agenda whose personal value to you far exceeds the truth.
| I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
| public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.
in other words, what you're doing now is grounds for a lawsuit in the U.S.
now quote the _accusations_ you see, or apologize for even hinting at it!
| It is considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
| people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
| accusations lightly.
so why do you do it so lightly? are _you_ above the law? one has to
wonder with all the "what me? I'm not one of _them!_"-style rhetorics
you serve up, where everything that applies to others could not in your
most lively imagination apply to yourself. in case you wonder, such lack
of empathy and principle in judgment is one of the root causes of
interminable conflicts, and you're well on your wan to keep this going
for nearly four years, just like the other loser does. stop now. reel
yourself in and start _thinking_.
#:Erik
Ole Myren Rohne
> I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
> public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US. It is
> considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
> people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
> accusations lightly.
The message that David might be alluding to (see below), seems to be
posted from Norway. In that country, malicious slander is in fact a
_criminal_ offense, to be punished with up to 3 years in jail
(Straffeloven, paragraphs 246-254).
The above is of course not to imply that Erik Naggum _did_ break the
law, as this question could only be settled in court. And don't you
all rush off to phone the Oslo Police, as only the offended person is
allowed to file a complaint.
Ole Myren Røhne
---
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> writes:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: gate.dn.nhst.no
> X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 950743299 121 195.0.192.66 (16 Feb 2000 23:21:39 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: newsm...@eunet.no
> NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2000 23:21:39 GMT
> * "Zachary Turner" <ztu...@bindview.com>
> | Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for one.
>
> but you're willing to break laws and contracts and licenses, instead?
>
> | I think it's something like $800.
>
> why don't you ask them, 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?
Ole Myren Rohne
> * David Thornley
> | Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
> | intelligent person assume criminal intent?
>
> the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay Franz Inc's
> prices and the fact that he had already established that he was looking
> for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus, he's trying to
> deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite it. you've been had.
At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
instead of quoting from it:
In <AA33EEDB1A1BA46D.0D72DACC...@lp.airnews.net>,
Zachary Turner <ztu...@bindview.com> writes:
> I'd like to purchase this. If anyone has a licensed copy they're looking to
> sell, please let me know.
Does the words _purchase_ and _licensed_ _copy_ make it sound like
Zachary is asking someone to tar up their ACL distribution and post
it? Certainly not, and it's nothing there that implies that he knew
the license in question is non-transferable. For shure, _Erik_ _Naggum_
is rewriting what Zachary said in order to make it fit with his own
presumptions.
Ole Myren Røhne
Janos Blazi
insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble for
them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.
Janos Blazi
Ole Myren Rohne <ole....@cern.ch> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
ebwzosr...@pcedu1.cern.ch...
Robert Monfera
Ole Myren Rohne wrote:
EN: the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay
EN: Franz Inc's prices and the fact that he had already established EN:
that he was looking for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc.
> At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
> instead of quoting from it:
[quote of the original message elided]
Erik didn't follow up with the original message, but with this later
one, and the way he paraphrased it seems correct to me:
"Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for
one. I think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much
if I really really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway,
and b) that's alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to
get rid of theirs I could get it for much cheaper."
I don't point it out to say that the accusation from Erik was warranted
- just to ask you to get the facts straight by doing a not even very
difficult research when the only reason you posted for is to educate
someone else on getting facts straight.
Most arguments against Erik's behavior have been overloaded with
material inaccuracies and personal attacks, hindering potentially valid
concerns.
Robert
Robert Monfera
Erik Naggum wrote:
DT: I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
DT: public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.
> in other words, what you're doing now is grounds for a lawsuit in the
> U.S. now quote the _accusations_ you see, or apologize for even hinting
> at it!
If these quotes below aren't accusations of criminal intent, then I
don't see how David's "I will point out" above could be grounds for a
lawsuit.
"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."
Robert
Hartmann Schaffer
Robert Monfera <mon...@fisec.com> writes:
> ...
> "Because I'm a measly home user and don't want to pay Franz price for
> one. I think it's something like $800. I'm _willing_ to pay that much
> if I really really really have to, but a) I'm just learning Lisp anyway,
> and b) that's alot of money for a home user. If someone was willing to
> get rid of theirs I could get it for much cheaper."
>
> I don't point it out to say that the accusation from Erik was warranted
only if the original poster was aware that the license was not
transferrable. if he was assuming that it was transferrable, all he was
doing asking whether somebody had it, didn't want to use it any more,
and was willing to sell his copy at a loss. is there any post that i
misse that indicates that he was aware of the nontransferrability of the
license?
> - just to ask you to get the facts straight by doing a not even very
> difficult research when the only reason you posted for is to educate
> someone else on getting facts straight.
Robert Monfera
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
[point I made elided]
RM: I don't point it out to say that the accusation from Erik was
RM: warranted
>
> only if the original poster was aware that the license was not
> transferrable [...]
If you wanted to relate to my posting, please re-read what I wrote,
maybe you have misinterpreted something?
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).
Robert
Ole Myren Rohne
> Ole Myren Rohne wrote:
> > At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
> > instead of quoting from it:
> one, and the way he paraphrased it seems correct to me:
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.
> - just to ask you to get the facts straight by doing a not even very
> difficult research when the only reason you posted for is to educate
> someone else on getting facts straight.
Well, yes and no...
Erik Naggum's paraphrase might apply to both messages, as well as to a
later followup by Zachary:
In <88hkbf$o...@library1.airnews.net>, <ztu...@bindview.com> writes:
ZT: Well, in the situation that the license is non-transferrable, then
ZT: obviously the only viable option would be for me to purchase the
ZT: software from Franz, Inc. However, let it be stated for the record
ZT: that I never intended on obtaining an illegal copy of the software,
ZT: which is why I plainly stated in the original post that I'm willing
ZT: to pay Franz's price for the software if absolutely necessary.
In <31603373...@naggum.no>, <er...@naggum.no> writes:
EN: * David Thornley
EN: | Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
EN: | intelligent person assume criminal intent?
EN: the fact that he said explicitly that he did not want to pay Franz
EN: Inc's prices and the fact that he had already established that he
EN: was looking for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus,
EN: he's trying to deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite
EN: it. you've been had.
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.
Ole Myren Røhne
Erik Naggum
| At this point, why does Erik Naggum paraphrase the original message
| instead of quoting from it:
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
<4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>
instead, with my response in <31597285...@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?
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| 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.
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?
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
| insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble for
| them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.
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?
#:Erik
Lars Lundback
>
>
> 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.
>
Whatever the original intents were, both Zachary's and Erik's, it is a fact the
people interpret words differently. _That_ cannot be hard to admit.
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,
Lars Lundback
Ole Myren Rohne
[snip]
> Whatever the original intents were, both Zachary's and Erik's, it is
> a fact the people interpret words differently. _That_ cannot be hard
> to admit.
Not at all. However, _which_ words one chooses to interpret matters a
lot.
[snip]
> Zachary was unfortunate when he said "copy" in connection with
> software, especially when buying and selling it.
Zachary said _a_ _licensed_ _copy_ not just _copy_ both in his
original post as well as when quoting himself in the follow-up:
<4C7AF620DF436092.095BE5DC...@lp.airnews.net>.
In the article I criticized <31603373...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum
had to omit "licensed" in order to make Zachary *sound* dishonest -
that was my point.
Ole Myren Røhne
Robert Monfera
Lars Lundback wrote:
> Zachary was unfortunate when he said "copy" in connection with
> software, especially when buying and selling it. He was probably not
> aware of it.
It's common among native English speakers to overload the word "copy" to
mean "instance". It didn't even occur to me that Zachary could have
have meant it in the "COPY A:\*.* B:\" sense, and even when interpreted
literally, "copy" could refer to the fact that Franz has one master CD
and has a stock of copies carrying the exact same bits.
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.
Robert
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
31604597...@naggum.no...
> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>
> | But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
> | insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble
for
> | them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.
>
> 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.
You are not telling the truth here. In fact when I was new to this newsgroup
(to some extent I am still new to it) I was taken by surprise by the
phenomenon Eric Naggum as everybody else. You started "flameing" me before I
even knew what that word meant.
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
> 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?
>
> #:Erik
Janos Blazi
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 <er...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
31604597...@naggum.no...
> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>
> | But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
> | insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble
for
> | them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.
>
> 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,
Erik Naggum
| to omit "licensed" in order to make Zachary *sound* dishonest - that was
| my point.
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.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| 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).
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.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| 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.
... 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.
#:Erik
Harald Hanche-Olsen
| 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?
That is not a terribly useful question, since you are not likely to
get a useful answer. Erik's flames are like a force of nature. They
just are, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just ignore his
tone -- or complain in private mail to him if you absolutely must --
and concentrate on the substance of what he says, which is more often
than not worth listening to. (Yes, I have been in skirmishes with him
too. I just don't let it bother me.)
--
* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
- "There arises from a bad and unapt formation of words
a wonderful obstruction to the mind." - Francis Bacon
jo...@mt.lv
> Hello Doc! Back in town?
>
>> | But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
>> | insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble for
>> | them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.
>>
>> 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.
>
> (to some extent I am still new to it) I was taken by surprise by the
> phenomenon Eric Naggum as everybody else. You started "flameing" me before I
> even knew what that word meant.
Because you must have been someone of those whome Erik really dislikes.
> 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.
This is not _my_ business but I would like to say some things as an independant
reader of this newsgroup. As far as I have seen, Erik has not attacked anyone
with no reason. If you want some do what I did today --- wisit page
http://www.naggum.no/erik/ and take take a look. (Although some of those
principles were expressed in this newsgroup this week they are all there in
one place for everybody to see _and_ learn).
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).
> Then you started blaming me for being a German:
[...]
> You hinted here, that I was a nazi, though you did not tell it explicitly.
There was no, event remote, hint about it. If you still do not understand
then all I can tell you is: people _must_ learn from mistakes especially from
other's so they don't make them themselves.
Again, no offense intended.
> I have been watching this newsgroup for months and you are always busy
> flameing somebody. Why are you doing this?
I've been reading this newsgroup for just a week and I already know the
answer --- Erik is doing hard work of getting world better by showing
drooling idiots that they are drooling idiots.
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.
> 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.
Yes, until you get what he tells you. Sorry but the guy is not after you but
idiots. It just happened that you looked like one. I don't say you were
because I haven't read thos posts but I belive Erik does not attack anyone
without reason (if he does we should point out but I havent seen the case
this week).
> 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.
Not hard at all.
> 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.
You still have not read what Erik tries to tell you. Well, maybe you deserve
it?
> Janos Blazi
P.S. I would like to stress once more --- no offense intended. I just hope
you read more carefully next time. People can and _should_ change.
--
jonis
Coby Beck
sensitive area for software developers without being careful in his wording.
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?
Coby
David Thornley
>* David Thornley
>| Third, if somebody is ignorant of Franz' policy, why would any
>
> prices and the fact that he had already established that he was looking
> for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc. plus, he's trying to
> deny what he actually said and attempt to rewrite it. you've been had.
>
I am aware of certain books which cost more, new, than I really want
to pay. I intend to buy used copies. Are you now going to accuse me of
criminal intent?
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?
>| Assuming, of course, that this is against Franz licenses, which nobody
>| has said is the case.
>
> if you wish to be taken seriously, you need to stop denying replies to
> your questions. otherwise, it becomes necessary to believe that you have
> an agenda whose personal value to you far exceeds the truth.
>
What denial of what reply to what question?
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.
>| I will point out that accusing somebody of criminal intent in a
>| public forum can be grounds for a lawsuit in the US.
>
> in other words, what you're doing now is grounds for a lawsuit in the U.S.
Nope. Criminal intent is intent to commit a clear breach of certain parts
of the law; in general, the parts that the government will prosecute,
rather than an individual. I'm not sure the government would prosecute
in the case of a license violation, so I'm not sure that the original
proposal would constitute criminal intent. (I'm explaining "common
law" very loosely here. I don't know what Norwegian law is like in
this regard, which is why I mentioned "US". I assume that any intelligent
person will realize that I am explaining US law in this paragraph.)
Shooting your mouth or fingers off can be grounds for a slander or libel
suit, but is generally not any form of criminal intent.
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.
> now quote the _accusations_ you see, or apologize for even hinting at it!
>
Now quote the _accusations_ you see, or apologize for even hinting at it!
>| It is considered a serious thing, and not to be taken lightly, by many
>| people. It might be well to acquire the habit of not making such
>| accusations lightly.
>
> so why do you do it so lightly? are _you_ above the law? one has to
> wonder with all the "what me? I'm not one of _them!_"-style rhetorics
> you serve up, where everything that applies to others could not in your
> most lively imagination apply to yourself.
I am not above the law. I perform lots of transactions similar to the
one proposed by the original poster. They are all legal. I have not
accused anybody of criminal intent, but have rather warned that such
accusations are not to be made lightly. Heck, I haven't even commented
on the extreme lack of ettiquette you have shown, up to now.
in case you wonder, such lack
> of empathy and principle in judgment is one of the root causes of
> interminable conflicts, and you're well on your wan to keep this going
> for nearly four years, just like the other loser does. stop now. reel
> yourself in and start _thinking_.
>
Lack of empathy? Lack of principle? I assume, on principle, that
comments that are likely to be innocent are, unless I find otherwise.
This principle has served me well. As it happens, I have empathy
with people hoping to find legal ways to get things they want for
less money, as well as with many other people. (I find it difficult
to have empathy with people who become incoherent and insulting at me,
but nobody's perfect.)
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.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Coby Beck
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
Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote in message
news:38b71...@goliath.newsfeeds.com...
>
> Harald Hanche-Olsen <han...@math.ntnu.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> pco9009...@math.ntnu.no...
> > + "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>:
> >
> > | 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.
>
> I do not know, how to do that. You can look up everything in deja.com. It
> was last November and the thread had the title Summa Summarum Lisp.
>
> >
> > | 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.
>
> Well, he did. The expresion Lebensraum was coined by the nazis, maybe by
> Hitler in Mein Kampf. And he says, I am fighting for Lebensraum for
idiots.
> But the nazis fought for Lebensraum. So while he does not say it
explicitly,
> he is alluding to it.
>
> >
> > | 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.
>
> Of course Quisling was not alone though I am not pretending to be *very*
> familiar with Norwegian history. But he was executed after the war and
that
> was that. His supporters had always been a minority. You can find such
scum
> everywhere.
> >
> > 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.)
>
> O.K., I have no idea.
>
> >
> > 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?)
>
> Even if I accept this artificial explanation (without being convinced):
Did
> he have any reason for this? (And should you read that thread in deja.com,
> you will see that it is the nonsense of psychopath. Look at my answer and
> then look at his response!)
>
> > 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?
> >
> > That is not a terribly useful question, since you are not likely to
> > get a useful answer.
>
> I did not expect any answer and I did not get any. There is no answer.
>
>
> > Erik's flames are like a force of nature. They
> > just are, and there is nothing you can do about it.
>
> I feel that many people in this newsgroup think this way. But this is
> dangerous as you are excusing him. He is probably not a lunatic but a
normal
> man who is fully responsible for what he says. Now look at this thread.
> Nothing in the first posting of the original poster indicated that he was
> going to steal software that does not belong to him. He wanted to buy it
and
> as cheap as possible. This is legal. So if the licences of Franz Inc.
> prohibit reselling a license then it would have been enough to warn the
> original poster. (I still do not know if this is the case!) Instead EN
> started flaming him "for criminal intent". It should be in the community's
> own best interest that something like this does not happen.
>
> Just ignore his
> > tone -- or complain in private mail to him if you absolutely must --
> > and concentrate on the substance of what he says, which is more often
> > than not worth listening to. (Yes, I have been in skirmishes with him
> > too. I just don't let it bother me.)
>
> Needless to say, I could not disagree more. Of course if your main
interest
> is Lisp you may see things this way. Indeed, he seems to be an expert.
> (Though sometimes his expert knowledege is eclipsed by his hatred: When I
> told somebody that CL and Scheme were similar he wrote a response stating
> that this was not the case and the distance between Scheme and CL was
larger
> than between CL and Ada, or something like this, I do not remember the
exact
> wording.)
> But I put my emphasis on decency and tolerance and respect for oneanother,
> so we cannot agree on this point.
>
> 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
>
> > --
> > * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
> > - "There arises from a bad and unapt formation of words
> > a wonderful obstruction to the mind." - Francis Bacon
>
>
>
>
Coby Beck
Coby Beck <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:951525...@NewsSIEVE.cs.bonn.edu...
> Janos, i write to you as a friend.
>
> 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.
>
do so and probably suffers even more personal attacks and ad hominum
arguments than anyone else! (who else gets their name regularly featured in
subject lines!!)
cb
Janos Blazi
Now I am a bit disappointed.
I have found out that your repertoire is finite. You are using this or a
similar sentence too often ("you are proving that you are ~EN-FILTH"), where
EN-FILTH is to be replaced by some filth from your dictionary.
(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 <er...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
31604833...@naggum.no...
Janos Blazi
Janos Blazi
Gareth McCaughan
> 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.
Just for the record, I use "copy" to mean "instance" when
referring to software. I wouldn't ask to "buy MS Word",
because MS Word is an abstract entity of a kind that cannot
be bought. It would be more accurate to say something like
"a copy of MS Word together with a licence entitling me to
run it on my computer", but that would be taking pedantry
to extremes that even I would find unreasonable.
(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.)
> 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.
I think they indicate that Erik interpreted "copy" in a way
that I wouldn't have dreamed of doing and that I bet is very
different from what Zachary actually meant. Of course, it turns
out that what Zachary was asking for is *also* illegal, but
it seems clear that (1) he didn't know that and (2) his
ignorance wasn't particularly culpable and certainly not
in the least criminal.
Obviously it would be better if this whole argument would
go away, but hoping for that might be overoptimistic.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
sig under construction
Erik Naggum
| I think that the tone is getting harsher in this newsgroup due to EN's
| fierce attacks and this is a very bad thing.
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.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| I think they indicate that Erik interpreted "copy" in a way that I
| wouldn't have dreamed of doing and that I bet is very different from what
| Zachary actually meant.
I never interpreted it that way. please don't assume that just because
someone who is not fluent in American English speculates about what
someone else whom he assumes is not fluent in American English because
he's not an American would have meant or misunderstood, said someone else
actually misunderstood it that way. I actually find such arguments very
insulting. if you make this kind of argument with, say, black Americans,
whom you assume don't understand a word because they're black, you're a
racist. it makes no difference to me if you make it about foreigners or
other groups about which you know very little that applies to individuals.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| I am trying to imagine your day.
yes, that's the problem. stop doing that, and concentrate on your own
life. it seems to require a lot more attention from you than you are
currently giving it. I keep saying that most people are more than smart
enough to run their own lives, but few people are smart enough to run the
lives of others, even though they are increasingly asked to in this here
information society, and on the Net, some people seem to want that more
than anything else, especially those who fail to run their own lives.
I'd have to conclude that you're not even smart enough to be _able_ to
run your own life, Janos, and that's why you're trying to imagine mine,
but the imagination of a drooling idiot is no match for reality, and
you're so ridiculous in your attempt to tell me what your life is like
that you're even surpassing Larry Elwood.
please remember that your imagination is a product of your experiences.
it is not always a good idea to broadcast the limits of your imagination.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| I am aware of certain books which cost more, new, than I really want to
| pay. I intend to buy used copies. Are you now going to accuse me of
| criminal intent?
yes, but only because this is getting criminally stupid.
#:Erik, who didn't read the rest of the noise
David Thornley
Lars Lundback <era...@eralslk.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Ole Myren Rohne wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>people interpret words differently. _That_ cannot be hard to admit.
>
in the US. We don't use it the way you do.
>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.
>
Lots of us use "copy" in that rather Platonic way. I would not hesitate
to say that I own a copy of Macintosh Common Lisp. Now, in fact I have
several CDs containing various versions (MCL is sold on a subscription
basis). Exactly what these are copies of is hard to say, but it is
colloquial American English to call this a "copy".
>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
Yup. Around here you do.
>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.
>
"I want to buy a copy of MS Word" sounds to me like you want to buy a
box that says "Microsoft Word" on it, and which contains one or more
CD-ROMS, some manuals, and a legitimate license to use the software.
If I were referring to a duplicate, I'd refer to a "pirate copy" or
some such thing.
>Zachary was unfortunate when he said "copy" in connection with software,
>especially when buying and selling it. He was probably not aware of it.
It's hard to see what was so unfortunate about it. He was using a phrase
that, to its users, usually implies legitimacy. He additionally used
the phrase "licensed copy", IIRC, which certainly implies an intent to
have the software with a valid license. Lots of us had no doubt that
he was seeking a legitimate transaction.
What was unfortunate about it was that some people don't speak American,
misunderstood, and attacked. What was even more unfortunate about it is
that some people kept insisting, in their extreme arrogance, that they
knew what was meant by an unfamiliar turn of phrase, and kept attacking.
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.
>
The polite response, when you suspect possible misinterpretation, is to
ask politely what is meant. The polite thing to do, when finding that
one has misinterpreted, is to apologize. Erik assumed the worst, and
(as of the last I've seen his postings) continues to do so.
Erik Naggum
| I assume that it is the absence of body language, tone of voice
| etc. that causes him to "see idiots" on the Net.
I must assume that you lack the ability to read tone in written text and
assume that all others suffer from the same problem, and that this causes
you to get ideas about how other people behave and think. which is
pretty darn sad for you if you realize the long-term consequences.
instead of being intelligent about this and try to figure out if you're
right or at least onto something, you don your halo and present your
platitudes as relevant information. the problem with you do-gooders who
think like this is you have _no_ clue. it's like those lamb-and-lion
notions of paradise: people who have so little understanding of how
people work and what reality is like that they substitute some _really_
silly notion of "wouldn't it be nice if" for reality and go on to believe
in it and wish for it and hope for it. it's actually sickening to watch.
reality doesn't fit the mental imaging power of fools and do-gooders.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| What was unfortunate about it was that some people don't speak American,
| misunderstood, and attacked. What was even more unfortunate about it is
| that some people kept insisting, in their extreme arrogance, that they
| knew what was meant by an unfamiliar turn of phrase, and kept attacking.
what's even more unfortunate is that some people think they know what
went on and make no bones about expanding on their personal take on it,
even though the core problem they attribute to others is the _mistake_ of
thinking they know what went on and not backing down in the presence of
counter-evidence. the extreme arrogance of such fools to pretend they
have The Answer is indeed the cause of these conflicts. if the arrogant
fools had been willing to listen and understand, the number of idoitic
assumptions would perhaps have been managably small. instead we have
people who are so incredibly thick-headed as to post their imagination of
what my days are like, and now David Thornley exceeds this idiotic drivel
by some other drivel about somebody misunderstanding "copy". geez.
when people of so little introspective ability make grand projections
about the behavior of others, the only result is that we learn how they
think, and learn _nothing_ about anything else. it's _really_ pathetic.
| Erik assumed the worst, and (as of the last I've seen his postings)
| continues to do so.
and just what would it take to provide you with counter-evidence, David?
your willingness to make and post your assumptions from _zero_ evidence
goes way beyond what I _questioned_ Zachary about. I don't think you
even have the right to complain as long as your assumption-generator is
going at full speed.
what actually _amuses_ me in these discussions is just how idiotic the
people who complain about my behavior are. it is clearly impossible for
these clowns to behave reasonably and intelligently themselves, and so
they make all these completely bizarre assumptions and projections and
tell me about their personal life (which I have _zero_ interest in!) and
how they imagine something they couldn't possibly be correct about. is
there any wonder I keep up the flaming of these disgusting _retards_?
every time one of these blathering losers proves that he deserves it, I'm
proven right: one more true idiot marked out.
what's unfortunate is that the morons think their way of thinking is the
only possible way to think, but that's typically what _defines_ a moron.
#:Erik
Erik Naggum
| But he does not behave and this must be told him.
so what would it take for _you_ to realize that _you_ do not behave and
need to be told? since you can't imagine being wrong in _your_ idiotic
insults and malicious behavior towards me, what makes you think you could
_possibly_ have any effect on me? just _how_ stupid can a net.idiot get?
#:Erik
Marcus G. Daniels
EN> I don't think you even have the right to complain as long as your
EN> assumption-generator is going at full speed.
Hey David, sounds cool! Is it Common Lisp?
(Sure, it's ok if it is just Scheme. We're all family here.)
Anyway, #:Erik, now that you mention it, I notice *your* posts are
oddly similar, especially of late. I hope you are not cheating --
the Lisp community depends on you for leadership in these uncertain times.
http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint
There are people I doubtlessly despise. They lack morals, character,
and honesty. They engage in an endless round of finger pointing. In
case you can't tell, I'm talking about David Thornley here. There are
a number of reasons David isn't telling us as to why he wants to draw
unsuspecting dweebs into the orbit of crass unconscionable ideologues.
In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the
principle that he is hardly the first proponent of pathetic ruffianism
and he is unlikely to be the last. His positions have grown into the
world's greatest enslavers of human minds, yet we must continue to
monitor his cronies and expose them as the lazy disaffected
adolescents they are. This sort of vertiginous paradox is well known
to most cold-blooded control freaks. The tone of his propositions is
so far removed from reality, I find myself questioning what color the
sky must be in his world. Continue to appease David, and he will
definitely confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. Thus,
in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) David Thornley's
long-term stratagems of infiltration and mass propaganda have been so
successful that David can now put incoherent meretricious imbeciles on
the federal payroll, and 2) we can see the damage that is done when he
tries to convince the most corrupt voluptuaries you'll ever see that
there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life
besides joining him.
Erik Naggum
| Anyway, #:Erik, now that you mention it, I notice *your* posts are oddly
| similar, especially of late.
I apologize for the predictability, but there's so little variation in
the basic theme to which I respond. as you may have noticed, the core
argument is that I'm not allowed to do X to anyone, but every other
person is allowed to do X to me a 100 times over. it gets old quick.
| the Lisp community depends on you for leadership in these uncertain times.
why, thank you. I'm delighted that you, too, join the fan club.
#:Erik
Lars Lundback
Yes, there were alternative motives. You don't need it, but I'll restate what I
wrote once, that your postings may require an extra pass through the compiler,
but that they are usually worth the trouble. Like most other elegant tools,
Common Lisp needs active and resourceful advocates, and you are certainly one of
them.
Lars
Janos Blazi
We had a feud last November. It was nothing unusual but then you wrote to
me
that sentence... You know what I am talking about. That *did* hurt my
feelings. But when I had started I of course did not want to annoy you in
any way; I did not even know you existed. After your first responses I was
stunned. This has been my first newsgroup and I took every word very
seriously.
Then we had an armistice for a few weeks. Then I posted something and
somebody else whom I liked started attacking me without any reason as far
as
I could see. And then you started the battle again and took you whip and
gave me an additional stroke.
And then I waited a few weeks and took my whip, etc.
Janos Blazi
A question: what does "net.idiot" mean? Is it a compliment stating that I
may be an idiot on the internet but otherwise I may be a kind and gentle
person?
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
31606771...@naggum.no...
Janos Blazi
B: So hören wir auf, ich habe mich selber widerlegt."
Nietsche
Maybe these word by a great German Philosopher refer to me too, so I shall
stop now.
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum
| That *did* hurt my feelings.
so having your feelings hurt is actually sufficient for your psychology
to break and for you to become psychotic in your revengeful hatred where
doling out meaningless, irrational malice is OK to you? for a person who
espouses _tolerance_ and has so little of it where it matters, there is
really no excuse for anything you have done. be good and die instantly.
| A question: what does "net.idiot" mean? Is it a compliment stating that
| I may be an idiot on the internet but otherwise I may be a kind and
| gentle person?
yes. to you, _any_ insult is a compliment relative to what you deserve.
are you happy now?
#:Erik
Janos Blazi
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
31607395...@naggum.no...
> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>
> | That *did* hurt my feelings.
>
> so having your feelings hurt is actually sufficient for your psychology
> to break
Most unfortunately it is.
> and for you to become psychotic in your revengeful hatred where
> doling out meaningless, irrational malice is OK to you?
Now you have missed an opportunity. "Irrational meaningless malice" would
have been better because of the alliteration.
> for a person who
> espouses _tolerance_ and has so little of it where it matters,
Well, this is the dilemma of Christianity. To offer the other cheek (I hope
this is the right term).
> there is
> really no excuse for anything you have done. be good and die instantly.
I thought death penalty was abolished in your country. Do you consider my
sins so serious that I deserve to die? Really die? Do you really mean what
you say?
(The funny thing is: Now some of the regular visitors of this newsgroup will
think: "Well said, Erik". Other ones will think: Well, Erik may have
exagerated a bit, but not too much, basically it is in order. The life of
somebody who has not proved yet that he does not uses other languages, is
not very valuable.)
>
> | A question: what does "net.idiot" mean? Is it a compliment stating that
> | I may be an idiot on the internet but otherwise I may be a kind and
> | gentle person?
>
> yes. to you, _any_ insult is a compliment relative to what you deserve.
> are you happy now?
Well, to some extent. Do you mean that English is not prepared to describe
the true nature of mine? The phenomenon that is called Janos Blazi? On the
other hand, your answer was a bit abigous.
J.B.
Arne Knut Roev
> Maybe these word by a great German Philosopher refer to me too, so I shall
> stop now.
Deo Gratias!
--
Arne Knut Roev <akr...@online.no> Snail: N-6141 ROVDE, Norway
=
The Gates of Hell shall not prevail:
Darkness now; then Light!
Erik Naggum
didn't you just say you were going to stop blathering on and on and on
about this interminable, insufferable stream of inanity of yours? *sigh*
#:Erik
Janos Blazi
Arne Knut Roev <akr...@online.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
FqnJ8...@online.no...
> Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote:
> > Maybe these word by a great German Philosopher refer to me too, so I
shall
> > stop now.
>
> Deo Gratias!
How polite! I have never been called this name before! :)
Janos Blazi
>
> --
> Arne Knut Roev <akr...@online.no> Snail: N-6141 ROVDE, Norway
> =
> The Gates of Hell shall not prevail:
> Darkness now; then Light!
Marcus G. Daniels
EN> as you may have noticed, the core
EN> argument is that I'm not allowed to do X to anyone, but every other
EN> person is allowed to do X to me a 100 times over. it gets old quick.
There, there. It's okay.
Arne Knut Roev
> Arne Knut Roev <akr...@online.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> FqnJ8...@online.no...
>> Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote:
>> > Maybe these word by a great German Philosopher refer to me too, so I
> shall
>> > stop now.
>>
>> Deo Gratias!
>
> How polite! I have never been called this name before! :)
> Janos Blazi
Out of the mouth of idiots...
(BTW: Since your other name seems to be something like "Hanns Mayer", are
you by any chance residing at Mayerhof ?)
(Quoting from the header: "X-Authenticated-User: hannsmayer")
Gareth McCaughan
> * Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com>
> | I think they indicate that Erik interpreted "copy" in a way that I
> | wouldn't have dreamed of doing and that I bet is very different from what
> | Zachary actually meant.
>
> I never interpreted it that way. please don't assume that just because
> someone who is not fluent in American English speculates about what
> someone else whom he assumes is not fluent in American English because
> he's not an American would have meant or misunderstood, said someone else
> actually misunderstood it that way.
I wasn't assuming anything of the kind.
> I actually find such arguments very
> insulting. if you make this kind of argument with, say, black Americans,
> whom you assume don't understand a word because they're black, you're a
> racist. it makes no difference to me if you make it about foreigners or
> other groups about which you know very little that applies to individuals.
Fortunately, I'm not doing that. I think you're reading more
into the word "copy" than the person who wrote it put there,
but I don't think you're doing it because you're Norwegian
or anything like that. That would be daft, since all the
evidence available to me suggests that you're a more capable
user of the English language than most native speakers.
Maybe I'm wrong in my idea of what you thought Zachary meant
by using the word "copy". Or maybe you're wrong in your idea
of my idea of what you thought he meant. You referred, e.g.,
to "the fact that he had already established that he was
looking for a _copy_ from someone other than Franz Inc."
I don't actually know, or claim to know, exactly what you
were reading into the word "copy", but the fact that you
emphasised it makes it clear to me that you're reading
way more into it than I did; to me, the word had essentially
zero semantic content beyond distinguishing between the
abstract entity (Franz's implementation of CL) and one of
its instantiations (a copy of Allegro Common Lisp).
I repeat that I wouldn't dream of assuming that you don't
understand the language well because your native country
doesn't have English as its official language. I'm not
stupid.
Janos Blazi
> Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote:
> > Arne Knut Roev <akr...@online.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > FqnJ8...@online.no...
> >> Janos Blazi <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote:
> >> > Maybe these word by a great German Philosopher refer to me too, so I
> > shall
> >> > stop now.
> >>
> >> Deo Gratias!
> >
> > How polite! I have never been called this name before! :)
> > Janos Blazi
>
> Out of the mouth of idiots...
Thank you.
>
> (BTW: Since your other name seems to be something like "Hanns Mayer", are
> you by any chance residing at Mayerhof ?)
>
> (Quoting from the header: "X-Authenticated-User: hannsmayer")
From which header are you quoting? And I do not know, what "Mayerhof" means.
It could mean a hotel, a farm or something like this. It is a very usual
name so there are probably 1000 Mayerhofs in Germany.
Janos Blazi
>
> --
> Arne Knut Roev <akr...@online.no> Snail: N-6141 ROVDE, Norway
> =
> The Gates of Hell shall not prevail:
> Darkness now; then Light!
Xah
>[We should all jump off the bridge if Erik's
> fart smells like telling us to do so.]
I'm amazed at the number of sopho-moronic passionate kiddies who falls for
the Naggum juggernaut.
jonis, why don't you take a stroll to your local university library in the
isles of philosophy, and gape at the rows of wisdom before you. There are
universally recognized learned man in centuries past who are a bit more
mature and focused than your comp.lang.lisp hero. (assuming you are into
thinking.)
If you are into shit-eating of the Naggum brand, by all means. But don't
persuade your peers into it. In particular, i suggest you switch to the Xah
brand for a change of taste. It's equally wholesome to your brain, only more
zestful.
Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
----------
From: jo...@mt.lv
Organization: Latnet Internet News Site
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:37:49 +0200
Subject: Re: Allegro CL 5.0 Win32
In article <38b69956$1...@goliath.newsfeeds.com>, "Janos Blazi"
<jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote:
> Hello Doc! Back in town?
>
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.no> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 31604597...@naggum.no...
>> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de>
>> | But probably if somebody can prove beyond any doubt that he is mentally
>> | insane then he is not responsible for his actions or only responseble for
>> | them to some limited extend and will not be persecuted.
>>
>> 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.
>
> You are not telling the truth here. In fact when I was new to this newsgroup
> (to some extent I am still new to it) I was taken by surprise by the
> phenomenon Eric Naggum as everybody else. You started "flameing" me before I
> even knew what that word meant.
Because you must have been someone of those whome Erik really dislikes.
> 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.
This is not _my_ business but I would like to say some things as an
independant
reader of this newsgroup. As far as I have seen, Erik has not attacked
anyone
with no reason. If you want some do what I did today --- wisit page
http://www.naggum.no/erik/ and take take a look. (Although some of those
principles were expressed in this newsgroup this week they are all there in
one place for everybody to see _and_ learn).
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).
> Then you started blaming me for being a German:
[...]
> You hinted here, that I was a nazi, though you did not tell it explicitly.
There was no, event remote, hint about it. If you still do not understand
then all I can tell you is: people _must_ learn from mistakes especially
from
other's so they don't make them themselves.
Again, no offense intended.
> I have been watching this newsgroup for months and you are always busy
> flameing somebody. Why are you doing this?
I've been reading this newsgroup for just a week and I already know the
answer --- Erik is doing hard work of getting world better by showing
drooling idiots that they are drooling idiots.
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.
> 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.
Yes, until you get what he tells you. Sorry but the guy is not after you but
idiots. It just happened that you looked like one. I don't say you were
because I haven't read thos posts but I belive Erik does not attack anyone
without reason (if he does we should point out but I havent seen the case
this week).
> 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.
Not hard at all.
> 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.
You still have not read what Erik tries to tell you. Well, maybe you deserve
it?
> Janos Blazi
P.S. I would like to stress once more --- no offense intended. I just hope
you read more carefully next time. People can and _should_ change.
--
jonis
Xah
> 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.
But i annoy and haRass you but you don't react to me. Bummer!
I propound that my artistry for sophistry has surpassed yours, that you are
dumbfounded and agape with awe.
> 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.
Wow, another elliptical sentence from a discombobulating brain. (with my
name in it!)
Erik, if you think i'm here to revenge (if that word applies sensibly) then
you need to polish your psychoanalytical mirror and look at me again. Or,
perhaps you are getting old and getting sloppy. I -- like you -- don't
attack people but ideas and actions. In particular, i specialize in
attacking your ideas and actions. In the same sainty spirit of doing the
world a favor.
Pal, unburden the chain of moral duty around your neck. Join me in fucking
the world purely. I could perfect your penetration power and force of
clarity. Together with your technical brawn, we could turn newsgroups into a
giant Xah & Naggum shrine. For the first time, i'll show you a hatred you
could not have possibly imagined.
Frankly, i'm getting tired of doling out crafts of words. The main purpose i
came here spontaneously, was to learn, secondary from having fun. To be
perfectly honest, the subconscious ulterior motive being to sail my name a
bit with the help of yours. (would this confession earn me more respect or
despise?)
It won't go into your warty ears, but i wish you check your puerile verbiage
a bit and try not to spew really painful things. People are made of meat,
you know? When you are dead, i'll erect an obelisk in my backyard that will
say "Doctor Naggum visited this world".
there are rainbows outside,
Xah
x...@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
William Deakin
could you please tell me who your programmer is? I would like to report a bug.
Or could she supply documentation, and we could then call it a feature ;)
Best Regards,
:) will