Quote:
Originally Posted by thrawn_aj
That's the second time you've resorted to name-calling after running out of rational arguments. If you can't keep a civil tongue, or participate in a reason-based discussion as a human being, I have nothing more to say to you. It is sad that a (presumably) mature woman feels the need to stoop to such sophomoric insults simply because she can't admit a mistake (or at least admit that she has no valid rebuttal at the present time even while disagreeing with her opponent - that would be a valid position to take).
I have been unfailingly polite throughout our entire conversation (if I can stretch the definition of "conversation" that far). I have also refrained from engaging in personalities (until now). Pity that the same could not be said of you. When I saw your reply in this thread, I sincerely felt that perhaps you were trying to atone for your disgusting parting rant in the other thread by trying to maintain a constructive discussion with a civil tone in this one. Hah! How embarrassingly naive of me.
There is nothing more irritating than a person who seems to think that flipping the chess board (in addition to certain appendages) is the only way to save face in a losing game.
"Library" isn't defined?  I feel like I'm talking to Bill Clinton here. Whence the restriction to "employees" then?
It is indescribably amusing that this entire line of argument (which I agree with by the way - something you might have gleaned from my posts thus far had you been paying attention - does the phrase "devil's advocate" mean nothing to you?), but in the context of DRM was summarily dismissed by you and others with the casual (and annoyingly recurrent) refrain of "lame rationalization". I believe you also used the words "legal semantic abuse". 
Inconsistent doesn't even begin to describe it. I truly admire your ability to hold such contradictory principles all in one mind. Awe-inspiring is what it is.
The funniest thing is of course the point that you have studiously (and pointedly) chosen to ignore - the matter of the "seller's terms" which you claimed to hold to with such religious fervor. I asked you a simple question - the seller's terms, printed quite clearly in the front of every book, forbids you from reproducing the book in any form. Clearly, you have no answer to that.
So, suddenly distribution is relevant?  And I could ask you the same thing about DRM-removal (prosecution and conviction for breaking DRM). The 'you' in the other thread would have called it ... what else? -"lame rationalization". I have never claimed to be a lawyer - all my citations were followed by a plea for clarification/rebuttal in case I made a mistake. I have still not received any such thing. You said there was a fair use exemption - there is no such thing for private persons not employed by a library or other archival institution. It is (as is DRM-breaking), an unenforceable violation and no one is stupid enough to try to enforce it. It is intellectually dishonest to take that fact as proof that it is legal. Isn't that what you were trying to tell me about DRM?
I look forward to your scintillating reply - the ever-witty "whatever" or perhaps the latest in juvenile insults (I believe you promised something in the equine category). Or perhaps a hilarious accusation of "quoting things out of context"? My bet is on "drive-by silence". |
I calls them as I sees them. Whether you intended them to be or or not, your so called polite posts came across exceedingly arrogant; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply.