Quote:
Originally Posted by thrawn_aj
*Sigh* Oh Grimm, Don't waste your time on these anti-semantic  individuals...Pot, kettle, etc... |
Unfortunately, MR's quote function won't reproduce entire quotes so I've done so below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
I'm not playing anything with you. There is a world of difference between civil and criminal. To pretend there is not is disingenuous at best, outright ignorant at worst.
*Sigh* Oh Grimm, Don't waste your time on these anti-semantic individuals. They miss the point that when laws are written (literally) by lobbyists, semantics are the sole defense of the beleaguered masses. It's an ideological thing - not amenable to reason or (especially) consistency. For instance -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
Quote:
Originally Posted by edbro
I'm going to have to be more careful. I just got out of jail for ripping the tag off my mattress. I certainly don't want to go back.
That warning on the tag applies only if you are selling the mattress. It does not apply to the end user.
How about the generic warning on paper books?
Quote:
No part of this book may be reproduced or redistributed in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher/author.
Or does that not apply to the end users either (specifically, the bookscanners)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
We weren't discussing penalties here, just whether something was illegal or not. In this instance, Grimm, your bringing the difference was semantical nitpicking. Too often here, I've seen legal semantics used as an argument to condone doing something illegal just because the penalties or the method of prosecution was different. However, it doesn't matter if one carries a lighter penalty (even to the point of being virtually nonexistant), if it's illegal, it's illegal.
Yes. Like the first half and (especially) the last sentence of this? Pot, kettle, etc...
Your comments here continue to support my belief you are an arrogant piece of work. Your mocking of what I had to say about the mattress tag, for example. What I said is true. If you aren't too lazy, you could just Google it but here are a couple of linls for your convenience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_label
http://www.articlesbase.com/home-and-family-articles/do-not-remove-your-mattress-tag-under-penalty-of-law-270578.html
The tag issue has nothing to do with the book warning issue.
At no time did I say the difference between civil and criminal law was not significant. I only pointed out that the difference was not applicable in the case of the original argument. At this point, based on this post of yours, I'm convinced you don't care and are just using it as an opportunity to further harrass me because the truth about your arrogance hurts (and, at this point, ignorance can be added to the list). Otherwise, what would be the purpose of dredging up references to my bookscanning?