Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
eschwartz, could you tell me the source file and line number(s) that have the check for library books, please? Since I believe this would be too detailed and would be against the posting rules, would you please PM me. Thank you.
|
NO, I absolutely will not...
I will restrain myself from saying something I
know to be untrue out of a misguided desire to spread a futile misinformation campaign; that doesn't mean I will actively go around helping people figure out how to use the tools for theft....
Or discuss the details of the tools, something which is most assuredly against the forum Guidelines in the most definitive of ways.
If it is against the rules, why would I
want to PM it to you?
Isn't that a sign that I should shut my mouth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
If this was a general question, than I agree, Apprentice Alf would be the place to ask.
Let me quote the moderator:
Quote:
|
Unless you know for sure, don't assume something is deliberately false. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone is wrong, you can call him on it, so long as you don't use "attack" words or question motivations. A simple statement to the extent that something is incorrect should suffice.
|
I'm trying not to assume eschwartz is deliberately posting false information, so I would like to see the code. Maybe it is a mis-understanding of how the code works?
Without seeing the actual code, how could I know for sure? |
Because... just like issybird said, you don't know for sure, therefore don't assume I'm deliberately wrong? Which is not the same as "assume someone is
inadvertently wrong until they can prove under oath that they are correct".
Do you know I'm wrong, and are therefore calling me on it as issybird suggested? Or are you "concerned" that I
may be wrong, which issybird said nothing whatsoever about?
If you don't know how to read and audit code, you won't know a lot of things for sure -- you'll have to trust other people that all kinds of software you likely use daily isn't malicious, and here you are worrying that you have no way of knowing if Alf really tries to stop you from stealing library books?
In this case, you will have to trust I am not mistaken.
Or persist in the face of my refusal as well as moderator warnings (here and elsewhere -- it isn't that difficult to see their pattern, they've always been clear on where the lines are...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
I give up. I can not make heads or tails of the MR rules in this matter. Eschwartz is allowed to make a direct statement about the code, but I can't even ask him to PM me a reference verifying his statement. It makes no sense to me.  |
It is VERY simple.
I made an apparently incorrect statement that the tools don't work on library ebooks.
I was informed otherwise.
I said that the tools do have code that was designed to reject library ebooks. In fact, if you ask on Alf's blog, they will tell you the plugin is not meant to work on library ebooks.
Now you want pointers to the code in question, and an explanation of how it is intended to detect library ebooks.
Do you see where that crossed the line?
(This is all true irrespective of whether that code works as intended.)