eBook piracy, how common is it?

[tirsales]

Not going for the copyright discussion ATM - we will no convince PKFFW, because as (s)he is stating, s/o not sharing her/his believes is a psychopath and thus not prone to discuss. Sorry, but I am not going to discuss anything on those grounds.

Assume for one moment the following ... this is a rather stupid way to answer a real-world problem. After all I could answer the question "How could we solve worlds problems" in one sentence - "Assume that all problems are solved - qed" and use this to argument: Hey, no worries! (Its actually the same like "assume everythings shiny - is filesharing wrong? Yes? Then file-sharing is fundamentally wrong and oh-so-evil nowadays")

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Of course there are!

No there are NOT. There is nothing "absolute" - because an "absolute" would be true - no matter what. Theologists commonly argue "there is a moral absolute" (called god) - so far no proof of this one (fun fact: moral absolutes are not proof-able. They even cannot be falsified - thus their existence is not important. I will leave this research up to you (in fact its a point of believe. And I think we agree that "believe" should not matter in any reasonable discussion.

If you truly think there are no moral absolutes try this..........think of something you would really really not like to happen to you. I'd suggest being murdered in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever, as a good example. Now try to think up a rationalisation or reason as to why that would not be considered wrong.

Nope - that is not a moral absolute. A morale absolute would e.g. be "worthyness of human-life leading to 'you are not allowed to kill a human being, no matter what'". I would argue most strongly against that.
"Not being wanted to be murdered in cold blood no matter what" - yeah, I would not like this (OTOH: I dont think I would care, as I would be dead).

If you can't truly convince yourself then you've found your first moral absolute. If you can, then you are the classic definition of a psychopath.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

My point was that if no justification can be found for some "wrong" act, for example that there is no justification for a reasonless, cold blooded murder, then that is an absolute regardless of what one believes. Unless of course one is a psychopath, in which case, they could be considered an "outlier"(to use a statistical term) and their belief can be discounted for the sake of the discussion.

If you do not share my believes, you are a psychopath/soziopath/terrorist and thus are not entitled to argue with me. Yes! We found a fundamentalist!

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Seems to me you are playing semantics rather than simply answering.

And this from the person going over multiple posts over "sharing vs copying" ...

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Clearly you are not a mathematician

Actually I'm quite well versed in mathematics.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Not going for the copyright discussion ATM - we will no convince PKFFW, because as (s)he is stating, s/o not sharing her/his believes is a psychopath and thus not prone to discuss. Sorry, but I am not going to discuss anything on those grounds.

I never stated that anyone who does not share my beliefs is a psychopath. You have clearly either misunderstood me or are being intentionally obtuse.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Assume for one moment the following ... this is a rather stupid way to answer a real-world problem. After all I could answer the question "How could we solve worlds problems" in one sentence - "Assume that all problems are solved - qed" and use this to argument: Hey, no worries! (Its actually the same like "assume everythings shiny - is filesharing wrong? Yes? Then file-sharing is fundamentally wrong and oh-so-evil nowadays")

Not sure what you mean here as I simply can't understand the grammar and meaning of your wording

Originally Posted by tirsales

No there are NOT. There is nothing "absolute" - because an "absolute" would be true - no matter what. Theologists commonly argue "there is a moral absolute" (called god) - so far no proof of this one (fun fact: moral absolutes are not proof-able. They even cannot be falsified - thus their existence is not important. I will leave this research up to you (in fact its a point of believe. And I think we agree that "believe" should not matter in any reasonable discussion.

1: No proof does not mean it does not exist.
2: You may think they are not important but that is simply your opinion.
3: You may think "belive" should not matter in a reasonable discussion but that is again only your opinion.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Nope - that is not a moral absolute. A morale absolute would e.g. be "worthyness of human-life leading to 'you are not allowed to kill a human being, no matter what'". I would argue most strongly against that.
"Not being wanted to be murdered in cold blood no matter what" - yeah, I would not like this (OTOH: I dont think I would care, as I would be dead).

Incorrect.

As I have already disucussed, killing someone can be justifiable and "right" depending on the circumstances and therefore would not be an absolute.

An absolute would be a specific and therefore you would not be able to apply a certain part or quality of that specific to other circumstances. Example, "premeditated murder" is an absolute(just as an example) That is specific. I am not saying "any and all killing of a human being is wrong" as that is not specific. See the difference?

So to argue that just because "any and all killing of a human being" is not an absolute means that "premeditated murder" is not an absolute is non-sensical. To aruge such would be no different to saying "because an orange isn't an apple then all apples aren't apples".

Originally Posted by tirsales

If you do not share my believes, you are a psychopath/soziopath/terrorist and thus are not entitled to argue with me. Yes! We found a fundamentalist!

Have you truly misunderstood me? Is English not your first language and therefore you have mistaken my meaning?(honest question and not trying to be rude)

Or are you utilizing a straw man arguement? Or maybe just trying to be obnoxious?

I don't think anyone else in this thread has taken my meaning to be "if you do not share my beliefs you are a psychopath/sociopath/terrorist(I never even used the last two words for gods sake!)"

If you are not trying to be intentionally rude then I suggest you do one of two things....
1: Ask for clarification before jumping to assumptions
or
2: Learn to read and comprehend the english language fully before attempting to join a discussion with those more fluent in the language than you.

Originally Posted by tirsales

And this from the person going over multiple posts over "sharing vs copying" ...

Firstly, Sharing Vs Copying is not semantics. The two are completely different processes and the meaning of each must be made clear and understood by all before discussion can take place.

Secondly, I was merely trying to point out that the picture posted by the person I originally replied to stated that the process was copying and therefore to suggest it was sharing without the process of copying taking place was a bit disengenious.

Finally, I wont bother responding to you any further as it is obvious you either do not understand the written word well enough to enable discussion without far too much effort or you are intentionally misinterpreting my meaning in an attempt to be rude and obnoxious.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I don't think anyone else in this thread has taken my meaning to be "if you do not share my beliefs you are a psychopath/sociopath/terrorist(I never even used the last two words for gods sake!)"

Actually, that was the impression I got - one reason why I didn't want to get involved with debating your points.

[tirsales]

Yes, I am not a native english speaker - actually I am from Germany. And there I was believing that my profile (see location field) and signature might give a clue.

@all: I do apologize if my usage of the language is bad.
@PKFFW: You are rude - Consider reading the netiquette.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Actually I'm quite well versed in mathematics.

Which is (by far) not the same as being a mathematician.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I never stated that anyone who does not share my beliefs is a psychopath. You have clearly either misunderstood me or are being intentionally obtuse.

Of course you did:

My point was that if no justification can be found for some "wrong" act, for example that there is no justification for a reasonless, cold blooded murder, then that is an absolute regardless of what one believes. Unless of course one is a psychopath, in which case, they could be considered an "outlier"(to use a statistical term) and their belief can be discounted for the sake of the discussion.

You stated that either one shares this conviction or one is a psychopath (and thus not relevant for this discussion).
AFAIK and IIRC approx 2-3% of the people are (to some degree) psychopaths or sociopaths (I dont have the source ATM).
Before you are misunderstanding me here: I do not argue against your point (merely against its tone, its usage as a moral absolute and its dismissive nature).

Not sure what you mean here as I simply can't understand the grammar and meaning of your wording

Rephrasing: Making an example that lists a set of unreal prerequisites is easy. Forcing this example into a real-world discussion might be harder - but it still adds no real value to this discussion.
Thus: Stating "if (list of prerequisits) would be fulfilled, would file sharing be wrong" does not answer the question whether file sharing is fundamentally wrong - and most assuredly not whether it is wrong at the moment.

1: No proof does not mean it does not exist.

Nor does it mean that it exists. And yes, I am an atheist - not that this matters (to any degree) for this discussion, just to clarify this point in advance.
But: I do believe that "points that cannot be proven" have no meaning - I could just as well state "piracy is actually the only thing that keeps the business working". I believe that we both can agree that without prove this claim would be worthless.
Same rules for everything please - no prove, no meaning.

Incorrect.

dito.

As I have already disucussed, killing someone can be justifiable and "right" depending on the circumstances and therefore would not be an absolute.

You might consider working on your definition of a moral absolute - it's not about finding "the minimal consensus which I will define" but more "a law that cannot be disregarded or argumented against no matter what". And surely "no matter what" does not is not the same as "long list of prerequisites".

An absolute would be a specific and therefore you would not be able to apply a certain part or quality of that specific to other circumstances. Example, "premeditated murder" is an absolute(just as an example) That is specific. I am not saying "any and all killing of a human being is wrong" as that is not specific. See the difference?

Of course. Still I say that a hypothesis that depends on a long list of pre-requisits is not an absolute (moral standard). Oh and btw: It would be possible to argue against it - thus it is not a moral absolute.

So to argue that just because "any and all killing of a human being" is not an absolute means that "premeditated murder" is not an absolute is non-sensical. To aruge such would be no different to saying "because an orange isn't an apple then all apples aren't apples".

Actually: No. I am merely stating that "cold-blooded murder without possible reason, benefit or motivation" is not a moral absolute.
Oh and dont forget - there might be very good reasons for premeditated murder. Example: Assume there is an evil person (say: a child-molester). There is no legal way of stopping him (no evidence, nothing) - still you know without any doubt that he is a child-molester and that he is going to continue (molesting and killing children). Do you have the right to kill this person in cold blood? I would argue yes (if, and only if, it is the only way of stopping said monster and there is not a shadow of a possible doubt of his/her guild and intention to carry on). Thus - no moral absolute.
(btw: The government of the USA is arguing the same way because they actively try to kill terrorists if they cannot imprison them. On a moral base this is cold-blooded and premeditated murder.)
You might consider "god" as a moral absolute (cannot argue against him (see: no proof)), but I would not accept it (see Atheist).

Have you truly misunderstood me? Is English not your first language and therefore you have mistaken my meaning?(honest question and not trying to be rude)

See above.

Or maybe just trying to be obnoxious?

Let me look it up - nope, not trying to be obnoxious. Actually I never did (might have been, but never intentionally so).
But I still claim that stating "either you share my conviction regarding cold-blooded murder or you are a psychopath and thus not relevant to a discussion" is plain wrong.
Either you are willing to discuss ANY believe - or none at all.

If you are not trying to be intentionally rude then I suggest you do one of two things....
1: Ask for clarification before jumping to assumptions
or
2: Learn to read and comprehend the english language fully before attempting to join a discussion with those more fluent in the language than you.

Running out of arguments?

Firstly, Sharing Vs Copying is not semantics. The two are completely different processes and the meaning of each must be made clear and understood by all before discussion can take place.

Which is a discussion about the meaning of the word "sharing" (semantic).

Secondly, I was merely trying to point out that the picture posted by the person I originally replied to stated that the process was copying and therefore to suggest it was sharing without the process of copying taking place was a bit disengenious.

Might have swapped you with another user - but I am fairly certain that you were making this point "file sharing vs file copying" before the picture was posted.

Finally, I wont bother responding to you any further as it is obvious you either do not understand the written word well enough to enable discussion without far too much effort or you are intentionally misinterpreting my meaning in an attempt to be rude and obnoxious.

I am fairly good in my understanding of the english language. I might not be good enough in my active usage of the language (e.g. stating my intentions) - but this is another point. So please dont go on insulting without prior knowledge.
(Oh and btw: You are not even trying to argue against my points, merely stating them as unrelated, wrong or 'written badly, thus irrelevant'. You are the one who should seriously think about his argumentative tactics).

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Actually, that was the impression I got - one reason why I didn't want to get involved with debating your points.

Well then you should try reading my posts again.

To reference the quote tirsales had a go at, I stated murder as "an example", I also said "if" no justification could be found.

In other posts I went to some lenghts to make it clear that I was referring to a "moral code" that was simply "I can kill anyone I like and it is good because I say it is good" or something simliar. This is not a moral code by any definition of the term. It is an abberation of an individual trying to justify what they are doing. An abberation in statistical terms is known as an "outlier" and in many cases is simply ignored in the results so as to make relevant conclusions possible.

I stated in another post that for the relevance of the discussion these kinds of "outliers" should be ignored as they add nothing to the discussion.

I never stated anything remotely like "if you do not agree with my moral code you are a psychopath or terrorist".

So perhaps you and tirsales should try reading all my posts in conjunction and fully understanding them rather than taking one particular quote and coming to an assuption about what you think I mean.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes, I am not a native english speaker - actually I am from Germany. And there I was believing that my profile (see location field) and signature might give a clue.

@all: I do apologize if my usage of the language is bad.

I've certainly never had any problems understanding what you say (um, should that be type? ). To be honest, I usually forget you're not a native English speaker.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Actually I'm quite well versed in mathematics....

But, strangely, not in logic....

[PKFFW]

Ok, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try one more time.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Yes, I am not a native english speaker - actually I am from Germany. And there I was believing that my profile (see location field) and signature might give a clue.

That you live in Germany does not mean your native language is German. My brother lives there too but hardly speaks German.

See I do not make assumptions about you based on where you live. Perhaps you should try doing the same when it comes to something in my post you obviously do not understand. Particularly when your assumption about my meaning clearly contradicts what I have posted in many of my other posts.

Originally Posted by tirsales

@all: I do apologize if my usage of the language is bad.
@PKFFW: You are rude - Consider reading the netiquette.

You were rude first. Like attracts like.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Which is (by far) not the same as being a mathematician.

No it is not. And your point is?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Of course you did:
You stated that either one shares this conviction or one is a psychopath (and thus not relevant for this discussion).

See my reply to Sparrow

Originally Posted by tirsales

AFAIK and IIRC approx 2-3% of the people are (to some degree) psychopaths or sociopaths (I dont have the source ATM).

Yes, and your point is?

As an example, if we were discussing a disease that only affected white people what relevence to the discussion would be the % number of people that are black or asian or anything but white?

We are discussing "moral codes" and as far as I know a moral code that consists of "I can kill whoever I like and it is good because I say it is good" does not conform with any definition of a moral code. Hence why I stated a moral code like this would be the ravings of a psychopath and not relevant to a discussion about moral codes.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Before you are misunderstanding me here: I do not argue against your point (merely against its tone, its usage as a moral absolute and its dismissive nature).

First, understand my point. To do this you should read all my posts and try to understand my meaning rather than take one post in particular and extrapolate from there an assumption about what I mean.

Next you should realise that "tone" is something that is very difficult to get across in the written word unless one is an experienced and perhaps even professional writer.

After that you might see that arguing against someones tone when you may have misinterpreted the tone and arguing against the usage of their point when you don't understand their point to begin with is far from constructive.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Rephrasing: Making an example that lists a set of unreal prerequisites is easy. Forcing this example into a real-world discussion might be harder - but it still adds no real value to this discussion.
Thus: Stating "if (list of prerequisits) would be fulfilled, would file sharing be wrong" does not answer the question whether file sharing is fundamentally wrong - and most assuredly not whether it is wrong at the moment.

Did I ever say my "list of prerequisites" had anything at all to do with the real world or is that another one of your assumptions?

As for file copying, why should it be ok for you to add a list of prerequisites to state why it is ok but it should be wrong for me to add a set of prerequisites to try to ascertain if it would be wrong in those circumstances? And remember, I specifically stated that I was trying to determine if people thought it would be wrong under those specific circumstances.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Nor does it mean that it exists. And yes, I am an atheist - not that this matters (to any degree) for this discussion, just to clarify this point in advance.

Never did I say that no proof means it does exist.

And no it doesn't matter. Couldn't care less if you are an atheist or not.

Originally Posted by tirsales

But: I do believe that "points that cannot be proven" have no meaning - I could just as well state "piracy is actually the only thing that keeps the business working". I believe that we both can agree that without prove this claim would be worthless.
Same rules for everything please - no prove, no meaning.

Firstly, again your belief that points that cannot be proven have no meaning is your belief only.

Secondly, if you think "points that cannot be proven" have no meaning then why have you even bothered joining the discussion in the first place? Since we are discussing things that you obviously think have no meaning.

Thirdly, if you stated "piracy is actually the only thing that keeps the business working" I could show you a heap of evidence that directly contradicts this assertion. Therefore your claim would indeed be worthless. To go on believing and arguing for something when all the available evidence directly refutes the claim is a bit silly if you ask me.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might consider working on your definition of a moral absolute - it's not about finding "the minimal consensus which I will define" but more "a law that cannot be disregarded or argumented against no matter what". And surely "no matter what" does not is not the same as "long list of prerequisites".

Do you understand the difference between something that is specific and something that is general?

A moral absolute must be something that comes with prerequisites because it must be specific.

"Killing humans is wrong" is not a moral absolute because it is a general blanket statement that is not specific. Killing humans can indeed be justified in some circumstances.

"Premeditated murder of a human being for no reason at all"(as an example only!!!) may be considered and absolute(note the reference to "may", I'm not necessarily stating that it is!) because it is specific.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Of course. Still I say that a hypothesis that depends on a long list of pre-requisits is not an absolute (moral standard). Oh and btw: It would be possible to argue against it - thus it is not a moral absolute.

You are arguing something that can not be proven here therefore by your own reasoning it must have no meaning!

Your assertion that a "hypothesis that depends on a long list of pre-requisites is not an absolute (moral standard)" can not be proven as it is simply your own opinion.

So should I respond rationally by discussing your meaning and point or should I simply say "your point has no meaning" as you would? I guess I will rationally respond.

As I've explained before, a moral absolute must be specific. It can not be any other way. A general blanket statement about anything can not apply to all situations so how could it possibly be an absolute? Something that is specific by definition must come with prerequisites.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Actually: No. I am merely stating that "cold-blooded murder without possible reason, benefit or motivation" is not a moral absolute.
Oh and dont forget - there might be very good reasons for premeditated murder. Example: Assume there is an evil person (say: a child-molester). There is no legal way of stopping him (no evidence, nothing) - still you know without any doubt that he is a child-molester and that he is going to continue (molesting and killing children). Do you have the right to kill this person in cold blood? I would argue yes (if, and only if, it is the only way of stopping said monster and there is not a shadow of a possible doubt of his/her guild and intention to carry on). Thus - no moral absolute.

So there is no proof but you "know without any doubt" that 1: he is a child-molester and 2: that he will continue to molest children?

Ok, if you know without any doubt he has molested children then there is some proof. At the very least there is your testimony as either a victim or an eyewitness. Maybe not enough to get him convicted but still some proof and therefore enough to have him investigated. This investigation may lead to further proof.

Secondly, for you to know without any doubt that he will continue to molest children you must be able to see the future with 100% accuracy. I would argue this is impossible and therefore a facetious argument to begin with.

So in short, your argument that cold blooded premeditated murder could be ok in this circumstance is full of holes and therefore does not negate the idea of premeditated murder being an absolute moral wrong.(note, I am not stating that it is, it is simply an example)

Originally Posted by tirsales

(btw: The government of the USA is arguing the same way because they actively try to kill terrorists if they cannot imprison them. On a moral base this is cold-blooded and premeditated murder.)

And your point?

It is premeditated murder and my remarks above pertain to this matter in the same way.

Originally Posted by tirsales

You might consider "god" as a moral absolute (cannot argue against him (see: no proof)), but I would not accept it (see Atheist).

Never did I bring up God in this discussion. Only you have, which seems odd since you state you are an atheist.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Let me look it up - nope, not trying to be obnoxious. Actually I never did (might have been, but never intentionally so).

Never did and never intentionally so are two different things.

You were obnoxious and if you re-read your post and you understand the term correctly you will see where you were.

Originally Posted by tirsales

But I still claim that stating "either you share my conviction regarding cold-blooded murder or you are a psychopath and thus not relevant to a discussion" is plain wrong.

That is not what I stated, that is your assumption of what I meant by what I stated.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Either you are willing to discuss ANY believe - or none at all.

There are some things that are not relevent to a discussion.

If we were discussing apples and someone believed oranges were apples should we be obliged to consider that possibility? No, there is an accepted definition of what an apple is and it doesn't matter if one person believes an orange conforms to that definition therefore it is simply not relevent to the discussion.

It is the same with moral codes. There is an accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes. Within that definition is scope for many and varied moral codes, some of which might be diametrically opposed to others but they all conform to the accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes.

A moral code that states "I can do whatever I like and if I say it is good then it is good simply because I said so" does not conform to any accepted definition of what a moral code constitutes and therefore is simply not relevant to a discussion about moral codes.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Running out of arguments?

You are the one who has used one big straw man argument, twisting my meaning by quoting a single post out of context with my other posts, in order to argue against me. So who is running out of arguments here?

Originally Posted by tirsales

Which is a discussion about the meaning of the word "sharing" (semantic).

Stating categorically that the meaning of a word is something other than it is is simply wrong. Correcting that error is not semantics.

Semantics would be discussing whether or not the stated meaning of a word is correct or not.

Originally Posted by tirsales

Might have swapped you with another user - but I am fairly certain that you were making this point "file sharing vs file copying" before the picture was posted.

You are wrong. I was not discussing file sharing vs file copying before the picture was posted.

That discussion arose out of the fact that someone seemingly took offence to my saying that file sharing was a euphemism.

Originally Posted by tirsales

I am fairly good in my understanding of the english language. I might not be good enough in my active usage of the language (e.g. stating my intentions) - but this is another point. So please dont go on insulting without prior knowledge.

Well then if your understanding of english is good I can only assume you have intentionally taken a single post of mine out of context, extrapolated from this isolated post some assumptions about my meaning and then proceeded to argue based on those assumptions and not on my meaning.

That doesn't seem like a mature and rational way to go about a discussion. Hence why I thought it may be your lack of understanding of the english language. I would rather think you simply lacked understanding than think you were being intentionally argumentative, rude and obnoxious.

I guess I was wrong and you were indeed being intentionally argumentative, rude and obnoxious.

Originally Posted by tirsales

(Oh and btw: You are not even trying to argue against my points, merely stating them as unrelated, wrong or 'written badly, thus irrelevant'. You are the one who should seriously think about his argumentative tactics).

That is very funny coming from someone who went to great lengths to create a straw man of my points to argue against rather than debating my points directly!!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

But, strangely, not in logic....

Wrong again.

You may disagree with my conclusions but that does not mean either my conclusions are indeed wrong or that my logic is faulty. To argue such without putting forward any supporting evidence is in fact evidence of faulty logic on your part.

I always find it funny that those who can't argue logically themselves are the ones who end up accusing others of faulty logic.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Wrong again.

You may disagree with my conclusions but that does not mean either my conclusions are indeed wrong or that my logic is faulty. To argue such without putting forward any supporting evidence is in fact evidence of faulty logic on your part.
...

Frankly, arguing with you is much like arguing with the TV.

Plus, your religious absolutism doesn't make arguing with you fun, or educational. At least arguing about morals.

So, I confine myself to short replies, if any.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Well then you should try reading my posts again.

Then maybe also some other people should try to read your posts again.

In a lot of your posts you are requesting that someone else "should try" to do something or that something "should be considered". Who are you that you know what we "should try or consider"? (It's just a rhetorical question and i don't want or expect an answer)
Please accept that some people here just disagree with you and your arguments and please don't tell other people again and again that they are not able to understand you or your arguments or that they are not arguing "logically".

Sorry to say but it just sucks to read your caustically posts with the same recurring pointless arguments and little errors again and again. Could it be that it's just time for you to make room for other posters?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Frankly, arguing with you is much like arguing with the TV.

So you argue with your tv do you?

Originally Posted by Sonist

Plus, your religious absolutism doesn't make arguing with you fun, or educational. At least arguing about morals.

So, I confine myself to short replies, if any.

I have never argued for religuious absolutism. I am not a religious person.


Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Then maybe also some other people should try to read your posts again.

In a lot of your posts you are requesting that someone else "should try" to do something or that something "should be considered". Who are you that you know what we "should try or consider"? (It's just a rhetorical question and i don't want or expect an answer)

If someone has clearly misrepresented what I have said, if they claim I have stated something I have not, if they take a single post out of context and disregard my other clarifying posts in order to twist my meaning then I will ask them to read my post again.

As for considering, I have only ever asked them to consider the meaning of what I have posted so they ensure, to the best of their ability, that they understand my point before replyinig.

I think that only fair and reasonable. Why should I accept someone intentionally or otherwise misrepresenting what I have said? Why should I discuss something when the other person is discussing from a standpoint of misdirection and subterfuge?

Originally Posted by netseeker

Please accept that some people here just disagree with you and your arguments and please don't tell other people again and again that they are not able to understand you or your arguments or that they are not arguing "logically".

I do accept that some(perhaps all) disagree with me.

What I will not accept is someone (seemingly intentionally since they claim to understand english and my point) claiming I am stating something I am not and then proceeding to argue why they disagree with my supposed point. They even went so far as to say I stated something and then quoted a passage of mine(supposedly in support of their claim) which, whilst seemingly similar, was not what they claimed I had stated!

Originally Posted by netseeker

Sorry to say but it just sucks to read your caustically posts with the same recurring pointless arguments and little errors again and again. Could it be that it's just time for you to make room for other posters?

Then why do you continue to read them? Do you make a habit of doing things that "just suck"?

And if you are going to claim there are little errors again and again then you should at least have the decency to back up the claim. Oh wait, I guess I'm the only one required to back up claims that others disagree with right?

As for making room for other posters, if someone replies to me and I feel like responding to said reply, I will.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Blue Tyson]

As for how common, it will absolutely get more common as they have begun to refuse to sell to us, based on location, same as for movies and tv.