Bruce Chambers is a coward & a liar!

>"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
a "fair use"; the
>copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
such a use." - U. S.
>Supreme Court

I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.

I read your "fair use" page a while back but since it
had "This is a parody!" written on it, I didn't think you
meant it.

[Alan]

Kurt,

I went to your Web page about an hour ago, and my AV detection warned me
about a Trojan called DEVIL(1).HTM when I clicked on the link for
"eXPerience the Internet Explorer browser flaw for yourself."

I don't think you would deliberately put a virus in your site. Is this more
of your sense of humor shining through?

Alan

> wrote in message
...
>
> >"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
> a "fair use"; the
> >copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to
> such a use." - U. S.
> >Supreme Court
>
> I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
> occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
> of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
> wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
> narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
> various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
>
> I read your "fair use" page a while back but since it
> had "This is a parody!" written on it, I didn't think you
> meant it.
>

[Ian Merrithew]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:

> I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
> occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
> of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
> wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
> narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
> various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.

OK -- so where is the flaw or flaws in kurt's argument? I lurk here all
the time, occasionally posting, and I've never seen a coherant rebuttal of
kurt's position. Usually it boils to, "Because Microsoft says so!"

The only good counter-argument I've ever seen was on groklaw where I
briefly raised this topic; the counter was to look at Congressional intent
when passing Section 117 (the section that states installation & use of a
legally-owned copy of software on "a machine" is not an infringement of
copyright). The argument is, Congress would not have intended that a
business owner could just go out into a store, buy a copy of software off
the shelf, then legally install that copy on every computer in the
business. Which is a logical extension of kurt's position (when you take
into account the quirky legal status of corporations as "artificial
persons", anyway). I think this borders on a slippery-slope fallacy,
myself (it doesn't qualify as a reason that a real person can do multiple
installs on his own machines for personal use), but it's at least a
coherant argument.

As for the subject of this thread -- in one of my forays into this
subject, he flat-out told me (after repeatedly failing to logically
counter my arguments) that if I wasn't a lawyer, I shouldn't be
expressing a "legal opinion" on whether multiple installations for home
use was noninfringing, even though he himself was, for the longest time,
insisting that doing so violated copyright law and was therefore illegal,
despite the fact he's no lawyer *either*. Brucey's a copy-and-paste
master who has no desire for a serious discussion on the issue because
he's too afraid he'd be proven wrong -- much like Microsoft.

--
Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org

[kurttrail]

wrote:

>> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
> a "fair use"; the
>> copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
>> - U. S. Supreme Court
>
> I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
> occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
> of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
> wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
> narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
> various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.

When the use is public, that would be true, but for the private
non-commercial use in the home, the courts have a much more liberal view of
"fair use." And that's the main reason MS has *NEVER* tried to enforce the
Useage terms of their EULA on private individuals by legal means. They are
too afraid they'd lose, and miss out on all the people that they FUD into
buying more copies of software than they really need.

>
> I read your "fair use" page a while back but since it
> had "This is a parody!" written on it, I didn't think you
> meant it.

Parody is about the design, and the take off on MS's PA FAQ, not the content
of my words. I stand by my words with every breath left in my body.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

>-----Original Message-----
>On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:
> Usually it boils to, "Because Microsoft says so!"

In my case it boils down to: My IP attorney says so.
Your attorney may vary. (There are some specifics that
he mentioned like you may copy 15% for a legitimate
review etc. and he said something about most potential
clients defenses boiling down to "I just wanted to" which
isn't protected, but I may be getting some of the details
wrong.)

I suggest you check with your attorney rather than
listening to me or another Internet poster who adds "This
is a parody!" to his argument.

[kurttrail]

wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:
>> Usually it boils to, "Because Microsoft says so!"
>
> In my case it boils down to: My IP attorney says so.
> Your attorney may vary. (There are some specifics that
> he mentioned like you may copy 15% for a legitimate
> review etc. and he said something about most potential
> clients defenses boiling down to "I just wanted to" which
> isn't protected, but I may be getting some of the details
> wrong.)
>
> I suggest you check with your attorney rather than
> listening to me or another Internet poster who adds "This
> is a parody!" to his argument.

LOL! Again your talking about "public" and/or in the "commercial" realm of
"fairly using" copyright material. For private use in the home, the courts
have never imposed any 15% nonsense.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Ian Merrithew wrote:

> The only good counter-argument I've ever seen was on groklaw where I
> briefly raised this topic; the counter was to look at Congressional
> intent when passing Section 117 (the section that states installation
> & use of a legally-owned copy of software on "a machine" is not an
> infringement of copyright). The argument is, Congress would not have
> intended that a business owner could just go out into a store, buy a
> copy of software off the shelf, then legally install that copy on
> every computer in the business. Which is a logical extension of
> kurt's position (when you take into account the quirky legal status
> of corporations as "artificial persons", anyway). I think this
> borders on a slippery-slope fallacy, myself (it doesn't qualify as a
> reason that a real person can do multiple installs on his own
> machines for personal use), but it's at least a coherant argument.

In 1976, when the part that I "translated" from Section 117 was written, a
business couldn't just run down to the local store and pick up a retail copy
of software, so who knows what that Congress's intent really was. That's
why I like the following quote so much.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote:

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the
limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance
of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be
encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the
cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the
other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair
return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this
incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring
the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the general benefits derived by
the public from the labors of authors' . . . . When technological change has
rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in
light of this basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

"When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the
Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose."

Would enforcing the *multiple* sale of the same copyrighted material to the
same individual, "serve the cause of promoting broad public availability" of
copyrighted software?

If I were the judge that saw this hypothetical "Shrink-wrap license" vs.
Section 117 case, I'd split the baby in half. I'd rule that MS's EULA is a
valid commercial-use contract, but for private non-commercial use, I rule in
favor of the rights of the individual over that of the copyright owner, "for
the general *public* good," because Section 117 serves the "cause of
promoting broad public availability" of software.

> As for the subject of this thread -- in one of my forays into this
> subject, he flat-out told me (after repeatedly failing to logically
> counter my arguments) that if I wasn't a lawyer, I shouldn't be
> expressing a "legal opinion" on whether multiple installations for
> home use was noninfringing, even though he himself was, for the
> longest time, insisting that doing so violated copyright law and was
> therefore illegal, despite the fact he's no lawyer *either*.
> Brucey's a copy-and-paste master who has no desire for a serious
> discussion on the issue because he's too afraid he'd be proven wrong
> -- much like Microsoft.

Yeah, and he even copied & pasted his lies about my site too. That's why I
started this, to nip it in the bud, before it takes another 2 year campaign
to get him change his tune.

He should be a MAN, and either show everyone here where my web site "openly
advocates lying and
software piracy," or apologize for his lies! But Brucey rather hide from
the consequences of HIS OWN WORDS, rather than be a MAN of his word and face
me like a MAN! But knowing him to be both a coward & a liar, "if not
technically," I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to act like a
MAN, instead of the chickensh*t douchebag that he really is.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Michael Stevens]

"Ian Merrithew" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:
>
> > I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
> > occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
> > of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
> > wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
> > narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
> > various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
>
> OK -- so where is the flaw or flaws in kurt's argument? I lurk here all
> the time, occasionally posting, and I've never seen a coherant rebuttal of
> kurt's position. Usually it boils to, "Because Microsoft says so!"
>
> The only good counter-argument I've ever seen was on groklaw where I
> briefly raised this topic; the counter was to look at Congressional intent
> when passing Section 117 (the section that states installation & use of a
> legally-owned copy of software on "a machine" is not an infringement of
> copyright). The argument is, Congress would not have intended that a
> business owner could just go out into a store, buy a copy of software off
> the shelf, then legally install that copy on every computer in the
> business. Which is a logical extension of kurt's position (when you take
> into account the quirky legal status of corporations as "artificial
> persons", anyway). I think this borders on a slippery-slope fallacy,
> myself (it doesn't qualify as a reason that a real person can do multiple
> installs on his own machines for personal use), but it's at least a
> coherant argument.
>
> As for the subject of this thread -- in one of my forays into this
> subject, he flat-out told me (after repeatedly failing to logically
> counter my arguments) that if I wasn't a lawyer, I shouldn't be
> expressing a "legal opinion" on whether multiple installations for home
> use was noninfringing, even though he himself was, for the longest time,
> insisting that doing so violated copyright law and was therefore illegal,
> despite the fact he's no lawyer *either*. Brucey's a copy-and-paste
> master who has no desire for a serious discussion on the issue because
> he's too afraid he'd be proven wrong -- much like Microsoft.
>
> --
> Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
> ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org
>

There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY. Plain and
simple, he states all and everything is a parody and should be believed as a
parody should be believed. There is no real truth on his parody pages and he
makes references to this fact on a regular basis when confronted.
The below link gives a good insight to the use of parody to make common
sense thinking look like it is viable and real.

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

If you look closely at parodists words, they slightly change the real quoted
text or embellish it. This is all fair when it is understood the information
is a parody from the get go.

[Michael Stevens]

"kurttrail" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
> > a "fair use"; the
> >> copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
> >> - U. S. Supreme Court
> >
> > I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
> > occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
> > of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
> > wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
> > narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
> > various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
>
> When the use is public, that would be true, but for the private
> non-commercial use in the home, the courts have a much more liberal view
of
> "fair use." And that's the main reason MS has *NEVER* tried to enforce
the
> Useage terms of their EULA on private individuals by legal means. They
are
> too afraid they'd lose, and miss out on all the people that they FUD into
> buying more copies of software than they really need.
>
> >
> > I read your "fair use" page a while back but since it
> > had "This is a parody!" written on it, I didn't think you
> > meant it.
>
> Parody is about the design, and the take off on MS's PA FAQ, not the
content
> of my words. I stand by my words with every breath left in my body.
>

You really can't have both. Either you are a parody or the truth. You must
make a choice. You can't hide behind a parody facade and "stand by my words
with every breath left in my body". Either you have the conviction you are
right, or you lose the parody part.
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

[Michael Stevens]

"Michael Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian Merrithew" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
> > > occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
> > > of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
> > > wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
> > > narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
> > > various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
> >
> > OK -- so where is the flaw or flaws in kurt's argument? I lurk here all
> > the time, occasionally posting, and I've never seen a coherant rebuttal
of
> > kurt's position. Usually it boils to, "Because Microsoft says so!"
> >
> > The only good counter-argument I've ever seen was on groklaw where I
> > briefly raised this topic; the counter was to look at Congressional
intent
> > when passing Section 117 (the section that states installation & use of
a
> > legally-owned copy of software on "a machine" is not an infringement of
> > copyright). The argument is, Congress would not have intended that a
> > business owner could just go out into a store, buy a copy of software
off
> > the shelf, then legally install that copy on every computer in the
> > business. Which is a logical extension of kurt's position (when you take
> > into account the quirky legal status of corporations as "artificial
> > persons", anyway). I think this borders on a slippery-slope fallacy,
> > myself (it doesn't qualify as a reason that a real person can do
multiple
> > installs on his own machines for personal use), but it's at least a
> > coherant argument.
> >
> > As for the subject of this thread -- in one of my forays into this
> > subject, he flat-out told me (after repeatedly failing to logically
> > counter my arguments) that if I wasn't a lawyer, I shouldn't be
> > expressing a "legal opinion" on whether multiple installations for home
> > use was noninfringing, even though he himself was, for the longest time,
> > insisting that doing so violated copyright law and was therefore
illegal,
> > despite the fact he's no lawyer *either*. Brucey's a copy-and-paste
> > master who has no desire for a serious discussion on the issue because
> > he's too afraid he'd be proven wrong -- much like Microsoft.
> >
> > --
> > Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
> > ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org
> >
>
> There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY. Plain
and
> simple, he states all and everything is a parody and should be believed as
a
> parody should be believed. There is no real truth on his parody pages and
he
> makes references to this fact on a regular basis when confronted.
> The below link gives a good insight to the use of parody to make common
> sense thinking look like it is viable and real.
>
> http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
>
> If you look closely at parodists words, they slightly change the real
quoted
> text or embellish it. This is all fair when it is understood the
information
> is a parody from the get go.
>
>
>

BTW, Parody is defined as a:
1. Literary or musical work in which the style of the author or work is
closely imitated for comic effect or ridicule
2. A feeble or ridiculous imitation.
Kurt defends his web site as a parody. Makes sense to me.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

[Cerridwen]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Bruce is a gentleman and seems to tell the truth, Kurt seems
> to be mad at the world if MS is involved. He may be correct
> that there are fair use laws, but it seems his personal
> interpretation of what those laws mean is a little twisted.
>
> He has no valid reason to insult Bruce, that personal attack
> just makes his case weaker. It may even show that he has no
> valid argument and must resort to ad hominem slurs.
>

Amen to that Jim!

[Cerridwen]

kurttrail wrote:

>
> I have a degree in Common Sense.

Er, better make that a degree in NON-sense.

[Cerridwen]

kurttrail wrote:
> David Nimon wrote:
>
>> Time for your prozac, isn't it?
>
> I suppose you enjoy people lying about your words?

If you think what Bruce has said is libellous, then sue him! I bet I know
who'd win! I know we'll start a book!

Opening odds: 100/30 - Bruce 200-1 - Kurt.


Any takers?

[Jim Macklin]

You're welcome, thanks.


"Cerridwen" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Bruce is a gentleman and seems to tell the truth, Kurt
seems
| > to be mad at the world if MS is involved. He may be
correct
| > that there are fair use laws, but it seems his personal
| > interpretation of what those laws mean is a little
twisted.
| >
| > He has no valid reason to insult Bruce, that personal
attack
| > just makes his case weaker. It may even show that he
has no
| > valid argument and must resort to ad hominem slurs.
| >
|
| Amen to that Jim!
|
|
|

[Les Herrman]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:42:37 -0500, "kurttrail"
> wrote:

>Alan wrote:
>
>> Kurt,
>>
>> I went to your Web page about an hour ago, and my AV detection warned
>> me about a Trojan called DEVIL(1).HTM when I clicked on the link for
>> "eXPerience the Internet Explorer browser flaw for yourself."
>>
>> I don't think you would deliberately put a virus in your site. Is
>> this more of your sense of humor shining through?
>
>What AV program are you using? AVG gave me no such warning, and there is no
>file "DEVIL(1).HTM" on my web site, only a folder named "Devil." It could
>be that your AV program detects the exploit of MS's address bar spoof as a
>trojan, in the file, "index.htm" in the "Devil" folder.


BTW...if you have applied the most recent IE update, the spoof no
longer works. MS finally corrected this flaw.

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> kurttrail wrote:
>> David Nimon wrote:
>>
>>> Time for your prozac, isn't it?
>>
>> I suppose you enjoy people lying about your words?
>
> If you think what Bruce has said is libellous, then sue him! I bet I
> know who'd win! I know we'll start a book!
>
> Opening odds: 100/30 - Bruce 200-1 - Kurt.
>
>
> Any takers?

Nope. Because I've already won. Any reasonable person can plainly see that
not Bruce, nor any of you apologists can come up with a quote that proves
Bruce is right.

Ya'll are just attacking me, in hopes that no one will notice that you are
all talking BS.

Quote where my site "openly advocates lying and software piracy." Anything
else is just trying to FUD an apology for Bruce.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> There is statutory law and there is contract law. The EULA
> is contract law. That is civil rather than criminal law.

Yes, but a contract can't conflict with statutory law, as no contract is a
law in and of itself, nor is it above the law. But what does this have to
do with my web site "openly" advocating "lying and
software piracy," or with me twisting the law. I just don't see the
connection.

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on
grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a
rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

I even quote that court precedent on my web page!

>
> I do like your anti-government bent, it may be your saving
> grace. But MS is not the "evil empire" and the EULA has an
> out, MS will refund the money and take the software back if
> you decide not to use the software based on rejection of
> EULA.

And where would one find the information to return it, for a partial refund?
MS doesn't include that info inside of their packaging.

And contract law has an out too, as their is no law that makes violating
unconsionable contract terms illegal. All one has to do is break those
terms that one finds is unconsionable. If the other party disagrees, their
only legal recourse is to bring it before a judge to decide who is right
under the law. The JUDGE decides, not the licensor.

SCO claims that IBM violated their license. Is SCO's claims enforceable on
their own merit, or does IBM wait to see what a Judge will rule? I think we
would have all heard about it, if IBM decided to return all their copies of
UNIX back to SCO.

You all should follow the legal wranglings of SCO.

>
> This is not a secret.

Actually, it kinda is.

> You are free to buy a Mac, or a PC
> with Linux...

I already own a very good PC, but Linux wont run on it, because MS used it's
monopoly position

It just seems that you are offended by being
> unable to use the product of MS.
>
> Bruce just seems to be trying to act honorably and as a
> gentleman.

Saying that my site "openly advocates lying and software piracy" isn't an
honorable act. As this thread proves, not one of you Bruce Apologists can
find one quote on my page that advocates "lying" or "software piracy." So
my statement stands unblemished. Bruce is a liar.

> You seem to be trying to raise emotions and
> irritate the reader.

So? Have I ever been caught in a outright lie?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I've read both their postings, over a period of time. I
> think Bruce is more gentlemanly.
>

LOL! I'm sure there are many murderers & rapist that are much more
"gentlemanly" than I am. George W. Bush-Liar is more "gentlemanly" than I
am too, but I wouldn't trust him to tell the truth if his mother's life
depended on it.

As a matter of fact, most of the accomplished liars I've met over the years
are more gentlemanly than I am. If a woman asks me, "do I look fat," I tell
her the truth, instead of the "gentlemanly" lie.

I'd rather be a MAN of MY WORD, than a Gentlemen liar!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Les Herrman wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:42:37 -0500, "kurttrail"
> > wrote:
>
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt,
>>>
>>> I went to your Web page about an hour ago, and my AV detection
>>> warned me about a Trojan called DEVIL(1).HTM when I clicked on the
>>> link for "eXPerience the Internet Explorer browser flaw for
>>> yourself."
>>>
>>> I don't think you would deliberately put a virus in your site. Is
>>> this more of your sense of humor shining through?
>>
>> What AV program are you using? AVG gave me no such warning, and
>> there is no file "DEVIL(1).HTM" on my web site, only a folder named
>> "Devil." It could be that your AV program detects the exploit of
>> MS's address bar spoof as a trojan, in the file, "index.htm" in the
>> "Devil" folder.
>
>
> BTW...if you have applied the most recent IE update, the spoof no
> longer works. MS finally corrected this flaw.

Yeah, I know. And there's a patch that fixes some web functionibility that
that patch broke.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> kurttrail wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a degree in Common Sense.
>
> Er, better make that a degree in NON-sense.

Oooh! Aren't we the wit, half-wit that is.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Bruce is a gentleman and seems to tell the truth, Kurt seems
>> to be mad at the world if MS is involved. He may be correct
>> that there are fair use laws, but it seems his personal
>> interpretation of what those laws mean is a little twisted.
>>
>> He has no valid reason to insult Bruce, that personal attack
>> just makes his case weaker. It may even show that he has no
>> valid argument and must resort to ad hominem slurs.
>>
>
> Amen to that Jim!

Praise the Lord!

That's all you MicroMorons have, is your *FAITH* in the words of a convicted
predatory monopolist.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Michael Stevens wrote:

> "Michael Stevens" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ian Merrithew" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
>>>> occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
>>>> of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
>>>> wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
>>>> narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
>>>> various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
>>>
>>> OK -- so where is the flaw or flaws in kurt's argument? I lurk
>>> here all the time, occasionally posting, and I've never seen a
>>> coherant rebuttal of kurt's position. Usually it boils to,
>>> "Because Microsoft says so!"
>>>
>>> The only good counter-argument I've ever seen was on groklaw where I
>>> briefly raised this topic; the counter was to look at Congressional
>>> intent when passing Section 117 (the section that states
>>> installation & use of a legally-owned copy of software on "a
>>> machine" is not an infringement of copyright). The argument is,
>>> Congress would not have intended that a business owner could just
>>> go out into a store, buy a copy of software off the shelf, then
>>> legally install that copy on every computer in the business. Which
>>> is a logical extension of kurt's position (when you take into
>>> account the quirky legal status of corporations as "artificial
>>> persons", anyway). I think this borders on a slippery-slope
>>> fallacy, myself (it doesn't qualify as a reason that a real person
>>> can do multiple installs on his own machines for personal use), but
>>> it's at least a coherant argument.
>>>
>>> As for the subject of this thread -- in one of my forays into this
>>> subject, he flat-out told me (after repeatedly failing to logically
>>> counter my arguments) that if I wasn't a lawyer, I shouldn't be
>>> expressing a "legal opinion" on whether multiple installations for
>>> home use was noninfringing, even though he himself was, for the
>>> longest time, insisting that doing so violated copyright law and
>>> was therefore illegal, despite the fact he's no lawyer *either*.
>>> Brucey's a copy-and-paste master who has no desire for a serious
>>> discussion on the issue because he's too afraid he'd be proven
>>> wrong -- much like Microsoft.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
>>> ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org
>>>
>>
>> There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY.
>> Plain and simple, he states all and everything is a parody and
>> should be believed as a parody should be believed. There is no real
>> truth on his parody pages and he makes references to this fact on a
>> regular basis when confronted.
>> The below link gives a good insight to the use of parody to make
>> common sense thinking look like it is viable and real.
>>
>> http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
>>
>> If you look closely at parodists words, they slightly change the
>> real quoted text or embellish it. This is all fair when it is
>> understood the information is a parody from the get go.
>>
>>
>>
>
> BTW, Parody is defined as a:

"Parody, as a method of criticism, has been a very popular means for
authors, entertainers and advertisers to communicate a particular message or
point of view to the public." - http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

> 1. Literary or musical work in which the style of the author or work
> is closely imitated for comic effect or ridicule

Ridicule - Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or
feelings toward a person or thing.

Doesn't mean that the ridicule isn't valid.

> 2. A feeble or ridiculous imitation.
> Kurt defends his web site as a parody.

As a protection from copyright infringement. That doesn't mean that my
criticism isn't valid.

> Makes sense to me.

Of course it does! The Sun orbiting the moon would make sense to you if it
would get Bruce's ass out of the frying pan!

Bruce said, the my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
Bruce is a Liar, and none of you have come up with one quote that backs up
Bruce's lies.

Either prove him right, or call a liar by his name, and in this case the
name is BRUCE CHAMBERS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Michael Stevens wrote:

> "kurttrail" > wrote in
> message ...
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for
>>> a "fair use"; the
>>>> copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a
>>>> use." - U. S. Supreme Court
>>>
>>> I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
>>> occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
>>> of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
>>> wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
>>> narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
>>> various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
>>
>> When the use is public, that would be true, but for the private
>> non-commercial use in the home, the courts have a much more liberal
>> view of "fair use." And that's the main reason MS has *NEVER* tried
>> to enforce the Useage terms of their EULA on private individuals by
>> legal means. They are too afraid they'd lose, and miss out on all
>> the people that they FUD into buying more copies of software than
>> they really need.
>>
>>>
>>> I read your "fair use" page a while back but since it
>>> had "This is a parody!" written on it, I didn't think you
>>> meant it.
>>
>> Parody is about the design, and the take off on MS's PA FAQ, not the
>> content of my words. I stand by my words with every breath left in
>> my body.
>>
>
> You really can't have both.

Sure I can. MS can sue me, if they think I can't.

Either you are a parody or the truth.

As I stated earlier the parody is in the design, and the concept of the FAQ.
The words I fully back up.


> Youmust make a choice.

Says who? You? MS?

> You can't hide behind a parody facade and "stand
> by my words with every breath left in my body".

I'm not hiding anything. I can be sued at any moment.

> Either you have the
> conviction you are right, or you lose the parody part.
> http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

"Parody, as a method of criticism, has been a very popular means for
authors, entertainers and advertisers to communicate a particular message or
point of view to the public." - http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

Yep. I couldn't have said it better myself, Mike. Thanks.
"A parody, because it is a method of criticism, must inevitably make use of
another creative work. This inherently creates a conflict between the
creator of the work that is being parodied (as no one likes to be
criticized, made fun of or ridiculed) and the creator of the parody. It is
also highly unlikely that a copyright owner will grant permission or a
license to a parodist to use their copyright protected work in creating a
parody. "

"Since copyright law prohibits the substantial use of a copyrighted work
without permission of the copyright owner, and because such permission is
highly unlikely when the use is to create a parody, it may be necessary for
the parodist to rely on the fair-use defense to forestall any liability for
copyright infringement. However, the fair-use defense if successful will
only be successful when the newly created work that purports itself to be
parody is a valid parody." - http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

So I'm using the Parody protection to protect me from the portions of the
otherwise obvious copyright infringement of using MS's copyrighted graphics
and words, and such, yet that doesn't mean my criticism is any less valid.

"Another line of defense that may be available for parodists are the free
speech principles incorporated in the First Amendment. Historically courts
have been sensitive to the interaction between parody as a means of
entertainment and as a form of social commentary and criticism and First
Amendment values. The public interest in such expression could be construed
as outweighing the rights of the copyright owner. Entertainers have
successfully invoked free speech principles to present wide-ranging artistic
expression. However, when commercial gain appears to be the primary motive
such as in movies, books, songs, plays and visual art the parodist's work
and its defense under the First Amendment and fair use doctrine has
frequently resulted in a number of court decisions that are seemingly
irreconcilable." - http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

Can't say that I'm in this MS/PA/EULA criticism for any "commercial gain,"
can you? Don't bother, I got the bills to prove that it's only cost me
money.

". . . . the Supreme Court reached the unequivocal conclusion that a parody
falls within the scope of the fair-use defense." -
http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

So, in conclusion, my web page is a parody. It's a means to promote my
criticism of MS/PA/EULA, yet is protection from copyright infringement of
the copyrighted material of MS's that I have "fairly used." See Mikey, I
can have it both ways!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Michael Stevens wrote:

> "Ian Merrithew" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:19:57 -0800, anonymous wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not an attorney but I do have an IP attorney who
>>> occasionally works for me who tells me that 99% percent
>>> of the people come to him with a "fair use" defense are
>>> wrong. Apparently the courts have defined in rather
>>> narrow terms what fraction of a work you may copy for
>>> various circumstances. That's what he says anyway.
>>
>> OK -- so where is the flaw or flaws in kurt's argument? I lurk here
>> all the time, occasionally posting, and I've never seen a coherant
>> rebuttal of kurt's position. Usually it boils to, "Because
>> Microsoft says so!"
>>
>> The only good counter-argument I've ever seen was on groklaw where I
>> briefly raised this topic; the counter was to look at Congressional
>> intent when passing Section 117 (the section that states
>> installation & use of a legally-owned copy of software on "a
>> machine" is not an infringement of copyright). The argument is,
>> Congress would not have intended that a business owner could just go
>> out into a store, buy a copy of software off the shelf, then legally
>> install that copy on every computer in the business. Which is a
>> logical extension of kurt's position (when you take into account the
>> quirky legal status of corporations as "artificial persons",
>> anyway). I think this borders on a slippery-slope fallacy, myself
>> (it doesn't qualify as a reason that a real person can do multiple
>> installs on his own machines for personal use), but it's at least a
>> coherant argument.
>>
>> As for the subject of this thread -- in one of my forays into this
>> subject, he flat-out told me (after repeatedly failing to logically
>> counter my arguments) that if I wasn't a lawyer, I shouldn't be
>> expressing a "legal opinion" on whether multiple installations for
>> home use was noninfringing, even though he himself was, for the
>> longest time, insisting that doing so violated copyright law and was
>> therefore illegal, despite the fact he's no lawyer *either*.
>> Brucey's a copy-and-paste master who has no desire for a serious
>> discussion on the issue because he's too afraid he'd be proven wrong
>> -- much like Microsoft.
>>
>> --
>> Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
>> ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org
>>
>
> There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY.

A parody according to your web link is a method of criticism.

> Plain and simple, he states all and everything is a parody and should
> be believed as a parody should be believed.

Stating that it's a parody, doesn't make the criticism any less valid

> There is no real truth on
> his parody pages and he makes references to this fact on a regular
> basis when confronted.

Excuse me?! When did I *EVER* say anything like that?! Please provide
quotes & links.

> The below link gives a good insight to the use of parody to make
> common sense thinking look like it is viable and real.
>
> http://www.publaw.com/parody.html
>
> If you look closely at parodists words, they slightly change the real
> quoted text or embellish it. This is all fair when it is understood
> the information is a parody from the get go.

You really don't comprehend what you read, do you. Nowhere in that link
does it says that the criticism of a parody isn't valid information. Get
real!

Does my web site advocate "lying?" NO! Does my web site advocate "software
piracy?" NO!

Bruce is a Liar! And all you are doing nothing but trying divert everyones
attention away from Bruce's lies!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Alex Nichol]

Michael Stevens wrote:

>There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY. Plain and
>simple, he states all and everything is a parody and should be believed as a
>parody should be believed.

To anyone who goes here not looking for such qualifiers it looks
extremely like a direct incitement to fraudulent behaviour


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit)

[Jim Macklin]

George W. Bush is not a liar. He may have been mislead by
the faulty intelligence reports of the British but it should
be remembered that Mr. Bush was in private business for the
decade before 9/11 or just a state governor.

On the other hand Senator John Kerry was in the Senate and
voted every chance he got to cut the budget for the CIA, FBI
and NSA. Perhaps that is why the field reports on the
terrorist were not analyzed in time to stop the terrorists.
It also might explain some errors that President Bush relied
upon.

If you want to place blame, blame Kerry.



"kurttrail" >
wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > I've read both their postings, over a period of time. I
| > think Bruce is more gentlemanly.
| >
|
| LOL! I'm sure there are many murderers & rapist that are
much more
| "gentlemanly" than I am. George W. Bush-Liar is more
"gentlemanly" than I
| am too, but I wouldn't trust him to tell the truth if his
mother's life
| depended on it.
|
| As a matter of fact, most of the accomplished liars I've
met over the years
| are more gentlemanly than I am. If a woman asks me, "do I
look fat," I tell
| her the truth, instead of the "gentlemanly" lie.
|
| I'd rather be a MAN of MY WORD, than a Gentlemen liar!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[kurttrail]

Alex Nichol wrote:

> Michael Stevens wrote:
>
>> There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY.
>> Plain and simple, he states all and everything is a parody and
>> should be believed as a parody should be believed.
>
> To anyone who goes here not looking for such qualifiers it looks
> extremely like a direct incitement to fraudulent behaviour

Please provide quotes where there is any "direct incitement to fraudulent
behaviour" on my web page! I could just say that your PA web page is a
"'direct incitement to' do terrorists acts," but why should anybody believe
me just because a write that down in a post. My words are all there for
anyone to plainly see for themselves, so go ahead and quote me, instead of
just spewing nonsense.

Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
This is a total unequivicable LIE! Not one of you can quote anything I
wrote on my web page that in any way "openly advocate lying." And not one
of you can quote where I "openly advocate . . . . software piracy!"

Put up, or call a liar by his name, and in this case his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> George W. Bush is not a liar.

That's why he was starting his plan to invade Iraq long before 911? LOL!

> He may have been mislead by
> the faulty intelligence reports of the British but it should
> be remembered that Mr. Bush was in private business for the
> decade before 9/11 or just a state governor.

Huh?

>
> On the other hand Senator John Kerry was in the Senate and
> voted every chance he got to cut the budget for the CIA, FBI
> and NSA.

So did a lot of Senators & Congressman, including Republicans.

> Perhaps that is why the field reports on the
> terrorist were not analyzed in time to stop the terrorists.

You can't stop all terrorism all the time, but what you can do is lessen the
reasons why people engage in terrorism in the first place. The Fanatical
Right of this country is just adding more fuel to the terrorist bonfire.

> It also might explain some errors that President Bush relied
> upon.

If this was the one case where he and his administration have misled to the
country you'd be right.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_11

>
> If you want to place blame, blame Kerry.

I blame them all! It is the collusion of both parties that is failing the
people of the United States. The stranglehold of the two party system is
analogous to the monopolistic stranglehold of MS on the Desktop OS Market,
eliminating real choice for the individual. Dems & Reps need each other to
maintain their stranglehold on political power.

But yet another attempt to divert away from the topic of this thread.

Either quote where my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy,"
or call a Liar by his name, and his name is BRUCE CHAMBERS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[myself]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 05:36:33 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:

> I've read both their postings, over a period of time. I think Bruce is
> more gentlemanly.

Yeah, but kurttrail's more fun. :)

[Jim Macklin]

The Pentagon has plans to invade every country on the
planet, including Canada and Mexico. It is called "what if"
What if Canada was invaded by Russia, how would we rescue
the Canadians?

I don't know if there is any evidence that GW Bush was
planning any personal invasions prior to 9/11. As the left
tells it he is too stupid to do such a thing or is he just
too clever?

My plans for the invasion of Syria, the fleet takes up a
position in the Med and the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, the
Army stages in western Iraq, the Marines are in the Med.
D-Day minus one---we tell them that they have one day
D-Day we make them wait 32.5 hours
D-Day+32.5 hours
The Marines go ashore on the Med coast. The Army crosses the
border, the Navy launches 223 missiles and 125 aircraft...
Syria is in our hands at D-Day +48 hours

Asad gives Saddam's WMD to the US Army and asks to stay in
power if he is a good boy.

I just made that up.


"kurttrail" >
wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > George W. Bush is not a liar.
|
| That's why he was starting his plan to invade Iraq long
before 911? LOL!
|
| > He may have been mislead by
| > the faulty intelligence reports of the British but it
should
| > be remembered that Mr. Bush was in private business for
the
| > decade before 9/11 or just a state governor.
|
| Huh?
|
| >
| > On the other hand Senator John Kerry was in the Senate
and
| > voted every chance he got to cut the budget for the CIA,
FBI
| > and NSA.
|
| So did a lot of Senators & Congressman, including
Republicans.
|
| > Perhaps that is why the field reports on the
| > terrorist were not analyzed in time to stop the
terrorists.
|
| You can't stop all terrorism all the time, but what you
can do is lessen the
| reasons why people engage in terrorism in the first place.
The Fanatical
| Right of this country is just adding more fuel to the
terrorist bonfire.
|
| > It also might explain some errors that President Bush
relied
| > upon.
|
| If this was the one case where he and his administration
have misled to the
| country you'd be right.
|
|
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_11
|
| >
| > If you want to place blame, blame Kerry.
|
| I blame them all! It is the collusion of both parties
that is failing the
| people of the United States. The stranglehold of the two
party system is
| analogous to the monopolistic stranglehold of MS on the
Desktop OS Market,
| eliminating real choice for the individual. Dems & Reps
need each other to
| maintain their stranglehold on political power.
|
| But yet another attempt to divert away from the topic of
this thread.
|
| Either quote where my web site "openly advocates lying and
software piracy,"
| or call a Liar by his name, and his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|
|

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:

>I have a degree in Common Sense.

Oh, I see. You only PLAY a lawyer on the Net.

That's all I need to know.





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Keith Miller]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> George W. Bush is not a liar. He may have been mislead by
> the faulty intelligence reports of the British but it should
> be remembered that Mr. Bush was in private business for the
> decade before 9/11 or just a state governor.

If only that were his only lie:

http://www.misleader.org

> On the other hand Senator John Kerry was in the Senate and
> voted every chance he got to cut the budget for the CIA, FBI
> and NSA. Perhaps that is why the field reports on the
> terrorist were not analyzed in time to stop the terrorists.
> It also might explain some errors that President Bush relied
> upon.

The Bush admininstration ignored everything the outgoing Clinton administration tried to tell them
about Al-Qaeda because they were focused on finding an excuse to invade Iraq. It was all there in
the Hart-Rudman report. The Bush administration choose to ignore it.

Keith



> "kurttrail" >
> wrote in message
> ...
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> |
> | > I've read both their postings, over a period of time. I
> | > think Bruce is more gentlemanly.
> | >
> |
> | LOL! I'm sure there are many murderers & rapist that are
> much more
> | "gentlemanly" than I am. George W. Bush-Liar is more
> "gentlemanly" than I
> | am too, but I wouldn't trust him to tell the truth if his
> mother's life
> | depended on it.
> |
> | As a matter of fact, most of the accomplished liars I've
> met over the years
> | are more gentlemanly than I am. If a woman asks me, "do I
> look fat," I tell
> | her the truth, instead of the "gentlemanly" lie.
> |
> | I'd rather be a MAN of MY WORD, than a Gentlemen liar!
> |
> | --
> | Peace!
> | Kurt
> | Self-anointed Moderator
> | microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> | http://microscum.com
> | "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
> Oxymoron!
> | "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
> |
> |
>
>

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Michael Stevens"
> scribbled:

>There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY.

He can STATE it's a 10-legged dog, but that doesn't make it one.





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Jim Macklin]

That is true, but Briteny Spears would be even more fun.
And the honeymoon and divorce wouldn't interfere with a
Sunday football game and a NASCAR race.


"myself" > wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 05:36:33 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > I've read both their postings, over a period of time. I
think Bruce is
| > more gentlemanly.
|
| Yeah, but kurttrail's more fun. :)
|
|

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The Pentagon has plans to invade every country on the
> planet, including Canada and Mexico. It is called "what if"
> What if Canada was invaded by Russia, how would we rescue
> the Canadians?
>
> I don't know if there is any evidence that GW Bush was
> planning any personal invasions prior to 9/11. As the left
> tells it he is too stupid to do such a thing or is he just
> too clever?
>
> My plans for the invasion of Syria, the fleet takes up a
> position in the Med and the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, the
> Army stages in western Iraq, the Marines are in the Med.
> D-Day minus one---we tell them that they have one day
> D-Day we make them wait 32.5 hours
> D-Day+32.5 hours
> The Marines go ashore on the Med coast. The Army crosses the
> border, the Navy launches 223 missiles and 125 aircraft...
> Syria is in our hands at D-Day +48 hours
>
> Asad gives Saddam's WMD to the US Army and asks to stay in
> power if he is a good boy.
>
> I just made that up.

http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/

Again off-topic. How does any of this have to do with Bruce's Lies?

"Either quote where my web site "openly advocates lying and software
piracy,"
or call a Liar by his name, and his name is BRUCE CHAMBERS!"


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> > scribbled:
>
>> I have a degree in Common Sense.
>
> Oh, I see. You only PLAY a lawyer on the Net.
>
> That's all I need to know.

Did I ever claim to be a lawyer? Do lawyers have a monopoly on legal
thoughts and opinions? Can't argue against my words, so you try to dimiss
my opinion because I'm not a lawyer! LOL!

Thanks for proving to all that you do "got a chickensh*t yellow streak
running up your back, just like Brucey." Chickensh*ts do tend to flock
together! And this thread is full of them!

Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
This is a total unequivicable LIE! Not one of you can quote anything I
wrote on my web page that in any way "openly advocates lying." And not one
of you can quote where it "openly advocates . . . . software piracy!"

Put up, or call a liar by his name, and in this case his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Michael Stevens"
> > scribbled:
>
>> There is no flaw in Kurt's web site. It is as he states a PARODY.
>
> He can STATE it's a 10-legged dog, but that doesn't make it one.

That's right. MS has every right to sue me for copyright infringement, but
that doesn't mean that their case would even have 1-leg to stand on.

Again the notice how all you chickensh*ts avoid the topic of this tread with
a passion!

Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
This is a total unequivicable LIE! Not one of you can quote anything I
wrote on my web page that in any way "openly advocate lying." And not one
of you can quote where I "openly advocate . . . . software piracy!"

Put up, or call a liar by his name, and in this case his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Jim Macklin]

What was the topic again. Your EULA for the topic isn't
enforceable and I choose not to follow it. So there!


"kurttrail" >
wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The Pentagon has plans to invade every country on the
| > planet, including Canada and Mexico. It is called "what
if"
| > What if Canada was invaded by Russia, how would we
rescue
| > the Canadians?
| >
| > I don't know if there is any evidence that GW Bush was
| > planning any personal invasions prior to 9/11. As the
left
| > tells it he is too stupid to do such a thing or is he
just
| > too clever?
| >
| > My plans for the invasion of Syria, the fleet takes up a
| > position in the Med and the Persian Gulf and Red Sea,
the
| > Army stages in western Iraq, the Marines are in the Med.
| > D-Day minus one---we tell them that they have one day
| > D-Day we make them wait 32.5 hours
| > D-Day+32.5 hours
| > The Marines go ashore on the Med coast. The Army crosses
the
| > border, the Navy launches 223 missiles and 125
aircraft...
| > Syria is in our hands at D-Day +48 hours
| >
| > Asad gives Saddam's WMD to the US Army and asks to stay
in
| > power if he is a good boy.
| >
| > I just made that up.
|
| http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/
|
| Again off-topic. How does any of this have to do with
Bruce's Lies?
|
| "Either quote where my web site "openly advocates lying
and software
| piracy,"
| or call a Liar by his name, and his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!"
|
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> What was the topic again. Your EULA for the topic isn't
> enforceable and I choose not to follow it. So there!

Shows all the lengths you chickensh*ts will sink to in order to apologize
for a LIAR! :)

"Either quote where my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy,
"or call a Liar by his name, and his name is BRUCE CHAMBERS!" Anything else
is just condoning the lies of a Microsoft MVP, and you are nothing more than
an accomplice in an attempt to cover up Bruce's lies after the fact.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Jim Macklin]

Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
lack thereof of the parties in question.

I have no need to look at your site, you just called me a
chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
horse****.


"kurttrail" >
wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > What was the topic again. Your EULA for the topic isn't
| > enforceable and I choose not to follow it. So there!
|
| Shows all the lengths you chickensh*ts will sink to in
order to apologize
| for a LIAR! :)
|
| "Either quote where my web site "openly advocates lying
and software piracy,
| "or call a Liar by his name, and his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!" Anything else
| is just condoning the lies of a Microsoft MVP, and you are
nothing more than
| an accomplice in an attempt to cover up Bruce's lies after
the fact.
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
> commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
> lack thereof of the parties in question.
>
> I have no need to look at your site, you just called me a
> chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
> horse****.

Actually more like Bullsh*t. Style is totally subjective, and is a waste of
all are times arguing about. Why don't we just dye our hair blond and whine
on & on about the latest fashions out of Paris?

But thanks for confirming to everyone that you are more concerned about my
"style," over that of the content of my opinions, so I'm gonna let you to
continue to bitch about my style. We wouldn't want to mess up that pretty
little head of yours with something as silly as facts!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:

>Did I ever claim to be a lawyer?

You're dispensing a LOT of legal advice, so ....





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:

>Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
>This is a total unequivicable LIE!

So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.

And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
til you're appearing in court for THAT??






To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Cerridwen]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:
> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> > scribbled:
>
>> Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software
>> piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>
> So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.
>
> And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
> til you're appearing in court for THAT??
>


Great minds, Bud, great minds...;o) Can I put you down for ten bucks on
Bruce? ;o)

[Cerridwen]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
> commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
> lack thereof of the parties in question.
>
> I have no need to look at your site, you just called me a
> chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
> horse****.

Well we already know Kunt's website is bull****. And I'd really always seen
you as pig**** - or sheep**** maybe...<ducks and runs>

[CS]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:22:13 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> wrote:

>While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:
>
>>Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
>>This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>
>So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.
>
>And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
>til you're appearing in court for THAT??

MS has known about his site for some time. If they had the guts to
sue (and thought they could win) they would have long ago. About the
only thing they have ever to done to Kurt is to censor some of his
posts.

As for Mr. Chambers - Kurt is right on target. He's an apologist and
will always defend MS, right or wrong. How else do you think he
became a MVP?

[Cerridwen]

kurttrail wrote:
> Cerridwen wrote:
>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>> Bruce is a gentleman and seems to tell the truth, Kurt seems
>>> to be mad at the world if MS is involved. He may be correct
>>> that there are fair use laws, but it seems his personal
>>> interpretation of what those laws mean is a little twisted.
>>>
>>> He has no valid reason to insult Bruce, that personal attack
>>> just makes his case weaker. It may even show that he has no
>>> valid argument and must resort to ad hominem slurs.
>>>
>>
>> Amen to that Jim!
>
> Praise the Lord!
>
> That's all you MicroMorons have, is your *FAITH* in the words of a
> convicted predatory monopolist.

Erm, 'amen' is an Arabic (or is it Aramaic) word meaning 'so be it'. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the xian faith, other than xians end prayers
with it. I am *NOT* xian, I am Pagan (make of that what you will). I have no
'lord' - I have a God and a Goddess.

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
>> commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
>> lack thereof of the parties in question.
>>
>> I have no need to look at your site, you just called me a
>> chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
>> horse****.
>
> Well we already know Kunt's website is bull****.

LOL!

> And I'd really
> always seen you as pig**** - or sheep**** maybe...

At least we can all agree that he is a sh*t of some sort.

> <ducks and runs>

Yep, cause that's what your best at.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> kurttrail wrote:
>> Cerridwen wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>>> Bruce is a gentleman and seems to tell the truth, Kurt seems
>>>> to be mad at the world if MS is involved. He may be correct
>>>> that there are fair use laws, but it seems his personal
>>>> interpretation of what those laws mean is a little twisted.
>>>>
>>>> He has no valid reason to insult Bruce, that personal attack
>>>> just makes his case weaker. It may even show that he has no
>>>> valid argument and must resort to ad hominem slurs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Amen to that Jim!
>>
>> Praise the Lord!
>>
>> That's all you MicroMorons have, is your *FAITH* in the words of a
>> convicted predatory monopolist.
>
> Erm, 'amen' is an Arabic (or is it Aramaic) word meaning 'so be it'.
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with the xian faith, other than xians
> end prayers with it. I am *NOT* xian, I am Pagan (make of that what
> you will). I have no 'lord' - I have a God and a Goddess.

LOL! Soon we'll be talking about sprites and fairies! Anything to keep
from talking about Bruce's lies!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Jim Macklin]

LOL


"Cerridwen" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
| > commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
| > lack thereof of the parties in question.
| >
| > I have no need to look at your site, you just called me
a
| > chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
| > horse****.
|
| Well we already know Kunt's website is bull****. And I'd
really always seen
| you as pig**** - or sheep**** maybe...<ducks and runs>
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

You haven't seen my head, pretty is the wrong word.


"kurttrail" >
wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
| > commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
| > lack thereof of the parties in question.
| >
| > I have no need to look at your site, you just called me
a
| > chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
| > horse****.
|
| Actually more like Bullsh*t. Style is totally subjective,
and is a waste of
| all are times arguing about. Why don't we just dye our
hair blond and whine
| on & on about the latest fashions out of Paris?
|
| But thanks for confirming to everyone that you are more
concerned about my
| "style," over that of the content of my opinions, so I'm
gonna let you to
| continue to bitch about my style. We wouldn't want to
mess up that pretty
| little head of yours with something as silly as facts!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[Cerridwen]

kurttrail wrote:
> Cerridwen wrote:
>
>> kurttrail wrote:
>>> David Nimon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Time for your prozac, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I suppose you enjoy people lying about your words?
>>
>> If you think what Bruce has said is libellous, then sue him! I bet I
>> know who'd win! I know we'll start a book!
>>
>> Opening odds: 100/30 - Bruce 200-1 - Kurt.
>>
>>
>> Any takers?
>
> Nope. Because I've already won.

Have you?! You've taken Bruce to civil court and won, have you?! Does Bruce
know of this? Hey Bruce! Sorry to hear you lost the case!

Any reasonable person can plainly
> see that not Bruce, nor any of you apologists can come up with a
> quote that proves Bruce is right.

Does MS's post-sale EULA make it illegal to install Windows XP on more than
one computer?
If you are talking about illegal under the law, then absolutely not.

Not criminal law, true, but civil and copyright law, definitely. You can
argue the toss any which way you like, but the law is the law.

Oh and it isn't just MS that states "one licence per computer" - many other
companies do to - Adobe for one. I quote from the Photoshop CS EULA

"Permitted Number" means one (1) unless otherwise indicated under a valid
licence (e.g. volume licence) granted by Adobe. "

Why aren't you going after them? They make identical stipulations. Why pick
on MS?

I continue

"Intellectual Property Rights. The Software and any copies that you are
authorized by Adobe to make are the intellectual property of and are owned
by Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers. The structure, organization
and code of the Software are the valuable trade secrets and confidential
information of Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers. The Software is
protected by copyright, including without limitation by United States
Copyright Law, international treaty provisions and applicable laws in the
country in which it is being Used."

Have you heard of "intellectual property" Kurt?! I have software here from
many companies - MS, Adobe, PowerQuest, Roxio, Ahead - and they all state
the same thing - you do *NOT* own the software - it remains the intellectual
property of the company - which means, if they so desired, they could recall
it at any time.

Suggest you learn what you're arguing about before you start...Otherwise it
just makes you look stupid.



>
> Ya'll are just attacking me, in hopes that no one will notice that
> you are all talking BS.
>
> Quote where my site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
> Anything else is just trying to FUD an apology for Bruce.

[kurttrail]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> > scribbled:
>
>> Did I ever claim to be a lawyer?
>
> You're dispensing a LOT of legal advice, so ....

.. . . . so naturally you go and make an ass out of yourself by assuming
something I never claimed. I got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I give
my opinions, don't like it, sue me!

And like the good little chickensh*t that you are, you have again avoided
the topic of this thread! Plus you snipped out most of my reply to you
without indicating it, another chickensh*t tactic!

Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
This is a total unequivocal LIE! Not one of you can quote anything I wrote
on my web page that in any way "openly advocates lying." And not one of you
can quote where it "openly advocates . . . . software piracy!"

Put up, or call a liar by his name, and in this case his name is BRUCE
CHAMBERS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> > scribbled:
>
>> Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software
>> piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>
> So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.

I prefer public ridicule!

>
> And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
> til you're appearing in court for THAT??
>


You are a moron! MS has known about since it first appeared. Hell most of
my words appeared in this group first.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> Never anonymous Bud wrote:
>> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
>> > scribbled:
>>
>>> Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software
>>> piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>>
>> So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.
>>
>> And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
>> til you're appearing in court for THAT??
>>
>
>
> Great minds, Bud, great minds...;o) Can I put you down for ten bucks
> on Bruce? ;o)

Why? Who needs to sue? Bruce is getting his just deserts in ridicule.
None of you morons how quoted one word from my web site that back him up.
And you are all looking foolish in the process of trying to cover up for
him.

If you all think he is right and I am wrong, than show everyone my words
that prove that my site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
Should be pretty damn simple if Bruce isn't lying. So far, not one of ya'll
can do it, but ya'll are too chickensh*t to admit it.

It takes chickensh*t morons, that have no self-respect, to sink so low as to
obfuscate for a coward and a liar like Bruce!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

CS wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:22:13 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> > wrote:
>
>> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
>> > scribbled:
>>
>>> Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software
>>> piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>>
>> So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.
>>
>> And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
>> til you're appearing in court for THAT??
>
> MS has known about his site for some time. If they had the guts to
> sue (and thought they could win) they would have long ago. About the
> only thing they have ever to done to Kurt is to censor some of his
> posts.
>
> As for Mr. Chambers - Kurt is right on target. He's an apologist and
> will always defend MS, right or wrong. How else do you think he
> became a MVP?

Have you noticed that not one person has defended Bruce for not being a
coward?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> You haven't seen my head, pretty is the wrong word.

Alright, I'll accept that, but you aren't argueing that its not little.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Jim Macklin]

6-5/8 is comfortable.


"kurttrail" >
wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > You haven't seen my head, pretty is the wrong word.
|
| Alright, I'll accept that, but you aren't argueing that
its not little.
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

"kurttrail" > wrote in message ...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > You haven't seen my head, pretty is the wrong word.
|
| Alright, I'll accept that, but you aren't argueing that its not little.
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> kurttrail wrote:
>> Cerridwen wrote:
>>
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>> David Nimon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Time for your prozac, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you enjoy people lying about your words?
>>>
>>> If you think what Bruce has said is libellous, then sue him! I bet I
>>> know who'd win! I know we'll start a book!
>>>
>>> Opening odds: 100/30 - Bruce 200-1 - Kurt.
>>>
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>>
>> Nope. Because I've already won.
>
> Have you?! You've taken Bruce to civil court and won, have you?! Does
> Bruce know of this? Hey Bruce! Sorry to hear you lost the case!
>
> Any reasonable person can plainly
>> see that not Bruce, nor any of you apologists can come up with a
>> quote that proves Bruce is right.
>
> Does MS's post-sale EULA make it illegal to install Windows XP on
> more than one computer?
> If you are talking about illegal under the law, then absolutely not.
>
> Not criminal law, true, but civil and copyright law, definitely. You
> can argue the toss any which way you like, but the law is the law.

What LAW? What copyright law would be violated? There isn't even a law
that makes breaking the terms of a contract, in and of itself! Such BS!
You've come to this cockfight without a cock!

>
> Oh and it isn't just MS that states "one licence per computer" - many
> other companies do to - Adobe for one. I quote from the Photoshop CS
> EULA

Big Deal. I can cry "wolf" over and over again, but that proves nothing.
Show us all a law or legal precedent that backs up that a copyright owner
can "shrink-wrap license" away my right to "fairly use" my copies of
copyrighted material.

>
> "Permitted Number" means one (1) unless otherwise indicated under a
> valid licence (e.g. volume licence) granted by Adobe. "
>
> Why aren't you going after them? They make identical stipulations.
> Why pick on MS?

Because they are also a convicted predatory monopoly, and they introduced PA
to FUD people into believing that which they are unwilling to prove legally,
by the preponderance of the evidence. They could end it all tomorrow by
suing an individual for breaking their one computer term, but they won't.
So like IBM, I gonna wait until MS proves that get a judge to enforce their
rights over my rights.

Or do you think IBM is wrong to fight SCO's claims of violating the UNIX
license & copyright infringement, just because SCO claims it?

>
> I continue

You needn't bother. The words & claims of the copyright owner aren't proof
of legality.

>
> "Intellectual Property Rights. The Software and any copies that you
> are authorized by Adobe to make are the intellectual property of and
> are owned by Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers. The
> structure, organization and code of the Software are the valuable
> trade secrets and confidential information of Adobe Systems
> Incorporated and its suppliers. The Software is protected by
> copyright, including without limitation by United States Copyright
> Law, international treaty provisions and applicable laws in the
> country in which it is being Used."
>
> Have you heard of "intellectual property" Kurt?!

Yes. It's a misnomer for copyrighted material.

> I have software here
> from many companies - MS, Adobe, PowerQuest, Roxio, Ahead - and they
> all state the same thing - you do *NOT* own the software - it remains
> the intellectual property of the company - which means, if they so
> desired, they could recall it at any time.

They don't "own" their software either, they own the copyright to the
software. And I own my "COPY OF A COMPUTER PROGRAM," long before I ever see
any "shrink-wrap license" terms. You can go to my page and read where I
define what "copy" means according to copyright law, maybe you'll learn
something, but I have my doubts.

>
> Suggest you learn what you're arguing about before you
> start...Otherwise it just makes you look stupid.

Only person that looks stupid is the person in your mirror.

>>
>> Ya'll are just attacking me, in hopes that no one will notice that
>> you are all talking BS.
>>
>> Quote where my site "openly advocates lying and software piracy."
>> Anything else is just trying to FUD an apology for Bruce.

Of course none of what you quoted backs up Bruce's lies that my site "openly
advocates lying and software piracy." See, you just made yourself look
stupid again! More BS to obfuscate for a coward and a liar!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Cerridwen wrote:

> Have you?! You've taken Bruce to civil court and won, have you?! Does
> Bruce know of this? Hey Bruce! Sorry to hear you lost the case!

Missed answering this in my previous reply so I snipped it out.

I won my case here, and that's all that matters to me. Not one of you can
find one quote where my web site "openly advocates lying and software
piracy."

Any reasonable human being can see that all you guys are doing is anything
but what should be very easy if Bruce wasn't lying. Come up with a quote
that "openly advocates lying," and another that "openly advocates . . . .
software piracy." You can't, because no such quotes exist!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Redbeard]

In infinite wisdom Jim Macklin answered:

> George W. Bush is not a liar. He may have been mislead by
> the faulty intelligence reports of the British but it should
> be remembered that Mr. Bush was in private business for the
> decade before 9/11 or just a state governor.

LOL you're just a plain FOOL if you beleive that!

[Redbeard]

In infinite wisdom Jim Macklin answered:

> Pardon me, but I don't follow your orders. I am not
> commenting on the facts in the matter, only the style or
> lack thereof of the parties in question.
>
> I have no need to look at your site, you just called me a
> chicken****, which goes to show your ignorance. I am
> horse****.
>

More like DOG****.

[Redbeard]

In infinite wisdom Cerridwen answered:

>
> Erm, 'amen' is an Arabic (or is it Aramaic) word meaning 'so be it'. It has
> nothing whatsoever to do with the xian faith, other than xians end prayers
> with it. I am *NOT* xian, I am Pagan (make of that what you will). I have no
> 'lord' - I have a God and a Goddess.
>
>
so In other WORDS YOU'RE A DUMB**** PIECE OF ****!~

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Cerridwen" >
scribbled:

>Great minds, Bud, great minds...;o) Can I put you down for ten bucks on
>Bruce? ;o)

Absolutely.





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:

>I prefer public ridicule!

Well, it's obvious you love receiving it.







To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Fred]

It certainly appears that Kurt has made his case!

In all the messages haranging him, not one person has made ANY attempt
to "backs up Bruce's lies that my site 'openly advocates lying and
software piracy.'

What a bunch of liars and cowards!

Keep up the good work Kurt!

Fred


kurttrail wrote:

> CS wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:22:13 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software
>>>>piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>>>
>>>So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.
>>>
>>>And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
>>>til you're appearing in court for THAT??
>>
>>MS has known about his site for some time. If they had the guts to
>>sue (and thought they could win) they would have long ago. About the
>>only thing they have ever to done to Kurt is to censor some of his
>>posts.
>>
>>As for Mr. Chambers - Kurt is right on target. He's an apologist and
>>will always defend MS, right or wrong. How else do you think he
>>became a MVP?
>
>
> Have you noticed that not one person has defended Bruce for not being a
> coward?
>

[Jim Macklin]

Why should anyone take Kurt's bait, Bruce doesn't have to
prove his statements and certainly nobody else has any duty
to do so.


"Fred" > wrote in message
...
| It certainly appears that Kurt has made his case!
|
| In all the messages haranging him, not one person has made
ANY attempt
| to "backs up Bruce's lies that my site 'openly advocates
lying and
| software piracy.'
|
| What a bunch of liars and cowards!
|
| Keep up the good work Kurt!
|
| Fred
|
|
| kurttrail wrote:
|
| > CS wrote:
| >
| >
| >>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:22:13 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
| > wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
| >
scribbled:
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>>Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying
and software
| >>>>piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
| >>>
| >>>So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose
that suit.
| >>>
| >>>And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site,
how long
| >>>til you're appearing in court for THAT??
| >>
| >>MS has known about his site for some time. If they had
the guts to
| >>sue (and thought they could win) they would have long
ago. About the
| >>only thing they have ever to done to Kurt is to censor
some of his
| >>posts.
| >>
| >>As for Mr. Chambers - Kurt is right on target. He's an
apologist and
| >>will always defend MS, right or wrong. How else do you
think he
| >>became a MVP?
| >
| >
| > Have you noticed that not one person has defended Bruce
for not being a
| > coward?
| >
|

[Fred]

I'd be interested in hearing what Bruce has to say and what leads him to
believe it. At this point he appears to be nothing more than, as Kutt
puts it, "a liar and a coward."

Kurt certainly seems to be willing to back up what he says. Bruce
Chambers has apparently done nothing more than make slanderous and
baseless attacks on Kurt and he's not willing to back them up. At this
point, I don't know if Bruce is a liar or not, but he certainly appears
to be a coward.

And the longer he refuses to back up his statements, the more I'm ready
to conclude that he's a liar.


Jim Macklin wrote:

> Why should anyone take Kurt's bait, Bruce doesn't have to
> prove his statements and certainly nobody else has any duty
> to do so.
>

[kurttrail]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> > scribbled:
>
>> I prefer public ridicule!
>
> Well, it's obvious you love receiving it.

From whom? All I see is a bunch of guys doing anything possible to
obfuscate for a coward and a liar. Any rational human being can see that
ya'll have lost, but ya'll are too dense to know it.

Not one of you can quote where my website "openly advocates lying" or where
it 'openly advocates . . . . software piracy." The only people here being
ridiculed around here are Bruce and his flock of chickensh*ts.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Why should anyone take Kurt's bait,

What bait?

> Bruce doesn't have to prove his statements

And he doesn't even try because he is a coward.

openly - Without reserve or disguise; plainly; evidently.

advocates - To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

lying - A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

Should be easy to find if Bruce isn't lying himself.

> and certainly nobody else has any duty to do so.

If you don't condemn the liar, then all you are doing is condoning his lies.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

I shouldn't have thought this would be necessary, but, as a favor
to those who are "challenged," shall we say, in the areas of reading
comprehension and/or critical thinking, I'll make an exception and
point out the obvious.

There are, in common usage, at least two sorts of lies: lies of
omission, and direct fabrications. Kurttrail urges people to do both
in his so-called "Multiple Activations FAQ."

First, the direct lie: "If they try to ask you any questions
before asking to exchange activation codes, tell them that the answer
would require you to divulge what you deem to be personal information,
and that you are uncomfortable with that.... " In the same vein,
"Start off the conversation by saying how rude it is to be
interrogated by the PA phone rep when all you want to do is activate
the software you paid for." Because Kurtrail has absolutely no way of
knowing whether or not anyone in his potential audience even believes
that "personal" information is being sought, much less is being made
uncomfortable by the questions, or what they might consider rude, his
advice to use such specific statements regardless of one's true
feelings is, for an unknown but probably large portion of his
audience, advice to use a direct falsehood. Better known as a "lie."

Second, the lie of omission: Every successful bunko artist and
con man will tell you that the most affective way to lie is to include
parts of the truth. So, keeping in the tradition of the greatest
liars, Kurttrail says, "MS won't deny an activation unless you tell
them that XP is installed on more than one computer, but they have no
means to verify this info, so they must rely on the end user (YOU)
volunteering that info, and MS has no right to compel you to give that
info." In plain English, "Don't tell them all of the facts; just the
ones that suit your purpose." Deception by omission is still
deception, no matter how Kurttrail tap-dances around the issue, or how
common the practice may be amongst politicians.

Of course, Kurttrail has no problem advising other people to lie,
as he's apparently so fond of the practice, himself. For instance, he
claims, "Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS...." Either he's
deliberately lying, or he's never looked at any of Symantec's,
Adobe's, Lotus', Blizzard's, McAfee's, or Corel's licenses. Since he
uses the word "only," we must conclude that he's claiming to have
compared Microsoft's licensing practices with those of every other
software manufacturer in the world. That being the case, the only way
he can make his statement "Only MS's EULA states this One Computer
BS...." is to knowingly lie.

Now, as for my statement that Kurttrail advocates software piracy:

The simple fact of the matter is that I was guilty of sloppy
terminology. Software piracy, in the generally accepted legal sense
of the term, refers to someone's mass-producing and selling of
unauthorized copies of a computer program. Kurttrail has not, to my
knowledge, actually advocated particular this illegal activity. I
sloppily applied the term "software piracy" to the act of an
individual making illegal copies of software for his/her own use.
What Kurttrail is actually advocating is copyright infringement. For
US citizens, that's still a federal offense, although the matter is
generally relegated to civil, rather than criminal, courts as long as
the number of copies remain below 10.

What is particularly laughable is Kurttrails attempts to quote
Title 17 as if it didn't directly contradict his claims. His crude,
convoluted attempts to redefine the words used in the code would make
Bill "It depends on your definition of the word 'is'" Clinton proud.
However, the wording of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 is perfectly
clear and unambiguous:

"Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a
machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."

As the above clearly states, one may make a backup copy of the
software for archival purposes, in case something happens to the
original. Of course, once you cease to own the original license, you
must destroy the archival copy. The only other copy authorized under
the law is the copy that is installed on "a machine." Notice that the
law specifies "a" "machine." That's "a," as in "one," as in
"singular." That's "machine" as in "one," not "machines" as in
plural. To emphasize the point, Congress added the phrase "... and
that it is used in no other manner."

I really don't think anything more need be said on the matter.
Kurttrail is entitled to his opinions and his, to many people,
fabulistic interpretations of the law. But, no one is obligated to
share or even respect those rambling rationalizations.


Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

"Fred" > wrote in message
...
> It certainly appears that Kurt has made his case!
>
> In all the messages haranging him, not one person has made ANY
> attempt to "backs up Bruce's lies that my site 'openly advocates
> lying and software piracy.'
>
> What a bunch of liars and cowards!
>
> Keep up the good work Kurt!
>
> Fred
>
>
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> CS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 23:22:13 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bruce said, that my web site "openly advocates lying and software
>>>>>piracy." This is a total unequivicable LIE!
>>>>
>>>>So SUE him. I'd LOVE to see your ranting when you lose that suit.
>>>>
>>>>And now that the MS legal dept. knows about your site, how long
>>>>til you're appearing in court for THAT??
>>>
>>>MS has known about his site for some time. If they had the guts to
>>>sue (and thought they could win) they would have long ago. About
>>>the
>>>only thing they have ever to done to Kurt is to censor some of his
>>>posts.
>>>
>>>As for Mr. Chambers - Kurt is right on target. He's an apologist
>>>and
>>>will always defend MS, right or wrong. How else do you think he
>>>became a MVP?
>>
>>
>> Have you noticed that not one person has defended Bruce for not
>> being a
>> coward?
>>
>

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> scribbled:



_ - = + * P L O N K * = + = - _







To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[Bruce ChambersBS]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> I shouldn't have thought this would be necessary, but, as a favor
> to those who are "challenged," shall we say, in the areas of reading
> comprehension and/or critical thinking, I'll make an exception and
> point out the obvious.
>
> There are, in common usage, at least two sorts of lies: lies of
> omission, and direct fabrications. Kurttrail urges people to do both
> in his so-called "Multiple Activations FAQ."
>
> First, the direct lie: "If they try to ask you any questions
> before asking to exchange activation codes, tell them that the answer
> would require you to divulge what you deem to be personal information,
> and that you are uncomfortable with that.... "

This is not a lie, but a suggestion.

> In the same vein,
> "Start off the conversation by saying how rude it is to be
> interrogated by the PA phone rep when all you want to do is activate
> the software you paid for." Because Kurtrail has absolutely no way of
> knowing whether or not anyone in his potential audience even believes
> that "personal" information is being sought, much less is being made
> uncomfortable by the questions, or what they might consider rude, his
> advice to use such specific statements regardless of one's true
> feelings is, for an unknown but probably large portion of his
> audience, advice to use a direct falsehood. Better known as a "lie."

LOL! Boy this is what you meant by "openly advocates lying?"

openly - Without reserve or disguise; plainly; evidently.

So it totally evident that I advocate lying? LOL!


"The only information required to activate is an installation ID (and, for
Office XP and Office XP family products such as Visio 2002, the name of the
country in which the product is being installed)." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details

NO OTHER INFO IS REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE WINDOWS XP! Any other question that a
PA rep asks other than the installation ID is not a requirement to answer to
activate XP, and makes MS's claim to the contrary the openly apparent lie.

>
> Second, the lie of omission: Every successful bunko artist and
> con man will tell you that the most affective way to lie is to include
> parts of the truth. So, keeping in the tradition of the greatest
> liars, Kurttrail says, "MS won't deny an activation unless you tell
> them that XP is installed on more than one computer, but they have no
> means to verify this info, so they must rely on the end user (YOU)
> volunteering that info, and MS has no right to compel you to give that
> info." In plain English, "Don't tell them all of the facts;

Because you aren't required to do anything to tell them any facts other than
the installation ID to activate Windows XP.

just the
> ones that suit your purpose."

THE ONLY FACT REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE WINDOWS XP IS THE INSTALLATION ID! Any
other factual requirement would be the lie!

> Deception by omission is still
> deception, no matter how Kurttrail tap-dances around the issue, or how
> common the practice may be amongst politicians.

No the lie of ommision is that MS sometimes requires more info than just the
installation ID. And that would be MS's lie, not mine!

>
> Of course, Kurttrail has no problem advising other people to lie,
> as he's apparently so fond of the practice, himself. For instance, he
> claims, "Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS...."

"Isn't it "illegal" to install the same copy of software on more than one
computer?
Not at all. There are no laws that prevent an individual from installing
software on more than one computer that they own, and as a matter of fact,
US Copyright law limits computer program Copyright owners by saying, it is
not infringement to make additional copies or adaptations of computer
programs. Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS, and they have had it
in their OS EULAs since Windows 3.1, and have yet to try to enforce by legal
means, in a civil court, as they've been too afraid that they would lose."

Now your quilty of ommision! In context, I said that in reference that
there is no law that makes installing software on more than one computer
illegal, and only MS EULA tries to fool the End User that it is. I am
talking about one company in the whole article. Of course the rest of the
colluding members of the BSA follow MS lead, just like with PA.

"Only" is meant in respect to the law, not to other colluding members of the
BSA.

> Either he's
> deliberately lying, or he's never looked at any of Symantec's,
> Adobe's, Lotus', Blizzard's, McAfee's, or Corel's licenses.

The FAQ is about MS, not the other companies. But so all the colluding
members of the BSA write the same thing, does it make it a law? Does it
change the fact that there is no law that makes installing software on more
than one computer illegal?

No to both.

> Since he
> uses the word "only," we must conclude that he's claiming to have
> compared Microsoft's licensing practices with those of every other
> software manufacturer in the world.

Now who is lying? Does Lindows have a One Computer requirement? NOPE.

> That being the case, the only way
> he can make his statement "Only MS's EULA states this One Computer
> BS...." is to knowingly lie.

No, I'm not talking about those companies, I talking about whether it is
illegal under the law! And with that in mind, and that the whole article is
dealing with MS's claims that their EULA term makes it illegal to install
software on more than one computer, it is not a lie in context.

>
> Now, as for my statement that Kurttrail advocates software piracy:
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that I was guilty of sloppy
> terminology. Software piracy, in the generally accepted legal sense
> of the term, refers to someone's mass-producing and selling of
> unauthorized copies of a computer program. Kurttrail has not, to my
> knowledge, actually advocated particular this illegal activity. I
> sloppily applied the term "software piracy" to the act of an
> individual making illegal copies of software for his/her own use.

Then you should apologize, if your a real MAN!

> What Kurttrail is actually advocating is copyright infringement. For
> US citizens, that's still a federal offense, although the matter is
> generally relegated to civil, rather than criminal, courts as long as
> the number of copies remain below 10.
>
> What is particularly laughable is Kurttrails attempts to quote
> Title 17 as if it didn't directly contradict his claims. His crude,
> convoluted attempts to redefine the words used in the code would make
> Bill "It depends on your definition of the word 'is'" Clinton proud.
> However, the wording of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 is perfectly
> clear and unambiguous:
>
> "Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
> infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
> authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
> program provided:
>
> (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
> in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a
> machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
>
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
> that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
>
> As the above clearly states, one may make a backup copy of the
> software for archival purposes, in case something happens to the
> original. Of course, once you cease to own the original license, you
> must destroy the archival copy. The only other copy authorized under
> the law is the copy that is installed on "a machine." Notice that the
> law specifies "a" "machine." That's "a," as in "one," as in
> "singular." That's "machine" as in "one," not "machines" as in
> plural. To emphasize the point, Congress added the phrase "... and
> that it is used in no other manner."

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in
the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or

or

(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use
of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is
used in no other manner, or

A - the indefinite article, used before a singular countable noun to refer
to one person or thing not previously known or specified, in contrast with
"the," referring to somebody or something known to the listener.

Since the new adaptation can only be create on one computer, it is quite
telling that Congress wrote "a machine" not "the machine." This means that
a copyright owner can't specify what machine an additition adaptation is
installed on!

SO what I advocate is not even copyright infringement!

>
> I really don't think anything more need be said on the matter.

That's because you are a coward.

> Kurttrail is entitled to his opinions and his, to many people,
> fabulistic interpretations of the law. But, no one is obligated to
> share or even respect those rambling rationalizations.

"openly advocates lying"

I suggest that people hold MS to their word that "[t]he only information
required to activate is an installation ID."

What do you call it when someone asks you something that is none of their
business? I call it being rude.

If I were OPENLY advocatingly lying, then I just say to tell my audience to
tell the PA phone rep anything they like, but I didn't do that. I made a
suggestion to help people deal with an unscrupulous PA rep asking for more
information than is actually required according to MS's own words!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Bruce ChambersBS]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
> > scribbled:
>
>
>
> _ - = + * P L O N K * = + = - _
>

LOL! Thanks for running away like the chickensh*t that you are!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[Jim Macklin]

Gee, Kurt is now spoofing (lying) about who sent this post.


"Bruce ChambersBS" > wrote in message
...
| Bruce Chambers wrote:
|
| > Greetings --
| >
| > I shouldn't have thought this would be necessary,
but, as a favor
| > to those who are "challenged," shall we say, in the
areas of reading
| > comprehension and/or critical thinking, I'll make an
exception and
| > point out the obvious.
| >
| > There are, in common usage, at least two sorts of
lies: lies of
| > omission, and direct fabrications. Kurttrail urges
people to do both
| > in his so-called "Multiple Activations FAQ."
| >
| > First, the direct lie: "If they try to ask you any
questions
| > before asking to exchange activation codes, tell them
that the answer
| > would require you to divulge what you deem to be
personal information,
| > and that you are uncomfortable with that.... "
|
| This is not a lie, but a suggestion.
|
| > In the same vein,
| > "Start off the conversation by saying how rude it is to
be
| > interrogated by the PA phone rep when all you want to do
is activate
| > the software you paid for." Because Kurtrail has
absolutely no way of
| > knowing whether or not anyone in his potential audience
even believes
| > that "personal" information is being sought, much less
is being made
| > uncomfortable by the questions, or what they might
consider rude, his
| > advice to use such specific statements regardless of
one's true
| > feelings is, for an unknown but probably large portion
of his
| > audience, advice to use a direct falsehood. Better
known as a "lie."
|
| LOL! Boy this is what you meant by "openly advocates
lying?"
|
| openly - Without reserve or disguise; plainly; evidently.
|
| So it totally evident that I advocate lying? LOL!
|
|
| "The only information required to activate is an
installation ID (and, for
| Office XP and Office XP family products such as Visio
2002, the name of the
| country in which the product is being installed)." -
|
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
|
| NO OTHER INFO IS REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE WINDOWS XP! Any
other question that a
| PA rep asks other than the installation ID is not a
requirement to answer to
| activate XP, and makes MS's claim to the contrary the
openly apparent lie.
|
| >
| > Second, the lie of omission: Every successful bunko
artist and
| > con man will tell you that the most affective way to lie
is to include
| > parts of the truth. So, keeping in the tradition of the
greatest
| > liars, Kurttrail says, "MS won't deny an activation
unless you tell
| > them that XP is installed on more than one computer, but
they have no
| > means to verify this info, so they must rely on the end
user (YOU)
| > volunteering that info, and MS has no right to compel
you to give that
| > info." In plain English, "Don't tell them all of the
facts;
|
| Because you aren't required to do anything to tell them
any facts other than
| the installation ID to activate Windows XP.
|
| just the
| > ones that suit your purpose."
|
| THE ONLY FACT REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE WINDOWS XP IS THE
INSTALLATION ID! Any
| other factual requirement would be the lie!
|
| > Deception by omission is still
| > deception, no matter how Kurttrail tap-dances around the
issue, or how
| > common the practice may be amongst politicians.
|
| No the lie of ommision is that MS sometimes requires more
info than just the
| installation ID. And that would be MS's lie, not mine!
|
| >
| > Of course, Kurttrail has no problem advising other
people to lie,
| > as he's apparently so fond of the practice, himself.
For instance, he
| > claims, "Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS...."
|
| "Isn't it "illegal" to install the same copy of software
on more than one
| computer?
| Not at all. There are no laws that prevent an individual
from installing
| software on more than one computer that they own, and as a
matter of fact,
| US Copyright law limits computer program Copyright owners
by saying, it is
| not infringement to make additional copies or adaptations
of computer
| programs. Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS, and
they have had it
| in their OS EULAs since Windows 3.1, and have yet to try
to enforce by legal
| means, in a civil court, as they've been too afraid that
they would lose."
|
| Now your quilty of ommision! In context, I said that in
reference that
| there is no law that makes installing software on more
than one computer
| illegal, and only MS EULA tries to fool the End User that
it is. I am
| talking about one company in the whole article. Of course
the rest of the
| colluding members of the BSA follow MS lead, just like
with PA.
|
| "Only" is meant in respect to the law, not to other
colluding members of the
| BSA.
|
| > Either he's
| > deliberately lying, or he's never looked at any of
Symantec's,
| > Adobe's, Lotus', Blizzard's, McAfee's, or Corel's
licenses.
|
| The FAQ is about MS, not the other companies. But so all
the colluding
| members of the BSA write the same thing, does it make it a
law? Does it
| change the fact that there is no law that makes installing
software on more
| than one computer illegal?
|
| No to both.
|
| > Since he
| > uses the word "only," we must conclude that he's
claiming to have
| > compared Microsoft's licensing practices with those of
every other
| > software manufacturer in the world.
|
| Now who is lying? Does Lindows have a One Computer
requirement? NOPE.
|
| > That being the case, the only way
| > he can make his statement "Only MS's EULA states this
One Computer
| > BS...." is to knowingly lie.
|
| No, I'm not talking about those companies, I talking about
whether it is
| illegal under the law! And with that in mind, and that
the whole article is
| dealing with MS's claims that their EULA term makes it
illegal to install
| software on more than one computer, it is not a lie in
context.
|
| >
| > Now, as for my statement that Kurttrail advocates
software piracy:
| >
| > The simple fact of the matter is that I was guilty
of sloppy
| > terminology. Software piracy, in the generally accepted
legal sense
| > of the term, refers to someone's mass-producing and
selling of
| > unauthorized copies of a computer program. Kurttrail
has not, to my
| > knowledge, actually advocated particular this illegal
activity. I
| > sloppily applied the term "software piracy" to the act
of an
| > individual making illegal copies of software for his/her
own use.
|
| Then you should apologize, if your a real MAN!
|
| > What Kurttrail is actually advocating is copyright
infringement. For
| > US citizens, that's still a federal offense, although
the matter is
| > generally relegated to civil, rather than criminal,
courts as long as
| > the number of copies remain below 10.
| >
| > What is particularly laughable is Kurttrails
attempts to quote
| > Title 17 as if it didn't directly contradict his claims.
His crude,
| > convoluted attempts to redefine the words used in the
code would make
| > Bill "It depends on your definition of the word 'is'"
Clinton proud.
| > However, the wording of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117
is perfectly
| > clear and unambiguous:
| >
| > "Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
programs
| >
| > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
Copy. -
| > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not
an
| > infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
program to make or
| > authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
that computer
| > program provided:
| >
| > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step
| > in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a
| > machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
| >
| > (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
purposes only and
| > that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued
| > possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful."
| >
| > As the above clearly states, one may make a backup
copy of the
| > software for archival purposes, in case something
happens to the
| > original. Of course, once you cease to own the original
license, you
| > must destroy the archival copy. The only other copy
authorized under
| > the law is the copy that is installed on "a machine."
Notice that the
| > law specifies "a" "machine." That's "a," as in "one,"
as in
| > "singular." That's "machine" as in "one," not
"machines" as in
| > plural. To emphasize the point, Congress added the
phrase "... and
| > that it is used in no other manner."
|
| (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in
| the utilization of the computer program in conjunction
with a machine and
| that it is used in no other manner, or
|
| or
|
| (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary
step in making use
| of the software together with a previously unknown
computer and that it is
| used in no other manner, or
|
| A - the indefinite article, used before a singular
countable noun to refer
| to one person or thing not previously known or specified,
in contrast with
| "the," referring to somebody or something known to the
listener.
|
| Since the new adaptation can only be create on one
computer, it is quite
| telling that Congress wrote "a machine" not "the machine."
This means that
| a copyright owner can't specify what machine an additition
adaptation is
| installed on!
|
| SO what I advocate is not even copyright infringement!
|
| >
| > I really don't think anything more need be said on
the matter.
|
| That's because you are a coward.
|
| > Kurttrail is entitled to his opinions and his, to many
people,
| > fabulistic interpretations of the law. But, no one is
obligated to
| > share or even respect those rambling rationalizations.
|
| "openly advocates lying"
|
| I suggest that people hold MS to their word that "[t]he
only information
| required to activate is an installation ID."
|
| What do you call it when someone asks you something that
is none of their
| business? I call it being rude.
|
| If I were OPENLY advocatingly lying, then I just say to
tell my audience to
| tell the PA phone rep anything they like, but I didn't do
that. I made a
| suggestion to help people deal with an unscrupulous PA rep
asking for more
| information than is actually required according to MS's
own words!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

When you plonk Kurt he just spoofs another name to get
around so you must read his rants.

Notice how he spoofs Bruce, since he knows that reasonable
people will read what Bruce says.

Did you see Bruce's answers about Kurt, now it seems Kurt
has changed tactics.


"Bruce ChambersBS" > wrote in message
...
| Never anonymous Bud wrote:
|
| > While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "kurttrail"
| > > scribbled:
| >
| >
| >
| > _ - = + * P L O N K * = + = - _
| >
|
| LOL! Thanks for running away like the chickensh*t that
you are!
|
| --
| Peace!
| Kurt
| Self-anointed Moderator
| microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| http://microscum.com
| "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
Oxymoron!
| "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
|
|

[Testy]

Kurt has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder....but he has
since crossed the border!

Testy

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Gee, Kurt is now spoofing (lying) about who sent this post.
>
>
> "Bruce ChambersBS" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Bruce Chambers wrote:
> |
> | > Greetings --
> | >
> | > I shouldn't have thought this would be necessary,
> but, as a favor
> | > to those who are "challenged," shall we say, in the
> areas of reading
> | > comprehension and/or critical thinking, I'll make an
> exception and
> | > point out the obvious.
> | >
> | > There are, in common usage, at least two sorts of
> lies: lies of
> | > omission, and direct fabrications. Kurttrail urges
> people to do both
> | > in his so-called "Multiple Activations FAQ."
> | >
> | > First, the direct lie: "If they try to ask you any
> questions
> | > before asking to exchange activation codes, tell them
> that the answer
> | > would require you to divulge what you deem to be
> personal information,
> | > and that you are uncomfortable with that.... "
> |
> | This is not a lie, but a suggestion.
> |
> | > In the same vein,
> | > "Start off the conversation by saying how rude it is to
> be
> | > interrogated by the PA phone rep when all you want to do
> is activate
> | > the software you paid for." Because Kurtrail has
> absolutely no way of
> | > knowing whether or not anyone in his potential audience
> even believes
> | > that "personal" information is being sought, much less
> is being made
> | > uncomfortable by the questions, or what they might
> consider rude, his
> | > advice to use such specific statements regardless of
> one's true
> | > feelings is, for an unknown but probably large portion
> of his
> | > audience, advice to use a direct falsehood. Better
> known as a "lie."
> |
> | LOL! Boy this is what you meant by "openly advocates
> lying?"
> |
> | openly - Without reserve or disguise; plainly; evidently.
> |
> | So it totally evident that I advocate lying? LOL!
> |
> |
> | "The only information required to activate is an
> installation ID (and, for
> | Office XP and Office XP family products such as Visio
> 2002, the name of the
> | country in which the product is being installed)." -
> |
> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
> |
> | NO OTHER INFO IS REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE WINDOWS XP! Any
> other question that a
> | PA rep asks other than the installation ID is not a
> requirement to answer to
> | activate XP, and makes MS's claim to the contrary the
> openly apparent lie.
> |
> | >
> | > Second, the lie of omission: Every successful bunko
> artist and
> | > con man will tell you that the most affective way to lie
> is to include
> | > parts of the truth. So, keeping in the tradition of the
> greatest
> | > liars, Kurttrail says, "MS won't deny an activation
> unless you tell
> | > them that XP is installed on more than one computer, but
> they have no
> | > means to verify this info, so they must rely on the end
> user (YOU)
> | > volunteering that info, and MS has no right to compel
> you to give that
> | > info." In plain English, "Don't tell them all of the
> facts;
> |
> | Because you aren't required to do anything to tell them
> any facts other than
> | the installation ID to activate Windows XP.
> |
> | just the
> | > ones that suit your purpose."
> |
> | THE ONLY FACT REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE WINDOWS XP IS THE
> INSTALLATION ID! Any
> | other factual requirement would be the lie!
> |
> | > Deception by omission is still
> | > deception, no matter how Kurttrail tap-dances around the
> issue, or how
> | > common the practice may be amongst politicians.
> |
> | No the lie of ommision is that MS sometimes requires more
> info than just the
> | installation ID. And that would be MS's lie, not mine!
> |
> | >
> | > Of course, Kurttrail has no problem advising other
> people to lie,
> | > as he's apparently so fond of the practice, himself.
> For instance, he
> | > claims, "Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS...."
> |
> | "Isn't it "illegal" to install the same copy of software
> on more than one
> | computer?
> | Not at all. There are no laws that prevent an individual
> from installing
> | software on more than one computer that they own, and as a
> matter of fact,
> | US Copyright law limits computer program Copyright owners
> by saying, it is
> | not infringement to make additional copies or adaptations
> of computer
> | programs. Only MS's EULA states this One Computer BS, and
> they have had it
> | in their OS EULAs since Windows 3.1, and have yet to try
> to enforce by legal
> | means, in a civil court, as they've been too afraid that
> they would lose."
> |
> | Now your quilty of ommision! In context, I said that in
> reference that
> | there is no law that makes installing software on more
> than one computer
> | illegal, and only MS EULA tries to fool the End User that
> it is. I am
> | talking about one company in the whole article. Of course
> the rest of the
> | colluding members of the BSA follow MS lead, just like
> with PA.
> |
> | "Only" is meant in respect to the law, not to other
> colluding members of the
> | BSA.
> |
> | > Either he's
> | > deliberately lying, or he's never looked at any of
> Symantec's,
> | > Adobe's, Lotus', Blizzard's, McAfee's, or Corel's
> licenses.
> |
> | The FAQ is about MS, not the other companies. But so all
> the colluding
> | members of the BSA write the same thing, does it make it a
> law? Does it
> | change the fact that there is no law that makes installing
> software on more
> | than one computer illegal?
> |
> | No to both.
> |
> | > Since he
> | > uses the word "only," we must conclude that he's
> claiming to have
> | > compared Microsoft's licensing practices with those of
> every other
> | > software manufacturer in the world.
> |
> | Now who is lying? Does Lindows have a One Computer
> requirement? NOPE.
> |
> | > That being the case, the only way
> | > he can make his statement "Only MS's EULA states this
> One Computer
> | > BS...." is to knowingly lie.
> |
> | No, I'm not talking about those companies, I talking about
> whether it is
> | illegal under the law! And with that in mind, and that
> the whole article is
> | dealing with MS's claims that their EULA term makes it
> illegal to install
> | software on more than one computer, it is not a lie in
> context.
> |
> | >
> | > Now, as for my statement that Kurttrail advocates
> software piracy:
> | >
> | > The simple fact of the matter is that I was guilty
> of sloppy
> | > terminology. Software piracy, in the generally accepted
> legal sense
> | > of the term, refers to someone's mass-producing and
> selling of
> | > unauthorized copies of a computer program. Kurttrail
> has not, to my
> | > knowledge, actually advocated particular this illegal
> activity. I
> | > sloppily applied the term "software piracy" to the act
> of an
> | > individual making illegal copies of software for his/her
> own use.
> |
> | Then you should apologize, if your a real MAN!
> |
> | > What Kurttrail is actually advocating is copyright
> infringement. For
> | > US citizens, that's still a federal offense, although
> the matter is
> | > generally relegated to civil, rather than criminal,
> courts as long as
> | > the number of copies remain below 10.
> | >
> | > What is particularly laughable is Kurttrails
> attempts to quote
> | > Title 17 as if it didn't directly contradict his claims.
> His crude,
> | > convoluted attempts to redefine the words used in the
> code would make
> | > Bill "It depends on your definition of the word 'is'"
> Clinton proud.
> | > However, the wording of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117
> is perfectly
> | > clear and unambiguous:
> | >
> | > "Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
> programs
> | >
> | > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of
> Copy. -
> | > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not
> an
> | > infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer
> program to make or
> | > authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
> that computer
> | > program provided:
> | >
> | > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
> essential step
> | > in the utilization of the computer program in
> conjunction with a
> | > machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
> | >
> | > (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival
> purposes only and
> | > that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
> continued
> | > possession of the computer program should cease to be
> rightful."
> | >
> | > As the above clearly states, one may make a backup
> copy of the
> | > software for archival purposes, in case something
> happens to the
> | > original. Of course, once you cease to own the original
> license, you
> | > must destroy the archival copy. The only other copy
> authorized under
> | > the law is the copy that is installed on "a machine."
> Notice that the
> | > law specifies "a" "machine." That's "a," as in "one,"
> as in
> | > "singular." That's "machine" as in "one," not
> "machines" as in
> | > plural. To emphasize the point, Congress added the
> phrase "... and
> | > that it is used in no other manner."
> |
> | (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
> essential step in
> | the utilization of the computer program in conjunction
> with a machine and
> | that it is used in no other manner, or
> |
> | or
> |
> | (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary
> step in making use
> | of the software together with a previously unknown
> computer and that it is
> | used in no other manner, or
> |
> | A - the indefinite article, used before a singular
> countable noun to refer
> | to one person or thing not previously known or specified,
> in contrast with
> | "the," referring to somebody or something known to the
> listener.
> |
> | Since the new adaptation can only be create on one
> computer, it is quite
> | telling that Congress wrote "a machine" not "the machine."
> This means that
> | a copyright owner can't specify what machine an additition
> adaptation is
> | installed on!
> |
> | SO what I advocate is not even copyright infringement!
> |
> | >
> | > I really don't think anything more need be said on
> the matter.
> |
> | That's because you are a coward.
> |
> | > Kurttrail is entitled to his opinions and his, to many
> people,
> | > fabulistic interpretations of the law. But, no one is
> obligated to
> | > share or even respect those rambling rationalizations.
> |
> | "openly advocates lying"
> |
> | I suggest that people hold MS to their word that "[t]he
> only information
> | required to activate is an installation ID."
> |
> | What do you call it when someone asks you something that
> is none of their
> | business? I call it being rude.
> |
> | If I were OPENLY advocatingly lying, then I just say to
> tell my audience to
> | tell the PA phone rep anything they like, but I didn't do
> that. I made a
> | suggestion to help people deal with an unscrupulous PA rep
> asking for more
> | information than is actually required according to MS's
> own words!
> |
> | --
> | Peace!
> | Kurt
> | Self-anointed Moderator
> | microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> | http://microscum.com
> | "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an
> Oxymoron!
> | "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
> |
> |
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 3/5/2004

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

As you've already more than amply demonstrated your unwillingness to
speak or understand the truth, please stop changing your aliases and
pseudonyms to avoid people's filters. Once a troll....

Bruce Chambers

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

"Bruce ChambersBS" > wrote in message
...

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

By the way, Jim, has Kurttrail ever explained why he hides behind
multiple aliases, but calls me a coward?

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Gee, Kurt is now spoofing (lying) about who sent this post.
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Nevermind, I figured it out. A simple Whois search of his
"domain" reveals much:

Domain Name: MICROSCUM.COM
Registrar: ONLINENIC, INC.
Whois Server: whois.OnlineNIC.com
Referral URL: http://www.OnlineNIC.com
Name Server: NS3.BANANIC-DNS.COM
Name Server: NS4.BANANIC-DNS.COM
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 12-sep-2003
Creation Date: 12-sep-2003
Expiration Date: 12-sep-2004

Registrar Name: ONLINENIC, INC.
Address: 8/F, Huiyuan Group Building 267th Jiahe Road, Xiamen,
Fujian 361012, CN
Phone Number: +86 592.5391980
Email:
Whois Server: whois.OnlineNIC.com
Referral URL: www.OnlineNIC.com
Admin Contact: Kevin . Gong
Phone Number: +86.592.5391888
Email:
Admin Contact: Yak . Huang
Phone Number: +86 592 5161011
Email:
Admin Contact: Joe . Lee
Phone Number: +86 5925391985
Email:
Billing Contact: Hongbin . Xue
Phone Number: +86 592 5161382
Email:
Technical Contact: Yak . Huang
Phone Number: +86 592 5161011
Email:
Technical Contact: Rex . Liu
Phone Number: +1.415-665-6387
Email:



Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> By the way, Jim, has Kurttrail ever explained why he hides behind
> multiple aliases, but calls me a coward?
>
> Bruce Chambers
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Gee, Kurt is now spoofing (lying) about who sent this post.
>>
>>
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

I thought it was obvious, he is 12 years old, skinny, wears
thick glasses and a football helmet and he isn't on a team.


"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in
message ...
| Greetings --
|
| By the way, Jim, has Kurttrail ever explained why he
hides behind
| multiple aliases, but calls me a coward?
|
| Bruce Chambers
| --
| Help us help you:
| http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
| http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
| You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever
count on
| having both at once. -- RAH
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Gee, Kurt is now spoofing (lying) about who sent this
post.
| >
| >
|
|

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Gee, Kurt is now spoofing (lying) about who sent this post.

Had to make sure that Bruce saw my reply. He anounced to the group long ago
that he plonked me, hence my calling him a coward.

I did keep my signiture, so everyone could see that it was me. Plus I
didn't post thru the CDO interface so my IP address is still the same as all
the other posts in this thread.

So, was I really intending to spoof anybody? No! Bruce wants to talk about
me but he doesn't want to see my replies. That's a chickensh*t in my book,
so the I way I have of making sure he sees my replies is change to something
other that "kurttrail."

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> By the way, Jim, has Kurttrail ever explained why he hides behind
> multiple aliases, but calls me a coward?

You damn well know why, Liar! You plonked me long ago! You are the coward
that wants to talk about me, but hide yourself from my replies. What a
typical chickensh*t you are!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> Nevermind, I figured it out. A simple Whois search of his
> "domain" reveals much:

What exactly, Douchebag?!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Greetings --
>
> As you've already more than amply demonstrated your unwillingness to
> speak or understand the truth, please stop changing your aliases and
> pseudonyms to avoid people's filters. Once a troll....

You're the chickensh*t that wants to hide behind filters, but you want to
talk sh*t about me and my words, so it is really you that have proven your
unwillingness to speak or understand the truth.

Thank you for confirming that for all the rational people reading this
group!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> I thought it was obvious, he is 12 years old, skinny, wears
> thick glasses and a football helmet and he isn't on a team.


I was the 4th string Fullback on one of 26 New Jersey State Highschool
Football Champions in 1978. So there! And my glasses aren't all that
thick, but they are tinted a deep blue.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

Testy wrote:

> Kurt has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder....but
> he has since crossed the border!

In comparison to you chickensh*ts, I've crossed the border in Genius!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

>-----Original Message-----
>Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>> Greetings --
>>
>> As you've already more than amply demonstrated your
unwillingness to
>> speak or understand the truth, please stop changing
your aliases and
>> pseudonyms to avoid people's filters. Once a troll....
>
>You're the chickensh*t that wants to hide behind filters,
but you want to
>talk sh*t about me and my words, so it is really you that
have proven your
>unwillingness to speak or understand the truth.
>
>Thank you for confirming that for all the rational people
reading this
>group!

You have got that right, Kurt.

I guess Bruce really does not pay too much attention to
what he writes, because he is the one that is
demonstrating his unwillingness to discuss anything with
you. How did a guy this slimey ever become a MVP?

No wonder Microsoft has such a hard time winning back
people's trust with people like Bruce representing them.

[MCR]

Snipped in entirety..

A Question and a comment.

The best way to hurt a company is not by advocating violating it's
copyright. The best way to deal with it IMHO is to vote with your
wallet. Just install Linux or any other licenced MS OS on your other
PC's and tell others. I like XP and will put up with their restrictive
licencing rules, however, I will not buy more than one copy, and have
used both FREEDOS and Mandrake on my other PC's.

If XP becomes cheeper, I would upgrade all my PC's to XP. I got 3
Win98SE licences (not OEM) for £40.00UK at a bankruptcy sale, perfect.




--
MCR
MAME - History In The Making
Life isn't what you make it, it is what it makes you

[Never anonymous Bud]

While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Bruce ChambersBS" >
scribbled:

>LOL! Thanks for running away like the chickensh*t that you are!


Wrongo, as usual. You're just not WORTH discussing anything with.





To reply by email, remove the XYZ.

Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.

This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity....

[kurttrail]

Never anonymous Bud wrote:

> While still snuggled in a 'spider hole', "Bruce ChambersBS"
> > scribbled:
>
>> LOL! Thanks for running away like the chickensh*t that you are!
>
>
> Wrongo, as usual. You're just not WORTH discussing anything with.

Yes, I'm sure that's just how you rationalize it to yourself.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

[kurttrail]

MCR wrote:

> Snipped in entirety..
>
> A Question and a comment.
>
> The best way to hurt a company is not by advocating violating it's
> copyright.

Who said anything about violating Copyright? If you read my page you might
learn that installing software on more than one computer isn't a violation
of copyright in the US where I live.

> The best way to deal with it IMHO is to vote with your
> wallet. Just install Linux or any other licenced MS OS on your other
> PC's and tell others. I like XP and will put up with their
> restrictive licencing rules, however, I will not buy more than one
> copy, and have used both FREEDOS and Mandrake on my other PC's.

LOL!

>
> If XP becomes cheeper, I would upgrade all my PC's to XP. I got 3
> Win98SE licences (not OEM) for £40.00UK at a bankruptcy sale, perfect.

Congrats.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"