Ed,

First off, I don't like being called Bucko. Joe or Joseph is fine, okay?

Secondly, on this subject you won't change my mind. I don't think there is any need to insult people (especially with name-calling). It doesn't stimulate anything but bad feelings. It certainly doesn't add to the quality of the ideas being exchanged. So I am against this activity, and you apparently are unopposed to it. That has been established.

Ed, on another note: I think maybe you should try to analyse why you feel a need to attack people this way. What I find interesting is that when some people showed support for you, you were so quick to thank them. It seems that you feel this is a sort of popularity contest. Maybe not consciously, but on some levels your quick thanks for their support (especially given that they were uninformed as to what was said in the earlier thread) demonstrates your need to be acknowledged. I think if this wasn't such a strong need, you would have pointed them to the earlier thread. But that may have changed their level of support for you. Who knows, but why take the chance, right? Anyways, it doesn't hurt to try to dig deep into your feelings to figure out what is your motivation. You might uncover some issues that should examined.

Joe


>I find youre position to be unpalatable at best. If this example is what you find to be morally repugnant, I'll not try to change your mind. His position was a call for theft, plain and simple, not to evaluate for possible purchase, but for profit. It ain't situational ethics here, Bucko, it's pure profit motive - in no case was compensating the author ever suggested. In no way was this to be a 'learning experience'. Just simple greed and dishonesty.
>
>There's nothing more to discuss here. EOT.
>
>>Joe
>>
>>
>>>>Neither. I am curious about you. Why you feel you can call people (not me) names (like thief and worse) and insult them the way you do. I am just wondering why you see yourself as a judge of other people's morality.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry to offend you, unfortunately, I call'em like I see 'em, and some people don't like this. If this makes me appear in a bad light, I'm sorry. I'm equally offended by people who feel that there's nothing wrong with raising the Jolly Roger on occasion.
>>>
>>>I apologize for my uncultured response and the unsophisticated and thoughtless means of expressing of my displeasure and annoyance with software pirates of any kind. I have strong feelings about people whose view of what rights are enjoyed by the authors and distributors of software products are subject to 'situational ethics'. It is clearly wrong to publicly censure them in an embarrassing fashion.
>>>
>>>I don't apologize for believing that they're dead wrong.
>>>
>>>The Russians have the perfect term for these people - it's something like "nykulturney" (with apologies to those who actually speak Russiam and can spell it properly.) Its closest translation in English is 'no culture' or uncultured, uncivilised and barbaric. The individual labelled as such has committed a major faux paux, falling somewhere between bletching loudly at a formal dinner party, and disembowelling one's youngest child on the spot for grabbing the last pork chop on the table before Mom could sit down and eat herself. It carries a serious negative implication about the beliefs and behavior exhibited by the person tagged as such, and IMO, it expresses exactly my classification of the people involved in loose interpretation of what is acceptable recognition of authors' rights.
>>>
>>>I don't think you've changed my mind about the morality of the situation. I'm sure that Michel or one of the other sysops here on UT will take appropriate steps to censure me for boorish behavior. I've no more special status here than any other member of UT, and don't expect such.