On 27 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill Z.)
wrote:
>Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> On 26 Jun 2008 18:55:14 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 25 Jun 2008 23:19:52 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 22 Jun 2008 21:48:39 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill
Z.)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 21 Jun 2008 23:57:09 -0700, nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bill
Z.)
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Mike Vandeman <mjvande@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Irrelevant - you claimed that copyright infringement
was a victimless
>> >> >> >> >> >> >crime and it clearly isn't.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> If the email isn't marketable, then he hasn't been
victimized. I've
>> >> >> >> >> >> taken nothing of value. On the contrary, it is
WORTHLESS. Hence the
>> >> >> >> >> >> only victim is ME.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >If you break into a car and steal a radio from it, you've
committed a
>> >> >> >> >> >crime even if the radio is broken and not reparable, and
hence
>> >> >> >> >> >worthless.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> WRONG. I would have done him a FAVOR to remove that trash
-- a
>> >> >> >> >> victimless crime.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Run that one past a judge. Or better yet, try it as an
experiment,
>> >> >> >> >repeating enough times to get cought. My guess is that we
might be
>> >> >> >> >spared from your presense on usenet for some time.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I know that mountain bikers would LOVE for me to stop telling
the
>> >> >> >> truth about their selfish, destructive, disgusting s****t, but
it isn't
>> >> >> >> going to happen, and my postings to the newsgroups will be
around
>> >> >> >> forever, even after I'm gone, to carry on my message. What's
YOUR
>> >> >> >> excuse for living?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Non sequitur (due to having no cogent reply), plus showing an
arrogant
>> >> >> >disregard for human life.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I knew you couldn't answer that, because you HAVE no good excuse
for
>> >> >> living. You are a waste of good protoplasm.
>> >> >
>> >> >Vandeman, go f___ yourself. That's the only response you deserve.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it any better.
>> >
>> >No point of yours was proved. When you call someone a "good waste
>> >of protoplasm", you deserve to be treated just like the low-life,
>> >contemptible excuse for humanity that you are.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point AGAIN! I couldn't have done it any better.
>
>You have no "point", troll. You were simply rude and were told off
>for inexcusable conduct.
I know: you are just a boor, and can't help it. You have amply proven
it. Just look up.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
