From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Allegro CL 5.0 Win32 Date: 2000/02/25 Message-ID: <3160483279486734@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 589913805 References: <88k8ar$jsp$1@news.campuscwix.net> <38ada <38b18020.0@flint.sentex.net> <3160337334524020@naggum.no> <38B551B6.A7BA9012@fisec.com> <38B67624.F6006262@eralslk.ericsson.se> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 951496766 17331 195.0.192.66 (25 Feb 2000 16:39:26 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2000 16:39:26 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Ole Myren Rohne | In the article I criticized <3160337334524020@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum had | to omit "licensed" in order to make Zachary *sound* dishonest - that was | my point. geez, talk about attributing malice to people! get a grip on yourself. when a person with criminal intent asks a person who has a licensed copy of a program for a copy of it, does this necessarily imply that the copy he is asking for is licensed and legitimate or could it also imply that the copy will be a pirated copy, and that the only reasons to ask for the holder of a licensed copy are to obscure the intent and make sure he is himself not screwed? I'm inclined to believe that the best reason to explain why you think other people "have to" omit words and meaning is that you're so goddamn good at it yourself, but it reflects on yourself, not on your targets. you could stop doing it, you know, and actually try to make a _point_, instead of proving that it is legitimate for others to do what you do. #:Erik