From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 16/4/05 3:29, in article BE856419.1217F%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID, "Snit"   
    wrote:   
      
   > This has gotten too silly   
      
   Of course! *You* are participating!   
      
   > and you have taken into too many side issues.  Let   
   > me just offer a quick recap:   
   >   
   > 1) Elizabot has admitted to multiple actions:taking an image from my site,   
   > editing it   
      
   But not multiple images which is your unsubstantiated claim! Or should I say   
   ...your lie....yup far more accurate!   
      
   > (including adding feminine hygiene products to the image), and   
   > reposting it.   
      
   All of which she has admitted!   
      
   > 2) You do not deny that Elizabot has done this (well, you even waffle on   
   > that - you refer to *one* action but will not say which one!), but you have   
   > stated it is OK with you...   
      
   Correct , I have stated that I see no problem with it.   
      
   > not because her actions in general are moral,   
      
   I do not consider her actions immoral, when perpetrated against a person   
   such as yourself......that is correct.   
      
   > but because you think it is ok to do that to *me*... even though the image   
   > in question was not mine (though it was *of* me).   
      
   Yes to the first part, and the second part was unknown at the time so is of   
   no consequence, had you done the right thing and given credit to the owner   
   of the image...we would have had a different outcome IMO.   
      
   >   
   > 3) In part of her "defense" Elizabot pointed to other images she though were   
   > of me and by me, but she was not completely correct.   
      
   I should take your word over hers? hahahhaahahhah   
      
   > Even if she had been,   
   > of course, it would not have been related to her actions.   
      
   Of course not as she did nothing to those images......well done.   
      
   >  You allowed   
   > yourself to get confused and side tracked by looking into the copyright into   
   > in *those* images...   
      
   Perhaps you should consider who started the copyright angle, it was I that   
   finished it!   
      
   > something that has not even been in question and is not   
   > related to the image Elizabot admitted to stealing, editing, and reposting!   
      
   You are confused, first Elizabot according to you stole your image, then she   
   stole an image not owned by you, when will you get your story straight?   
      
   > 4) Below you pretend that it is the mere downloading of images that I am   
   > questioning, despite all the contrary evidence you have been given (is that   
   > the one action you are in reference to - you play games with that   
   > question... so I doubt you will answer now).   
      
   When someone is accused of 'stealing' that refers to the removal of that   
   stolen from a place where that object should reasonably be expected to be,   
   what happens to that object after being stolen is another matter.   
      
      
   > 5) You brought up an unrelated incident.. where you *still* waffle back   
   > and forth and pretend like it is my fault,   
      
   If as you maintain I have continually said it is at least partly  (as agreed   
   by you) your fault, then that sounds as if I have maintained a consistent   
   position wrt that fact, which contradicts your notion of waffling back and   
   forth, perhaps I should say no more and simply let you make my points for me   
   you do not seem to be able to help yourself!   
      
   > as seen below.  You do, however,   
   > admit "I cannot and will not answer a question wrt MY morals based simply on   
   > the breaking of the law".   
      
   Correct, but note that does not preclude my answering based on 'a' law!   
   The fact that you cannot make that distinction says a lot about your moral   
   values, again you make my point...thank you.   
      
   > At least now we both agree to that - you will not   
   > answer a question based on your morals, at least not in this context.   
      
   The context being of course 'The law' as opposed to 'A law'.   
      
   >  That   
   > is very different from me: I can, have, and will answer such questions   
   > (including the specific one you are avoiding - then pretending you have   
   > answered).   
      
   Of course, because your morals cannot extend to the fact that sometimes   
   morality involves making a choice, you have shown consistently that this   
   ability is lacking in you, unfortunate, but true!   
      
   >  I do not play your silly semantic games - I answer questions   
   > honestly based on logic and reason, or, if I do not wish to answer a   
   > question, I explain why I am not doing so (I do not owe people answers to   
   > all questions and everyone has a right to not answer some questions).   
      
   Unless Snit is doing the asking it would seem. LOL   
      
   > This, again, is different from your position:   
   >   
   >     I have answered everything that I feel I reasonably can in as honest a   
   >     way as I could!   
      
   That is disturbing!   
      
   > It shows how you and I are different.   
      
   Amen to that! ;=)   
      
   > You base your answers on what you *feel* you can reasonably do...   
      
   My oh My, fancy doing such a thing in respect to morals, where could I have   
   got the idea that morality is based on an individuals idea of right and   
   wrong.........Bad, Bad, Wally!   
      
   > I base my answers on what logic and reasoning allows,   
      
   You should let your hair down now and again and simply do what you feel is   
   right, you may actually develop some moral fiber that way!.   
      
   > to the best of my ability.   
      
   Considering your performance, hardly something to be proud of, now is it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)