From: wally@wally.world.net   
      
   On 20/4/05 11:24, in article BE8B1979.1317C%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   "Snit"  wrote:   
      
   > "Wally"  stated in post   
   > BE8BE700.A6B8%wally@wally.world.net on 4/19/05 8:02 PM:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On 19/4/05 19:46, in article BE8A3D8F.12F39%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID,   
   >> "Snit"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "Wally"  stated in post   
   >>> BE8ADB97.A584%wally@wally.world.net on 4/19/05 1:01 AM:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Ok, this post is getting silly and long, so let's just cut to the chase:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You have admitted you have a weakness in comprehension, at least* when it   
   >>>>> comes to my posts, even when* my posts are clearly and accurately   
   written.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Wow that's a surprise, you run out of steam and therefore dream up one of   
   >>>> your legendary ..."you have admitted......." posts which when put under   
   any   
   >>>> scrutiny at all are found to have no basis in fact whatsoever!........how   
   >>>> tiresome of you.....but understandable!   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you now deny that you have admitted that you have are unable to   
   >>> comprehend my posts - even those that are clearly and accurately written?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> You are not able to understand abstractions - for example dissuasions   
   >>>>> dealing with the law in general or morality in general.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I have shown that I can differentiate between 'The Law' and 'A Law' and   
   >>>> apply the question of morality to each.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now, you have not.   
   >>   
   >> Yes I have!   
   >>   
   >>> You have clearly shown that you can not answer questions   
   >>> dealing with the law and general morality.   
   >>   
   >> I have answered the "questions dealing with the law and general morality"   
   >> they may not be the answers that you desperately sought, but answered I did!   
   >>   
   >>>  Here: prove me wrong, answer   
   >>> these two questions with clear answers - I understand that specific but   
   rare   
   >>> situations my override the general case:   
   >>>   
   >>> 1) Is the act of breaking the law, by itself, something you consider   
   >>> immoral.   
   >>   
   >> If by "the law" you mean a specific law,   
   >   
   > I do not - as has been discussed with you many times.  See - you can not and   
   > will not answer the question without waffling, obfuscating, and playing   
   > games.  Thanks for proving my point that you struggle with abstractions!   
      
   You simply show that you are unable to accept the answer that I have given,   
   or is it that your position prevents you from asking a question that makes   
   sense, Because you know the answer will demolish your argument!.......yup   
   that must be it!   
      
   >>  and I believed this law was a moral   
   >> one, then yes of course to break 'it' would for me be an immoral act   
   >> Regardless of who broke it, that's not to say that the offender would   
   >> necessarily consider it so !   
   >>   
   >>> 2) Do you find it OK to take images from someone - without permission, edit   
   >>> them, and repost them to a public forum.   
   >>   
   >> Difficult to say   
   >   
   > For you it clearly is... you have been struggling with this for many posts.   
   >   
   >> , at first glance I would say no   
   >   
   > So at least at first glance you agree that what Elizabot did was not OK...   
   > then you start to waffle and excuse your irrational and baseless bias...   
      
   Well NO! I believe you show why you are having so much trouble here,   
   Firstly you ask a theoretical question wrt " images" and then you   
   dishonestly apply my answer to a specific case that relates to an image   
   considering that you have already been shown to dishonestly apply a term to   
   this case and attribute that term to me, begs the question why you are so   
   uncertain of your position that you need to repeat that dishonesty all over   
   again!   
      
   As you should be able to work out but seem unable to do so, in the specific   
   case of Elizabot " at least at first glance" simply does not apply, as ALL   
   the facts are known and not in dispute, it is only when a hypothetical is   
   introduced that the reader has to try and dot the i's and cross the T's,   
   hence the term ...."at first glance".   
      
   >> , but there would be occasions where this would not be the case, for example   
   >> in the above scenario, it is unclear whether the owner was deprived of the   
   >> images, if so of course robbery would be involved.....a specific law, or   
   >> perhaps a copyright infringement may be involved again a specific breach,   
   was   
   >> violence used during the taking? That of course is the problem in trying to   
   >> answer specifically to such a general question, do you have an example of   
   >> your   
   >> scenario that may help clarify?   
   >   
   > LOL... you really can not deal with abstractions... OK... here is a more   
   > specific example:   
   >   
   > Person E digs through person S's site and finds images on pages that have   
   > not been publicly pointed out or linked to.   
      
   "dig's through" I was just able to locate these image's of you by simply   
   following links from your main page......Bookmarks/ANNE'S DREAM WORLD [1]   
   this involved no digging whatsoever!   
      
   [1] It should be noted that the link "ANNE'S DREAM WORLD" appears under the   
   sub-heading "My Pages" therefore as Snit claims it to be his site it is IMO   
   reasonable for any visitor to think that Snit is responsible for the   
   creation of "ANNE'S DREAM WORLD".   
   Whilst on the subject of Snit's site, I am forced to wonder why the link   
   "Image Albums" from the main page and from all other places where this link   
   exists is dead, how long has this been the case, when active, was the image   
   in question accessible from there?   
      
   >  Person E then downloads one or   
   > more images, edits what has been downloaded - including adding items that   
   > are clearly designed to be offensive - and then posts at least one images on   
   > another site and posts links to the image in a public forum.  The image or   
   > images in question are hosted on person S's site, but are not necessarily   
   > owned by person S.   
      
   But not made clear on any part of the site, and are in fact accessed from a   
   page clearly owned by S, perhaps a small sentence such as..'Clairvoyants   
   only beyond this point' should be displayed!   
      
   >  Not all the facts of this are public... but person E   
   > openly admits to the act in at least the case of posting one altered image.   
   >   
   > Would you find person E's behavior acceptable in this example?   
      
   Given that you are in clear reference to an actual event I am unable to   
   consider it a hypothetical scenario, and likewise given that the first two   
   lines contain errors serious enough to show that at least one contention of   
   yours ..... i.e  "Person E digs through person S's site" is totally false,   
   your further accusations have to be treated in the same light.   
      
   > I look forward to your waffling, obfuscation, and running from the question   
   > - because, let's face it - we both know that is all you will do.  You will   
   > not answer the question in a straight forward way.   
      
   Your opinion is again flawed!   
      
   >>> I find it unlikely that you will give clear answers to either question, but   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)