|
|
Posted by George Hester on 09/25/05 15:45
"Hammerer" <hammerer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4335cdbe$1_3@x-privat.org...
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> had a "Whooosh" moment
> in message news:OSiZe.2118$7b6.1233@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Hammerer" <hammerer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4335976f_3@x-privat.org...
> > >
> > > "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:XmgZe.2104$7b6.1833@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Hammerer" <hammerer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:43358cb6_2@x-privat.org...
> > > > >
> > > > > "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:z_fZe.2102$7b6.670@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I know RIAA "attcked" nothing. Their lawyers put the
> > > > > > fear of God into P2P developers. That was all it took. The
loss
> > > > > > in Network as a direct response to RIAA lawyer threats. That is
> it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, George. Otherwise known as an RIAA "attck".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suppose.
> > > >
> >
> > > Yes, George. Me too. Kind of invalidates your
> > > entire post, though, doesn't it?!
> > > >
> >
> > > > But if the P2P developers didn't get cold feet
> > > > the RIAA "attack" would have been useless.
> > > >
> > > But the Frontcode P2P developers *did* get cold feet, George, once
> > > they received a no-doubt specifically-tailored direct communication
> > > from the RIAA. From the RIAA's (in fact, EVERYONE'S) point of
> > > view, it was an "attack", and useful to corporate interests.
> > > >
> >
> > > > Wasn't an "attack" it was a "threat." There is a diference.
> > > >
> >
> > > Not in THIS case, George. You're "stretching". Semantically speaking.
> > > >
> >
> > > > We threatened Iraq and then we attacked them.
> > > >
> >
> > > "We", George?! I had nothing to do with it. Bad example.
> > > In more ways than one.
> > > >
> >
> > > > I spz we could have just attacked them but
> > > > then people would say it wasn't a "Just" war.
> > > > The threat made it Just.
> > > >
> >
> > > Thank you, George. Many fine, intelligent people have tried to argue
> > > that the Oil Wars were the result of a failure in diplomacy, and/or
the
> > > inability of first-world politicians to control multinational
> corporations
> > > and rich, unelected elites. You've put my mind at rest. It was all
Just,
> > > because "we" threatened them first. Cheers, mate! You're a pal!
> > >
> >
> > Now you see huh, Hammerer?
> >
> Sure do, George. No doubt about it - you got me on that one. Yes. When
will
> I ever learn?!
> >
> > Clear as Mud?
> >
> Errr . . . . . . yes.
> >
> > A threat first then an attack.
> >
> Yep. But no need to rub it in, George! I try; I really do.
> >
> > It all ends up in the secure arms of Justice.
> > At least that's the way this country views it.
> >
> You're a real American, George. With guys like you in existence, no wonder
> we Brits let our transatlantic colonies slip through our fingers like we
> did. George the III . . . . George Washington . . . . George Hester! This
is
> too much!!!
> >
> > Gee I think a guy named Hitler tried that too.
> >
> Yeah. George Hitler. What a fucktard *he* was, eh?!
>
>
Hey you know Hammerer I can take it one step further. The Japanese did not
threaten so so their attack the War was NOT justified. It was an unjust war
they started. See it's all in the threat first then an attack makes it
Just. That is what the RIAA did. They threatened first and then they
planned to attack. But the threat scared off the P2P developers and so that
was that.
--
George Hester
_________________________________
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|