Posted by Hammerer on 11/15/77 11:27

"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!

[Back to original message]