Posted by George Hester on 09/25/05 17:05

"Hammerer" <hammerer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4336d18a_1@x-privat.org...
>
> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> pressed his point (!)
> in message news:UCzZe.4973$Xl2.3082@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "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
> > > > > the in diplomacy, and/or inability of first-world politicians
> > > > > to control multinational corporations and rich, unelected
> > > > > Just, elites. You've put my mind at rest. It was all 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.
> >
> Oh? Great, George! *Thrill* me with your acumen!!!
> >
> > The Japanese did not threaten so so their
> > attack the War was NOT justified.
> >
> I think the Japanese High Command of the war years would argue with you
> there, George. But I know what you're trying so very hard to say, and I'm
> really impressed with your grasp of military strategy, 'brinkmanship'
> politics, and RIAA tactics. Yes.
> >
> > It was an unjust war they started.
> >
> Yes. Well; they never TOLD the Yanks they were going to bomb the fuck out
of
> Pearl Harbour, did they? They probably wanted to keep it as a big
surprise.
> >
> > See it's all in the threat first then an attack makes it Just.
> >
> Yes, George. You're so right, kind of.
> >
> > That is what the RIAA did. They threatened
> > first and then they planned to attack.
> >
> Brilliant thinking, George. First the threat, then the attack. The fact
that
> there's no need to attack, now, since the threat was an "attck" in itself
> seems to have escaped you. But then, a lot does.
> >
> > But the threat scared off the P2P
> > developers and so that was that.
> >
> Indeed it was, George. Kind of like an "attck", eh?!
>
>

First I want to get something straight. Why are you making sense? What
happened to you Hammerer? Not like you at all. This network issue must
have dampened your enthusiasm.

If it was an attack the losing side would have been non-existant. Since the
developers of the P2P still do exist it wasn't an attack. Only a threat.
But then so what? The result was nearly the same. I'm sure the P2P folks
wouldn't quibble whether it was an attack or a threat. To them they still
have their wallet which is what matters. If it was a true attack they
wouldn't have wallets either.

--
George Hester
_________________________________

[Back to original message]