Posted by RichardK on 06/13/06 08:47

NRen2k5 wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>> In article <fVsjg.21230$U84.449908@wagner.videotron.net>, NRen2k5 wrote:
>>
>>>>> That is supposing Napster is still around and you still sub to them.
>>>>
>>>> Quite. If I had to put money on a service still being there five years
>>>> from now, I wouldn't be betting on Napster.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't be betting on iTunes. Sooner or later, the law catches up
>>> with criminals like these.
>>
>>
>> That would be the case if they were breaking the law. They're not.
>>
>> And if you're going to counter this with 'yes they are' then please cite
>> the *exact* law they're breaking.
>
>
> I already told you about anti-competition law.

No you didn't. You haven't actually presented anything which
demonstrates Apple are breaking any laws at all.

> It's rapidly becoming clear that you have nothing more to say on the
> matter so you're just going to repeat the same tired garbage and declare
> yourself the winner when I get tired of it and move on.

Aww, you just don't like your own tactics being used against you...

"Winner"? This is usenet, not junior high debating. Though from your
side of the argument, it'd be hard to tell. I think schoolkids do more
research though.

Richard

--
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
2006 Mazda RX8, 1992 Sera Phase III -= Do Not Tempt With New Cars =-
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it". * 64 is 128 for email *

[Back to original message]