going from XP to Vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter scott
  • Start date Start date
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> The only insult is an implied one - that you lack integrity, as evidenced by
> your own arguments. Is it really an insult if it's true?
>

It isn't.

There's nothing dishonest about not agreeing with an EULA and using the
media one bought the way one sees fit. In Spain, it's legal as long as
it isn't done to make (not save) money. Ergo, where I live, installing
an OEM generic copy on one PC and then, later, when that PC is no longer
useful, installing it on another is completely legal. No lack of
integrity. Not illegal.

Game, match.

Alias
 
Alias wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> There's nothing dishonest about not agreeing with an EULA and using the
> media one bought the way one sees fit.


Nothing dishonest about clicking "I Accept" while intended just the
opposite? Nothing dishonest about deliberately lying? Nothing
dishonest about entering into a contract by whicht you have no intention
of abiding? You really are an utterly untrustworthy person aren't you?


> In Spain, it's legal as long as
> it isn't done to make (not save) money. Ergo, where I live, installing
> an OEM generic copy on one PC and then, later, when that PC is no longer
> useful, installing it on another is completely legal.


We're not discussing legalities. We're discussing reneging on a freely
entered into contract. Lying, in simple terms. Does Spain officially
sanction lying?


> No lack of
> integrity.


On the contrary, you've a complete lack of integrity, and seem proud of it.


> Not illegal.
>

Not relevant, you mean.

> Game, match.
>

Hardly. Unless you mean that you've given up.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
 
If you don't agree to the EULA, you have no license to use the software.
"Pretending" to agree, or reneging, do not constitute agreement. If you are
relying upon other laws that govern the EULA in your locale, then you are
presumably still party to the EULA -- you still agree to it and abide by it.
It's also irrelevant to any of your argument thus far.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:O%23LD%23RbwHHA.4640@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> The only insult is an implied one - that you lack integrity, as evidenced
>> by your own arguments. Is it really an insult if it's true?
>>
>
> It isn't.
>
> There's nothing dishonest about not agreeing with an EULA and using the
> media one bought the way one sees fit. In Spain, it's legal as long as it
> isn't done to make (not save) money. Ergo, where I live, installing an OEM
> generic copy on one PC and then, later, when that PC is no longer useful,
> installing it on another is completely legal. No lack of integrity. Not
> illegal.
>
> Game, match.
>
> Alias
 
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's nothing dishonest about not agreeing with an EULA and using
>> the media one bought the way one sees fit.
>
>
> Nothing dishonest about clicking "I Accept" while intended just the
> opposite? Nothing dishonest about deliberately lying? Nothing
> dishonest about entering into a contract by whicht you have no intention
> of abiding? You really are an utterly untrustworthy person aren't you?
>
>
>> In Spain, it's legal as long as it isn't done to make (not save)
>> money. Ergo, where I live, installing an OEM generic copy on one PC
>> and then, later, when that PC is no longer useful, installing it on
>> another is completely legal.
>
>
> We're not discussing legalities. We're discussing reneging on a
> freely entered into contract. Lying, in simple terms. Does Spain
> officially sanction lying?
>
>
>> No lack of integrity.
>
>
> On the contrary, you've a complete lack of integrity, and seem proud
> of it.
>
>
>> Not illegal.
>>
>
> Not relevant, you mean.
>
>> Game, match.
>>
>
> Hardly. Unless you mean that you've given up.
>
>

Is that a halo I see above your head? Shall we call you Saint Bruce from
now on?

Alias
 
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> If you don't agree to the EULA, you have no license to use the software.
> "Pretending" to agree, or reneging, do not constitute agreement. If you are
> relying upon other laws that govern the EULA in your locale, then you are
> presumably still party to the EULA -- you still agree to it and abide by it.
> It's also irrelevant to any of your argument thus far.
>

It's the only way to install it. It's not my fault that it's a
unconscionable EULA.

Alias
 
You really are pitiful.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:ObUtSjbwHHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> If you don't agree to the EULA, you have no license to use the software.
>> "Pretending" to agree, or reneging, do not constitute agreement. If you
>> are relying upon other laws that govern the EULA in your locale, then you
>> are presumably still party to the EULA -- you still agree to it and abide
>> by it. It's also irrelevant to any of your argument thus far.
>>
>
> It's the only way to install it. It's not my fault that it's a
> unconscionable EULA.
>
> Alias
 
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> You really are pitiful.
>

I love you too. Nonetheless, I have paid for three licenses that I have
on three machines and don't feel one iota of guilt that one of the
computers died and I bought a new one and installed the generic copy of
XP that the dead computer had on it. Nor do I feel that I lack integrity
for using what I paid for.

Alias
 
We weren't speaking of your specific case. You were making general claims
about integrity, claims which indicate you have none. Even your debating
technique is pitiful.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:u1PQmLhwHHA.3560@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> You really are pitiful.
>>
>
> I love you too. Nonetheless, I have paid for three licenses that I have on
> three machines and don't feel one iota of guilt that one of the computers
> died and I bought a new one and installed the generic copy of XP that the
> dead computer had on it. Nor do I feel that I lack integrity for using
> what I paid for.
>
> Alias
 
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> We weren't speaking of your specific case.

I used that as an example.

> You were making general claims
> about integrity, claims which indicate you have none.

Your opinion. My opinion is that the EULA has no integrity and nor does
WPA or WGA.

> Even your debating
> technique is pitiful.

Ad hominens attacks like you use are universally accepted as an amateur
way of debating.

Alias
 
You are the one that brought your "integrity" (or lack thereof) into the
debate, i.e., you made it about yourself. My comments are simply following
that train of thought. A person with no integrity is pitiful, therefore you
are pitiful. Even your "example" is pitiful.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:uW19dTkwHHA.312@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> We weren't speaking of your specific case.
>
> I used that as an example.
>
>> You were making general claims about integrity, claims which indicate you
>> have none.
>
> Your opinion. My opinion is that the EULA has no integrity and nor does
> WPA or WGA.
>
>> Even your debating technique is pitiful.
>
> Ad hominens attacks like you use are universally accepted as an amateur
> way of debating.
>
> Alias
 
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> You are the one that brought your "integrity" (or lack thereof) into the
> debate, i.e., you made it about yourself.

No, Bruce brought my integrity up, not me.

> My comments are simply following
> that train of thought. A person with no integrity is pitiful, therefore you
> are pitiful. Even your "example" is pitiful.

Your opinion. Meanwhile, I am happily using the software I paid for.

Alias
 
"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:eUK4knkwHHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> You are the one that brought your "integrity" (or lack thereof) into the
>> debate, i.e., you made it about yourself.
>
> No, Bruce brought my integrity up, not me.

Not that I can see. You are the one who raised your own actions as some kind
of example of "relative integrity".

>> My comments are simply following that train of thought. A person with no
>> integrity is pitiful, therefore you are pitiful. Even your "example" is
>> pitiful.
>
> Your opinion. Meanwhile, I am happily using the software I paid for.

According to you, the EULA (including applicable laws) does not prevent you
from doing so. Fact is, I'm not clear that your actions violate the EULA,
laws or not. Thus, it isn't a decent example of your argument that integrity
is subjective. I, at least, recognize that I fall short in the department at
times, but I have sufficient integrity left to admit it instead of
rationalizing it away.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
 
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:eUK4knkwHHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>> You are the one that brought your "integrity" (or lack thereof) into the
>>> debate, i.e., you made it about yourself.
>> No, Bruce brought my integrity up, not me.
>
> Not that I can see. You are the one who raised your own actions as some kind
> of example of "relative integrity".

He accused me of having no integrity and that's how it started.

>
>>> My comments are simply following that train of thought. A person with no
>>> integrity is pitiful, therefore you are pitiful. Even your "example" is
>>> pitiful.
>> Your opinion. Meanwhile, I am happily using the software I paid for.
>
> According to you, the EULA (including applicable laws) does not prevent you
> from doing so. Fact is, I'm not clear that your actions violate the EULA,
> laws or not. Thus, it isn't a decent example of your argument that integrity
> is subjective. I, at least, recognize that I fall short in the department at
> times, but I have sufficient integrity left to admit it instead of
> rationalizing it away.

What I did was install a generic OEM copy of XP that was on a computer
that died on a new computer. Being as it was over 120 days since the
last activation, it activated on line and passed all the WGA tests.
Saint Bruce said that because I did that, I have no integrity:

Alias wrote:
>
> If it's been over 120 days, it doesn't matter if it's a generic OEM ....


It would matter if the OP has any integrity.




Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand
Russell

Alias
 
Alias wrote:
>
>
> Your opinion. My opinion is that the EULA has no integrity and nor does
> WPA or WGA.
>


This makes no sense, whatsoever. How can inanimate objects, documents,
or computer programs possibly have integrity, except in the technical
sense by functioning as designed?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
 
This has gone on way too long. Time to finish the job and plonk you. Sorry,
but I'm just no longer bored enough to continue.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:uW5Kd7kwHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
>> news:eUK4knkwHHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>>>> You are the one that brought your "integrity" (or lack thereof) into
>>>> the debate, i.e., you made it about yourself.
>>> No, Bruce brought my integrity up, not me.
>>
>> Not that I can see. You are the one who raised your own actions as some
>> kind of example of "relative integrity".
>
> He accused me of having no integrity and that's how it started.

Quote, please?

>>
>>>> My comments are simply following that train of thought. A person with
>>>> no integrity is pitiful, therefore you are pitiful. Even your "example"
>>>> is pitiful.
>>> Your opinion. Meanwhile, I am happily using the software I paid for.
>>
>> According to you, the EULA (including applicable laws) does not prevent
>> you from doing so. Fact is, I'm not clear that your actions violate the
>> EULA, laws or not. Thus, it isn't a decent example of your argument that
>> integrity is subjective. I, at least, recognize that I fall short in the
>> department at times, but I have sufficient integrity left to admit it
>> instead of rationalizing it away.
>
> What I did was install a generic OEM copy of XP that was on a computer
> that died on a new computer. Being as it was over 120 days since the last
> activation, it activated on line and passed all the WGA tests. Saint Bruce
> said that because I did that, I have no integrity:
>
> Alias wrote:
> >
> > If it's been over 120 days, it doesn't matter if it's a generic OEM ....
>
>
> It would matter if the OP has any integrity.
>
>
>
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand
> Russell
>
> Alias
 
Saint Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your opinion. My opinion is that the EULA has no integrity and nor
>> does WPA or WGA.
>>
>
>
> This makes no sense, whatsoever. How can inanimate objects,
> documents, or computer programs possibly have integrity, except in the
> technical sense by functioning as designed?
>
>

Picky, picky and here I was thinking you're a saint. The people who
approved the EULA have no integrity, of course!

Alias
 
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> This has gone on way too long. Time to finish the job and plonk you. Sorry,
> but I'm just no longer bored enough to continue.
>

Suit yourself.

Alias
 
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:36:31 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

> This has gone on way too long. Time to finish the job and plonk you.


Yep! Join the rest of us who did it long ago.

I wish everyone would do it. Then I not only wouldn't have to read his
messages, but I wouldn't have to see the replies to him either.

I wish newsreaders had kill files that let you check the attribution
lines of messages.


> Sorry,
> but I'm just no longer bored enough to continue.
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS-MVP Shell/User
> www.grystmill.com
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:uW5Kd7kwHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> >> news:eUK4knkwHHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> >>>> You are the one that brought your "integrity" (or lack thereof) into
> >>>> the debate, i.e., you made it about yourself.
> >>> No, Bruce brought my integrity up, not me.
> >>
> >> Not that I can see. You are the one who raised your own actions as some
> >> kind of example of "relative integrity".
> >
> > He accused me of having no integrity and that's how it started.
>
> Quote, please?
>
> >>
> >>>> My comments are simply following that train of thought. A person with
> >>>> no integrity is pitiful, therefore you are pitiful. Even your "example"
> >>>> is pitiful.
> >>> Your opinion. Meanwhile, I am happily using the software I paid for.
> >>
> >> According to you, the EULA (including applicable laws) does not prevent
> >> you from doing so. Fact is, I'm not clear that your actions violate the
> >> EULA, laws or not. Thus, it isn't a decent example of your argument that
> >> integrity is subjective. I, at least, recognize that I fall short in the
> >> department at times, but I have sufficient integrity left to admit it
> >> instead of rationalizing it away.
> >
> > What I did was install a generic OEM copy of XP that was on a computer
> > that died on a new computer. Being as it was over 120 days since the last
> > activation, it activated on line and passed all the WGA tests. Saint Bruce
> > said that because I did that, I have no integrity:
> >
> > Alias wrote:
> > >
> > > If it's been over 120 days, it doesn't matter if it's a generic OEM ....
> >
> >
> > It would matter if the OP has any integrity.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce Chambers
> >
> > Help us help you:
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> >
> > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
> >
> > Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand
> > Russell
> >
> > Alias
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Back
Top