Charlie Tame wrote:

>

> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only one

> copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person will

> say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?" If

> there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying, who

> ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can bet

> it will be the single honest user.

>

 

And we can hope his first name will be Frank.

 

Alias

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

 

> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only one

> copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person will say

> that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?" If there are

> 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying, who ultimately

> gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can bet it will be the

> single honest user.

>

 

That user will get the free WGA pack.

Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

Alias wrote:

> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I

>>>>>> know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When i

>>>>>> put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>

>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>>> use something you bought.

>>>>

>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>>

>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a

>>> thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by

>>> phone, you will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>>

>>> the tech asks me two

>>>

>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>

>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>> type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>> machine at once.

>>>

>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a

>>> retail copy?

>>>

>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>> something you bought"?

>>>

>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the

>>> point of doing it?

>>>

>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>>

>>> Alias, not alias.

>>>

>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>

>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>>

>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>>> someone else.

>>>

>>>> Again, friend,

>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of Vista

>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software."

>>>> This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>>

>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any time,

>>>> at its own discretion.

>>>>

>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>>> of ownership".

>>>> It's simply a "license to install and use /the software/ on one or

>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>>> initially installing it."

>>>>

>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the one

>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution?

>>>> Personally, I believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him,

>>>> but is

>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>>

>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>

>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and

>>>>> there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up

>>>>> with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>

>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for

>>>> defences [sic]

>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>>

>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors locked.

>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>>

>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>>> Sad.

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>

>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

>>> whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to

>>> accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise

>>> and expect stay in business.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

>> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>

>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

>> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

>> my stay on the earth.

>>

>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>> supportable.

>>

>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

>> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

>> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>

>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

>> or more witnesses."

>>

>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

>> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

>> witnesses."

>>

>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

>> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

>> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

>> these newsgroups.

>> But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

>> than I deserve over the years.

>>

>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

>> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

>

>

> If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but twice, or MS

> will make it impossible for you to use the copy of Windows that you

> bought, that is called assuming you are guilty of piracy until you prove

> otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS FUD, have accused me of piracy

> with no proof.

>

> MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

>

> Alias

 

Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> See below...

>>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>> which

>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>> type:

>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>

>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you

>>>>> keep

>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and genuine

>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be responsible.

>>>>>

>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>

>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>> activation?

>>>>

>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>

>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>

>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>> circustances.

>>>>

>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>

>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>

>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending

>>> on the

>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money they

>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders of

>>> the

>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it appears

>>> that

>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>

>>> Cheers.

>>

>>

>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>> experience for me.

>>

>> Cheers

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

>

>

> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason for

> MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows or

> not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should call

> the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to prove they

> are running a legit copy over and over and over again. This is the main

> reason I am running Ubuntu.

>

> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

> perfectly normal.

>

> Alias

 

No, the good thing is a thief and liar like you will eventually get caught.

Frank

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

>

>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

>> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only

>> one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person

>> will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?"

>> If there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying,

>> who ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can

>> bet it will be the single honest user.

>>

>

> That user will get the free WGA pack.

 

Whoop dee doo.

> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

 

You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti customer.

 

Alias

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>

>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give

>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct

>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do you

>>>>>> keep

>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change the

>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and

>>>>>> genuine

>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be

>>>>>> responsible.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they can"

>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>>

>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>> activation?

>>>>>

>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>

>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>

>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>

>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They are

>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>

>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>

>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone. Depending

>>>> on the

>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money they

>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders

>>>> of the

>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it

>>>> appears that

>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers.

>>>

>>>

>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>> experience for me.

>>>

>>> Cheers

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>

>>

>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason for

>> MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows or

>> not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should call

>> the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to prove they

>> are running a legit copy over and over and over again. This is the

>> main reason I am running Ubuntu.

>>

>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>> perfectly normal.

>>

>> Alias

>

> No, the good thing is a thief and liar like you will eventually get caught.

> Frank

 

Considering I have paid for all my software, your LIE is libel.

 

Alias

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>

>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired.

>>>>>>> I know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When i

>>>>>>> put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>>>> use something you bought.

>>>>>

>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>>>

>>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a

>>>> thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by

>>>> phone, you will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>>>

>>>> the tech asks me two

>>>>

>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>

>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>> type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>

>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a

>>>> retail copy?

>>>>

>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>

>>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the

>>>> point of doing it?

>>>>

>>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>>>

>>>> Alias, not alias.

>>>>

>>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>>

>>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>>>

>>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>>>> someone else.

>>>>

>>>>> Again, friend,

>>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of Vista

>>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software." This is NOT "a

>>>>> Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any time,

>>>>> at its own discretion.

>>>>>

>>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>>>> of ownership". It's simply a "license to install and use /the

>>>>> software/ on one or

>>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>>>> initially installing it."

>>>>>

>>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the one

>>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution? Personally, I

>>>>> believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him,

>>>>> but is

>>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>>>

>>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>>

>>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and

>>>>>> there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up

>>>>>> with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>>

>>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for

>>>>> defences [sic]

>>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>>>

>>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors locked.

>>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>>>

>>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>>>> Sad.

>>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>>

>>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

>>>> whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to

>>>> accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise

>>>> and expect stay in business.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

>>> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>>

>>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

>>> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

>>> my stay on the earth.

>>>

>>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>>> supportable.

>>>

>>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

>>> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

>>> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>>

>>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

>>> or more witnesses."

>>>

>>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

>>> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

>>> witnesses."

>>>

>>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

>>> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

>>> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

>>> these newsgroups. But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow

>>> accusing me of

>>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

>>> than I deserve over the years.

>>>

>>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

>>> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>

>>

>> If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but twice, or

>> MS will make it impossible for you to use the copy of Windows that you

>> bought, that is called assuming you are guilty of piracy until you

>> prove otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS FUD, have accused me of

>> piracy with no proof.

>>

>> MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

>>

>> Alias

>

> Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

> Frank

 

Again, sigh, Ubuntu does not require that one prove that one obtained it

legitimately to *anyone*. Ergo, unlike Windows, no ass kissing necessary.

 

Oops.

 

The pathetic thing is that this has been pointed out to you by many but

you still repeat the same tired refrain. Course, with your lack of any

ability to understand, it's not surprising.

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me two

>>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>>>> which

>>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

>>>>>>>> give you

>>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will

>>>>>>>> direct you

>>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain

>>>>>>>> why

>>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do

>>>>>>> you keep

>>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide proof of

>>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you change

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and

>>>>>>> genuine

>>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be

>>>>>>> responsible.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they

>>>>>>> can"

>>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they "Can".

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>>> activation?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall my OS

>>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via phone.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea. They

>>>>>> are

>>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>>

>>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone.

>>>>> Depending on the

>>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money

>>>>> they

>>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders

>>>>> of the

>>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it

>>>>> appears that

>>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>>> experience for me.

>>>>

>>>> Cheers

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason

>>> for MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his Windows

>>> or not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them, they should

>>> call the proper legal authorities, not force paying customers to

>>> prove they are running a legit copy over and over and over again.

>>> This is the main reason I am running Ubuntu.

>>>

>>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>>> perfectly normal.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> No, the good thing is a thief and liar like you will eventually get

>> caught.

>> Frank

>

>

> Considering I have paid for all my software, your LIE is libel.

>

> Alias

 

Of course you didn't. Now sue me as*hole!

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks me

>>>>>>>>> two

>>>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on

>>>>>>>>> "OK", which

>>>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

>>>>>>>>> give you

>>>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will

>>>>>>>>> direct you

>>>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to

>>>>>>>>> explain why

>>>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone

>>>>>>>>> activators that

>>>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do

>>>>>>>> you keep

>>>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide

>>>>>>>> proof of

>>>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you

>>>>>>>> change the

>>>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and

>>>>>>>> genuine

>>>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be

>>>>>>>> responsible.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because they

>>>>>>>> can"

>>>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they

>>>>>>>> "Can".

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>>>> activation?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall

>>>>>>> my OS

>>>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records to be

>>>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via

>>>>>>> phone.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea.

>>>>>>> They are

>>>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone.

>>>>>> Depending on the

>>>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money. Money

>>>>>> they

>>>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate holders

>>>>>> of the

>>>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it

>>>>>> appears that

>>>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't ya?

>>>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>>>> experience for me.

>>>>>

>>>>> Cheers

>>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason

>>>> for MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his

>>>> Windows or not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them,

>>>> they should call the proper legal authorities, not force paying

>>>> customers to prove they are running a legit copy over and over and

>>>> over again. This is the main reason I am running Ubuntu.

>>>>

>>>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>>>> perfectly normal.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> No, the good thing is a thief and liar like you will eventually get

>>> caught.

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> Considering I have paid for all my software, your LIE is libel.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Of course you didn't.

 

And you can prove this how?

> Now sue me as*hole!

> Frank

 

And the reason you think you're worth the time and effort a lawsuit

requires is?

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired.

>>>>>>>> I know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When

>>>>>>>> i put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission

>>>>>>> to use something you bought.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a

>>>>> thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by

>>>>> phone, you will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>>>>

>>>>> the tech asks me two

>>>>>

>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK",

>>>>>> which

>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>> type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a

>>>>> retail copy?

>>>>>

>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the

>>>>> point of doing it?

>>>>>

>>>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias, not alias.

>>>>>

>>>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>>>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>>>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>>>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>>>>> someone else.

>>>>>

>>>>>> Again, friend,

>>>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>>>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of

>>>>>> Vista

>>>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>>>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>>>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>>>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software." This is NOT "a

>>>>>> Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>>>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>>>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>>>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>>>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>>>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any

>>>>>> time,

>>>>>> at its own discretion.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>>>>> of ownership". It's simply a "license to install and use /the

>>>>>> software/ on one or

>>>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>>>>> initially installing it."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>>>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>>>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>>>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>>>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the

>>>>>> one

>>>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution? Personally, I

>>>>>> believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him,

>>>>>> but is

>>>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>>>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and

>>>>>>> there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up

>>>>>>> with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>>>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>>>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>>>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>>>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for

>>>>>> defences [sic]

>>>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>>>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors

>>>>>> locked.

>>>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>>>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>>>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>>>>> Sad.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

>>>>> whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to

>>>>> accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise

>>>>> and expect stay in business.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

>>>> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>>>

>>>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

>>>> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

>>>> my stay on the earth.

>>>>

>>>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>>>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>>>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>>>> supportable.

>>>>

>>>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

>>>> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

>>>> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>>>

>>>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

>>>> or more witnesses."

>>>>

>>>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

>>>> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

>>>> witnesses."

>>>>

>>>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

>>>> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

>>>> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

>>>> these newsgroups. But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow

>>>> accusing me of

>>>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

>>>> than I deserve over the years.

>>>>

>>>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>>>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

>>>> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but twice, or

>>> MS will make it impossible for you to use the copy of Windows that

>>> you bought, that is called assuming you are guilty of piracy until

>>> you prove otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS FUD, have accused

>>> me of piracy with no proof.

>>>

>>> MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

>> Frank

>

>

> Again, sigh, Ubuntu does not require that one prove that one obtained it

> legitimately to *anyone*. Ergo, unlike Windows, no ass kissing necessary.

>

> Oops.

>

> The pathetic thing is that this has been pointed out to you by many but

> you still repeat the same tired refrain. Course, with your lack of any

> ability to understand, it's not surprising.

>

> Alias

 

RS is waiting for you and he doesn't like to be kept waiting.

You know what he wants...LOL!

Frank

"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>

>>

>>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

>>> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only one

>>> copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person will

>>> say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?" If

>>> there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying, who

>>> ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can bet

>>> it will be the single honest user.

>>>

>>

>> That user will get the free WGA pack.

>

> Whoop dee doo.

>

>> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>

> You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

> customer.

>

> Alias

 

So anti customer that you run XP.

So anti customer that most don't care.

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:27:28 GMT, NoStop <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:01:13 -0600, Charlie Tame

>>>>>>>> <charlie@tames.net>

>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> See below...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone, the tech asks

>>>>>>>>>> me two

>>>>>>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>>>>> numbers,

>>>>>>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on

>>>>>>>>>> "OK", which

>>>>>>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>>>>>>>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

>>>>>>>>>> give you

>>>>>>>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will

>>>>>>>>>> direct you

>>>>>>>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>>>>>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your

>>>>>>>>>> Product ID

>>>>>>>>>> type:

>>>>>>>>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>>>>>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>>>>>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to

>>>>>>>>>> explain why

>>>>>>>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>>>>>>>> machine at once.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone

>>>>>>>>>> activators that

>>>>>>>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>>>>>>>> something you bought"?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Just why do you have to keep activating your copy by phone? Do

>>>>>>>>> you keep

>>>>>>>>> getting asked by Ford to appear at their agency and provide

>>>>>>>>> proof of

>>>>>>>>> purchase? Do you have to reactivate your car each time you

>>>>>>>>> change the

>>>>>>>>> tires or fit a new light bulb?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yes this is a somewhat different scenario, just as thieves and

>>>>>>>>> genuine

>>>>>>>>> users are "Different". When a crime occurs it's quite rare for the

>>>>>>>>> police to arrest and detain everybody who just "Might" be

>>>>>>>>> responsible.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> When you allow the Federal Government to do things "Because

>>>>>>>>> they can"

>>>>>>>>> abuses occur, abuses are even more likely when a non Government

>>>>>>>>> Corporation (Blackwater) is given a free hand to do what they

>>>>>>>>> "Can".

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Tell us, Charlie, HOW that has anything to do with Windows Product

>>>>>>>> activation?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> BTW, I usually wind up activating via phone because I reinstall

>>>>>>>> my OS

>>>>>>>> very often, especially when I am breaking in a new machine.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If I waited for the full 120 days until the activation records

>>>>>>>> to be

>>>>>>>> wiped, I would have no "minor problems" such as activating via

>>>>>>>> phone.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I've NEVER been turned down for an activation, BTW, under ANY

>>>>>>>> circustances.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It takes all of 10 minutes (maximum) to activate via phone. Why

>>>>>>>> people think this is some kind of "problem", I have no idea.

>>>>>>>> They are

>>>>>>>> more than willing to spend hours on the phone making plans to get

>>>>>>>> drunk on Friday evening. Yet 5 or 10 minutes to activate their OS

>>>>>>>> they have a problem with.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Idiots!!!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> More and more users will only have access to a cell phone.

>>>>>>> Depending on the

>>>>>>> package they're using, a 10 minute call can cost them money.

>>>>>>> Money they

>>>>>>> shouldn't have to spend to "prove" they are the legitimate

>>>>>>> holders of the

>>>>>>> license. But, as always, Microsoft couldn't care less. And it

>>>>>>> appears that

>>>>>>> MickeyMouse Fan Boys don't either.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Cheers.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Mickey Mouse Fan Boys"? You are "one wild and crazy guy", aren't

>>>>>> ya?

>>>>>> My anti-Microsoft tirades in these newsgroups are there for all to

>>>>>> see. I've never been called a "Fan Boy" before. It's a new

>>>>>> experience for me.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cheers

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Well, that's what you're doing, being a fanboy. There is no reason

>>>>> for MS to question whether a paying customer has paid for his

>>>>> Windows or not. If MS thinks that someone is stealing from them,

>>>>> they should call the proper legal authorities, not force paying

>>>>> customers to prove they are running a legit copy over and over and

>>>>> over again. This is the main reason I am running Ubuntu.

>>>>>

>>>>> The sad thing is that fanboys like you think that WPA and WGA are

>>>>> perfectly normal.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> No, the good thing is a thief and liar like you will eventually get

>>>> caught.

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Considering I have paid for all my software, your LIE is libel.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> Of course you didn't.

>

>

> And you can prove this how?

>

>> Now sue me as*hole!

>> Frank

>

>

> And the reason you think you're worth the time and effort a lawsuit

> requires is?

>

> Alias

 

You tell me mr liar, mr butt-munch...you're the linux lyin troll in this ng.

Frank

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>

>>>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the

>>>> activation process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you

>>>> have only one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the

>>>> dishonest person will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back

>>>> to "What use is it?" If there are 100 people using the same product

>>>> key, 99 of them lying, who ultimately gets to lose out when MS

>>>> finally slam the door? You can bet it will be the single honest user.

>>>>

>>>

>>> That user will get the free WGA pack.

>>

>> Whoop dee doo.

>>

>>> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>>

>> You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

>> customer.

>>

>> Alias

>

> So anti customer that you run XP.

 

No WGA on my XP machine. You haven't figured out how to keep that off

your machine? LOL! Just because I activated it doesn't mean that I liked it.

> So anti customer that most don't care.

 

You and MS are very wrong about that.

 

Alias

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:38:23 -0800

Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

> > Frank wrote:

> >

> >> Alias wrote:

> >>

> >>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

> >>>> wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias

> >>>>>> <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>> Hi,

> >>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being

> >>>>>>>> repaired. I know windows was re-installed while it was away

> >>>>>>>> and i now keep getting an icon come up saying i need to

> >>>>>>>> activate windows. When i put my product key in i am told it

> >>>>>>>> is already in use. It is definitely the right product key

> >>>>>>>> and if it is already in use i must be using it so why do i

> >>>>>>>> keep getting a reminder. I have 25 days left to activate

> >>>>>>>> which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft gives you its

> >>>>>>>> not long. Can anyone help or advise. Regards Mark.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone

> >>>>>>> activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

> >>>>>>> you permission to use something you bought.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

> >>>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you

> >>>>> are a thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't

> >>>>> activate by phone, you will not be able to use what you paid

> >>>>> for.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> the tech asks me two

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

> >>>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

> >>>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

> >>>>>> numbers,

> >>>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on

> >>>>>> "OK", which

> >>>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer

> >>>>>> is "No", they will ask a further question:

> >>>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

> >>>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

> >>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

> >>>>>> give you a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they

> >>>>>> will direct you to click on "OK", upon which the OS is

> >>>>>> immediately activated. If your answer is "no", the outcome

> >>>>>> will depend upon your Product ID

> >>>>>> type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is

> >>>>>> already activated on another machine, and will be directed to

> >>>>>> purchase a second license, and the activation will be denied.

> >>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to

> >>>>>> explain why it appears that you are installing your product on

> >>>>>> more than one machine at once.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or

> >>>>> a retail copy?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone

> >>>>>> activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

> >>>>>> you permission to use something you bought"?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's

> >>>>> the point of doing it?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Alias, not alias.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as

> >>>>>> Semantics are concerned, there are no grounds for comparison

> >>>>>> between a new Ford and an Operating System. They are "apples

> >>>>>> and oranges", semantically, as well as opposite polarities,

> >>>>>> logically, financially, or legally..

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me

> >>>>> with someone else.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> Again, friend,

> >>>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can

> >>>>>> grasp with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a

> >>>>>> "copy" of Vista

> >>>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided

> >>>>>> media to install and use the software contained on the media

> >>>>>> on one [or more] machines *according to the terms* of the

> >>>>>> user agreement, which the user agrees to when he installs the

> >>>>>> software." This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media,

> >>>>>> including the media itself" [all which are owned lock, stock,

> >>>>>> and smoking barrel by the manufacturer and/or author of the

> >>>>>> software and media.] You don't seem to be able to grasp this

> >>>>>> simple point, friend. The ONLY thing you "own" is a "license

> >>>>>> to use the provided media to install the software contained on

> >>>>>> the media provided."

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as

> >>>>>> the bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back

> >>>>>> at any time,

> >>>>>> at its own discretion.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal)

> >>>>>> "deed of ownership". It's simply a "license to install and

> >>>>>> use /the software/ on one or

> >>>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed

> >>>>>> to when initially installing it."

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real

> >>>>>> property" [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like

> >>>>>> a Ford automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between

> >>>>>> "you paid for a copy...", and "but the owner can take it back

> >>>>>> if he wants." So really, who owns the product? The one who

> >>>>>> paid for a copy, or the one

> >>>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution? Personally, I

> >>>>>> believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

> >>>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to

> >>>>>> him, but is

> >>>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy

> >>>>>> sold.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the

> >>>>>> artist gives to the Public at no cost.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free

> >>>>>>> and there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have

> >>>>>>> to put up with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must

> >>>>>> present an air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if

> >>>>>> one is currently NOT genuine, is to become genuine. When the

> >>>>>> man does that, he no longer needs to present an air of

> >>>>>> genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At that point, he will

> >>>>>> then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

> >>>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows

> >>>>>> Activation and Digital Rights Management to exist in the first

> >>>>>> place.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors

> >>>>>> locked.

> >>>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed

> >>>>>> something of his, he would be free to take what was necessary

> >>>>>> subject, of course, to the mores of the time and common human

> >>>>>> decency.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest

> >>>>>> friends. Sad.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Donald L McDaniel

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

> >>>>> whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue

> >>>>> to accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove

> >>>>> otherwise and expect stay in business.

> >>>>>

> >>>>> Alias

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of

> >>>> being thieves until they prove otherwise?)

> >>>>

> >>>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by

> >>>> ANYONE at ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening

> >>>> during the rest of my stay on the earth.

> >>>>

> >>>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing

> >>>> all its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law,

> >>>> one must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges

> >>>> against someone are supportable.

> >>>>

> >>>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP

> >>>> and Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling

> >>>> us your delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

> >>>>

> >>>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth

> >>>> of two or more witnesses."

> >>>>

> >>>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this

> >>>> charge over the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of

> >>>> two or more witnesses."

> >>>>

> >>>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not

> >>>> make such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am

> >>>> sure I've made more than my share of delusional accusations

> >>>> againt Microsoft in these newsgroups. But I have NEVER felt as

> >>>> if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

> >>>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH

> >>>> better than I deserve over the years.

> >>>>

> >>>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

> >>>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel

> >>>> when you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

> >>>>

> >>>> Donald L McDaniel

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but

> >>> twice, or MS will make it impossible for you to use the copy of

> >>> Windows that you bought, that is called assuming you are guilty

> >>> of piracy until you prove otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS

> >>> FUD, have accused me of piracy with no proof.

> >>>

> >>> MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

> >>>

> >>> Alias

> >>

> >>

> >> Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

> >> Frank

> >

> >

> > Again, sigh, Ubuntu does not require that one prove that one

> > obtained it legitimately to *anyone*. Ergo, unlike Windows, no ass

> > kissing necessary.

> >

> > Oops.

> >

> > The pathetic thing is that this has been pointed out to you by many

> > but you still repeat the same tired refrain. Course, with your lack

> > of any ability to understand, it's not surprising.

> >

> > Alias

>

> RS is waiting for you and he doesn't like to be kept waiting.

> You know what he wants...LOL!

> Frank

 

And yet even more content flies right over Frank's head. You really

have a serious reading comprehension problem, Frank.

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:38:23 -0800

> Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

>>>>>>wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias

>>>>>>>><alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Hi,

>>>>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being

>>>>>>>>>>repaired. I know windows was re-installed while it was away

>>>>>>>>>>and i now keep getting an icon come up saying i need to

>>>>>>>>>>activate windows. When i put my product key in i am told it

>>>>>>>>>>is already in use. It is definitely the right product key

>>>>>>>>>>and if it is already in use i must be using it so why do i

>>>>>>>>>>keep getting a reminder. I have 25 days left to activate

>>>>>>>>>>which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft gives you its

>>>>>>>>>>not long. Can anyone help or advise. Regards Mark.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone

>>>>>>>>>activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

>>>>>>>>>you permission to use something you bought.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>>Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you

>>>>>>>are a thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't

>>>>>>>activate by phone, you will not be able to use what you paid

>>>>>>>for.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> the tech asks me two

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>[or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>>1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>>If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>>>numbers,

>>>>>>>>which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on

>>>>>>>>"OK", which

>>>>>>>>has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer

>>>>>>>>is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>>"Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>>Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

>>>>>>>>give you a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they

>>>>>>>>will direct you to click on "OK", upon which the OS is

>>>>>>>>immediately activated. If your answer is "no", the outcome

>>>>>>>>will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>>>>>type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is

>>>>>>>>already activated on another machine, and will be directed to

>>>>>>>>purchase a second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to

>>>>>>>>explain why it appears that you are installing your product on

>>>>>>>>more than one machine at once.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or

>>>>>>>a retail copy?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone

>>>>>>>>activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

>>>>>>>>you permission to use something you bought"?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's

>>>>>>>the point of doing it?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Alias, not alias.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as

>>>>>>>>Semantics are concerned, there are no grounds for comparison

>>>>>>>>between a new Ford and an Operating System. They are "apples

>>>>>>>>and oranges", semantically, as well as opposite polarities,

>>>>>>>>logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me

>>>>>>>with someone else.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Again, friend,

>>>>>>>>A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can

>>>>>>>>grasp with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a

>>>>>>>>"copy" of Vista

>>>>>>>>receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided

>>>>>>>>media to install and use the software contained on the media

>>>>>>>>on one [or more] machines *according to the terms* of the

>>>>>>>>user agreement, which the user agrees to when he installs the

>>>>>>>>software." This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media,

>>>>>>>>including the media itself" [all which are owned lock, stock,

>>>>>>>>and smoking barrel by the manufacturer and/or author of the

>>>>>>>>software and media.] You don't seem to be able to grasp this

>>>>>>>>simple point, friend. The ONLY thing you "own" is a "license

>>>>>>>>to use the provided media to install the software contained on

>>>>>>>>the media provided."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as

>>>>>>>>the bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back

>>>>>>>>at any time,

>>>>>>>>at its own discretion.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal)

>>>>>>>>"deed of ownership". It's simply a "license to install and

>>>>>>>>use /the software/ on one or

>>>>>>>>more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed

>>>>>>>>to when initially installing it."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real

>>>>>>>>property" [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like

>>>>>>>>a Ford automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between

>>>>>>>>"you paid for a copy...", and "but the owner can take it back

>>>>>>>>if he wants." So really, who owns the product? The one who

>>>>>>>>paid for a copy, or the one

>>>>>>>>who paid for its manufacture and distribution? Personally, I

>>>>>>>>believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>>>>>>product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to

>>>>>>>>him, but is

>>>>>>>>co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy

>>>>>>>>sold.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>The same goes for all other creative works, except those the

>>>>>>>>artist gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free

>>>>>>>>>and there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have

>>>>>>>>>to put up with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must

>>>>>>>>present an air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if

>>>>>>>>one is currently NOT genuine, is to become genuine. When the

>>>>>>>>man does that, he no longer needs to present an air of

>>>>>>>>genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At that point, he will

>>>>>>>>then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

>>>>>>>>against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows

>>>>>>>>Activation and Digital Rights Management to exist in the first

>>>>>>>>place.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors

>>>>>>>>locked.

>>>>>>>>Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed

>>>>>>>>something of his, he would be free to take what was necessary

>>>>>>>>subject, of course, to the mores of the time and common human

>>>>>>>>decency.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest

>>>>>>>>friends. Sad.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

>>>>>>>whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue

>>>>>>>to accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove

>>>>>>>otherwise and expect stay in business.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of

>>>>>>being thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>>>>>

>>>>>>I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by

>>>>>>ANYONE at ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening

>>>>>>during the rest of my stay on the earth.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing

>>>>>>all its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law,

>>>>>>one must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges

>>>>>>against someone are supportable.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP

>>>>>>and Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling

>>>>>>us your delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth

>>>>>>of two or more witnesses."

>>>>>>

>>>>>>You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this

>>>>>>charge over the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of

>>>>>>two or more witnesses."

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not

>>>>>>make such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am

>>>>>>sure I've made more than my share of delusional accusations

>>>>>>againt Microsoft in these newsgroups. But I have NEVER felt as

>>>>>>if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

>>>>>>being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH

>>>>>>better than I deserve over the years.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>>>>>>suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel

>>>>>>when you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but

>>>>>twice, or MS will make it impossible for you to use the copy of

>>>>>Windows that you bought, that is called assuming you are guilty

>>>>>of piracy until you prove otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS

>>>>>FUD, have accused me of piracy with no proof.

>>>>>

>>>>>MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

>>>>>

>>>>>Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

>>>>Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>Again, sigh, Ubuntu does not require that one prove that one

>>>obtained it legitimately to *anyone*. Ergo, unlike Windows, no ass

>>>kissing necessary.

>>>

>>>Oops.

>>>

>>>The pathetic thing is that this has been pointed out to you by many

>>>but you still repeat the same tired refrain. Course, with your lack

>>>of any ability to understand, it's not surprising.

>>>

>>>Alias

>>

>>RS is waiting for you and he doesn't like to be kept waiting.

>>You know what he wants...LOL!

>>Frank

>

>

> And yet even more content flies right over Frank's head. You really

> have a serious reading comprehension problem, Frank.

>

> Alias

>

 

I perfectly understand your proper English lies.

So does everyone else you moron.

Frank

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:06:03 -0800

Frank <fb@jr.kmo> wrote:

> Alias wrote:

> > On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:38:23 -0800

> > Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

> >

> >

> >>Alias wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >>>Frank wrote:

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>>Alias wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>>On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

> >>>>>>wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias

> >>>>>>>><alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>nobbygee5 wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>>Hi,

> >>>>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being

> >>>>>>>>>>repaired. I know windows was re-installed while it was away

> >>>>>>>>>>and i now keep getting an icon come up saying i need to

> >>>>>>>>>>activate windows. When i put my product key in i am told it

> >>>>>>>>>>is already in use. It is definitely the right product key

> >>>>>>>>>>and if it is already in use i must be using it so why do i

> >>>>>>>>>>keep getting a reminder. I have 25 days left to activate

> >>>>>>>>>>which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft gives you its

> >>>>>>>>>>not long. Can anyone help or advise. Regards Mark.

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone

> >>>>>>>>>activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

> >>>>>>>>>you permission to use something you bought.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>I wonder why you would say that, sir...

> >>>>>>>>Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you

> >>>>>>>are a thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't

> >>>>>>>activate by phone, you will not be able to use what you paid

> >>>>>>>for.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>> the tech asks me two

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>[or more, depending on my answer] questions:

> >>>>>>>>1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

> >>>>>>>>If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

> >>>>>>>>numbers,

> >>>>>>>>which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on

> >>>>>>>>"OK", which

> >>>>>>>>has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer

> >>>>>>>>is "No", they will ask a further question:

> >>>>>>>>"Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

> >>>>>>>>Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

> >>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

> >>>>>>>>give you a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they

> >>>>>>>>will direct you to click on "OK", upon which the OS is

> >>>>>>>>immediately activated. If your answer is "no", the outcome

> >>>>>>>>will depend upon your Product ID

> >>>>>>>>type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is

> >>>>>>>>already activated on another machine, and will be directed to

> >>>>>>>>purchase a second license, and the activation will be denied.

> >>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to

> >>>>>>>>explain why it appears that you are installing your product on

> >>>>>>>>more than one machine at once.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or

> >>>>>>>a retail copy?

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone

> >>>>>>>>activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

> >>>>>>>>you permission to use something you bought"?

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's

> >>>>>>>the point of doing it?

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>Alias, not alias.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as

> >>>>>>>>Semantics are concerned, there are no grounds for comparison

> >>>>>>>>between a new Ford and an Operating System. They are "apples

> >>>>>>>>and oranges", semantically, as well as opposite polarities,

> >>>>>>>>logically, financially, or legally..

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out

> >>>>>>>>metaphors.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me

> >>>>>>>with someone else.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>Again, friend,

> >>>>>>>>A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can

> >>>>>>>>grasp with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a

> >>>>>>>>"copy" of Vista

> >>>>>>>>receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided

> >>>>>>>>media to install and use the software contained on the media

> >>>>>>>>on one [or more] machines *according to the terms* of the

> >>>>>>>>user agreement, which the user agrees to when he installs the

> >>>>>>>>software." This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media,

> >>>>>>>>including the media itself" [all which are owned lock, stock,

> >>>>>>>>and smoking barrel by the manufacturer and/or author of the

> >>>>>>>>software and media.] You don't seem to be able to grasp this

> >>>>>>>>simple point, friend. The ONLY thing you "own" is a "license

> >>>>>>>>to use the provided media to install the software contained on

> >>>>>>>>the media provided."

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as

> >>>>>>>>the bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back

> >>>>>>>>at any time,

> >>>>>>>>at its own discretion.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal)

> >>>>>>>>"deed of ownership". It's simply a "license to install and

> >>>>>>>>use /the software/ on one or

> >>>>>>>>more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed

> >>>>>>>>to when initially installing it."

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real

> >>>>>>>>property" [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like

> >>>>>>>>a Ford automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between

> >>>>>>>>"you paid for a copy...", and "but the owner can take it back

> >>>>>>>>if he wants." So really, who owns the product? The one who

> >>>>>>>>paid for a copy, or the one

> >>>>>>>>who paid for its manufacture and distribution? Personally, I

> >>>>>>>>believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

> >>>>>>>>product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to

> >>>>>>>>him, but is

> >>>>>>>>co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy

> >>>>>>>>sold.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>The same goes for all other creative works, except those the

> >>>>>>>>artist gives to the Public at no cost.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>>You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free

> >>>>>>>>>and there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have

> >>>>>>>>>to put up with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must

> >>>>>>>>present an air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if

> >>>>>>>>one is currently NOT genuine, is to become genuine. When the

> >>>>>>>>man does that, he no longer needs to present an air of

> >>>>>>>>genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At that point, he will

> >>>>>>>>then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

> >>>>>>>>against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows

> >>>>>>>>Activation and Digital Rights Management to exist in the first

> >>>>>>>>place.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their

> >>>>>>>>doors locked.

> >>>>>>>>Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed

> >>>>>>>>something of his, he would be free to take what was necessary

> >>>>>>>>subject, of course, to the mores of the time and common human

> >>>>>>>>decency.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest

> >>>>>>>>friends. Sad.

> >>>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

> >>>>>>>whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue

> >>>>>>>to accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove

> >>>>>>>otherwise and expect stay in business.

> >>>>>>>

> >>>>>>>Alias

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of

> >>>>>>being thieves until they prove otherwise?)

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by

> >>>>>>ANYONE at ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening

> >>>>>>during the rest of my stay on the earth.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing

> >>>>>>all its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law,

> >>>>>>one must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges

> >>>>>>against someone are supportable.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP

> >>>>>>and Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling

> >>>>>>us your delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth

> >>>>>>of two or more witnesses."

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this

> >>>>>>charge over the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of

> >>>>>>two or more witnesses."

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not

> >>>>>>make such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am

> >>>>>>sure I've made more than my share of delusional accusations

> >>>>>>againt Microsoft in these newsgroups. But I have NEVER felt as

> >>>>>>if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

> >>>>>>being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH

> >>>>>>better than I deserve over the years.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

> >>>>>>suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel

> >>>>>>when you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>Donald L McDaniel

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>>If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but

> >>>>>twice, or MS will make it impossible for you to use the copy of

> >>>>>Windows that you bought, that is called assuming you are guilty

> >>>>>of piracy until you prove otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS

> >>>>>FUD, have accused me of piracy with no proof.

> >>>>>

> >>>>>MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

> >>>>>

> >>>>>Alias

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

> >>>>Frank

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>Again, sigh, Ubuntu does not require that one prove that one

> >>>obtained it legitimately to *anyone*. Ergo, unlike Windows, no ass

> >>>kissing necessary.

> >>>

> >>>Oops.

> >>>

> >>>The pathetic thing is that this has been pointed out to you by many

> >>>but you still repeat the same tired refrain. Course, with your lack

> >>>of any ability to understand, it's not surprising.

> >>>

> >>>Alias

> >>

> >>RS is waiting for you and he doesn't like to be kept waiting.

> >>You know what he wants...LOL!

> >>Frank

> >

> >

> > And yet even more content flies right over Frank's head. You really

> > have a serious reading comprehension problem, Frank.

> >

> > Alias

> >

>

> I perfectly understand your proper English lies.

> So does everyone else you moron.

> Frank

 

So, are you telling us that, like XP and Vista, one has to activate

Ubuntu and become genuine before being able to use Synaptic and get

software? What *are* you saying besides squawking like a fuçking wind-up

parrot that repeats "liar, pants on fire!" every time you think you've

been wound up? Huh?

 

Alias

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>> Hi,

>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I know

>>>>> windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep getting an icon

>>>>> come up saying i need to activate windows. When i put my product key in i am

>>>>> told it is already in use. It is definitely the right product key and if it

>>>>> is already in use i must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I

>>>>> have 25 days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft

>>>>> gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators that

>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>> something you bought.

>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a thief

>> until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by phone, you

>> will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>

>> the tech asks me two

>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>

>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>> has always resulted in immediate activation.

>>> 3) If your answer is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>> type:

>>> If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>> machine at once.

>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>> copy?

>>

>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>> something you bought"?

>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the point

>> of doing it?

>>

>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>> Alias, not alias.

>>

>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>

>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>> someone else.

>>

>>> Again, friend,

>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of Vista

>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software."

>>>

>>> This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>

>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>

>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any time,

>>> at its own discretion.

>>>

>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>> of ownership".

>>>

>>> It's simply a "license to install and use /the software/ on one or

>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>> initially installing it."

>>>

>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the one

>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution?

>>>

>>> Personally, I believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him, but is

>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>

>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>

>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and there is

>>>> no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up with. Check it

>>>> out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>

>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors locked.

>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>

>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>> Sad.

>>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel

>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or whatever

>> your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to accuse paying

>> customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise and expect stay in

>> business.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>

> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

> my stay on the earth.

 

 

This would be correct because MS is not an ANYONE. It is a corporation

which considers paying customers guilty until proven innocent everytime

they need to activate or go through a 'genuine' check.

>

> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

> supportable.

>

> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>

> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

> or more witnesses."

>

> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

> witnesses."

>

> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

> these newsgroups.

>

> But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

> than I deserve over the years.

>

> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>

> Donald L McDaniel

 

 

 

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -

Submit your nomination at the link below:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT, "Brian W"

> <brian.wescombeSODOFF@ntlSPAMworld.com> wrote:

>

>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:O3$tMVbMIHA.5172@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a retail

>>> copy?

>>>

>> Even MS don't know apparently. I re-activated my generic OEM Vista by

>> telling the operator I purchased it in a retail store (which is technically

>> true, even though it isn't a 'retail' version).

>

> Which only proves what I have been saying all along: The Activation

> techs are told by Microsoft to bend over backward in ensuring that

> customers leave the phone with a POSITIVE experience, whether they

> deserve it or not.

>

> They are TRULY committed to their customers' satisfaction.

> Unlike many others.

>

> Donald L McDaniel.

 

Wow, Ok, I'm flabbergasted after reading this post. Daniel, you are so

out of touch with reality if you think MS is 'TRULY committed to their

customers' satisfaction'!

 

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -

Submit your nomination at the link below:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'

wrote:

> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>> Hi,

>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being repaired. I

>>>>>> know windows was re-installed while it was away and i now keep

>>>>>> getting an icon come up saying i need to activate windows. When i

>>>>>> put my product key in i am told it is already in use. It is

>>>>>> definitely the right product key and if it is already in use i

>>>>>> must be using it so why do i keep getting a reminder. I have 25

>>>>>> days left to activate which sounds a lot but with the help

>>>>>> microsoft gives you its not long. Can anyone help or advise.

>>>>>> Regards Mark.

>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>>> use something you bought.

>>>> I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>> Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>> The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you are a

>>> thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't activate by

>>> phone, you will not be able to use what you paid for.

>>>

>>> the tech asks me two

>>>> [or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>> 1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>

>>>> 2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>> If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of numbers,

>>>> which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on "OK", which

>>>> has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer is

>>>> "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>> "Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>> Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will give you

>>>> a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they will direct you

>>>> to click on "OK", upon which the OS is immediately activated.

>>>> If your answer is "no", the outcome will depend upon your Product ID

>>>> type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is already

>>>> activated on another machine, and will be directed to purchase a

>>>> second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to explain why

>>>> it appears that you are installing your product on more than one

>>>> machine at once.

>>> How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or a

>>> retail copy?

>>>

>>>> Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone activators that

>>>> you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to use

>>>> something you bought"?

>>> So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's the

>>> point of doing it?

>>>

>>>> You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>> Alias, not alias.

>>>

>>>> We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as Semantics are

>>>> concerned, there are no grounds for comparison between a new Ford and

>>>> an Operating System. They are "apples and oranges", semantically, as

>>>> well as opposite polarities, logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>

>>>> Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out metaphors.

>>> I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me with

>>> someone else.

>>>

>>>> Again, friend,

>>>> A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can grasp

>>>> with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a "copy" of Vista

>>>> receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided media

>>>> to install and use the software contained on the media on one [or

>>>> more] machines *according to the terms* of the user agreement, which

>>>> the user agrees to when he installs the software."

>>>> This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media, including the media

>>>> itself" [all which are owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the

>>>> manufacturer and/or author of the software and media.]

>>>> You don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point, friend. The

>>>> ONLY thing you "own" is a "license to use the provided media to

>>>> install the software contained on the media provided."

>>>>

>>>> Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as the

>>>> bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back at any time,

>>>> at its own discretion.

>>>>

>>>> In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal) "deed

>>>> of ownership".

>>>> It's simply a "license to install and use /the software/ on one or

>>>> more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed to when

>>>> initially installing it."

>>>>

>>>> This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real property"

>>>> [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like a Ford

>>>> automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between "you paid for a

>>>> copy...", and "but the owner can take it back if he wants." So

>>>> really, who owns the product? The one who paid for a copy, or the one

>>>> who paid for its manufacture and distribution?

>>>> Personally, I believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>> product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to him,

>>>> but is

>>>> co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy sold.

>>>>

>>>> The same goes for all other creative works, except those the artist

>>>> gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>

>>>>> You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free and

>>>>> there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have to put up

>>>>> with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>> It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must present an

>>>> air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if one is currently NOT

>>>> genuine, is to become genuine. When the man does that, he no longer

>>>> needs to present an air of genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At

>>>> that point, he will then recognize the absolute necessity for

>>>> defences [sic]

>>>> against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows Activation and

>>>> Digital Rights Management to exist in the first place.

>>>>

>>>> When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their doors locked.

>>>> Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed something of

>>>> his, he would be free to take what was necessary subject, of course,

>>>> to the mores of the time and common human decency.

>>>>

>>>> Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest friends.

>>>> Sad.

>>>>

>>>> Donald L McDaniel

>>> You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

>>> whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue to

>>> accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove otherwise

>>> and expect stay in business.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of being

>> thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>

>> I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by ANYONE at

>> ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening during the rest of

>> my stay on the earth.

>

>

> This would be correct because MS is not an ANYONE. It is a corporation

> which considers paying customers guilty until proven innocent everytime

> they need to activate or go through a 'genuine' check.

>

>>

>> I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing all

>> its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law, one must

>> PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges against someone are

>> supportable.

 

Sorry, I meant to add:

And when has MS done this with a home user? When will they? They are

chicken sh!t that it will not stand up in a court of law, this is why

they have not done this.

 

Instead they hide behind the faulty, incorrect piracy accusations that

their buggy WPA and WGA/N software levels at paying users.

 

That is just like walking out of a retail store with your item and the

receipt that shows you paid for it in the bag with the store manager or

security running after you saying, "Wait, stop! Thief... Thief!"

>>

>> You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP and

>> Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling us your

>> delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>

>> The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth of two

>> or more witnesses."

>>

>> You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this charge over

>> the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of two or more

>> witnesses."

>>

>> Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not make

>> such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am sure I've

>> made more than my share of delusional accusations againt Microsoft in

>> these newsgroups.

>> But I have NEVER felt as if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

>> being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH better

>> than I deserve over the years.

>>

>> If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>> suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel when

>> you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>

>> Donald L McDaniel

 

 

 

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -

Submit your nomination at the link below:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Alias wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:06:03 -0800

> Frank <fb@jr.kmo> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>>On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:38:23 -0800

>>>Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>Alias wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:53:29 +0100, Alias <alias@aliasmail.com>

>>>>>>>>wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:56 +0100, Alias

>>>>>>>>>><alias@aliasmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>nobbygee5 wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi,

>>>>>>>>>>>> My computer has recently been returned after being

>>>>>>>>>>>>repaired. I know windows was re-installed while it was away

>>>>>>>>>>>>and i now keep getting an icon come up saying i need to

>>>>>>>>>>>>activate windows. When i put my product key in i am told it

>>>>>>>>>>>>is already in use. It is definitely the right product key

>>>>>>>>>>>>and if it is already in use i must be using it so why do i

>>>>>>>>>>>>keep getting a reminder. I have 25 days left to activate

>>>>>>>>>>>>which sounds a lot but with the help microsoft gives you its

>>>>>>>>>>>>not long. Can anyone help or advise. Regards Mark.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone

>>>>>>>>>>>activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

>>>>>>>>>>>you permission to use something you bought.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>I wonder why you would say that, sir...

>>>>>>>>>>Each time I need to activate my OS via phone,

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>The fact that you have to activate by phone implies that you

>>>>>>>>>are a thief until you prove otherwise. And, if you don't

>>>>>>>>>activate by phone, you will not be able to use what you paid

>>>>>>>>>for.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>the tech asks me two

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>[or more, depending on my answer] questions:

>>>>>>>>>>1) "Please give me the numbers on your screen"

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>2) "Is this your first time installing this Software?"

>>>>>>>>>>If your answer is "Yes", they simply respond with a string of

>>>>>>>>>>numbers,

>>>>>>>>>>which you enter, after which the tech asks you to click on

>>>>>>>>>>"OK", which

>>>>>>>>>>has always resulted in immediate activation. 3) If your answer

>>>>>>>>>>is "No", they will ask a further question:

>>>>>>>>>>"Is this the only computer you have installed this OS on?"

>>>>>>>>>>Depending on your answer, they will ask further questions:

>>>>>>>>>> If your answer to this third question is "Yes", they will

>>>>>>>>>>give you a string of numbers, which you will enter. Then they

>>>>>>>>>>will direct you to click on "OK", upon which the OS is

>>>>>>>>>>immediately activated. If your answer is "no", the outcome

>>>>>>>>>>will depend upon your Product ID

>>>>>>>>>>type: If it is "OEM", you will be told that the product is

>>>>>>>>>>already activated on another machine, and will be directed to

>>>>>>>>>>purchase a second license, and the activation will be denied.

>>>>>>>>>> If it is "RETAIL", you will be given an opportunity to

>>>>>>>>>>explain why it appears that you are installing your product on

>>>>>>>>>>more than one machine at once.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>How many paying customers know the difference between an OEM or

>>>>>>>>>a retail copy?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Just WHERE in this does one find "grovel to the phone

>>>>>>>>>>activators that you're not a thief and maybe they will give

>>>>>>>>>>you permission to use something you bought"?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>So, you're saying that activation is guaranteed? If so, what's

>>>>>>>>>the point of doing it?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>You JUST don't get it yet, do ya, "alias"?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Alias, not alias.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>We've been trying to tell you for years that as far as

>>>>>>>>>>Semantics are concerned, there are no grounds for comparison

>>>>>>>>>>between a new Ford and an Operating System. They are "apples

>>>>>>>>>>and oranges", semantically, as well as opposite polarities,

>>>>>>>>>>logically, financially, or legally..

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Yet you keep trotting out those same poor, worn-out

>>>>>>>>>>metaphors.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>I don't recall using a Ford as an example. You're confusing me

>>>>>>>>>with someone else.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Again, friend,

>>>>>>>>>>A man who pays cash for a new Ford receives something he can

>>>>>>>>>>grasp with his hands, while the same man who pays cash for a

>>>>>>>>>>"copy" of Vista

>>>>>>>>>>receives a "LICENSE-to-USE", or "The right to use the provided

>>>>>>>>>>media to install and use the software contained on the media

>>>>>>>>>>on one [or more] machines *according to the terms* of the

>>>>>>>>>>user agreement, which the user agrees to when he installs the

>>>>>>>>>>software." This is NOT "a Deed to everything on the media,

>>>>>>>>>>including the media itself" [all which are owned lock, stock,

>>>>>>>>>>and smoking barrel by the manufacturer and/or author of the

>>>>>>>>>>software and media.] You don't seem to be able to grasp this

>>>>>>>>>>simple point, friend. The ONLY thing you "own" is a "license

>>>>>>>>>>to use the provided media to install the software contained on

>>>>>>>>>>the media provided."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Yes, ''alias", Microsoft owns the disks themselves, as well as

>>>>>>>>>>the bits on the disks, and has the right to request them back

>>>>>>>>>>at any time,

>>>>>>>>>>at its own discretion.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>In fact, the Microsoft EULA is not even a formal (or informal)

>>>>>>>>>>"deed of ownership". It's simply a "license to install and

>>>>>>>>>>use /the software/ on one or

>>>>>>>>>>more machines, *according to the terms of the license* agreed

>>>>>>>>>>to when initially installing it."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>This "License to Use" shouldn't be considered to be "real

>>>>>>>>>>property" [such as what anyone could see with their eyes, like

>>>>>>>>>>a Ford automobile], but lies in the realm somewhere between

>>>>>>>>>>"you paid for a copy...", and "but the owner can take it back

>>>>>>>>>>if he wants." So really, who owns the product? The one who

>>>>>>>>>>paid for a copy, or the one

>>>>>>>>>>who paid for its manufacture and distribution? Personally, I

>>>>>>>>>>believe that once a manufacturer/author advertises his

>>>>>>>>>>product publically [sic], it no longer belongs exclusively to

>>>>>>>>>>him, but is

>>>>>>>>>>co-owned [quietly] by his paying customers from the first copy

>>>>>>>>>>sold.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>The same goes for all other creative works, except those the

>>>>>>>>>>artist gives to the Public at no cost.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>You might want to consider Open Source or Linux. It's free

>>>>>>>>>>>and there is no activation, becoming genuine or DRM to have

>>>>>>>>>>>to put up with. Check it out at http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>It would seem to me that if one is to be believed, he must

>>>>>>>>>>present an air of genuineness. The best way to do that, if

>>>>>>>>>>one is currently NOT genuine, is to become genuine. When the

>>>>>>>>>>man does that, he no longer needs to present an air of

>>>>>>>>>>genuineness, but is truly "genuine". At that point, he will

>>>>>>>>>>then recognize the absolute necessity for defences [sic]

>>>>>>>>>>against the non-genuine, who cause things like Windows

>>>>>>>>>>Activation and Digital Rights Management to exist in the first

>>>>>>>>>>place.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>When I was a child, no one in my neighborhood left their

>>>>>>>>>>doors locked.

>>>>>>>>>>Why lock the door,when everyone knew if someone needed

>>>>>>>>>>something of his, he would be free to take what was necessary

>>>>>>>>>>subject, of course, to the mores of the time and common human

>>>>>>>>>>decency.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Now, everyone locks their doors, even from their dearest

>>>>>>>>>>friends. Sad.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>You have described Microsoft's scam perfectly. And, Donald, or

>>>>>>>>>whatever your real name is, it is a scam and you can't continue

>>>>>>>>>to accuse paying customers of being thieves until they prove

>>>>>>>>>otherwise and expect stay in business.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>Alias

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Again, "alias", WHERE does Microsoft "accuse paying customers of

>>>>>>>>being thieves until they prove otherwise?)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>I personally have NEVER been accused of being a thieves, by

>>>>>>>>ANYONE at ANYTIME in my 62 years. I do not see it happening

>>>>>>>>during the rest of my stay on the earth.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>I see nothing wrong with accusing Microsoft of falsely accusing

>>>>>>>>all its customers of being thieves. However, in a court of law,

>>>>>>>>one must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges

>>>>>>>>against someone are supportable.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>You have failed to support your delusion since the release of XP

>>>>>>>>and Microsoft's requirement to activate one's License. Telling

>>>>>>>>us your delusion over and over can never "prove" its verity.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>The Bible tells us "Let every word be established at the mouth

>>>>>>>>of two or more witnesses."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>You seem to be the ONLY one who has consistently made this

>>>>>>>>charge over the years. That's definitely NOT "at the mouth of

>>>>>>>>two or more witnesses."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Even I, who dislikes activation as much as the next man, do not

>>>>>>>>make such a delusional accusation against Microsoft -- and I am

>>>>>>>>sure I've made more than my share of delusional accusations

>>>>>>>>againt Microsoft in these newsgroups. But I have NEVER felt as

>>>>>>>>if Microsoft were somehow accusing me of

>>>>>>>>being a software pirate. In fact, Microsoft has treated me MUCH

>>>>>>>>better than I deserve over the years.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>If you feel as if Microsoft is accusing you of being a pirate, I

>>>>>>>>suggest that maybe you are. In which case, the guilt you feel

>>>>>>>>when you activate your OS is certainly not misplaced.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>Donald L McDaniel

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>If you have to prove that your bought Windows not once, but

>>>>>>>twice, or MS will make it impossible for you to use the copy of

>>>>>>>Windows that you bought, that is called assuming you are guilty

>>>>>>>of piracy until you prove otherwise. You, yourself, blinded by MS

>>>>>>>FUD, have accused me of piracy with no proof.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>MS says bend over and Donald asks "how far?"

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>Got kiss RS's hairy arse you stupid linux lovin lying loser.

>>>>>>Frank

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>Again, sigh, Ubuntu does not require that one prove that one

>>>>>obtained it legitimately to *anyone*. Ergo, unlike Windows, no ass

>>>>>kissing necessary.

>>>>>

>>>>>Oops.

>>>>>

>>>>>The pathetic thing is that this has been pointed out to you by many

>>>>>but you still repeat the same tired refrain. Course, with your lack

>>>>>of any ability to understand, it's not surprising.

>>>>>

>>>>>Alias

>>>>

>>>>RS is waiting for you and he doesn't like to be kept waiting.

>>>>You know what he wants...LOL!

>>>>Frank

>>>

>>>

>>>And yet even more content flies right over Frank's head. You really

>>>have a serious reading comprehension problem, Frank.

>>>

>>>Alias

>>>

>>

>>I perfectly understand your proper English lies.

>>So does everyone else you moron.

>>Frank

>

>

> So, are you telling us that, like XP and Vista, one has to activate

> Ubuntu and become genuine before being able to use Synaptic and get

> software? What *are* you saying besides squawking like a fuçking wind-up

> parrot that repeats "liar, pants on fire!" every time you think you've

> been wound up? Huh?

>

> Alias

 

You tell me mr liar?

Frank

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>

>>>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the

>>>> activation process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you

>>>> have only one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the

>>>> dishonest person will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back

>>>> to "What use is it?" If there are 100 people using the same product

>>>> key, 99 of them lying, who ultimately gets to lose out when MS

>>>> finally slam the door? You can bet it will be the single honest user.

>>>>

>>>

>>> That user will get the free WGA pack.

>>

>> Whoop dee doo.

>>

>>> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>>

>> You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

>> customer.

>>

>> Alias

>

> So anti customer that you run XP.

> So anti customer that most don't care.

 

Educated consumers care. But I would agree that most consumers are not

educated consumers.

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -

Submit your nomination at the link below:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

news:OS5yuQbMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Lang Murphy wrote:

>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fi3oru$p8e$2@aioe.org...

>>> Lang Murphy wrote:

>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:%23eFFU62KIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>> Lang Murphy wrote:

>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission to

>>>>>>> use something you bought.

>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As if this is coming from first hand experience. Uh, no?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Lang

>>>>>

>>>>> If you're not calling to get permission to use the OS you paid for,

>>>>> what, exactly, do you think the call is for, a date with Steve

>>>>> Ballmer?

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Dance all you want... you have no first hand experience with your

>>>> previously stated scenario. End of story.

>>>>

>>>> Lang

>>>

>>> You're the one dancing, Lang. If you don't call, your copy of Vista will

>>> be rendered useless so you are *obviously* calling to get permission to

>>> use something you've paid for and, well, that just ain't right.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> As previously stated... you have no first hand experience. You're

>> parroting articles you've read. Anyone can do that. Only folks with first

>> hand experience can actually assist anyone in this ng. But, as we all

>> know, that's not why you're here.

>>

>> Lang

>

> You can't answer the question so you resort to insults. Trying to emulate

> Frank, are ya?

>

> Alias

 

 

Too funny. Like calling MS is such a burden. You're the one that kicked this

whole thing off with your "...grovel..." and "...thief..." comments. Like

you've ever called into MS to reactivate Vista? Uh, no?

 

Lang

"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message news:fivfvm$3df$1@aioe.org...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

>>>>> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only

>>>>> one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person

>>>>> will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?"

>>>>> If there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying,

>>>>> who ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can

>>>>> bet it will be the single honest user.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> That user will get the free WGA pack.

>>>

>>> Whoop dee doo.

>>>

>>>> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>>>

>>> You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

>>> customer.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> So anti customer that you run XP.

>

> No WGA on my XP machine. You haven't figured out how to keep that off your

> machine? LOL! Just because I activated it doesn't mean that I liked it.

>> So anti customer that most don't care.

>

> You and MS are very wrong about that.

>

> Alias

 

No you are making your world more important than everyone else's.

This results in you assuming your limited experience is what happens

everywhere.

Exactly the same attitude that has held linux back since it started, "of

course its easy, I do it ten times a day".

What is it about some linux users that makes them think they are the center

of the world and that everyone's experience is the same as theirs?

"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"

<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fivsee$6qd$2@aioe.org...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fiv35k$o18$1@aioe.org...

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:#SajX5PNIHA.3852@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> You are the one who published here the instructions for the activation

>>>>> process, clearly explaining that as long as you "Say" you have only

>>>>> one copy it will be activated. Seems to me that the dishonest person

>>>>> will say that anyway, which brings us neatly back to "What use is it?"

>>>>> If there are 100 people using the same product key, 99 of them lying,

>>>>> who ultimately gets to lose out when MS finally slam the door? You can

>>>>> bet it will be the single honest user.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> That user will get the free WGA pack.

>>>

>>> Whoop dee doo.

>>>

>>>> Some of the others might too but M$ err on the side of the customer.

>>>

>>> You're kidding, right? WPA and WGA, by their very nature, are anti

>>> customer.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> So anti customer that you run XP.

>> So anti customer that most don't care.

>

> Educated consumers care. But I would agree that most consumers are not

> educated consumers.

 

Most consumers don't actually want a computer, they just want something to

give them the "internet".

They are put off by computers and buy something they can go back to the shop

with if they have problems.

Why do you think they buy at pc world? Its not the prices, its that they

feel they can get help even if it costs them.

When someone actually produces a machine that works for them they will make

a killing.

If its Linux who will care other than M$ or Apple.

It won't be linux in the form of the present distros as they are trying to

compete with windows rather than solve a problem.

Lang Murphy wrote:

> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

> news:OS5yuQbMIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Lang Murphy wrote:

>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fi3oru$p8e$2@aioe.org...

>>>> Lang Murphy wrote:

>>>>> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:%23eFFU62KIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> Lang Murphy wrote:

>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>> You'll need to phone activate and grovel to the phone activators

>>>>>>>> that you're not a thief and maybe they will give you permission

>>>>>>>> to use something you bought.

>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> As if this is coming from first hand experience. Uh, no?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Lang

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you're not calling to get permission to use the OS you paid

>>>>>> for, what, exactly, do you think the call is for, a date with

>>>>>> Steve Ballmer?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Dance all you want... you have no first hand experience with your

>>>>> previously stated scenario. End of story.

>>>>>

>>>>> Lang

>>>>

>>>> You're the one dancing, Lang. If you don't call, your copy of Vista

>>>> will be rendered useless so you are *obviously* calling to get

>>>> permission to use something you've paid for and, well, that just

>>>> ain't right.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> As previously stated... you have no first hand experience. You're

>>> parroting articles you've read. Anyone can do that. Only folks with

>>> first hand experience can actually assist anyone in this ng. But, as

>>> we all know, that's not why you're here.

>>>

>>> Lang

>>

>> You can't answer the question so you resort to insults. Trying to

>> emulate Frank, are ya?

>>

>> Alias

>

>

> Too funny. Like calling MS is such a burden.

 

You're MS' kinda guy. MS says bend over and you ask "how far?"

> You're the one that kicked

> this whole thing off with your "...grovel..." and "...thief..."

> comments.

 

Yep, and no one has come ups with a credible reason.

> Like you've ever called into MS to reactivate Vista? Uh, no?

>

> Lang

 

Not relevant.

 

Alias