Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal

In article , Calvin wrote:
: On Oct 24, 5:01 pm, schu....TakeThisOut@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In article , Calvin wrote:

:> : The fact is, though, that when you said the person calling me
:> : stupid hadn't seen his wife and son in a decade, the Odyssey
:> : reference didn't pop into my mind, nor when you slapped your
:> : forehead.

:> I can't help it if you cannot see what is right in front of you.

: No, because I am a good person who believes what he
: is told, unless there is a reason not to.

There were several very good reasons to assume that when I said that
"No Man" had not seen his wife and son in over a decade, I was referring
to his pseudonym rather than to him personally. If you had taken a moment
to think about it, you would have realized that since he was posting
anonymously, the odds that I would know when the last time he saw his wife
and son, or if he even *has* a wife and son, or (as I indicated in a later
post in the thread) whether "he" is in fact male or female were very small,
and thus that it was likely that my comment was referring to something
else, in this case, the on-line persona that "he" chose to adopt.

Your rather self-serving excuse for not having a sense of humor, or the
ability to recognize sarcasm when you see it, fails a simple reality check,
however. You had absolutely no reason to disbelieve Jim Beaver's explanation
of why you are allowed to make a personal-use transfer of a VHS tape to DVD,
and yet you continued to do so even after he cited the actual U.S. law that
is applicable.

Your self-righteousness makes you somewhat less of a good person than you
think you are (recommended reading: _The Private Memoirs and Confessions
of a Justified Sinner_ by James Hogg). But actually, it is not your
"goodness" that is in question, only your common sense.

: I never tell lies so that I can try to humiliate someone for believing me.

You should perhaps see a therapist about this tendency toward paranoia, or
at the least, narcissism. I do not know exactly what you mean by "lie." I
have explained on numerous occasions over the past two decades that when *I*
use the term in a usenet discussion, I use it with a very specific meaning,
namely, to describe a statement that has three components: (1) it is
untrue; (2) the person making it knew it to be untrue; (3) the person making
it expects the person at whom it is directed to believe it to be true.
Since I had no expectation that anyone would take my comment about "No Man's"
wife and child seriously, the statement was by definition not a lie. Nor
do I make such statements to "humiliate" you. If I make some kind of
classical or literary allusion, I do it because the allusion occurs to me
at that moment. I am certainly not going to stop doing so just because you
or anyone else is incapable of picking up on it.

: Not being that sort of person, I don't expect others to
: be like that. The good are always at a disadvantage
: against the bad, according to the rules of the bad.

Is the rule that it is acceptable to compare someone to a Nazi when he is
not only Jewish, but demonstrably anti-Fascist in his beliefs and actions
a "rule of the good" or a "rule of the bad"?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.TakeThisOut@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

On Oct 25, 6:55 am, schu....RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> In article , Calvin wrote:
>
> : But, from my point of view, 'No Man' told me that he was copying
> : my statement for all to see. I said I hoped he was kidding, and
> : so he hit me with a sledge hammer. Then you told me that he
> : had a wife and son that he had not seen in a decade, and I
> : believed you, so you hit me with a sledge hammer.
>
> I didn't hit you with anything. I merely indicated that upon reading your
> response (which, let's face it, was a fairly stupid one), *I* slapped *my*
> forehead. If you had had even a modicum of common sense, you would have
> left it at that. Your insistence on continuing the thread indicates either
> that it is not a sledgehammer with which you are being hit, or that you
> enjoy being hit by a sledgehammer. In the former case, there is no reason
> for me to stop, while in the latter, who am I to prevent you from undergoing
> experiences that you enjoy and that hurt no one else?

I seek justice. When people do me wrong, I don't want more;
I want them to feel shame, as I did for mentioning Nazis, and
to repair the damage. Instead you and others inflict more
pain when you learn that your first barbs have stung. I will
always seek justice. You call it masochism, to make yourself
feel innocent, but you seem incapable of reeling in your
hostility, and that should be of more concern to you and to
anyone so life-challenged as to be reading this exchange.

> :> Since I had no expectation that anyone would take my comment about "No Man's"
> :> wife and child seriously, the statement was by definition not a lie.
> Note that this comment received no response.

Because a simple statement was made to me, which was not true.
It was true of Odysseus, but it was not true of the person you
indicated. Remember you said I shouldn't be so hard on him
(No Man) because of his time away from his family.

> :> Is the rule that it is acceptable to compare someone to a Nazi when he is
> :> not only Jewish, but demonstrably anti-Fascist in his beliefs and actions
> :> a "rule of the good" or a "rule of the bad"?
>
> : I already retracted that, while you were sleeping. See elsewhere
> : in the thread.

> How about this: instead of selectively "retracting" statements (a reference
> to the article in which you "retracted" your likening me to a Nazi would
> be appreciated), why don't you take a moment to think about what you are
> writing *before* you post? And when are you going to "retract" your accusation
> that I lied?

For the latter, never, for the reason given above. For the other,
see the exchange with 'smee'.
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

On Oct 25, 9:49 am, schu... RemoveThis @mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> You know, if you would stop responding, I would "reel in my hostility"
> immediately. If you would write responses that are not quite so idiotic,
> you would find that I would "reel in my hostility" just as quickly.

My responses are carefully thought out, not idiotic at all.
But the more I defend myself, the more you and others
pile on against me. That is wrong, and I won't simply say,
"yes, sir, anything you say sir, and go away." You and
'No man' are the ones in the wrong. You should apologize
for the both of you, and then I will go away.
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

On Oct 25, 10:49 am, schu....RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> What makes you think that I want you to go away?

If you don't, then maybe it's your sadism, rather than my
masochism, that should be at issue.
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

In article , Calvin wrote:

: But, from my point of view, 'No Man' told me that he was copying
: my statement for all to see. I said I hoped he was kidding, and
: so he hit me with a sledge hammer. Then you told me that he
: had a wife and son that he had not seen in a decade, and I
: believed you, so you hit me with a sledge hammer.

I didn't hit you with anything. I merely indicated that upon reading your
response (which, let's face it, was a fairly stupid one), *I* slapped *my*
forehead. If you had had even a modicum of common sense, you would have
left it at that. Your insistence on continuing the thread indicates either
that it is not a sledgehammer with which you are being hit, or that you
enjoy being hit by a sledgehammer. In the former case, there is no reason
for me to stop, while in the latter, who am I to prevent you from undergoing
experiences that you enjoy and that hurt no one else?

:> Since I had no expectation that anyone would take my comment about "No Man's"
:> wife and child seriously, the statement was by definition not a lie.

Note that this comment received no response.

:> Is the rule that it is acceptable to compare someone to a Nazi when he is
:> not only Jewish, but demonstrably anti-Fascist in his beliefs and actions
:> a "rule of the good" or a "rule of the bad"?

: I already retracted that, while you were sleeping. See elsewhere
: in the thread.

How about this: instead of selectively "retracting" statements (a reference
to the article in which you "retracted" your likening me to a Nazi would
be appreciated), why don't you take a moment to think about what you are
writing *before* you post? And when are you going to "retract" your accusation
that I lied?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what
we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because
where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity."
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

On Oct 25, 10:57 am, Manfred Polak wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> >> > > Here's another: *All* my statements are false.
> >> >We all have heard such paradoxes.
> >> In this case it isn't a paradox. It is a lie. Some of his
> >> statements are true, some are false.
> >I'm not so sure. I see your point; but if
> >*All* my statements are false.
> >then
> >*This* statement is false.
> >is implied. And that is a paradox.
>
> It's no paradox, it's just a contradiction. If *both* assumptions -
> the sentence to be true *and* the sentence to be false - would
> lead to a contradiction, there would be a paradox. But the
> assumption, that the sentence is false, don't necessarily lead
> to a contradiction. The conclusion is, that the statement "All my
> statements are false" is false. No paradox in sight.

Apparently I didn't make it clear what I was saying,
so let me try again:

'No Man' said, *All* my statements are false.

As Mr. Brazee said, or implied, that statement almost
certainly is false, because probably 'No Man' makes
some true statements now and then. No paradox,
it would seem, merely an incorrect statement. I get
that. No argument, for as far as Mr. Brazee took it.

BUT the statement, *All* my statements are false,
is included in *All*, ie. *This* statement (also) is false.

If all of his statements are false, then the statement
that he is uttering is false. And to say that the
statement which one is uttering is false, is a
paradox.
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

Trying once more to be clear:

Saying:

*All* my statements are false.

is saying:

1) My past statements were false.
2) This statement is false.
3) My future statements will be false.

1) probably is false, since probably some past statements were true
2) is a paradox
3) presently is unknowable as to its truth or falsity

Thus the statement, "*All* my statements are false." contains
a paradox.
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

Calvin wrote:

>Apparently I didn't make it clear what I was saying,
>so let me try again:
>
>'No Man' said, *All* my statements are false.
>
>As Mr. Brazee said, or implied, that statement almost
>certainly is false, because probably 'No Man' makes
>some true statements now and then. No paradox,
>it would seem, merely an incorrect statement. I get
>that. No argument, for as far as Mr. Brazee took it.
>
>BUT the statement, *All* my statements are false,
>is included in *All*, ie. *This* statement (also) is false.
>
>If all of his statements are false, then the statement
>that he is uttering is false. And to say that the
>statement which one is uttering is false, is a
>paradox.

I can't follow this at 8 o'clock in the morning!







____
Consider the verts: the in & the per,
The intro & extra, who con or who sub.
For conversation somehow to occur
Could they perhaps band into a club?

-- John Simon, "Of verts" (2007)
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

Calvin wrote:

>I seek justice. When people do me wrong, I don't want more;
>I want them to feel shame, as I did for mentioning Nazis, and
>to repair the damage. Instead you and others inflict more
>pain when you learn that your first barbs have stung. I will
>always seek justice. You call it masochism, to make yourself
>feel innocent, but you seem incapable of reeling in your
>hostility, and that should be of more concern to you and to
>anyone so life-challenged as to be reading this exchange.

Hey! I'm following along! My heart is breaking at all the vitriol --
but it's a pretty good read!







____
Consider the verts: the in & the per,
The intro & extra, who con or who sub.
For conversation somehow to occur
Could they perhaps band into a club?

-- John Simon, "Of verts" (2007)
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

Calvin wrote:

> But, from my point of view, 'No Man' told me that he was copying
> my statement for all to see. I said I hoped he was kidding, and
> so he hit me with a sledge hammer.

Look, I just did it again! I'm a serial copier.

> Then you told me that he
> had a wife and son that he had not seen in a decade -

Point of information: Noman was missing during Penelope's vigil for a
full two decades. But that was in another country and, besides, the
wench is dead.


--
'... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

On Oct 25, 12:09 pm, No Man wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > But, from my point of view, 'No Man' told me that he was copying
> > my statement for all to see. I said I hoped he was kidding, and
> > so he hit me with a sledge hammer.
>
> Look, I just did it again! I'm a serial copier.

No, like most others here you are a serial quoter.
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

In article , Calvin wrote:

: I seek justice. When people do me wrong, I don't want more;

In what sense is making a joke that you happened not to get doing you wrong?

In what sense is pointing out that you failed to get the joke doing you wrong?

In what sense is pointing out that your insistence on carrying on a discussion
in which each successive contribution made by you only makes you look more
and more like a complete fool is counterproductive (assuming, perhaps naively,
that you don't want to be taken for a complete fool) doing you wrong?

: I want them to feel shame, as I did for mentioning Nazis, and
: to repair the damage.

You showed no evidence of having felt "shame" for having mentioned Nazis; your
only comment (at least the only one that I saw) was that the comment was
"excessive." As far as I could tell, that doesn't indicate that you think
that the comparison was slanderous, only that it was unnecessary.

: Instead you and others inflict more
: pain when you learn that your first barbs have stung. I will
: always seek justice. You call it masochism, to make yourself
: feel innocent, but you seem incapable of reeling in your
: hostility, and that should be of more concern to you and to
: anyone so life-challenged as to be reading this exchange.

You know, if you would stop responding, I would "reel in my hostility"
immediately. If you would write responses that are not quite so idiotic,
you would find that I would "reel in my hostility" just as quickly.

:> :> Since I had no expectation that anyone would take my comment about
:> :> "No Man's" wife and child seriously, the statement was by definition
:> :> not a lie.

:> Note that this comment received no response.

: Because a simple statement was made to me, which was not true.

That doesn't make it a lie. It's only a lie if I expected the statement to
be taken seriously, which I did not.

: It was true of Odysseus, but it was not true of the person you
: indicated. Remember you said I shouldn't be so hard on him
: (No Man) because of his time away from his family.

I said that with tongue planted firmly in cheek. As I said before, it's not
*my* fault if *you* don't get the joke.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.TakeThisOut@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot,
but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot."
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal 

On Oct 25, 12:54 pm, Manfred Polak wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> >Saying:
>
> >*All* my statements are false.
>
> >is saying:
>
> >1) My past statements were false.
> >2) This statement is false.
> >3) My future statements will be false.
>
> That's obvious. But the opposite of "All my statements are
> false" is not "All my statements are true", but "At least one
> of my statements is true". And this one true statement ain't
> necessarily the self-referential statement in question - it
> might be any other random statement. Thus the assumption
> that "All my statements are false" is simply a false statement
> does *not* imply any contradiction.
>
> >Thus the statement, "*All* my statements are false." contains
> >a paradox.
>
> No.

You cut out what I said in order to accuse me of not knowing
that

> the opposite of "All my statements are
> false" is not "All my statements are true", but "At least one
> of my statements is true".

Of course I know that. Nothing I have said indicates that
I don't know that. Why don't you deal with what I sad, as
I said it, instead of editing out the meat of it and falsely
accusing me? WHAT KIND OF A PERSON ARE YOU?

Am I going mad? Is everyone in this newsgroup unfair?
 >> Stay informed about: Downloading of music for personal use should not be illegal