From: onetouch@netcom.com (rmh)
Subject: Re: canceller's address again
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:48:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul21.212044.22385@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>
>>1) Child abuse was not the "real issue" under discussion -- it was 
>>   copyright violation.  
>
>THank you for acknowledging this. 

I never denied it.  The original post said that your attitude
was "on the level of" those that denied child abuse.  A denying
that B exists is like C denying that D exists.  i.e. you denying
that copyright violation exists is like others denying that 
child abuse exists.  I never accused you of child abuse, the way
your next reply implied.

[next exchange deleted as off-subject (again)]


>Kind of like those people who would remove Bandy's net.access. 

I'm not one of them.  That is not to say that I don't believe
that some people deserve to have net.access revoked if they
abuse it, but that Bandy -- so far -- isn't one of them.

>I'm not blaming anyone. I simply say "I do not believe in copyright
>violation on USENET." That's my opinion. If you don't like it...
>that's entirely your perogative. But don't compare it to something it's
>not similar to. 

Again: A ignoreing B is like C ignoring D.  No more, no less.  If you
don't like the extremity of the thing I chose as "D" -- that's another
matter......


>>of view is there is no reason for cancels to exist, and when
>>given a reason your reply was a "I don't believe that copyright
>>infringement on USENET."  
>
>That reason does not necessarily span the complete set of my reason that
>cancels shouldn't exist. Wake up.

I am awake, but so far that's all you've said.  Tell me more of
your "complete set of reasons".  That's all I've wanted from the
beginning.  Again I refer to your original post that merely
said that you don't believe that it exists.  If you don't, tell
me why.  Back up your statement.

>
>>I still say "It exists.  It is against the law.  Whether you
>>believe in it or not."
>
>And I still say "So what?"

Apparently you can't say more than that.  The laws of copyright
give the author of a work certain rights regarding it's reproduction.
If you write a book, and I type it in and post it to the net (a
long process to be sure, but in your case I might just be willing
to make the effort :)  Then I have violated the copyright you hold
on your book.  If you choose not to prosecute me, that is your
decision to make, however you have the right under the law to
do so.  If you think my example is unrealistic, see the recent
thread about someone posting The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
on the net recently.  Now, I have given my reason for believing
that copyright violation can, and does, exist on the net.  Are
you willing do do more than stand in the corner with your arms
crossed and repeating "I don't believe!  I don't believe!"?

>>I am just a figment of your imagination...
>>			...what does that say about *your* mental health?
>
>It has nothing what so ever to do with it. People who have lost that capability
>of imagination...now there's some people who's health you should look at. 

It's just a signature -- I have a random .sig picking program (on my
other system, unfortunately), it wasn't even directed at you, honest!

On the other hand, I would have to agree that people who lack the
ability to imagine do need some sort of help......

>A great deal of thought is only a substitute for the thoughts which the 
>individual would really find useful at the time.

I'll have to think about that........       .......a great deal!


	-Richard Hartman
	hartman@ulogic.COM