We don't need this on the list.

Both Alan and Anthony can tone it down or get off (be kicked off) the list.
Good points on both sides but the personal insults will stop.

Next flame type post on this subject from anyone gets PICList subscription
terminated.

---
James Newton (PICList Admin #3)
mailto:jamesnewton@piclist.com 1-619-652-0593
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com or .org

-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Alan King
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2000 11:51
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [OT] Oscar the wannabe code protection violator


  I bet you're about 16 years old.  Definitely less than 23 or so.
Young and dumb, can't even follow your own argument correctly.  Original
reply said the guy was *most likely* a thief, which is correct.  You
said you know NOTHING about the guy, which is wrong and is saying the
other guy was wrong, or else why would you reply dip.  You know exactly
what the first person said, that the guy is *most likely* a thief,
whether you know anything in particular about him or not.  You're
plainly a kid or you'd see that clearly when someone points it out to
you, learn to read correctly before it's too late.
  Don't even respond, you're stuffs filtered to trash since you've
proven your opinions are not of much value until you get much better at
forming them, which takes years, generally meaning over 25 or so.
Alan

Anthony Rudzki wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Some contracted ***hole thought he was being treated unfairly and took
> off
> > > with the source code for a project that the contractor was working on
> and
> >
> > AND probably was if so..
>
> Off Topic, but.....even if the contractor was being treated unfairly, he
has
> no right to the code. Usually the code is the property of the person
paying
> the contractor.
>
> > > > Although it is not possible to tell, you are most likely in the
latter
> > > > category.  Statistically speaking, that is.  It is an established
fact
> >
> > > Statistically speaking, no you can't tell he is in the latter
category.
> You
> > > know NOTHING about this guy. Is he at the bottom of the food chain, or
> is he
> > > the president of an engineering firm who THOUGHT that a good source
for
> PIC
> > > information would be a PIC list.
> >
> >   I take it you're not a statistician?  With probably 1000:1 ratio you
> > do know SOMETHING about this guy, that he's about 1000 times more likely
> > to be copying someone else's code than not.
>
> hahahahahahaha.... What you're BASICALLY saying is that since I don't know
> this guy, he MUST be copying someone elses code.....well....yeah, that is
> what I'm saying...I'm saying the code COULD be a subcontracters....
>
> > You know EXACTLY what the original respondant said, which is that he is
> *MOST LIKELY* in the
> > latter category.  He was 100% correct to say that, and you are 100%
> > wrong to say that he wasn't correct in what he said.
>
> hahahaha again....are you full of crap or what? I didn't say he wasn't
> correct...I don't know.  What I am saying is that rather than flame the
guy,
> since NO ONE KNOWS what his intentions are, just say you'd rather not say,
> or its impossible, or don't say anything.
>
> > Of course you don't have too good a grasp on percentages anyway..
>
> And you know this because....why? Oh, because with a 1000:1 ratio that you
> don't know me, theres a 1000 times greater chance that you're wrong about
> what I know about percentages..
>
> >   Expect several more replies for having only THOUGHT you were correct
> > when correcting others..
>
> Actually, I got 2 replys questioning the guys intentions and one who was
> 'pro' me.....I was so underwelmed.
>
> tony