>Would you please be so kind as to explain this outburst?
>If the man is truly honest, he won't do the scam because he's not out >to defraud the scammer.
>But that includes honesty with oneself, which seems to be sorely lacking >in American society today. )-;
If an honest man (who is also honest with himself) buys a product from what he believes to be an honest seller, then that seller skips town with his money, which conclusion is correct:
> is currently saying exactly that to Australia: > "Jail 'Greedy' Scam Victims, Says Nigerian Diplomat"
There's no law about being greedy, and there's often a fine line between "greed" and "aggressively pursuing personal enrichment through ethical means." That being said, you'd have my support to jail scam victims when the con is premised on something that's clearly illegal, e.g., "I've embezzled millions from the government and need your help to move it out on the country." While many Nigerian scams are of this sort, plenty of them don't suggest anything illegal is happening, e.g., "A distant relative of yours has died and you're the only remaining heir," or "I saw your personals ad -- here's mine (very attractive, of course) -- I've love to meet; can you send me plane fare?" In those cases it's unreasonable to suggest jail is warranted for the mark.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:39:00 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>>Richard Henry wrote:
>>>Rich Grise wrote:
>>>> You can't cheat an honest man.
>>> Bullshit.
>>Would you please be so kind as to explain this outburst?
>>If the man is truly honest, he won't do the scam because he's not out >>to defraud the scammer.
>>But that includes honesty with oneself, which seems to be sorely lacking >>in American society today. )-;
> If an honest man (who is also honest with himself) buys a product > from what he believes to be an honest seller, then that seller > skips town with his money, which conclusion is correct:
> [1] Nobody got cheated
> [2] The honest man was really dishonest.
> [3] You can cheat an honest man.
> [4] Other (specify) ___________________
2: He was trying to pull a fast one - otherwise, why would he have opted to do business with a thief?
"Oh, but HM didn't know he was a thief" I hear you cry.
No, actually, the guy simply was negligent in doing his due diligence.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:37:26 -0700, Richard Henry wrote: > On Aug 22, 11:50 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:17:46 -0700, Richard Henry wrote: >> > On Aug 21, 3:45 pm, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
>> >> You can't cheat an honest man.
>> > Bullshit.
>> Would you please be so kind as to explain this outburst?
>> If the man is truly honest, he won't do the scam because he's not out >> to defraud the scammer.
> You're assuming that all cheats are presented as scams.
No, not at all - what I'm asserting is that I think people "should" educate themselves well enough to tell the difference. It's not that hard, you know, if you're not blinded by your own greed.
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:43:05 -0700, AnimalMagic wrote:
> > That's funny, our entire network of thousands of PC across ten cities > > and spanning several companies, is all Windows, and we have secure > > networks.
> Care to post or send me the ip ranges. I'll let you know if they turn up > in the bot-net sourced spamI see everyday.
> Or do I take your moniker as telling me all I need to know?
Look at the headers. He's another sock puppet of Dim Boob.
>>...and an "agreement" that you don't get to read >>BEFORE you fork over your cash is not binding. >>EULAs get laughed out of court.
IANAL, but isnt it the law of torts that essentially says you cannot enter into a contract unawares?
> Last I heard, nobody has ever tried to enforce a shrinkwrap > EULA in court. If you never sue anyone for violating a > shrinkwrap EULA, no court ever gets a chance to rule that > a shrinkwrap EULA is not a binding contract...
and, of course, the big problem with the legal system - money wins. regardless of the actual legality, Im pretty sure I could never, ever win a legal argument against microsoft, regardless of its veracity
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:39:00 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
> > Rich Grise wrote:
> >>Richard Henry wrote:
> >>>Rich Grise wrote:
> >>>> You can't cheat an honest man.
> >>> Bullshit.
> >>Would you please be so kind as to explain this outburst?
> >>If the man is truly honest, he won't do the scam because he's not out > >>to defraud the scammer.
> >>But that includes honesty with oneself, which seems to be sorely lacking > >>in American society today. )-;
> > If an honest man (who is also honest with himself) buys a product > > from what he believes to be an honest seller, then that seller > > skips town with his money, which conclusion is correct:
> > [1] Nobody got cheated
> > [2] The honest man was really dishonest.
> > [3] You can cheat an honest man.
> > [4] Other (specify) ___________________
> 2: He was trying to pull a fast one - otherwise, why would he have opted > to do business with a thief?
> "Oh, but HM didn't know he was a thief" I hear you cry.
> No, actually, the guy simply was negligent in doing his due diligence.
Do the thieves wear "I'm a thief" t-shirts in your neighborhood?
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:37:26 -0700, Richard Henry wrote: > > On Aug 22, 11:50 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:17:46 -0700, Richard Henry wrote: > >> > On Aug 21, 3:45 pm, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
> >> >> You can't cheat an honest man.
> >> > Bullshit.
> >> Would you please be so kind as to explain this outburst?
> >> If the man is truly honest, he won't do the scam because he's not out > >> to defraud the scammer.
> > You're assuming that all cheats are presented as scams.
> No, not at all - what I'm asserting is that I think people "should" > educate themselves well enough to tell the difference. It's not that > hard, you know, if you're not blinded by your own greed.
Terry Given wrote: >IANAL, but isnt it the law of torts that essentially says >you cannot enter into a contract unawares?
Bingo! When you have to pay for the product before you can unwrap it and you can't read the "agreement' until you do both, there is no contract. ...and have you ever tried to **return** shrinkwrapped software?
>Guy Macon wrote: >>Last I heard, nobody has ever tried to enforce >>a shrinkwrap EULA in court.
There was a case in Germany. The judge said *Not binding*.
JeffM <jef...@email.com> wrote in news:80adba11-6759-4b7f-88fa-8f00e2392e41 @a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> Terry Given wrote: >>you dont buy software.
> Mostly, when you plunk down cash for it, you do.
>>you license it,
> Several courts have struck down that language as invalid. > A one-time payment is a "purchase". > A "license" incurs ongoing payments.
It's similar to buying a book in that you purchased the text - the pages, including the words and markings printed on them, are yours. What you don't purchase is the right to either copy parts of it and sell them for pe
