🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <79d2lm$220...@news.whyweb.com>, in which a
one dol...@dragondata.com (Jenn Dolari) wrote:
> In article <vneu2.2069$Po2....@server1.news.adelphia.net>,
>  tabmok99....@damnspaz.com (]{0MBAT) wrote:
> 
> >The law does not protect people who only *feel* threatened.  The law
> >protects those who actually were.  
> 
> Have you seen the web site?  I have. If my name were on their hit list, 
> ESPECIALLY with names of people who had died crossed out, I would most 
> definately feel threatened, and could make a reasonable assumption that I was 
> physically being threatened.
> 
> What if it was an anti-Jewish website, with names of prominent Jews, those 
> of who had died being crossed out on it?  Same deal, different names, 
> different attitude.
> 
> I stand by my opinion.
> 
> >Otherwise, people could make
> >millions by feeling threadtened at anything and everything that
> >comes their way.  That is why the law is in place.
> 
> People do.  And they are in the right.  If I say, even JOKINGLY, "Hey, you're 
> gonna die by my hand!" that's a threat to your life, and punishable by law.
> 
> It's up to YOU to decide if it's a joke or not, and whether to act on it.  In 
> the eyes of the law, I've broken it.  I doubt that website meant anything it 
> said as a joke.

If some people say "All Jews deserve to die" than that's their opinion,
and they're entitled to it no matter how much I disagree with them.  If
they put up a list similar to the anti-abortion site, then they're just
stating facts.  They're is no actual threat there.  They shouldn't lose
a lawsuit, because they have not violated the law (they have come close
though).  Even if they post up their names & adresses, they haven't
broken the law (as long as they are in the phone books or otherwise are
public information).  

But because they lost the lawsuit, they were punished for breaking a law
that doesn't exist.
 
> >We've all heard about the Nintendo64 emulator, UltraHLE or something...
> >right?  I think it was a wise decision on their part to back out,
> >because they would have lost a lawsuit by Nintendo (for violating
> >another law that the government would fee should have existed).
> 
> The funny thing is, Atari sued Coleco (aka Early 80's Era Nintendo) for making
> an Atari 2600 emulator for the Coleco Vision.  Atari lost.  I HOPE someone 
> gets sued and brings this up - The Big N will lose.  And FINALLY, Emulators 
> will be ligitimized.

I remember hearing about the suit.  The thing is, with the IDSA being such
assholes as of late, Nintendo would probably win (as unfair as that is).

> It's the pirate ROMs which they should be going after...bt then again,
> all ROM trading is piracy of some sort >wink< <wink>

They've been going after those long enough.  They should really be going
after warez.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|