"R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:

> Kinsey,
>
>> Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>
> Don't be stupid. They might not want them back, but you can take it for
> granted that those "gifts" come with a set of rules and stipulations.
> Accept the "gift" and you're bound to those. And you can bet your ass on it
> that one of those rules says that it cannot be sold to anyone else, or even
> given away.
>
> And when you break that agreement they are fully in their right to demand
> their "gift" back.
>
> So no, you do not own them in the sense that you can do with them whatever
> you like. Which, by your own initial question, you already knew.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

You're arguing with someone who believes software that is discontinued
or abandoned is no longer owned. It's how they qualify their theft.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 23:58:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

> NOTE: Excessive cross-posted by, um, "Commander" thwarted. Newsgroup
> count reduced from 4 to 2.
>
> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:55:47 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^___ You don't own nor have permission to
>>> use this registered & active domain.
>>
>> Actually it isn't. Were you thinking of spam.com? Please pay
>> attention at the back.
>
> nospam.com is both a registered and active domain (webhosted at
> linode.com). It isn't yours. There is nothing at the squatter's site
> granting your use of their domain.

It is not used. It is for sale.

> So, tell us which domain you paid for its registration, and is active
> with a web or mail server, so we can start energizing crap to bombard
> your domain. See how you like the abuse.

What mail server would they be using then, since they are clearly just selling it along with millions of others?

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
> from = "From:" mailbox-list CRLF
> In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does
> not belong to the author(s) of the message.

The RFCs are not law. They're silly little rules for geeky OCD fuckwits like you to moan about. Oh look, my lines are over 80 characters.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:02:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 21:27:56 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/01/2022 21:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me make this simple for your simple mind:
>>>> I spot a car that's left unlocked. I point it out to you. You
>>>> steal the car. Who's the theif?
>>>
>>> You are complicit where you are aiding and abetting the theft through
>>> Joint Enterprise.
>>
>> Stop being such a pedantic fuckwit. There is no judge on this earth
>> who would do me for saying to you, "hey that car's not locked".
>
> I think we're now aware of the age (physical or mental) of "Commander".

It's basic logic. You stole the car, I did not.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:05:38 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:
>
>> Kinsey,
>>
>>> Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>>
>> Don't be stupid. They might not want them back, but you can take it for
>> granted that those "gifts" come with a set of rules and stipulations.
>> Accept the "gift" and you're bound to those. And you can bet your ass on it
>> that one of those rules says that it cannot be sold to anyone else, or even
>> given away.
>>
>> And when you break that agreement they are fully in their right to demand
>> their "gift" back.
>>
>> So no, you do not own them in the sense that you can do with them whatever
>> you like. Which, by your own initial question, you already knew.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>
> You're arguing with someone who believes software that is discontinued
> or abandoned is no longer owned. It's how they qualify their theft.

Abandonware is a thing, google it and educate yourself.

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:05:38 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>
>> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:
>>
>>> Kinsey,
>>>
>>>> Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>>>
>>> Don't be stupid. They might not want them back, but you can take it for
>>> granted that those "gifts" come with a set of rules and stipulations.
>>> Accept the "gift" and you're bound to those. And you can bet your ass on it
>>> that one of those rules says that it cannot be sold to anyone else, or even
>>> given away.
>>>
>>> And when you break that agreement they are fully in their right to demand
>>> their "gift" back.
>>>
>>> So no, you do not own them in the sense that you can do with them whatever
>>> you like. Which, by your own initial question, you already knew.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Rudy Wieser
>>
>> You're arguing with someone who believes software that is discontinued
>> or abandoned is no longer owned. It's how they qualify their theft.
>
> Abandonware is a thing, google it and educate yourself.

Told you he would rationalize his theft.

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 23:58:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>
>> NOTE: Excessive cross-posted by, um, "Commander" thwarted. Newsgroup
>> count reduced from 4 to 2.
>>
>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:55:47 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^___ You don't own nor have permission to
>>>> use this registered & active domain.
>>>
>>> Actually it isn't. Were you thinking of spam.com? Please pay
>>> attention at the back.
>>
>> nospam.com is both a registered and active domain (webhosted at
>> linode.com). It isn't yours. There is nothing at the squatter's site
>> granting your use of their domain.
>
> It is not used. It is for sale.
>
>> So, tell us which domain you paid for its registration, and is active
>> with a web or mail server, so we can start energizing crap to bombard
>> your domain. See how you like the abuse.
>
> What mail server would they be using then, since they are clearly just selling it along with millions of others?
>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
>> from = "From:" mailbox-list CRLF
>> In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does
>> not belong to the author(s) of the message.
>
> The RFCs are not law. They're silly little rules for geeky OCD fuckwits like you to moan about. Oh look, my lines are over 80 characters.

Ah, more rationalization from a rude child aka troll.

Kinsey,

> Once you've done the testing and written your review, you're not harming
> Intel by selling it.

Thats not up to you to decide.

And even /if/ it would be true, you're still bound to the rules and
stipulations that came with it. You cannot just decide to drop stuff outof
an agreement (read: contract) because it doesn't benefit you. Thats not how
they work.

> Readily available on Ebay.

That means there are a number of assholes on ebay who do not wish to uphold
their end of the deal they struck.

And alas, a company which recognises that the cost of making those assholes
pay (rather literally) for breaking their part of the agreement will cost
more (in multiple ways) than it recovers.

But hey, I get the distinct feeling that your question is not about actualy
wanting to know why you aren't allowed, but instead in a search for people
who agree with you that you can just ignore such contractual agreements.

In that case, go for it ! "Everyone else" does it, so that /obviously/
gives you the right to do it too, right ? /s

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Kinsey,

> They clearly say sample on them. If I bought one knowing it's a sample,
> why would I have a problem?

Still playing stupid I see ...

Because you should be aware by now (if you wheren't already) that those
engineering sample CPU are not theirs to sell. When you than decide to buy
them anyway you would be *knowingly* be part of a theft.

And that 'knowingly' part is something the Law does not take lightly. If
they would ever find out you would be forced to return the goods to the
actual owner - without getting your money back - and likely be "invited" to
spend some quality time in one of the Laws "relaxation centers".

The positive side of that that the boarding, meals and doctor visits are
free. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:14:31 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:05:38 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>
>>> "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kinsey,
>>>>
>>>>> Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be stupid. They might not want them back, but you can take it for
>>>> granted that those "gifts" come with a set of rules and stipulations.
>>>> Accept the "gift" and you're bound to those. And you can bet your ass on it
>>>> that one of those rules says that it cannot be sold to anyone else, or even
>>>> given away.
>>>>
>>>> And when you break that agreement they are fully in their right to demand
>>>> their "gift" back.
>>>>
>>>> So no, you do not own them in the sense that you can do with them whatever
>>>> you like. Which, by your own initial question, you already knew.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rudy Wieser
>>>
>>> You're arguing with someone who believes software that is discontinued
>>> or abandoned is no longer owned. It's how they qualify their theft.
>>
>> Abandonware is a thing, google it and educate yourself.
>
> Told you he would rationalize his theft.

Did you even bother looking it up?

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:02:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 21:27:56 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/01/2022 21:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me make this simple for your simple mind:
>>>> I spot a car that's left unlocked. I point it out to you. You
>>>> steal the car. Who's the theif?
>>>
>>> You are complicit where you are aiding and abetting the theft through
>>> Joint Enterprise.
>>
>> Stop being such a pedantic fuckwit. There is no judge on this earth
>> who would do me for saying to you, "hey that car's not locked".
>
> I think we're now aware of the age (physical or mental) of "Commander".

Let me try another example to educate you:

I fit a burglar alarm to my house. A burglar avoids my house and breaks into next door. According to your way of thinking, I'm an accomplice to that theft.

On 04/01/2022 11:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:02:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 21:27:56 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/01/2022 21:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me make this simple for your simple mind:
>>>>> I spot a car that's left unlocked.  I point it out to you.  You
>>>>> steal the car.  Who's the theif?
>>>>
>>>> You are complicit where you are aiding and abetting the theft through
>>>> Joint Enterprise.
>>>
>>> Stop being such a pedantic fuckwit.  There is no judge on this earth
>>> who would do me for saying to you, "hey that car's not locked".
>>
>> I think we're now aware of the age (physical or mental) of "Commander".
>
> Let me try another example to educate you:
>
> I fit a burglar alarm to my house.  A burglar avoids my house and breaks
> into next door.  According to your way of thinking, I'm an accomplice to
> that theft.

If you told the burglar the alarm was ineffective and gave
encouragement, then yes, absolutely.

On 1/4/2022 4:19 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Kinsey,
>
>> They clearly say sample on them. If I bought one knowing it's a sample,
>> why would I have a problem?
>
> Still playing stupid I see ...
>
> Because you should be aware by now (if you wheren't already) that those
> engineering sample CPU are not theirs to sell. When you than decide to buy
> them anyway you would be *knowingly* be part of a theft.
>
> And that 'knowingly' part is something the Law does not take lightly. If
> they would ever find out you would be forced to return the goods to the
> actual owner - without getting your money back - and likely be "invited" to
> spend some quality time in one of the Laws "relaxation centers".
>
> The positive side of that that the boarding, meals and doctor visits are
> free. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>

This reminds me of something similar. There are many "entities" selling
Windows-Pro (OEM) keys for under $20, while a "proper" one will set you
back $160. It surprises me that this is allowed to go on and is being
treated "so lightly". I will almost surely be the sucker who pays $160,
but the difference is enough to make one stop and think about it. I
wonder why they don't ask for $260 or $360? I only paid $99 for my OEM
copy of Windows-7 (pro), but at least I got Windows-10 as a free update
to it. I would like to upgrade, but will wait until it is easier to buy
a sensible GPU at a sensible price.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
>
>> Kinsey,
>>
>>> Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
>>
>> Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
>
> Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>
Is there evidence of this?

Michael

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:51:28 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/01/2022 11:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:02:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 21:27:56 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/01/2022 21:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me make this simple for your simple mind:
>>>>>> I spot a car that's left unlocked. I point it out to you. You
>>>>>> steal the car. Who's the theif?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are complicit where you are aiding and abetting the theft through
>>>>> Joint Enterprise.
>>>>
>>>> Stop being such a pedantic fuckwit. There is no judge on this earth
>>>> who would do me for saying to you, "hey that car's not locked".
>>>
>>> I think we're now aware of the age (physical or mental) of "Commander".
>>
>> Let me try another example to educate you:
>>
>> I fit a burglar alarm to my house. A burglar avoids my house and breaks
>> into next door. According to your way of thinking, I'm an accomplice to
>> that theft.
>
> If you told the burglar the alarm was ineffective and gave
> encouragement, then yes, absolutely.

You mean putting up a sign saying "warning this house is alarmed"? Which is obviously going to make him try the next house.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:26:40 -0000, Michael Ejercito <MEjercit@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
>>
>>> Kinsey,
>>>
>>>> Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
>>>
>>> Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
>>
>> Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>>
> Is there evidence of this?

GIYF.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:18:39 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 23:58:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>
>>> NOTE: Excessive cross-posted by, um, "Commander" thwarted. Newsgroup
>>> count reduced from 4 to 2.
>>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:55:47 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^___ You don't own nor have permission to
>>>>> use this registered & active domain.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it isn't. Were you thinking of spam.com? Please pay
>>>> attention at the back.
>>>
>>> nospam.com is both a registered and active domain (webhosted at
>>> linode.com). It isn't yours. There is nothing at the squatter's site
>>> granting your use of their domain.
>>
>> It is not used. It is for sale.
>>
>>> So, tell us which domain you paid for its registration, and is active
>>> with a web or mail server, so we can start energizing crap to bombard
>>> your domain. See how you like the abuse.
>>
>> What mail server would they be using then, since they are clearly just selling it along with millions of others?
>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.2
>>> from = "From:" mailbox-list CRLF
>>> In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does
>>> not belong to the author(s) of the message.
>>
>> The RFCs are not law. They're silly little rules for geeky OCD fuckwits like you to moan about. Oh look, my lines are over 80 characters.
>
> Ah, more rationalization from a rude child aka troll.

No, a statement of fact.

On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article <op.1fhgyioamvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):

> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:26:40 -0000, Michael Ejercito<MEjercit@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Kinsey,
> > > >
> > > > > Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
> > > >
> > > > Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
> > >
> > > Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
> > Is there evidence of this?
>
> GIYF.

That would seem to indicate that the answer is ’no’.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:21:34 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:

> Kinsey,
>
>> Once you've done the testing and written your review, you're not harming
>> Intel by selling it.
>
> Thats not up to you to decide.
>
> And even /if/ it would be true, you're still bound to the rules and
> stipulations that came with it. You cannot just decide to drop stuff outof
> an agreement (read: contract) because it doesn't benefit you. Thats not how
> they work.

It's not a decision, it's blatently obvious Intel lose nothing.

>> Readily available on Ebay.
>
> That means there are a number of assholes on ebay who do not wish to uphold
> their end of the deal they struck.

Or people helping out buyers who want to have a play with one.

> And alas, a company which recognises that the cost of making those assholes
> pay (rather literally) for breaking their part of the agreement will cost
> more (in multiple ways) than it recovers.

Oh what a shame.

> But hey, I get the distinct feeling that your question is not about actualy
> wanting to know why you aren't allowed, but instead in a search for people
> who agree with you that you can just ignore such contractual agreements.
>
> In that case, go for it ! "Everyone else" does it, so that /obviously/
> gives you the right to do it too, right ? /s

Of course. Take speeding, 1 in 3 people speed, so there is no reason for it to be illegal. A good proportion of us disagree with the law.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:23:40 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

> On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
> (in article <op.1fhgyioamvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:26:40 -0000, Michael Ejercito<MEjercit@hotmail..com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Kinsey,
>> > > >
>> > > > > Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
>> > > >
>> > > > Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
>> > >
>> > > Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>> > Is there evidence of this?
>>
>> GIYF.
>
> That would seem to indicate that the answer is ’no’.

No, it means I can't be bothered trawling through my internet history to find where I read it.

On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article <op.1fhhfkjlmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):

> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:23:40 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
> > (in article <op.1fhgyioamvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> >
> > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:26:40 -0000, Michael Ejercito<MEjercit@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kinsey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
> > > > Is there evidence of this?
> > >
> > > GIYF.
> >
> > That would seem to indicate that the answer is ’no’.
>
> No, it means I can't be bothered trawling through my internet history to find
> where I read it.

Yeah. Right. I totally believe you.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 08:21:34 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:

> And alas, a company which recognises that the cost of making those assholes
> pay (rather literally) for breaking their part of the agreement will cost
> more (in multiple ways) than it recovers.

If Intel really cared, all they have to do is require return of the sample after the testing period. Clearly you're making a bigger fuss than they are.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 09:19:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:

> Kinsey,
>
>> They clearly say sample on them. If I bought one knowing it's a sample,
>> why would I have a problem?
>
> Still playing stupid I see ...
>
> Because you should be aware by now (if you wheren't already) that those
> engineering sample CPU are not theirs to sell. When you than decide to buy
> them anyway you would be *knowingly* be part of a theft.
>
> And that 'knowingly' part is something the Law does not take lightly. If
> they would ever find out you would be forced to return the goods to the
> actual owner - without getting your money back - and likely be "invited" to
> spend some quality time in one of the Laws "relaxation centers".
>
> The positive side of that that the boarding, meals and doctor visits are
> free. :-)

Most people wouldn't know. If I buy a mower on Gumtree listed as 2nd hand and it was stolen, I can't be blamed for not knowing.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:27:46 -0000, Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

> On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
> (in article <op.1fhhfkjlmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:23:40 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
>> > (in article <op.1fhgyioamvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
>> >
>> > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:26:40 -0000, Michael Ejercito<MEjercit@hotmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Kinsey,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
>> > > > Is there evidence of this?
>> > >
>> > > GIYF.
>> >
>> > That would seem to indicate that the answer is ’no’..
>>
>> No, it means I can't be bothered trawling through my internet history to find
>> where I read it.
>
> Yeah. Right. I totally believe you.

Are you incapable of a search yourself? I know it's there, you don't. You can't know something does not exist until you look.

On 04/01/2022 18:14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 12:51:28 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2022 11:47, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 00:02:52 -0000, VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 21:27:56 -0000, Fredxx <fredxx@nospam.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/01/2022 21:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me make this simple for your simple mind:
>>>>>>> I spot a car that's left unlocked.  I point it out to you.  You
>>>>>>> steal the car.  Who's the theif?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are complicit where you are aiding and abetting the theft through
>>>>>> Joint Enterprise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop being such a pedantic fuckwit.  There is no judge on this earth
>>>>> who would do me for saying to you, "hey that car's not locked".
>>>>
>>>> I think we're now aware of the age (physical or mental) of "Commander".
>>>
>>> Let me try another example to educate you:
>>>
>>> I fit a burglar alarm to my house.  A burglar avoids my house and breaks
>>> into next door.  According to your way of thinking, I'm an accomplice to
>>> that theft.
>>
>> If you told the burglar the alarm was ineffective and gave
>> encouragement, then yes, absolutely.
>
> You mean putting up a sign saying "warning this house is alarmed"?
> Which is obviously going to make him try the next house.

No that is not what I meant, re-read my post. Your skills in English
comprehension need improving.

On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
(in article <op.1fhjhxcumvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):

> On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:27:46 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
> > (in article <op.1fhhfkjlmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> >
> > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 18:23:40 -0000, Wolffan<akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2022 Jan 04, Commander Kinsey wrote
> > > > (in article <op.1fhgyioamvhs6z@ryzen.lan>):
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:26:40 -0000, Michael
> > > > > Ejercito<MEjercit@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Commander Kinsey wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 19:27:53 -0000, R.Wieser <address@not.available>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kinsey,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why are engineering sample CPUs illegal to sell?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Simple : you're not allowed to sell what you do not own.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course you own it, they don't want them back.
> > > > > > Is there evidence of this?
> > > > >
> > > > > GIYF.
> > > >
> > > > That would seem to indicate that the answer is ’no’.
> > >
> > > No, it means I can't be bothered trawling through my internet history to
> > > find
> > > where I read it.
> >
> > Yeah. Right. I totally believe you.
>
> Are you incapable of a search yourself? I know it's there, you don't. You
> can't know something does not exist until you look.

Son, _you_ are saying it’s there. So you can’t produce it? That doesn’t
mean that it’s not there. It does mean that it’s up to me to evaluate the
likelihood of my finding it without wasting too much time. Particularly as
your excuse for not producing it is that it would take you too much time and
trouble. You know what it is that you’re looking for, and it’ll take you
too much time to find it? Hmm.

Suuuuure it exists. Suuuure you just don’t have it. Suuuure. I believe you.

I also have a bridge for sale. Cheap.