2010-06-06 14:35:19 UTC
convinced that they are the same person.
Both wrote disjoint and awkward responses to my challenge. And BOTH
misunderstood it. While I did not mention the need for the challenger
to submit source code, BOTH took the challenge to mean that. And BOTH
Also, looking at the writing style of Hutch, and his previous sales
letter, it is clear they are from two different writers. Zale is
posting sales letters through Hutch.
I also note that these "Australians" make use of American references
(clarence darrow) in their writing - more prompting from Bob?
But now, let's see what an idiot Auric__ makes of himself as he tries
to play lawyer himself, and use logic:
"I've never claimed to work in the software industry."
Good, thanks for that admission.
Auric__ "He's [Hutch] lying because he chose not to download something
1) Hutch stated that he owns all versions of PowerBasic.
2) PowerBasic is licensed software.
3) As such, Hutch has a license to use and have a copy of all
4) Therefore, Hutch can download ANY version he has a license for
and ... it is NOT illegal for him to do so.
Let's argue the law some more - you idiot.
I wrote, "Let's make that the challenge."
Auric__ (the idiot wrote) "You first."
OK. I've started.
I wrote, "I do not have stock or other financial benefits from
RealBasic, PureBasic or KBasic. But I do use them."
Auric__ (the idiot wrote) "These true confessions tell us so much
more. You are clearly an agent
for at least one of these vendors/suppliers and leave them fuly[sic]
liable ... it would appear "prima facia"
that you are attempting to practice law as an advocate for these
vendors that you are acting as an agent for."
1) The cause of action for liability does NOT apply to the fact
pattern that Auric__ asserts. Admitting that a person is a user of a
product, is not sufficient to rise to the level needed to for a cause
of action for liability. Thus, none of the companies would have ANY
liability for the fact pattern presented by Auric__.
2) Prima Facia depends on the rules regarding a cause of action. Here,
Auric__ has failed to meet that burden.
3) Oh My God, what a moron. Auric__'s logic goes like this:
A) I use a product,
B) Thus I am an advocate for that product,
C) Thus I am attempting to practice law on their behalf of the
D) Thus the product company has legal exposure.
This doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Auric__ "you have just told us that YOU have donloaded these illegal
copies... . ... Eric,
surely the economic climate up in Michigan is not so bad that you
cannot affort to own a fully registered version of PowerBASIC."...
YES - you MORON, I did DOWNLOAD these copies of PowerBasic, BUT...
1) I PAID for these versions of PowerBasic.
2) PowerBasic is licensed software.
3) As such, I have a license to use and have a copy of these versions.
4) Therefore, I can download ANY version I have a license for and ...
it is legal.
5*) Notice how Auric__ worked in another slight against Michigan. In
fact, I live in Washtenaw County, one of the most prosperous counties
in the state. It has had the least impact of the downturn.
Please ask Bob, when you are done blowing him, to see that I indeed
paid for many version of PowerBaisc (DOS, CC, Win). And court records
reflect this as an EXHIBIT (the invoice from PowerBasic). I also have
my invoice for the latest version(s).
When software is posted on a website, it is NOT illegal. The cause of
action required in a copyright infringement case is higher than most
lay-people understand. The poster may have committed a crime, the
hosting company is often protected, the downloader my be protected,
but the file itself is neither legal or illegal.
Auric__ "Now as I credit you as having a bit more sense ... why the
PHUK would you be promoting downloading illegal copies of software ?"
1) The software is not illegal, - See above.
2) It establishes that Hutch / You are lying. There are no viruses in
these downloads. Saying so is an attempt to sell PB for Bob. And that
is my point.
Auric__ "Well here is the distinction Eric, while you work in the
industry, there are those among us who have been working in the
software industry for over 20 years."
1) No bonehead, actually I have only worked for an automotive company
since 2007. I have worked in the software industry for 30 years.
2) I would be happy to hear from any person, "among us", with 10+
years of software industry experience. But you and Hutch are not. You
both defend PB, yet Hutch admits he uses C and ASM as his primary
language. You admit that you do not write commercial software.
3) At Ford, my software calculated critical safety information where,
if wrong, people die. That is a whole higher level than Hutch or
Auric__ are working at.
Wow, that was fun.
Please hurl more insults at me.
It seems I can make you my bitch by asking you to insult me.
Who's your daddy!