Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/9/2010 11:50 AM, RJack wrote:
"... but that's not relevant". Neither is your analogy.
You're wrong about that (naturally). The original conversation was On
3/2/2010 10:43 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
Taking something in a supermarket without paying constitutes
theft.
The
relevant activity of the theft is done at the time I take the
ware, the status of the theft is established when I pass the cash
register.
Uh stupid dak. You're mistaken.
As usual, Terekhov was wrong, and the Colorado case is an example
which demonstrates this. Borrowing a DVD from a library is a legal
act. Borrowing a DVD from a library and failing to return it is
theft. The status of the theft is established once sufficient time
has passed and the item has not been returned.
Sadly Hyman, you demonstrate your inability to understand the difference
between a violation of a criminal statute and a civil breach of contract.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
