On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Bob Blakely wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Bob Blakely wrote: > > > > > As I said in a previous post, I was addressing the accusation of > > > "theft", therefore it is NOT beside the point I was discussing. As I > > > also said in a previous post the seller should abide by ebay rules > > > meaning you've added nothing new to the discussion. > > > > > > Learn to read what is written. Learn to stop reading what is not written. > > > > Learn to read your own posts before replying. Your two main points were: > > > > "He has not stolen any images. He has merely linked to images" > > > > and > > > > "Last I heard, links are legal whether we like it or not and software that > > automatically incorporates such links is standard. He didn't copy the > > image and paste it from his own URL." > > > > > > You addressed the legality of the photo, not only whether or not it was > > 'stolen'. I replied with the relevant page from eBay's site showing that > > links like that are *not* legal. > > ebay is not authorized by any government to make laws for them.
Who said anything about government? Now *you're* reading between the lines and putting words in my mouth. Read what I have written, not what you think I wrote. a definition of "legal": "of or relating to law" a definition of "law": "a rule of conduct: 'a law of etiquette'", or "one of a set of rules governing a particular field of activity: 'the laws of tennis'". (source: Collins English Dictionary) It's simple. If you had meant to say that links are not proscribed by the government, why didn't you just say so instead of expecting us to read between the lines to ascertain that? You said that the links were "legal." According to eBay's "set of rules governing a particular field of activity," they are *not* legal. You spoke in generalities; I specified what I was talking about. There's no point in criticizing me because you intended to mean something that you didn't actually write. > > I granted you your point that the image > > wasn't technically "stolen" (how much more clear can I be than calling it > > "true"?); I only contradicted your statement about its legality. > > And you were wrong. Being against ebays rules doesn't make it illegal. > It may be immoral, it may be in very bad tast, it may result in all > manner of action by ebay (like being banned), but this doesn't make it > illegal. If you mean illegal according to judicial laws, you're correct, but you didn't say that. It's illegal according to eBay's rules. If you have a problem with that definition of "legal", either (1) open a good dictionary, or (2) specify what you're talking about. > > I'd say that added something new to the conversation, which is more than I > > can say for your snippy reply. > > Say again what was added? See above. As an aside, if you thought I added nothing new to the conversation, why reply on-list and clutter it up with more noise? Why not reply off-list to me personally? chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
