Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:43:44AM -0400, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> 
> > firstly, you are wrong. ownership has nothing to do with vandalism. for
> > example, if you were rich enough to buy a work of art (say an antique
> > vase or a famous painting) and decided to destroy it, your action would
> > still be vandalism (not to mention stupidity), regardless of the fact
> > that you owned it.
> 
> Knowing the importance you place on dictionaries, I checked before I
> posted.  Wordnet 1.6 reports:
> 
>   vandalism
>        n : willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of
>            others [syn: {hooliganism}, {malicious mischief}]

i love it when people go out of their way to misquote dict, editing
out any definitions which happen to conflict with their incorrect
assumptions.

try showing the full report.  

$ dict vandalism
2 definitions found

>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

  Vandalism \Van"dal*ism\ (?), n.
     The spirit or conduct of the Vandals; ferocious cruelty;
     hostility to the arts and literature, or willful destruction
     or defacement of their monuments.

>From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:

  vandalism
       n : willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of
           others [syn: {hooliganism}, {malicious mischief}]


if you're going to waste everyone's time quibbling about words rather   
than addressing the points which have been made (yes, people do notice  
when you do things like that), then it's a good idea to check other     
dictionaries too.                                                       

finally, the only dictionary which could even possibly be considered
to be "authoritative" on the english language is the Oxford dictionary
(which, unfortunately, is not available for free online)


> I am no longer interested in participating in your flames, so I will
> leave analysis of your other points to people who are still taking you
> seriously.

in other words, your arguments (and i use the term very loosely) can't
stand up to vigorous questioning so you're going to run away and pretend
you can't hear any dissenting views.

craig

--
craig sanders