Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

[tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

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 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.

Thomas