Re: Removing non-free - reality check.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 02:44:04AM -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 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.
Oh come on, this is ridiculous.
Main Entry: van·dal·ism
Pronunciation: 'van-d&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1798
: willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public
or private property
That's from m-w.com.
Either way, this is just sqabbling over semantics. Let's get back to the
discussion.
--Adam
Reply to: