[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 


Reply to: