Re: I want to legitimise my XP

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

If you really cared about people you would not hope people you have
never met "starve and dehydrate" (your words) You seem to only care
for people when it can hurt those you choose.

LOL! Now you are taking words out of their context.


As for my feeling attacked, that is irrelevant whether I feel I am or
not.

You said I attacked you, so it was relevant enough for you to type it!
Silly Juppy! I'm sorry your own words come back to haunt you, but
that's what happens to hypocrites.

But it does suit your agenda to twist your need to attack people
and organizations.

LOL! Who am I attacking by pointing out your obvious hypocrisy?

I don't consider pointing out the truth to be an attack of any kind.
You do. Silly Juppy! I'm sorry that you believe such nonsense.

You do not know if I feel attacked but we do know
from your posts and website that you need to attack to make your
point.

Silly, silly Juppy! It is quite obvious you feel attacked! Why are you
protesting so much? The truth shall set you free!

If you ever feel your message as presented by you can stand on its
own, you will let it.

I do. I have the website to prove it.

Until then in desperation you need to shore it
up with irrelevant attacks so typical of you.

Again, you feel attacked! Silly Juppy! I'm not in any way shape or
form attacking you. Your persecution complex is totally transparent,
and you should consider see a professional about it.

"Really? Why? Because validation failed? LOL!"
The OP did not say but you are free to assume validation is the cause
if you need.

Now asking questions is an assumption?! Silly Juppy! Can you not see
that it is you that is doing the twist? Juppy Checker!

The OP has been given information to assist in finding the facts.
You should read what was written again for the first time.
We do not know who the thief is. You are assuming without the facts,
so typical of Kurt
"What may have happened..." and many other possible options. Until
we hear from the OP, I am not going to make assumptions.

LOL! Well I know I'm not gonna assume that the OP pirated anything,
unless he confesses to it. I presume people to be INNOCENT, until
proven otherwise, unlike MS's copy-protection schemes that presumes just
the opposite!

You also assume it is not broken, we do not know either way from what
the OP has stated. Again more from Kurt to do nothing other to suit
your anti Microsoft agenda.

Really how? I don't understand what you are alluding to.

"And how do you know the seller didn't scam you?"
Irrelevant and typical of your diversions yet again.

No it is not. "I pay for the products I use when the seller determines
the price."

How do you know that what you paid for is in actual FACT legit?

You don't. So who is doing the assuming?

I said "OP bought copyrighted material" then you said "Changing your
tune to suit your
need to cover up your hypocrisy!", not at all. It was a mistake in
wording on my part and you know it from past posts of mine.
The OP bought a license, whether it is valid or not will not be known
without more facts from the OP.

No it is just another example you EULA uber alles idiots changing your
tune to suit your present needs. Your hypocrisy knows no limit.

I don't want anyone to be victimized. No where did I suggest as
much.

"If the installed Windows is not legitimate integrity suggests the OP
make it right."

So your integrity suggests that the victim of a software pirate be
victimized again to make it right for MS!

But your twisting to suit your agenda seems to need it.

Your words don't need to be twisted, they are plain for all to read.

If the OP bought what the seller did not have for sale, the OP may
need to buy it again.

LOL! There you go again, wanting to victimize the victim a second time.
GO AFTER THE REAL PIRATE, THE SELLER!

If the sale was legitimate, another fix is in order.
Similar when stolen property is bought, the buyer needs to return the
property and go after the seller.

LOL! Shouldn't the same principle apply to MS, since they are claiming
to be a victim too, and the pirate is the seller?

Silly Juppy! I do so love your double standards. MS need not prove
anything and can go after the victim of the software pirate, while the
victim needs to go after the software pirate, but MS does not!

But as I have already stated, we lack the facts to determine if it is
legitimate or not.

Yep. So MS deserves absolutely nothing until it proves otherwise. The
OP owes MS nothing!

Post back Kurt only to feed your ego since that is all your post will
achieve.

ROFL! Please explain how my ego is feed by replying to some one's post
in reply to me? Oh! Your ego is fed that way, so you assume mine is
too! Silly Juppy!



"kurttrail" <dontemailme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:uVuRDufRGHA.1204@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Attacking others while providing nothing of value, so typical of you
Kurt.

ROFL! You feel attacked by someone pointing out your hypocrisy? How
typical of you!

The OP has reason to believe his is not legitimate.

Really? Why? Because validation failed? LOL!

Except for you true MS-diehards, everyone else has figured out that
MS's validation BS is flawed. It has so many false positives, while
it doesn't catch many truely pirated installs.

If the OP determines it is not legitimate, integrity suggests the OP
make it right.

Nope, my integrity is an extension of my common sense, and that says
you don't screw around with what ain't broken! Why? Because you
are ten times more like to break what wasn't broken in the first
place.
You may choose not to buy what you use, but others have integrity.

The OP did buy it! What may have happened is that the seller
didn't. MS needs to go have the true theif not the victim! THAT'S
WHAT INTEGRITY DEMANDS!

I pay for the products I use when the seller determines the price.

And how do you know the seller didn't scam you? Or they were
scammed by the people that sold it to them?

With a crime, there must be an intent to commit one. The OP had no
intent on being scammed.

I never said groceries are the same as copyrighted material, but
your agenda again needs to change the meaning so you can make a
point.

"What the local store does with the $ paid by the OP is not relevant
any more
than what the local grocery store does with your $ you pay for food."

OP bought copyrighted material, and it ain't the same as food.

HENCE COPYRIGHT LAW doesn't cover food!

Both are purchased prior to use.

LOL! I thought software was licensed? Changing your tune to suit
your need to cover up your hyprocisy! IOW using one hypocrisy to
cover up another!

That is really a true demonstration of YOUR INTEGRITY! ROFL!

So typical of Kurt, not understanding why people need to pay for
products they use.

The OP did, what is in question is whether the person or shop that
sold it to the OP did pay for it!

You dislike of Microsoft is obvious as is you lack of concern for
people.

I blame the real thieves and conartists, not their victims. You &
MS want to victimize the victims yet again!

It is yours & MS's lack of concern for people that have already been
victimized that is so damned obvious!

You pretend to care for people only as a means of your
constant attack on Microsoft and others otherwise you would not hope
for harm to those you have not met..

LOL! At least I don't want a victim to be victimized twice over the
same copy of software.

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:u1Ep5HfRGHA.4900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

Do not confuse "mad" with integrity.

Exactly! MS has no integrity!

If the installed Windows is not legitimate integrity suggests the
OP make it right.

No. What MS calls legit isn't necessarily legit. Like their BS PA
message about how XP has been installed too many times, when it can
be installed as many times as one wants or needs.

Seems integrity is lost on MS, as they have left this message as a
part of PA since XP was in BETA!

What the local store does with the $ paid by the OP is not
relevant any more than what the local grocery store does with
your $ you pay for food.

Copyrighted material is not the same as physical groceries, and you
know it. Seems your integrity is pretty lacking too!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

There she goes again! Silly Juppy cannot help herself and has to
continually demonstrate her lack of integrity! I wonder what she say if
I did the same thing to MS's words, and change them without their
permission. I'm sure she would wet her panties out of sheer anger!
ROFL!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity/index.php?showtopic=3
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I want to legitimise my XP
    ... posts and website that you need to attack to make your point. ... If the OP bought what the seller did not have for sale, ... Nope, my integrity is an extension of my common sense, and that says you ... At least I don't want a victim to be victimized twice over the same ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: I want to legitimise my XP
    ... LOL! ... Nope, my integrity is an extension of my common sense, and that says you ... MS needs to go have the true theif not the victim! ... and it ain't the same as food. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Carey - M$ Licensing
    ... More evidence you are out of control. ... LOL! ... Sez Juppy the Attack Puppy! ... That you feel attacked is not irrelevant Juppy. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: HOW MEN ARE PUT DOWN AND HOW TO GET BACK UP!
    ... >> First attack non stop, ... >> Wait for the victim to get angry. ... Mothers have sons and husbands too. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Lesbians Brutal Gang Rape Investigated in Calif.
    ... Detectives say the 28-year-old victim was attacked Dec. 13 after she got out of her car, which bore a rainbow gay pride sticker. ... The men, who ranged from their late teens to their 30s, made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation, said Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan. ... Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation. ...
    (alt.true-crime)