Diatribe of an irate 1 poster... :rolleyes:
I re-wrote this reply so as not to provoke this into flaming, kindly extent me the same courtesy!
Everything I write is a personal opinion based on my perspective of the facts presented. I have never claimed, nor given the impression(IMO) of being some all-knowing p2p guru or even "smart"! If you must insist on personal attacks, all you need do is quote my "rubbish" & reply with a counter-arguement or even display how the "rubbish" info is mis-informed, speculative, or prove it's just plain BS.
I can honestly say, I won't be offended at having my views scrutinized. After all, isn't that what helps us refine, solidify or re-evauluate our own values & opinions, debate. I feel I'm quite open-minded, so for however arrogant I may have came across(unintentional, BTW), you will not find me to be obstinate.
Are solely refering to this thread or others aswell?.. again, I don't mind being scrutinized, but please see above.
back on topic... :bigsmile:
They are similar, but not identical. These are a few pertinant differences between the two cases, that may effect outcome, IMO.
You may be right, however, as I clearly stated, these are my opinions on what I believe makes this case unique. You appear to have presumed I was making spurious statements from some kind of insider lawyer perspective, I was not.
The second paragraph you wrote - why go whizzing off on another vaguely unrelated tangent about the history of attacks on p2p technology. I'm curious, because I've no idea how you came to the conclusion that prehaps I contridicted this somehow, a quote would be helpful.
Nothing more to add at this time...