Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!cbmvax!rutgers!ucla-cs!cit-vax!oberon!uscacsc!papa
From: papa@uscacsc.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Virus spread due to piracy?  Huh?
Message-ID: <329@uscacsc.usc.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 88 18:01:23 GMT
References: <2264@crash.cts.com> <2033@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1860@s.cc.purdue.edu> <6024@oberon.USC.EDU> <2163@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 78

In article <2163@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes:
>I appreciate your concern Marco, but the rest of your posting pissed me off.  I

Too bad.  That's life ;-)

|>don't know who started the idea that infected disks are pirated, but the
|>fallacy of your argument is revealed when you try to rest it on:
|>
|>>Pirated disks (disks copied with Marauder, Mirror or any
|>>other bit copier) are by default bootable.
|>
|>That is so.  All you should conclude from this is that *some* bootable disks
|>may be pirated.  But you go on to contend the fallacious conclusion that
|>if a pirated disks are bootable, bootable disks are pirated ("If all A's are
|>B's, then all B's must be A's" -- Wrong-O, sir).

Actually I would go even further than "bootable disks are pirated", but that 
"all disks are or can be pirated", whether bootable or not.  The only 
difference is that you'll need Marauder or Mirror to pirate copy-protected
disks, since they are BOOTABLE in 99% of the cases, while you can just use
DOS COPY in all other cases.

|>I hope the following rewrite of your recent posting will remind you of the
|>morality and logic of medieval witch hunters.

Boy, what fun I had reading this! :-)

|>THE FOLLOWING IS A MODIFICATION OF A POSTING BY MARCO PAPA.  THOUGH CERTAIN
|>TERMS HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH LIKE-CATEGORY TERMS, THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF
|>MARCO'S POSTING IS IDENTICAL TO THE FOLLOWING:
|>In article <1860@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes:

Sorry, Patrick you got cought into this.

|>>
|>>   But, the virus is *not* spread due to <homosexuality> -- it is spread via
|>>an infected <person>.  Is is in no way related to <homosexual activity>
|>>(except for the coincidental fact that a <homosexual> *may* be infected).
|>
|>Not coincidental.  <Homosexuals> ... are by default <sexually active>.  Which
|>means, they are the ones more prone to get infected and spread the infection.
|>As I said before, non-<sexually active people> CANNOT spread the ... virus or
|>its current variations.  This does not mean that non-<sexually active people>
|>are safe from FUTURE viruses.
|>.... [omitted portions]

Well, you are not really playing it right: <pirate> = <homosexual> in some 
places and <pirated disk> = <homosexual> in others. But a good try, though ;-)

|>From looking at the various <editorials> on <CNN>, <USA Today> and various
|><supermarket tabloids>, the general consensus seems to be:
|>
|>"<engage in homosexual acts> = take the chance to get infected"

Yes, I seem to have heard this before.  Was it Dan Rather?

>Now, I don't support software pirates' "right" to illegaly copy software, but
>seeing the scare-tactic "logic" that some use to equate certain infectious
>diseases to homosexuality spread to infect even more conversations just gets 
>me pissed.  

Well, somebody was bound to get pissed. This time it was you.

>Panic and flimsy logic are more dangerous to free speech as software
>viruses are to software development. 

I disagree. This IS free speech.  If you don't like it, get pissed off.
Actually, except for one reported instance, viruses have not been dangerous
to software development YET, but mainly to individual USERS.

>See you in alt.flame. ;-)

No, Thank you. Goodbye...

-- Marco

P.S.:
Sorry for wasting some more net bandwidth.  This is it, I swear;-)