Re: Expanded Oracle DBA Site

"Gabriel Gonzalez" <no-spam_at_no-spam.com> wrote in message news:MxOdnTcP1ebiJAyjXTWcoQ_at_giganews.com...
> > > Maybe it's just me, but I don't think in legal terms.
> > Really? Then why did you make capricious demands for proof of
uncontested
>
> Capricious? I was thinking more like "fair." Is capricious a legal term?
> :-)

Regardless of what you think, the demands were not fair but capricious--there is no need to 'prove' unquestioned facts. I have no idea whether 'capricious' is a legal term. I don't think it is.

I don't think 'frivolous' is a legal term either, but it does sometimes get used in a legal context. Would you prefer 'frivolous' to 'capricious'?

> > facts? Isn't "proof" a legal term? Didn't you demand the "proof" for
what
> > you called my "allegations"? Isn't "allegations" a legal term?
>
> They common words that can be used in a legal context. Jeez!

Are they? How many people do you know who use "allegation" in everyday conversation? Among those people, how often do they use "allegation" and "proof" in the same sentence?

You use legal terms. You deny you use legal terms. You claim the legal terms are common words. Hey, you got caught in a little fib. It's not a big deal. Suck it up.

> > Gabriel, you lack credibility. If you wanted things to get back to
Oracle,
> > you would stop posting such ridiculous nonsense with no return address.
>
> I will

Ask yourself: "When?" (You don't need to reply online.)

>, as once again I put myself into a flame-ridden situation where I am
> not a principlal. I hate it when that happens because 1) it fuels the
> flames, 2) it ain't my problem, and 3) people on newsgroups tend to be
> waaaay to childish.

If you hate it, don't you find it maladaptive to persist? If you persist, is it possible that you don't hate it as much as you claim? (Again: Questions to ask yourself. You don't need to reply online.)

> It is also unfair to other people since I do not take
> it as seriously as others. For example, I do not know if you are really
as
> fuming with anger as your messages read... I hope not, because I am
nowhere
> near that seriousness.

I am not angry at you. If I were angry, you would not have any doubt.

> > Why do you so blindly jump to Jeff's defense? Are you Jeff or a friend
of
> > his or something?
>
> I was trying to not jump blindly into Jeff's prosecution team! To me it's
> just an innocent mistake.

The initial act of violating the copyright was an ignorant mistake. Innocent and ignorant sometimes mean the same thing but not in this case.

There is a principle that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Jeff Hunter responded to the discovery that he had stolen in ignorance by denying his acts were theft and by taking vindictive retribution against the primary victim of his theft. I see nothing innocent about that.

> He did what I would have done, which is remove
> the content immediately.

Well, that's not exactly what he did--you omitted a lot. Are you saying that you would have done what he did? Which is remove the content immediately, try to excuse the theft and publicly attack the victim of the theft for his style?

> Anyway, anger is not warranted. Don't get too mad. I sure am not.

I am not sure whether anger is warranted, and I would never presume to tell you what to feel. You certainly should not condone Mr. Hunter's behaviour regardless of your feelings. Received on Mon Apr 07 2003 - 23:32:34 CDT