On 2007-11-10, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:19:40 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Mind the fact that Erik is being imaginative because I did not call him a
>> criminal at all (and I would not call his decade-long astroturfing /criminal/
>> activity although his employer is facing criminal charges). I said "as
>> criminal and corrupt as" and that was a condition. Big difference.
>
> No, taht's not a condition. "as" is a an adverb, something you should
> probably know given your (still not awarded) PhD candidate status. It
> means "to the same degree, amount, or extent; similarly; equally".
>
> Since you believe Microsoft is criminal, saying I'm "as" criminal means
> you're calling me a criminal. Either that, or you are not calling
> Microsoft criminal at all.
>
> Which is it?
If you witness a murder and do nothing to stop it or report it, you're
*as* guilty as the murderer. The crime you're guilty *of* might be a
different one, just as the punishment may be different.
For example, if you're in a car when a bank is robbed, you're an
accomplice and will be found guilty as such unless you can show your
presence in the car was forced and you had no reasonable way to remove
yourself. You won't be punished for the robbery. You'll be punished for
being an accomplice to the robbery.
Note that this is different than speculating as to _why_ someone may
commit the crime, or trying to see how someone may have been falsely
accused. Those are speculations based on lack of knowledge and/or solid
evidence, and allow room for the person making speculations to be
corrected.
You, Erik, are an accomplice to MS' crimes when you make excuses and
spew spin to apologize for those crimes. You might not be guilty *of*
the crimes. But you're *as* guilty the party committing them.
There. I said it. Be sure to hold onto the message ID so I can correct
you when you try to use it as proof of my saying something altogether
different.
--
The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.
|
|
