🚀 go-pugleaf

NEWS wrote in message <3d8fcfa8$1@news.eol.ca>...
<big snip>
>Now I may have missed something posted earlier or since.  I see this
was
>cross posted by Peter D to Can. Legal, thus assuming he was looking for
some
>form of confirmation of his position.  It would appear that he has not
>received that confirmation.  What he intends to do with it is his
decision.
>My opinions are just that, take them or leave them. :-)

Just to clarify, the cross posting to can.legal was done by our resident
netloon and troll, Don Bayomi (taylorchuk) who is infamous for making
wild claims and allegations of "obvious criminal behaviour" as part of
his reason for living in Usenet to avoid the real world. He also enjoys
cross-posting to other groups as he trolls for new bites. Amazingly,
this time he actually chose an on-topic group, so there's still hope for
him.

I mentioned that I had downloaded and watched "One Hour Photo" about
three months ago. At that time it wasn't in the theatres. No idea why it
took so long to show here. Regardless, even if it was showing, it would
still not be "criminal behaviour" to view it. That led to him spewing
his usual crap. Of course, I asked him, as I usually do, to supply
something to support his claim. Devoid of facts or rational arguments he
did his usual "tell a lie long enough and the people will believe it"
dog and pony show.

To date, no-one has shown me anything in Canadian law that makes it
"criminal behaviour" to do what I did. Not copy and distribute it, just
view it. And I'm still waiting for the fool and his wannabe to show me
it is. Until then, I'll continue on with a perfectly legal activity
without regard to the wishes of "Hollywood" (his rather bent claim to
authority).
HTH
--
Peter D