rokicki@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas Rokicki) (01/03/88)
I'm not sure I understand the connection between the virus and piracy. The virus spreads through disks that are duplicated and distributed. Is the claim being made that most disks that are duplicated and distributed are pirated software? One of the things I have always loved about the Amiga is the large and ever-expanding base of public domain software and demos. In the two years I've hacked Amigas, I have received at least 200 disks of public domain software, hacks from friends, why-doesn't-this-work questions, data files, etc. Not a single disk has been pirated software. I has always been my observation that software piracy on the Amiga has always been at pretty low levels, especially when compared with the IBM and Mac worlds. I would hate for a reputation of piracy on the Amiga to start spreading, so let's be more careful with what we say, eh, boys? -tom
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/04/88)
All this talk about pirates getting their just desserts when a virus
destroys all their work reminds me of the "fags deserve to get A.I.D.S.,
it's gods revenge" school of thought.
--
It's too far from Santa Fe to my ignition, or something like that.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM
{ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, philabs!cadovax, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richardhaitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/04/88)
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >All this talk about pirates getting their just desserts when a virus >destroys all their work reminds me of the "fags deserve to get A.I.D.S., >it's gods revenge" school of thought. I don't think the idea is the same at all. A "fag" has not stolen someone elses property and contracted AIDS as a result! The software pirate, on the other hand, has stolen someone's property, and thus is deserving of some punishment. Of course, this virus has evidently infected some innocent people as well, though if the disk needs to be booted to infect a system I suspect that "innocents" have not been a big part of this virus' vector. What scares me is the next generation of viruses I expect will crop up. I'm not going to say anything about what I think they'll look like, but I fear they will be much more difficult to avoid than the SCA virus that recently spread. To C= : It would be useful to try to spot new variations of virus as early as possible. Any Ideas? Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/05/88)
In article <2264@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>All this talk about pirates getting their just desserts when a virus >>destroys all their work reminds me of the "fags deserve to get A.I.D.S., >>it's gods revenge" school of thought. > > > I don't think the idea is the same at all. A gay has not > stolen someone elses property and contracted AIDS as a result! > The software pirate, on the other hand, has stolen someone's > property, and thus is deserving of some punishment. > Well, some people thinks that gays deserve to get some horrible disease because they subscribe to a different set of values and standards. A pirate deserves to have the penalty of the law thrust upon him/her but not to have all his/her work destroyed arbitrarily. "Why don't you just cut their arms and legs off, they'll never do it again" - Hunter S. Thompson -- It's 90 miles too dark from my ignition, or something like that. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, philabs!cadovax, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White) (01/06/88)
But, the virus is *not* spread due to piracy -- is is spread via an infected disk. Is is in no way related to the act of piracy (except for the coincidental fact that a pirated disk *may* be infected). It may have been first spread via a pirated disk, but that is irrelevant now. So, please don't make the equation: piracy == virus, and Please, take the AIDS discussion to the newsgroup it belongs. Thanks. -- Pat White UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM PHONE: (317) 743-8421 U.S. Mail: 320 Brown St. apt. 406, West Lafayette, IN 47906
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/06/88)
In article <1860@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: > > But, the virus is *not* spread due to piracy -- is is spread via an >infected disk. Is is in no way related to the act of piracy (except for >the coincidental fact that a pirated disk *may* be infected). Not coincidental. Pirated disks (disks copied with Marauder, Mirror or any other bit copier) are by default bootable. Which means, they are the ones more prone to get infected and spread the infection. As I said before, non bootable disks CANNOT spread the SCA virus or its current variations. This does not mean that non-bootable disks are safe from FUTURE viruses. > It may have been first spread via a pirated disk, but that is >irrelevant now. > > So, please don't make the equation: piracy == virus. From looking at the various messages on Usenet, BIX and various BBSs, the general consensus seems to be: "get pirated software = take the chance to get infected" If you got infected, and did NOT get it from a pirated disk, you can thank the pirates that spread it in the first place. Again, until Bill Koester' new Vcheck 2.0 comes out, try to be careful. -- Marco
pl@tut.fi (Pertti Lehtinen) (01/06/88)
From article <923@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>, by rokicki@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas Rokicki): > I'm not sure I understand the connection between the virus and piracy. > The virus spreads through disks that are duplicated and distributed. > Is the claim being made that most disks that are duplicated and > distributed are pirated software? One of the things I have always loved You are right. Amount of PD-software for Amiga is large and i like that too. But SCA virus spead through bootable disks and most of PD-disks are non bootable and usually accessible without boot. So you don't get touched through PD-disk necessarily although it is infected. Pirated disks are usually bootable, and may even be somehow protected so you are more likely infected through those, even if the amount is lesser. Of course future viruses may be able to spead without boot, so we should be very carefull. PS. If virus meant to be harmless, is so bad, what could happen with harmfull viruses. -- pl@tut.fi ! All opinions expressed above Pertti Lehtinen ! are preliminary and in subject N 61 26' E 23 50' ! to change without any further notice.
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/06/88)
I'm sick of this "only pirates boot disks" attitude towards these particular
viruses.
(1) There are quite a few PD programs out there distributed on bootable disks,
either because the software requires certain files (mainly font files) to be
there, or because it's the only way to guarantee there's enough RAM to run the
program in a 512K Amiga 1000. Most of these are demo programs, which get quite
wide circulation. Most stores I know will let you copy a few demos when you
get your machine. It's good for business ("hey, Andy, come over and see what my
new computer can do"... "Neat, where can I get one of those").
Joel Hagen's "Probe Sequence" disk has been passed around this way.
I've seen dealers handing out BADGE killer demo disks with the
workbench already installed.
The NewTek demo disks are usually run by booting, because they're
just SO big.
This is technically piracy (of the workbench software), but I don't think
anyone will argue that it hurts Commodore's sales of the Amiga Enhancer.
(2) THe boot block is NOT the only place you can hide a virus. It's just the
place these particular nasties decided to put it. If I was going to do a virus
I can think of some much more interesting places to put it.
--
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) (01/06/88)
In article <1860@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: > > But, the virus is *not* spread due to piracy -- is is spread via an >infected disk. True the Virus is sread via booting from an infected disk. > Is is in no way related to the act of piracy (except for >the coincidental fact that a pirated disk *may* be infected). > It may have been first spread via a pirated disk, but that is >irrelevant now. > Just 1 point: The programmer behind the original virus is a member of SCA - Swiss Cracking Assoc. There main goal is to crack copy protection on commercial software. The SCA virus is thought to have entered the US on a cracked copy of a game called "Mouse Trap". So it may or may not be irrelevant depending on what the pirates are doing about the virus (Are they trying to kill this virus, spread the virus, or just dont care?) and who these pirates really are. > So, please don't make the equation: piracy == virus, and I agree that piracy == virus is not correct, but since this SCA virus did start from pirates, I also find it hard to remove it from the discussion. > Thanks. > >-- Pat White -- Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein Commodore AMIGA ARPANET: cbmvax!schein@uunet.uu.net 1200 Wilson Drive Bix: dschein Plink: Dan*CATS West Chester PA 19380 phone: (215) 431-9100 ext. 9542 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ All spelling mistakes are a result of my efforts to avoid education :-) +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I help Commodore by supporting the AMIGA. Commodore supports me by allowing me to form my own suggestions and comments.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (01/07/88)
In article <1860@s.cc.purdue.edu> (Patrick White) writes: |> |> But, the virus is *not* spread due to piracy -- is is spread via an |>infected disk. Is is in no way related to the act of piracy (except for |>the coincidental fact that a pirated disk *may* be infected). |> It may have been first spread via a pirated disk, but that is |>irrelevant now. |> |> So, please don't make the equation: piracy == virus, and |> Please, take the AIDS discussion to the newsgroup it belongs. Well, Francois point was, the Virus spreads when you boot a disk that has the virus on it, commercial programs don't have the virus on them, it is illegal to distribute a disk with any of the workbench files on it (eg a bootable disk), therefore you have to boot an illegal disk to get infected. Unfortunately, this makes the tacit assumption that the only way for a virus to infect a disk is to have it pre-installed on the boot blocks. When in fact, it is possible to make infection part of some innocuous utility that installs it and reboots the machine. So it is not possible to equate piracy to infectedness. And so it goes, --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) (01/07/88)
In article <6024@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >Again, until Bill Koester' new Vcheck 2.0 comes out, try to be careful. > >-- Marco I appreciate your concern Marco, but the rest of your posting pissed me off. I 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). I hope the following rewrite of your recent posting will remind you of the morality and logic of medieval witch hunters. READERS PLEASE NOTE. THE FOLLOWING IS A MODIFIED TEXT. MY MODIFICATIONS APPEAR IN ANGLE BRACKETS <>. THE ORIGINAL POSTING WAS CONCERNED WITH A SOFTWARE VIRUS WHICH ONLY AFFECTS BOOTABLE DISKS AND SOFTWARE PIRATES. THE AUTHORS DID NOT IN FACT DISCUSS THE TOPIC PRESENTED BELOW. THE TEXT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO INCREASE THE VISIBILITY OF LOGICAL FALLACIES IN MARCO PAPA'S ARGUMENT. THE ORIGINAL TEXT APPEARS IN COMP.SYS.AMIGA article <6024@oberon.UCS.EDU>. FOLLOWUPS TO ALT.FLAME. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: > > 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. > It may have been first spread via a <homosexual> , but that is >irrelevant now. > > So, please don't make the equation: <homosexuality> == virus. 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" If you got infected, and did NOT get it from a <homosexual>, you can thank the <homosexuals> that spread it in the first place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- END EDITED POSTING. THE ABOVE IS A *MODIFIED* VERSION OF MARCO PAPA'S ARTICLE ON COMP.SYS.AMIGA, <6024@oberon.UCS.EDU>. MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE TO MAKE MARCO'S FALLACIES MORE APPARENT, LEAVING THE *STRUCTURE* OF THE POSTING THE SAME; THE *CONTENT* OF MARCO'S ARGUMENT WAS CONCERNED WITH COMPUTER-RELATED TOPICS. SEE DISCLAIMERS ABOVE. 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. Panic and flimsy logic are more dangerous to free speech as software viruses are to software development. See you in alt.flame. ;-) Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@athena.mit.edu ihnp4!mit-eddie!athena.mit.edu!langz "No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the only misfortune is to do it solemnly" --Michel de Montaigne
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/07/88)
I think an appropriate punishment for the SCA would be to find
as many of their net mailing addresses as possible and deluge them with
bogus messages for a couple of months. A "harmless" but very annoying
punishment. Deny these unsociables the social interation of the net.
Also, how can I prevent my postings from going to Switz.?
Thanks,
Wade.
[Swiss Cracking Ass? A little effort on our part and we could
keep them occupied. Anyone know how their set up? ]
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMhaitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/07/88)
langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes:
A bunch of garbage relating the Virus/Pirating issue with AIDS.
Get it clear. A "Homosexual" has done nothing WRONG to get infected.
An infected user has probably done something wrong to get infected
with the virus. So the two cannot be equated. PERIOD!
If a user has made a copy of a bootable disk, they have probably
broken the law in some way. I'm not sure, but I think WorkBench
is not "Freely redistributable".
This is not to say that all Virus victims are guilty, but NO AIDS
VICTIMS ARE "GUILTY".
I think the way you have manipulated Marco Papa's statements disgrace
you.
Wade.
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMpapa@uscacsc.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/08/88)
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;-)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/08/88)
In article <2300@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > I think an appropriate punishment for the SCA would be to find >as many of their net mailing addresses as possible and deluge them with >bogus messages for a couple of months. A "harmless" but very annoying >punishment. Deny these unsociables the social interation of the net. This is called "harassment" and is a punishible offense, and it would waste a LOT of net bandwidth, with no appreciable effect. Don't put yourself at the same level of these jerks. > Also, how can I prevent my postings from going to Switz.? Use the Distribution: field (default is world, na for north america, etc...) -- Marco
chasgren@pnet02.cts.com (Charlie Greene) (01/09/88)
I've heard that SCA got a couple of A500 from CBM by way of the user group
deal CBM has. They supposedly use them to copy Commercial disks. I think if
this is true then it wasn't such a good idea to sell them anything, except
maybe a one-way ticket to jail.
UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!chasgren
INET: chasgren@pnet02.cts.comjohn13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) (01/09/88)
In article <2264@crash> haitex@crash writes: > Of course, this virus has evidently infected some innocent > people as well, though if the disk needs to be booted to infect > a system I suspect that "innocents" have not been a big part of > this virus' vector. If any one person in St. John's (city of ~100,000) managed to get hit by the virus, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that within 3 weeks every Amiga owner who isn't a hermit, and the main boot disks at both the dealers, and by extension a lot of commercial software which is demoed in the stores, would be affected. Look, the number of bootable disks that are either PD or people's Workbenches must be very large - over 100,000 different Workbenches just to start with as compared with X thousand different commercial titles. If I go to someone's house to show them how to use VT100, Shell, ARC, and all the other goodies, I bring my Workbench; that's where they all are. I show them CheckModem by booting off my Workbench. Most likely after they have booted once or more from theirs. Right away, no piracy, but ZAP whoever didn't have the virus has it now! John -- "She's sort of a 'pit baby', with interlocking jaws. We feed her on chicken parts." "But baby-fighting has been outlawed, hasn't it?" -- Tracy Ullman describing her infant daughter to David Letterman
jdp@killer.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) (01/09/88)
In article <2301@crash.cts.com>, haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes: > > A bunch of garbage relating the Virus/Pirating issue with AIDS. > > Get it clear. A "Homosexual" has done nothing WRONG to get infected. [more similar stuff deleted] > > > Wade. > > UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex > ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil > INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM No, you get it clear! A Homosexual has definitely done something WRONG to get infected with AIDS. He committed unnatural, deviant acts (AIDS major method of transmission) which have been expressly prohibited by God. So, yes he did do something WRONG! Please note that the other methods of transmission (contaminated needles, blood transfusions, and heterosexual contact, etc.) are much rarer and not relevant to this discussion. (Because the original statement postulated a homosexual that acquired AIDS. No, I dont want to discuss the VERY remote possibility that he never committed the acts and acquired it by another route.) We are talking about a very specific case here. Jim Pritchett PS. I am sorry to waste the net bandwidth with this, but some outrageous statements should NOT be allowed to pass unremarked. I will try to resist replying to any further responses here on this subject since I know that you all hate these side discussions in comp.sys.amiga. PLEASE, NO MORE about AIDS here. He (and a few others) foisted off his opinions on us here, and I responded with mine. We DONT need any further discussion of this in the amiga area. I dont like his opinion, he doesnt like mine. Neither is likely to be changed by filling comp.sys.amiga with more flames.
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/10/88)
> jdp@killer.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: > No, you get it clear! A Homosexual has definitely done something WRONG > to get infected with AIDS. He committed unnatural, deviant acts (AIDS major > method of transmission) which have been expressly prohibited by God. So, yes > he did do something WRONG! Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. Maybe there is a God, and maybe not, and even if God exists who are you to say what He prohibits or allows? Attitudes like yours have caused more unneeded suffering than AIDS ever will. I suppose you beleive the white man is inherantly superior to his darker skinned cousins? In this country we believe in freedom and personal choice. What two *ADULTS* *CHOOSE* to do in private is thier own buisness. In any case it has nothing to with the discussion about software piracy and the Amiga virii. While some may *feel* that homosexuality is immoral, it does not take food directly off of someones table. When someone steals software it does, and this is considered wrong in any functional society, and so is clearly WRONG (any debates?). I did not bring up this analogy and it disgusts me that some feel the need to make it. Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (01/10/88)
> No, you get it clear! A Homosexual has definitely done something > WRONG to get infected with AIDS. He committed unnatural, deviant > acts (AIDS major method of transmission) which have been expressly > prohibited by God. So, yes he did do something WRONG! I must admit that I'm growing bored with this discussion thread (among others), and I never thought I would be carrying on an argument of this sort in this discussion group, but... \begin{flame}[blowtorch] This is one of the most narrow-minded, bigoted, homophobic statements I have read on this or any other discussion group. Thousands of gays have died of AIDS, thousands more will die before it is conquered (if ever), and all you can do is label them "unnatural" and "deviant". Well, they are humans too, and if you had any shred of humanity you would pity them despite your feelings about what they do in private. You should also be informed that those "unnatural", "deviant" acts are performed by non-gays every day. Do they deserve to die too? I don't even want to take up the issue of what God thinks about the situation...why don't you read "Christianity, Social Intolerance, and Homosexuality" by John Boswell, or talk to some of the folk in soc.motss? You obviously have a *lot* of learning to do. \end{flame} I apologize for wasting net bandwidth over this, but I feel a lot better now. --M Michael Portuesi / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (01/10/88)
In article <2731@killer.UUCP> jdp@killer.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: >In article <2301@crash.cts.com>, haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) writes: >> A bunch of garbage relating the Virus/Pirating issue with AIDS. >> Get it clear. A "Homosexual" has done nothing WRONG to get infected. >> Wade. > No, you get it clear! A Homosexual has definitely done something WRONG ^^^^^ >to get infected with AIDS. He committed unnatural, deviant acts (AIDS major >method of transmission) which have been expressly prohibited by God. So, yes >he did do something WRONG! ^^^^^ > >Please note that the >other methods of transmission (contaminated needles, blood transfusions, and >heterosexual contact,etc.) are much rarer and not relevant to this discussion. > Jim Pritchett Whoa! Jim, where in the heck do you come off denouncing homosexuality and saying it is UNNATURAL and WRONG? I think perhaps, that you mixed up terms. maybe a homosexual did do something that would *greatly* increase his chances of getting AIDS (read: BOFU), but I don't think that you or any other person has the right to call it "wrong". Don't inflict us with your personal religious (can you really call a closed minded individual "religious?") beliefs. Keep them to yourself. I don't think anyone *deserves* to get AIDS (except for that bitch I dated about a year ago...). Admittedly, to me, having anal-sex with another man seems disgusting to me, but that's my PERSONAL opinion. A side note on religion: I forgot who it was, but someone said, "A religious man is someone who seeks the truth and will accept it, even if doesn't like it." I don't consider people who think they KNOW the truth to be religious. -MikeP
schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) (01/11/88)
In article <2322@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> jdp@killer.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes: >> No, you get it clear! A Homosexual has definitely done something WRONG >> to get infected with AIDS. He committed unnatural, deviant acts (AIDS major >> method of transmission) which have been expressly prohibited by God. So, yes >> he did do something WRONG! > > Maybe you are right. Maybe you are wrong. Maybe there is a God, and >maybe not, and even if God exists who are you to say what He prohibits or >allows? Attitudes like yours have caused more unneeded suffering than AIDS >ever will. I suppose you beleive the white man is inherantly superior to >his darker skinned cousins? > This does not have anything to do with the Amiga! Move it to another group if you want to continue this debate. Pleeeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein Commodore AMIGA ARPANET: cbmvax!schein@uunet.uu.net 1200 Wilson Drive Bix: dschein Plink: Dan*CATS West Chester PA 19380 phone: (215) 431-9100 ext. 9542 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ All spelling mistakes are a result of my efforts to avoid education :-) +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I help Commodore by supporting the AMIGA. Commodore supports me by allowing me to form my own suggestions and comments.
louie@trantor.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) (01/12/88)
What we need is a virus to infect the news software and be spread to all its neighboring USENET sites. All this virus would do is cancel these low S/N ratio virus articles. Can't we all agree to disagree on this subject? It seems like this topic, as well as copy protection tend to drag on and on, with no resolution or conclusion. Louis A. Mamakos WA3YMH Internet: louie@TRANTOR.UMD.EDU University of Maryland, Computer Science Center - Systems Programming
U613127@HNYKUN11.BITNET ("Olaf Seibert ", temporary account) (01/15/88)
> From: schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) > Message-ID: <3089@cbmvax.UUCP> > The SCA virus is thought to have entered the US on a cracked copy of a game > called "Mouse Trap". I think it is also very likely that it was on a cracked copy of Garrison. (cracked by SCA of course...) That's where it started in Europe, to my best knowledge. By the way, the reason that is doesn't work 'properly' on a 2000 is, that it relocates itself into the supervisor stack, that it assumes to be at the end of the first 512K of memory. On a 2000 with $C<many 0s> memory, I think the stack is somewhere else -> crash. Oh, and one slightly related subject... Oreo is not morerows-compatible. It opens a screen (opens Intuition?) before the preferences are installed, or something like that. Over here, there are also plenty of custom-made kickstarts, for instance to zap the xxxCapture vectors and resident modules and all of those thinks. It is very effective, and also kills Oreo. There are versions with another <insert workbench> prompt, and that automatically open a 640x256 CLI window at startup, and/or configure the second 512K as non-CHIP memory. That is useful for ppl that have a simple memory expansion on the 256K port. > Dan Schein uucp: ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers !cbmvax!schein > Commodore AMIGA ARPANET: cbmvax!schein@uunet.uu.net > 1200 Wilson Drive Bix: dschein Plink: Dan*CATS > West Chester PA 19380 phone: (215) 431-9100 ext. 9542 Olaf Seibert.