Two questions

In article , PeterN
wrote:

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

And you are stupid if you pay for an oil change, it's easy to do yourself.

not the same thing at all.

Could that be because you know how to pirate, but you do not know haw to
do an oil change.

i know how to do both. did you have a point? no.

you're just spewing words, hoping something intelligible comes out.

the principle is exactly the same, no matter how much you try to deny it.

it's not the same at all. not even close.

Oh! I forgot,. You are trying to weasel out of another stupid statement.

i'm not the one making stupid statements.

In article , android
wrote:

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

it can, but that's rare. the vast majority of bittorrenting is for
pirated content.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

pirates don't purchase stuff. pirates copy *without* paying. that's the
whole point of pirating.

those who buy pirated stuff are stupid because they could just pirate
it themselves for free.

How?

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

it can, but that's rare. the vast majority of bittorrenting is for
pirated content.

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

it can, but that's rare. the vast majority of bittorrenting is for
pirated content.

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

bittorrent is the usual way.

Bittorent can be used legally. I downloaded wikipedia the other week...

it can, but that's rare. the vast majority of bittorrenting is for
pirated content.

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not. The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

http://www.harley.com/usenet/file-sh...and-text-files.
html

http://tinyurl.com/qxggehg
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not.

it is.

The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

nobody said it couldn't.

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

There has been some bandwidth use for w a r e s on the b i n a r y
groups of the U s e n e t too... That doesn't make it less important
for
discussions. My serviceprovider handles text groups only, BTW.

most of usenet is warez. so what?

Of course not.

it is.

The binary part of Usenet can be easily distinguished
from the text part...

nobody said it couldn't.

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

Liar. Most activity on the Usenet is obviously not file sharing, and now
you know better than to state that.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

Liar. Most activity on the Usenet is obviously not file sharing, and now
you know better than to state that.

it absolutely is file sharing, which your quote confirms.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

And let me quote Harley.com:

"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used
for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

Liar. Most activity on the Usenet is obviously not file sharing, and now
you know better than to state that.

it absolutely is file sharing, which your quote confirms.

No it the wast majority of Usenet groups are text based... Your twisting
and lying as far as I can see. Do you have any statistics to show that
proves that the major part of the Usenet is warez or even legitimate
filesharing? It's your claim! The quota is 50 text to 1 binary group...
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:


"I mentioned in the previous section that there are well over 100,000
Usenet newsgroups. Actually, almost all of them are TEXT GROUPS used
for
discussions. About 2,000 are BINARY GROUPS used for file sharing.
However, since the binary files being shared are much larger than the
text files used for discussions, the vast majority of the bandwidth
and
storage space used by Usenet every day is used for file sharing."

the last bit is exactly what i said.

Liar. Most activity on the Usenet is obviously not file sharing, and now
you know better than to state that.

it absolutely is file sharing, which your quote confirms.

No it the wast majority of Usenet groups are text based... Your twisting
and lying as far as I can see.

there is no twisting or lying. although there may be more text groups
by number, there is very little traffic in most of them. many of them
are nothing more than spam.

compare that to the binary newsgroups, which have a *lot* more traffic
(by number of posts not just bandwidth).

Do you have any statistics to show that
proves that the major part of the Usenet is warez or even legitimate
filesharing? It's your claim! The quota is 50 text to 1 binary group...

ask *any* usenet provider.

some usenet providers don't support binary newsgroups because they're
such high traffic, as well as to avoid any issue with pirated or other
illicit content (not that there would be since they have no control
over what's posted but that's the excuse they give).