Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (
More info?)
"Nicholas D Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hLv3hsA3wmNDFALP@salmiron.co.uk...
> In article <Z0oZe.124$605.7906@news.uswest.net>, HH
> <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> writes
>>Tom,
>>This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software
>>that
>>allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
>>the box here.
>>HH
>>
>>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>news:qkjZe.102125$xl6.65473@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
>>> people bore me.
>>>
>>> Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
>>> "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>> "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
>>>>> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
>>>>> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
>>>>> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
>>>>> HH
>>>>>
>>>> 1. Top posting is against charters
>>>> 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
>>>> 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your
>>>> expression.
>>>> <blocked>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....
>
> Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
> Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
> bad manners.
>
> A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
> is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
> read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
> more important than your those to which you are responding?
>
> A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
> just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
> like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
> to follow.
>
> I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
> restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
> qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.
>
> However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
> in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
> a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
> may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
> enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
> Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
> is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
> The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
> Microsoft or the consumer.
> --
What a well written and full response. Whilst I'm sure it was not for my
benefit, I appreciate the support and time taken.
I have read very similar on regular occasions and if 'Tom' the self
proclaimed knowitall had bothered any sort of research he would have reached
the same conclusion.
I did not have the patience to post such as response in the circumstances as
I was being abused!
Now that your post has revealed that imbecile HH's response I am justfurther
exasperated having read his response to my post on the BIOS.
Seeing as Compaq produce a windows BIOS interface that actually prevents F10
BIOS access upon boot-up I thought it may be useful (it works on my EVO
N800W anyway) - but there you go; I guess he knows better than this
practitioner - I must be a 'blunt' pencil.
I guess I must be a guy too (presumption)
D
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram