When he said, "What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences! But I
degress...", I was guessing that he really was thinking of proctology. That would have been par for the course here.
"Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING"
Here is the root troll. I went to the top of this news item, searched for the first occurance of the word "theft". I found this quoted in someone else's message: "Let's look at the simple black and white of the matter. Piracy is theft. Whether you agree with it or not, it's theft.". The parent contained the actual statement. The parent was modded -1 Flamebait. Quite justifiably: the statement was an incorrect one, intentionally designed to mislead and cause strife. There are others, but this was the first troll for this item.
"Wrong again. I'm just not shallow enough to base my world view on a dictionary definition"
This is a poor defense of using words without any regard to actual usage OR dictionary definitions OR logic in order to try to artificially strengthen an argument.
"In your opinion."
No, for this part, I'm sticking to the facts, even if they contradict other's opinions. Whether or not a certain thing is "Bad" or "unethical" is quite often a matter of opinion. Pointing out the real meaning of the word "thief" is a matter of fact. "Thief" is not a vague term. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. If you are disagreeing, you happen to have a wrong opinion in this case.
"Think I'm going to change my position?"
Ummm.... you did, in a latter message when you admitted that copyright infringment was not theft.
"Wrong again. I can't reiterate any more strongly that I'm not the one who used the word."
In this message, and in others, you defended the use of the word "thief" where it did not apply. Even if you did not use it in the Original Parent, you have used it the same way many times since.
"Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING."
Click on parent. There are two instances, from you, that defend the intentional missuse of words in order to mislead as being a difference of opinion. The next quote by you, below, contains an ignorant misleading use of the word as well.
"The use of the word theft when talking about people ripping other people off can hardly be construed as comparable to this analogy."
However, you are defending its use in a situation that does not involve ripping off or taking.
"The point is that the pie-baking forum wouldn't mod its members insightful for making obvious statements about the differences between pasta and pies when someone happens to bring up pasta."
They would if they had a plague of misleading lying trolls who kept saying that fruit pies were a type of pasta. (just like the misleading lying trolls who try to confuse people by equating copyright infringment with theft/taking/ripping off).
"And that is precisely what has happened. Someone mentions pasta on the pie forum, perhaps even with very good reason to compare the two foods. But the discussion is stopped by a karma-whore who is oh-so-sure that pasta and pies have nothing in common"
That's not what happens, Chef Boyardee. Someone mentions theft in a copyright infringement forum, with no good reason other than to mislead by equating the two. The person who messes up the forum is the troll who makes the sneaky substitution. (just like the comparable food-troll would be saying that pasta recipes produce the same food as fruit pie recipies).
"The attempt to group both foods into unleavened flour-based products would just be too much for their little brains period and so the poor original poster gets nothing but everyone else gets to pat themselves on the back. Yay for technical correctness."
That's not what the word-abusing trolls are doing. They aren't just saying that theft and copyright infringment are both crimes (comparable to pasta and pies being both flour-based). These trolls are saying that the two crimes are perfectly interchangable. Saying that copyright infringement is as bad as theft is an acceptible argument in a moral discussion. Saying that the two are exactly the same thing is at worst a misleading lie and at best a statement based on ignorance.
"Yay for technical correctness"
If you think that intentionally confusing nouns is no matter at all, I hope that next time you go to Olive Garden and order linguine that someone serves you peach pie instead. It's just a minor technical difference, right?
"The people who are too inflexible to follow an argument that's been poorly worded constantly accuse those on the other side of the argument of being actually confused and worse yet of trying to mislead people"
When someone (hint hint) posts large numbers of messages in which they insist that incoherent choices of words with intent to mislead are OK.... The newest silly argument is that "If (anyone) had personal experience with the problem" they would start to use words that don't apply.
"LMFAO you really can't see a simle parody can you?"
So, anything you have ever said about how copyright infringement is like theft, that Joe Blogg (whoever he is) is a thief) is really a parady of trolls who use bad arguments? If this is the case, you've done a pretty good job! I'm really amazed that you have managed to make false and illogical statements so consistently throughout this. Good job!
"Which came first, the idea of theft, or the legal definition?"
The idea of theft involves (prepare for a shock now): STEALING. No stealing, no taking, no theft. I really am not sure what the legal definition is. Laws vary, anyway.
"People actually can't understand where I'm coming from, and that is really sad."
Hold that thought. I'll deal with it below.
"Would it make you happy if I said that copyright infringement is not theft?"
Do you really think that it makes people understand where you are coming from when you all of a sudden argue the opposite of what you have been saying all along?
"Would it make you realise what an idiot you are if I said once again that I never thought they were?"
Your messages have argued that you thought they were. At least, up until now, when you reversed yourself.
This calls for a muppet movie in which Miss Piggy wakes up in 2999 and befriends an alcoholic robot, one-eyed mutant girl, and muffle-voiced walking lobster.
"The man who reported them missing (John Sarkissian) just happens to work for CSIRO Parkes Observatory in Australia."
Is this the same guy who said that the giant monster in space seen heading to the Earth was really just a gnat on the telescope lens? Not sure I believe his explanation anymore!
Just keep Lucas away from the thing. I'll be damned if I'm going to see Gungans greet Armstrong as he steps foot on the lunar surface. "Ona step for gungans, ona giganta leep for meesa!". However, I have to admit, I would welcome a space battle as the lunar module struggles to complete its landing. In fact, really looking forward to Jerry Bruckheimer adding huge slow-motion fireballs in space depicting the competing Russian modules getting blown up.
Sandy greeted at home by his wife after an innocent visit to the archives: "Is that a sensitive national security dossier in your briefs, or are you just glad to see me?"
These original DVD's from the CBS vaults were really interesting. They were mastered in 1969 using Amiga Video Toaster. It is probably no coincidence that they turned up missing about the same time Dan Rather left CBS. I wonder if Rather took the wrong boxes when he carted off those old 3.5" inch floppies containing the MS Word 97 docs George Bush's original military service records and archive copies of Bush's Myspace page from 1973.
They let me on the Warner Bros backlot where the first Apollo landings were filmed back in the 1960s (my dad was friends with the guy they hired to dump the "lunar sand" in the studio). I had my 8 mm Kodak movie camera with me, and I still have some reels that I filmed myself during the shooting of important scenes. I'll put them on Youtube soon. (If you ever see the finished films, you'll see the edge of one of my footprints from when I strayed into the actual set in the "lunar soil" near Neil at one time. I'm surprised that, perfectionist as he was, Kubrick did not catch that and edit it out.
It sounds like nothing more than a type of polygraph applied to a person's view of certain countries. Think of DeNiro in "Meet the Parents" grilling Ben Stiller: "So... have you ever considered a vacation to... Somalia? Or how about Belize?"
"Perhaps there is a strong technical distinction between theft and copyright infringement, but I see no strong ethical distinction"
So, your distinction rests somehow on how bad they are? One is the same as the other if they are both bad? Using this funky new synonym rule, does this mean that any discussion of copyright infringement can have the words "copyright infringment" substituted with "spitting in your face" with no change in meaning if one is as bad as the other?
"as both involve taking possession for personal purposes or enjoyment something for which the person who legally controls it is not compensated for its use."
Check again on this. Copyright infringement does not involve taking possession at all. Theft involves this, but not copyright infringment. I can see you are not that concerned with what terms mean. This was obvious when you placed the word "perhaps" in your "Perhaps there is a strong technical distinction between theft and copyright infringement" to introduce uncertainty to a situation that is in actuality quite certain.
"deceit that which argues that because a crime has no convenient word assigned to it in the language"
You are arguing on the basis of a situation that does not exist. "Copyright infringement" is an already existing, convenient term.
"it could easily be argued that the legal stance (that copyright infringement is not theft) is not a moral one"
This is an interesting and new form of language abuse abuse. The idea that if it is a moral issue, it does not matter which words are used to describe the crime, even if they have nothing to do with each other. Morally, is there no difference between rape and murder? Between kidnapping and arson? If this is true, then does your whole argument rest on the assertion that if it is bad, it does not matter which words are used for it?. Here's a good example of what you are advocating: "I saw a guy run a two red lights this morning. I hope the cops catch up with him before he rapes again." or "Your honor, I know he's a drug dealer. I have proof: I took a photo of him scratching my car door."
"Well, both of your posts basically hinge on saying that theft and copyright infringement are very different (really?)"
Yes, really. However, this is stating the obvious. Anyone familiar with either knows this. It is hardly insightful. It is like knowing the fact that rape and murder are (OMG!) two separate crimes.
"theft is not just a legal term it's a term that I personally and most people I know (maybe cause I'm Aussie) would use in any situation where someone loses something as a result of someone else's actions. Call me wrong"
I won't call you wrong. In fact, I will even use, in this instance your made-up-from-scratch definition of theft. It has a little overlap with how the word is really used. Important here is the part about "someone loses". This might possibly happen during copyright infringment, but most likely it is rare.
"Language will be used by people to generalise things"
Sometimes, however, this is done in an abusive fashion. Use of words without meaning in the hopes of some sort of rhetorical or emotional effect.
"b) this is slashdot. We're all more informed of exactly what takes place (technically, socially, economically and legally) when Joe Bloggs shrinks and copies a DVD from Video Ezy than anyone else on the planet"
If you really were informed of this, you would not use the word "thief" to describe Joe Blogg.
"seeing a discussion lose focus because of this argument time and time again annoys me."
It wouldn't happen if the trolls did not change the subject from copyright infringment to theft.
"Can't anyone else see the irony in that these posts are quite often modded informative of insightful"
The only irony is that the posts are just stating the obvious. Basic facts which anyone daring to post should already know. However, it is hardly nitpicking to point out the use of words that don't apply. The person who brings theft into a copyright infringement discussion is either ignorant, or is attempting to play on the ignorance of others.
"Anyway, by accusing me personally of being unaware of the difference"
If you are too "stoopid" to know that these words have nothing to do with each other, then you are intentionally trying to argue in the hopes that others are too stupid to know what the words mean.
"you're on the train to point out the obvious like everyone else"
It is rather obvious, but in message after message you miss the point and still make the incorrect confusion between two different terms.
"Make sure you all mod yourselves 'Distended' or 'Handsaw' for being here to continue your cause for correct labelling tho"
That statement is rather incoherent. However, it is quite certain that handsaws are as relevant to a discussion of copyright infringement as theft is!
If you think it is OK to generalize beyond all reason (and without regard to understanding of the different meanings of different terms), then you are ignorant when it comes to word meanings.
"people who infringe copyright can be known as theives, mofos, bastards, scammers"
With the exception of the word indicated in bold, the other meanings amount to a very general accusation of being a "bad guy". Generalization does not mess up these words. However, the word "theives" (sic) has a very specific meaning. If you use it, it has to be accurate. Just like if you had added the accusations of "pastry chefs, rapists, brain surgeons" to your list.
"And now you are attempting to assert that 'ripping off' can only refer to theft"
You are probably right on this term: it is rather vague. Unlike "theif".
"Are you seeing the other side of this argument *at all* yet?"
Not at all. You are using the word "theif" in ignorance of the fact that it has a specific meaning that rules out it being applied in the conversation, and with full knowledge of the attempt to mislead by the use of the word. Neither is very defensible.
"To try to compare that to mislabelling two foods is laughable."
I stand by the correctness of this analogy. If the discussion of theft in a copyright infringement forum is on-topic, then so is discussion of pasta in a pie-baking forum.
"Did he think that what had occurred was the total and final loss of someone's only master copy of some music/video/code? The theft of box after box of retail packaged digital media goods?"
Those both happen to meet the definition of theft. However, they have nothing to do with the subject (copyright infringement).
"...makes my belief that the posters of these stupid spams are not that insightful.."
You may be right. It might be generous to call someone who has such a basic knowledge of what words mean "insightful". They are just stating the obvious. Pointing out the fact that copyright infringment and theft are not related is as "insightful" as pointing out that Microsoft sells a lot of copies of Office. Perhaps instead anyone who attempts to veer a copyright infringement discussion into a theft discussion should be modded as a troll.
"A short stint with a dictionary..."
I strongly recommend this for the next time you try to confuse unrelated terms.
"Computer hardware that uses your brain, thats sound dangerous.....Don't let someone else use your brain for them in this way."
If paranoid luddites who have delusions of this technology making us into Borg aren't using their brains, why not let someone else make some good use of wasted grey matter?
I tried to go there to see the forgotten cylcotron, but just as I got to the bottom of a stairwell, a hulk jumped out of the shadows and tried to beat the crap out of me. I ran back upstairs, trying not to step on the glowing three-eyed rats.
"and without wasting everyone's time re-re-re-explaining a distinction which I still maintain is purely semantic anyway?"
Perhaps the problem is that you maintain that the difference is semantic, when it is in fact a profound difference in fundamental meaning. If copyright infringement and theft have only a subtle semantic difference, then rape is no different from murder and fraud is no different from arson. Your opinion of "purely semantic" happens to be one of those opinions that is outright incorrect. A whole world opens up to you when you realize that there are more than 2 or 3 words to describe "illegal situations".
"people a platform on which to make pedantic distinctions between ripping people off indirectly vs going into their house to do it."
Sneaky, sneaky. "Ripping off" is another term for theft, so you are trying to put through your definion-defying assertion another way.
You asked "does it have to become the focus of every discussion about copyright?"
You'd have the same sort of problem on a cooking forum, whenever someone tried to talk about baking fruit pies, some vocabulary-deficient folks would always try to derail the conversation by discussing pasta (and then they would indignantly object that pasta and fruit pies are all just the same thing when confronted).
Slashdot Mirror
When he said, "What about astrology, the most rediculious of the sciences! But I degress...", I was guessing that he really was thinking of proctology. That would have been par for the course here.
"Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING"
Here is the root troll. I went to the top of this news item, searched for the first occurance of the word "theft". I found this quoted in someone else's message: "Let's look at the simple black and white of the matter. Piracy is theft. Whether you agree with it or not, it's theft.". The parent contained the actual statement. The parent was modded -1 Flamebait. Quite justifiably: the statement was an incorrect one, intentionally designed to mislead and cause strife. There are others, but this was the first troll for this item.
"Wrong again. I'm just not shallow enough to base my world view on a dictionary definition"
This is a poor defense of using words without any regard to actual usage OR dictionary definitions OR logic in order to try to artificially strengthen an argument.
"In your opinion."
No, for this part, I'm sticking to the facts, even if they contradict other's opinions. Whether or not a certain thing is "Bad" or "unethical" is quite often a matter of opinion. Pointing out the real meaning of the word "thief" is a matter of fact. "Thief" is not a vague term. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. If you are disagreeing, you happen to have a wrong opinion in this case.
"Think I'm going to change my position?"
Ummm.... you did, in a latter message when you admitted that copyright infringment was not theft.
"Wrong again. I can't reiterate any more strongly that I'm not the one who used the word."
In this message, and in others, you defended the use of the word "thief" where it did not apply. Even if you did not use it in the Original Parent, you have used it the same way many times since.
"Quote something. Anything. Who deliberately misled who? QUOTE SOMETHING."
Click on parent. There are two instances, from you, that defend the intentional missuse of words in order to mislead as being a difference of opinion. The next quote by you, below, contains an ignorant misleading use of the word as well.
"The use of the word theft when talking about people ripping other people off can hardly be construed as comparable to this analogy."
However, you are defending its use in a situation that does not involve ripping off or taking.
"The point is that the pie-baking forum wouldn't mod its members insightful for making obvious statements about the differences between pasta and pies when someone happens to bring up pasta."
They would if they had a plague of misleading lying trolls who kept saying that fruit pies were a type of pasta. (just like the misleading lying trolls who try to confuse people by equating copyright infringment with theft/taking/ripping off).
"And that is precisely what has happened. Someone mentions pasta on the pie forum, perhaps even with very good reason to compare the two foods. But the discussion is stopped by a karma-whore who is oh-so-sure that pasta and pies have nothing in common"
That's not what happens, Chef Boyardee. Someone mentions theft in a copyright infringement forum, with no good reason other than to mislead by equating the two. The person who messes up the forum is the troll who makes the sneaky substitution. (just like the comparable food-troll would be saying that pasta recipes produce the same food as fruit pie recipies).
"The attempt to group both foods into unleavened flour-based products would just be too much for their little brains period and so the poor original poster gets nothing but everyone else gets to pat themselves on the back. Yay for technical correctness."
That's not what the word-abusing trolls are doing. They aren't just saying that theft and copyright infringment are both crimes (comparable to pasta and pies being both flour-based). These trolls are saying that the two crimes are perfectly interchangable. Saying that copyright infringement is as bad as theft is an acceptible argument in a moral discussion. Saying that the two are exactly the same thing is at worst a misleading lie and at best a statement based on ignorance.
"Yay for technical correctness"
If you think that intentionally confusing nouns is no matter at all, I hope that next time you go to Olive Garden and order linguine that someone serves you peach pie instead. It's just a minor technical difference, right?
"The people who are too inflexible to follow an argument that's been poorly worded constantly accuse those on the other side of the argument of being actually confused and worse yet of trying to mislead people"
When someone (hint hint) posts large numbers of messages in which they insist that incoherent choices of words with intent to mislead are OK.... The newest silly argument is that "If (anyone) had personal experience with the problem" they would start to use words that don't apply.
"LMFAO you really can't see a simle parody can you?"
So, anything you have ever said about how copyright infringement is like theft, that Joe Blogg (whoever he is) is a thief) is really a parady of trolls who use bad arguments? If this is the case, you've done a pretty good job! I'm really amazed that you have managed to make false and illogical statements so consistently throughout this. Good job!
"Which came first, the idea of theft, or the legal definition?"
The idea of theft involves (prepare for a shock now): STEALING. No stealing, no taking, no theft. I really am not sure what the legal definition is. Laws vary, anyway.
"People actually can't understand where I'm coming from, and that is really sad."
Hold that thought. I'll deal with it below.
"Would it make you happy if I said that copyright infringement is not theft?"
Do you really think that it makes people understand where you are coming from when you all of a sudden argue the opposite of what you have been saying all along?
"Would it make you realise what an idiot you are if I said once again that I never thought they were?"
Your messages have argued that you thought they were. At least, up until now, when you reversed yourself.
Has it been tested on "long pig" yet?
Yeah. I think I recall the episode where Jason Priestley accidentally eats the lobster.
This calls for a muppet movie in which Miss Piggy wakes up in 2999 and befriends an alcoholic robot, one-eyed mutant girl, and muffle-voiced walking lobster.
"The man who reported them missing (John Sarkissian) just happens to work for CSIRO Parkes Observatory in Australia."
Is this the same guy who said that the giant monster in space seen heading to the Earth was really just a gnat on the telescope lens? Not sure I believe his explanation anymore!
Just keep Lucas away from the thing. I'll be damned if I'm going to see Gungans greet Armstrong as he steps foot on the lunar surface. "Ona step for gungans, ona giganta leep for meesa!". However, I have to admit, I would welcome a space battle as the lunar module struggles to complete its landing. In fact, really looking forward to Jerry Bruckheimer adding huge slow-motion fireballs in space depicting the competing Russian modules getting blown up.
Sandy greeted at home by his wife after an innocent visit to the archives: "Is that a sensitive national security dossier in your briefs, or are you just glad to see me?"
These original DVD's from the CBS vaults were really interesting. They were mastered in 1969 using Amiga Video Toaster. It is probably no coincidence that they turned up missing about the same time Dan Rather left CBS. I wonder if Rather took the wrong boxes when he carted off those old 3.5" inch floppies containing the MS Word 97 docs George Bush's original military service records and archive copies of Bush's Myspace page from 1973.
They let me on the Warner Bros backlot where the first Apollo landings were filmed back in the 1960s (my dad was friends with the guy they hired to dump the "lunar sand" in the studio). I had my 8 mm Kodak movie camera with me, and I still have some reels that I filmed myself during the shooting of important scenes. I'll put them on Youtube soon. (If you ever see the finished films, you'll see the edge of one of my footprints from when I strayed into the actual set in the "lunar soil" near Neil at one time. I'm surprised that, perfectionist as he was, Kubrick did not catch that and edit it out.
"Also, it probably needs to be pointed out that when a building is brought down with explosives, the explosions typically start at the bottom."
By placing the explosives up high in the building, they sure fooled you, didn't they?
It sounds like nothing more than a type of polygraph applied to a person's view of certain countries. Think of DeNiro in "Meet the Parents" grilling Ben Stiller: "So... have you ever considered a vacation to... Somalia? Or how about Belize?"
"Perhaps there is a strong technical distinction between theft and copyright infringement, but I see no strong ethical distinction"
So, your distinction rests somehow on how bad they are? One is the same as the other if they are both bad? Using this funky new synonym rule, does this mean that any discussion of copyright infringement can have the words "copyright infringment" substituted with "spitting in your face" with no change in meaning if one is as bad as the other?
"as both involve taking possession for personal purposes or enjoyment something for which the person who legally controls it is not compensated for its use."
Check again on this. Copyright infringement does not involve taking possession at all. Theft involves this, but not copyright infringment. I can see you are not that concerned with what terms mean. This was obvious when you placed the word "perhaps" in your "Perhaps there is a strong technical distinction between theft and copyright infringement" to introduce uncertainty to a situation that is in actuality quite certain.
"deceit that which argues that because a crime has no convenient word assigned to it in the language"
You are arguing on the basis of a situation that does not exist. "Copyright infringement" is an already existing, convenient term.
Here ya go: http://www.waywelivednc.com/maps/historical/cape-f ear.gif
"it could easily be argued that the legal stance (that copyright infringement is not theft) is not a moral one"
This is an interesting and new form of language abuse abuse. The idea that if it is a moral issue, it does not matter which words are used to describe the crime, even if they have nothing to do with each other. Morally, is there no difference between rape and murder? Between kidnapping and arson? If this is true, then does your whole argument rest on the assertion that if it is bad, it does not matter which words are used for it?. Here's a good example of what you are advocating: "I saw a guy run a two red lights this morning. I hope the cops catch up with him before he rapes again." or "Your honor, I know he's a drug dealer. I have proof: I took a photo of him scratching my car door."
"Well, both of your posts basically hinge on saying that theft and copyright infringement are very different (really?)"
Yes, really. However, this is stating the obvious. Anyone familiar with either knows this. It is hardly insightful. It is like knowing the fact that rape and murder are (OMG!) two separate crimes.
"theft is not just a legal term it's a term that I personally and most people I know (maybe cause I'm Aussie) would use in any situation where someone loses something as a result of someone else's actions. Call me wrong"
I won't call you wrong. In fact, I will even use, in this instance your made-up-from-scratch definition of theft. It has a little overlap with how the word is really used. Important here is the part about "someone loses". This might possibly happen during copyright infringment, but most likely it is rare.
"Language will be used by people to generalise things"
Sometimes, however, this is done in an abusive fashion. Use of words without meaning in the hopes of some sort of rhetorical or emotional effect.
"b) this is slashdot. We're all more informed of exactly what takes place (technically, socially, economically and legally) when Joe Bloggs shrinks and copies a DVD from Video Ezy than anyone else on the planet"
If you really were informed of this, you would not use the word "thief" to describe Joe Blogg.
"seeing a discussion lose focus because of this argument time and time again annoys me."
It wouldn't happen if the trolls did not change the subject from copyright infringment to theft.
"Can't anyone else see the irony in that these posts are quite often modded informative of insightful"
The only irony is that the posts are just stating the obvious. Basic facts which anyone daring to post should already know. However, it is hardly nitpicking to point out the use of words that don't apply. The person who brings theft into a copyright infringement discussion is either ignorant, or is attempting to play on the ignorance of others.
"Anyway, by accusing me personally of being unaware of the difference"
If you are too "stoopid" to know that these words have nothing to do with each other, then you are intentionally trying to argue in the hopes that others are too stupid to know what the words mean.
"you're on the train to point out the obvious like everyone else"
It is rather obvious, but in message after message you miss the point and still make the incorrect confusion between two different terms.
"Make sure you all mod yourselves 'Distended' or 'Handsaw' for being here to continue your cause for correct labelling tho"
That statement is rather incoherent. However, it is quite certain that handsaws are as relevant to a discussion of copyright infringement as theft is!
If you think it is OK to generalize beyond all reason (and without regard to understanding of the different meanings of different terms), then you are ignorant when it comes to word meanings.
"people who infringe copyright can be known as theives, mofos, bastards, scammers"
With the exception of the word indicated in bold, the other meanings amount to a very general accusation of being a "bad guy". Generalization does not mess up these words. However, the word "theives" (sic) has a very specific meaning. If you use it, it has to be accurate. Just like if you had added the accusations of "pastry chefs, rapists, brain surgeons" to your list.
"And now you are attempting to assert that 'ripping off' can only refer to theft"
You are probably right on this term: it is rather vague. Unlike "theif".
"Are you seeing the other side of this argument *at all* yet?"
Not at all. You are using the word "theif" in ignorance of the fact that it has a specific meaning that rules out it being applied in the conversation, and with full knowledge of the attempt to mislead by the use of the word. Neither is very defensible.
"To try to compare that to mislabelling two foods is laughable."
I stand by the correctness of this analogy. If the discussion of theft in a copyright infringement forum is on-topic, then so is discussion of pasta in a pie-baking forum.
"Did he think that what had occurred was the total and final loss of someone's only master copy of some music/video/code? The theft of box after box of retail packaged digital media goods?"
Those both happen to meet the definition of theft. However, they have nothing to do with the subject (copyright infringement).
"...makes my belief that the posters of these stupid spams are not that insightful.."
You may be right. It might be generous to call someone who has such a basic knowledge of what words mean "insightful". They are just stating the obvious. Pointing out the fact that copyright infringment and theft are not related is as "insightful" as pointing out that Microsoft sells a lot of copies of Office. Perhaps instead anyone who attempts to veer a copyright infringement discussion into a theft discussion should be modded as a troll.
"A short stint with a dictionary..."
I strongly recommend this for the next time you try to confuse unrelated terms.
"Computer hardware that uses your brain, thats sound dangerous.....Don't let someone else use your brain for them in this way."
If paranoid luddites who have delusions of this technology making us into Borg aren't using their brains, why not let someone else make some good use of wasted grey matter?
"You will think a million monkeys are out there banging on keyboards."
Those must be pretty small monkeys, in order to fit two of them on a keyboard to make love. Golden lion marmosets, I presume?
"and hunting down replicants."
Hey, they are only guilty of DNA copyright infringement! It's not like it's an actual crime, bud!
I tried to go there to see the forgotten cylcotron, but just as I got to the bottom of a stairwell, a hulk jumped out of the shadows and tried to beat the crap out of me. I ran back upstairs, trying not to step on the glowing three-eyed rats.
"and without wasting everyone's time re-re-re-explaining a distinction which I still maintain is purely semantic anyway?"
Perhaps the problem is that you maintain that the difference is semantic, when it is in fact a profound difference in fundamental meaning. If copyright infringement and theft have only a subtle semantic difference, then rape is no different from murder and fraud is no different from arson. Your opinion of "purely semantic" happens to be one of those opinions that is outright incorrect. A whole world opens up to you when you realize that there are more than 2 or 3 words to describe "illegal situations".
"people a platform on which to make pedantic distinctions between ripping people off indirectly vs going into their house to do it."
Sneaky, sneaky. "Ripping off" is another term for theft, so you are trying to put through your definion-defying assertion another way.
You asked "does it have to become the focus of every discussion about copyright?"
You'd have the same sort of problem on a cooking forum, whenever someone tried to talk about baking fruit pies, some vocabulary-deficient folks would always try to derail the conversation by discussing pasta (and then they would indignantly object that pasta and fruit pies are all just the same thing when confronted).