Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Jeremy wrote:

> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <> wrote in message
>>
>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
>> secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure and
>> they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're negligent.
>> Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
>>
>>
> What law school graduated YOU?
>
> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no warranty

Completely irrelevant. Negligence is negligence and what you've paid for
something has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with that.

> of fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license agreement
> that had to be accepted before the software would install itself on the
> users' computers.

You can not disclaim what a normal person would do. You also can not
disclaim any statements you've made or any standard you've offered.
There's no such thing as "this product is offered with no warranty"
because the act of OFFERING the product and saying it will serve some
function sets a standard that must be met. Defining that standard in total
is done by taking into account both what the person says, and what they
have a history of doing.

Please think about this carefully before you look any more foolish. If you
go to an amusement park and get on a ride even after you've read the "at
your own risk" sign, but the thing crashes because someone forgot to
tighten some bolts, how long do you think that "ride at your own risk"
thing is going to last?

>
> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
> nonsense like you just did.

You say it's nonsense, but 20 to 1 says you can't do anything but keep
repeating that empty accusation.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

Borked Pseudo Mailed <> wrote in
news: d.net:

....
>> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
>> nonsense like you just did.
>
> You say it's nonsense, but 20 to 1 says you can't do anything but keep
> repeating that empty accusation.


It is you who has relied on "proof by repeated assertion." I have invited
you several times to cite any instances of a successful suit for failure to
update free software. You have studiously ignored this repeated request
because the absence of such cases shows how utterly vacuous your arguments
really are.

So let me invite you once again to cite some real-world support, however
tenuous, for your ludicrous poition. Or, failing that, let me invite you to
shut the **** up.

Regards,

nemo_outis