Riddle me this, Batman: How did nat insult Thibaut?
Here it is, Robin:
To tatsujin's post talking PRECISELY about Thibaut:
he statet in an other forum, that he will feed us with informations about the game and its differences to the regular one. but i guess, he will not like to share the data as an ISO with us
He answered:
"See, I just don't get that. That is selfishness to the ultimate degree and there is no justifiable reason for it."
He's clearly talking about Thibaut.There is no confusion possible about this.
Tatsujin said "HE" about Thibaut, no mistake about it. and Nat answered to that. To "supposed" Thibaut's action,so said by Tatsujin.
And i'm not a supposed lawyer. I AM. So my master in business law degree says.
And i'm not rich either. Lawyer condition in Europe isn't the same at all than in USA,but US people looks so closed on themselves (looking to your comments) they wouldn't realize that.
Furthermore, I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the definition of the word 'selfish'. It is most commonly defined as the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others, which Thibaut's response clearly shows to be applicable:
This unarguably shows that Thibaut is trying to protect his wallet (i.e. his own needs/desires) when he won't share the game (i.e. the needs/desires of others). Whether or not he is justified in this action is entirely irrelevant in the argument regarding selfishness.
And? Where is the harm here? Are you still living under communism era?
And i'm pretty sure you're doing the same with your properties,such as your car...unless you let everybody in your neighbourhood using your car,or your home...
Nat- said: there is no justifiable reason for it
How so? He worked hard to earn the money to buy it. Isn't it a reason enough to enjoy his buy?
If you go the shop,do you immediately give away your buyings to the first guy in the street?
Necromancer: I'm a lawyer. I'm not talking without knowing the subject, like you do.
That sounds like a snap judgment from someone who knows nothing about me. Don't you think that's a tad hypocritical considering you've complained multiple times of similar behavior?
It seems to be the commun rule here, to speak without knowing the person, you beginning about Thibaut. On your SECOND post on this thread, you say:
"I've no doubt that if nat had the inclination to buy one, he wouldn't hesitate to share it with others. Why? Because he's not a selfish scrooge. "
What is that supposed to mean? That Thibaut is a selfish scrooge?
since the whole thread is about him and his buying. Explain yourself..who were you pointing at/thinking of when you said that?
Too, if you're a lawyer as well, then you're one not knowing a damn thing about French law or other law systems over the world.That's a shame US doesn't learn other law systems in this world to their own lawyers. It could be useful.
Is it nothing in common, which would be 100% different, or is it 60% different? You can't have it both ways, so stow your haughty attitude and air of superiority. Moreover, I didn't state with absolute certainty that the French legal system was identical to the U.S. system, but only that I
doubted that there is much difference in the assignation of blame.
[/quote]
That's an EXPRESSION. You're going ridiculous. You really don't understand the expression "they have nothing in common"?
If you say "joe& Ted have nothing in common" will you really answer "no that's wrong,they have something in common,they're both men! So, no, they have something in common"
Now tell me, are you THAT PICKY?! Or even a french stupid lawyer like me understand better that expression than you, an english native?
There is clearly a difference in assignation of blame. You can doubt it all the wya you want,that won't change facts. Read books,and see it by yourself.
In France, the example given by someone else ,which was:
normally illegal activity is excused in U.S. law is when it prevents a greater crime from being committed or in matters of self defense.
is COMPLETELY prohibited.Illegal activity cannot be excused under any circumstance,even that one.you'll be pursued for doing that.
And opposedly, if you get in a fight started by someone else who punched you first, the "excuse de provocation" can be used and generally the first one will be only punished, since the 2nd one only acted because the1st one provoked it. Look at "excuse de provocation", you'll get your answer. And I'm not talking about "legitime defense" here.
That's why i said the first one,starting this, is the responsible one.That's how it works here. For 200 hundred years,with the 1801 Civil Code.
