It was all self-serving. It's often held up as a just war.
These clarify what you meant to say, and contradict the preceeding statements. They liked it, they explained, because the trumpets
sounded exactly like the brassy screams of captive
women selected for feasting.
That's really an author injecting context where it might not belong. a. i like this sound, and appreciate what i'm hearing.
b. gee, it reminds me of that time the woman was
tortured, and her cries echoed across the valley.
something i can never forget. something that
cannot be stopped when mobs rule our culture.
To lend some credence to my detached perspective on this, consider the following: > eff cares about technology, in particular
electronics and communication.
> sometimes electronic systems, and the software these
systems employ, may be patented.
> patents in general may foster innovation, but
when misused, they may also stifle innovation.
> technological innovation, generally speaking, is
something the EFF cares about.
> in texas, there exists a group of political
activists colluding together to willfully
stifle technological innovation through
the careful misuse of U.S. patent law.
> although the manner in which these political
malefactors operate may be subtle and
convoluted, there is an obvious sense of the
goals behind their actions, and those goals
threaten to harm, not just a select group of
actors mired in interpersonal grudge matches,
but every participant in the American civil
justice system, by establishing dangerous
precedents with long reach and odd side
effects that may be weaponized to create
widespread strife and conflict amongst anyone
coming up against an opponent with the time,
money, and the awareness of said precedents.
> how the EFF is so certain of such intent
among these political actors remains
unclear, but because of this, the EFF is
willing to invest not-insignificant
resources in confronting and disrupting
their malignant behaviors.
> strategically speaking, should certain
specific legal decisions come to pass
in an American jurisdiction, it could
spell disaster for technological
innovation as a whole (really?), based
on the implicit logical corollaries
established by carefully chosen
legal battles won by this group.
> for this reason the EFF seeks to
challenge the validity of their
actions and their authority to operate
in general.
Is that about right?
Drawing conclusions for whichever labels I present, when I did not specify how I might choose to apply the labels. Do you see where you're jumping to conclusions about my disposition yet?
My last words to you are this:
A burning death after mutilation is cruelty. The aggressors are torturing and burning the victims. The murdered suffering before the mob are victims. Everyone else witnessing the events is a spectator, although some of the spectators may be accomplices to the aggressors. Evidence for many of these events will surely be incomplete, and likely skewed. Without evidence in any direction how would anyone know.
But you, you're lashng out at people on the internet. At some point you marked me as an enemy. Maybe you'll realize you misread my remarks. Oh well, done with this conversation. I won't be replying to you again.