DoFo government admits new licence plates 'absolutely' a problem, will need to be rec

[Boober69]

Your purpose is trolling, it appears.
You're a lurker, or a hypocrite here.
Neither is welcome.

boober, its not thieving.
If you're not a subscriber there is no reason for you to abide by their terms, if you've never clicked on the 'agree' button.
Its a publicly posted site, you can go there as many times as you like with cleared cookies and history.
That's legal.

According to the terms you agreed to for TERB, you're not to throw out fake accusations without humour, as you continue to do.


So the only one here breaking the terms of agreement is you.
Cuz 'fake news' is funny, given your Trudeau fake news story.
But 'you're a liar' is not.

Says the guy who in the last few responses to me has called me various names and has accused me of doing things I am not doing. Are you going to ban yourself perhaps?

Why would companies like the Star provide limited free articles in the first place? Just so people can get more free articles when they discover how to do it?

No. They provide free articles as samples. They invest in the mechanism to detect if someone has used up their free samples. They want to sell subscriptions. That's how they make money and continue to be in business. Using your logic, why would anyone actually pay for a subscription?

Would any vendor that offers free samples give you enough samples to the point you wouldn't purchase their full product?

So we've established that he knew what he was doing and it wasn't just by "happenstance" that he kept getting more free articles.

We've also established that the Star's Terms of Use prohibits sharing accounts. A subscriber who pays for their account agrees to those terms. ie it's legally binding. Bver was using a shared account.

 

[apoptygma]

Says the guy who in the last few responses to me has called me various names and has accused me of doing things I am not doing. Are you going to ban yourself perhaps?

Why would companies like the Star provide limited free articles in the first place? Just so people can get more free articles when they discover how to do it?

No. They provide free articles as samples. They invest in the mechanism to detect if someone has used up their free samples. They want to sell subscriptions. That's how they make money and continue to be in business. Using your logic, why would anyone actually pay for a subscription?

Would any vendor that offers free samples give you enough samples to the point you wouldn't purchase their full product?

So we've established that he knew what he was doing and it wasn't just by "happenstance" that he kept getting more free articles.

We've also established that the Star's Terms of Use prohibits sharing accounts. A subscriber who pays for their account agrees to those terms. ie it's legally binding. Bver was using a shared account.

In any given day, I can be sitting at 2 or 3 different computers... so I can double or triple MY free articles simply as a matter of my daily work flow.
I guess you also think this is in violation of the terms that I did not agree to?

 

[Boober69]

In any given day, I can be sitting at 2 or 3 different computers... so I can double or triple MY free articles simply as a matter of my daily work flow.
I guess you also think this is in violation of the terms that I did not agree to?

So you're cheap and don't want to buy a subscription like honest people do?
You don't want to support the company who employs people by taking their product for free?
You believe that just because you can, you should?

 

[apoptygma]

So you're cheap and don't want to buy a subscription like honest people do?
You don't want to support the company who employs people by taking their product for free?
You believe that just because you can, you should?

You didn't answer the question... quelle surprise.

 

[Boober69]

You didn't answer the question... quelle surprise.

The "terms you didn't agree to" had to do with using a shared account, which Bver said he was doing. Try and keep up.

 

[apoptygma]

The "terms you didn't agree to" had to do with using a shared account, which Bver said he was doing. Try and keep up.

Where did I mention bver in my question.
Do I need to rephrase it in shorter sentences for you do digest?

 

[Frankfooter]

Says the guy who in the last few responses to me has called me various names and has accused me of doing things I am not doing. Are you going to ban yourself perhaps?

Why would companies like the Star provide limited free articles in the first place? Just so people can get more free articles when they discover how to do it?

No. They provide free articles as samples. They invest in the mechanism to detect if someone has used up their free samples. They want to sell subscriptions. That's how they make money and continue to be in business. Using your logic, why would anyone actually pay for a subscription?

Would any vendor that offers free samples give you enough samples to the point you wouldn't purchase their full product?

So we've established that he knew what he was doing and it wasn't just by "happenstance" that he kept getting more free articles.

We've also established that the Star's Terms of Use prohibits sharing accounts. A subscriber who pays for their account agrees to those terms. ie it's legally binding. Bver was using a shared account.

We've established that if you're not a subscriber you have not agreed to the Star's terms of use and can clear your cookies and history as much as you like.
The Star is giving out free samples, as you said.

In bvr's case, he already has access to the paper at his work, so his access is bought.
Which means he has legit access to those articles from two sources and uses legit access to those publicly posted teaser articles.

Nothing wrong with any of that, except your total lack of sense of humour, morality or scale.

 

[bver_hunter]

"Just get bit savvy with it!!"
This was your response when asked how you get around the free article limit.

Again that article is FREE with no contracts or whatever. As I stated numerous times, I get the actual daily newspaper at work and can take it home at the end to the day. So how is this stealing when the online article just makes it very convenient to post on this web??? You are delusional!!

This doesn't sound like someone unknowingly accessing more free articles by clearing his computer's cookies/history/cache for the purpose of keeping his pc secure.
This also doesn't sound like someone who is accessing them via a shared account.

You better tell the Government and The banks that people should not be regularly directed to clear their Cache or History to keep their accounts secure, as you know it all about the millions of Canadians that are then "stealing" articles from free sites. Bahahahahaha!!

So now you say that I am not sharing an account?? Are you confused?? How am I accessing them then??

Once again read the very first post when I posted the link from the shared account and did not realize that it was no longer free. That individual mentioned that it was not free. That is when I stated that he could access it if he cleared his history as I assumed that he read all his free articles for the month. But you chimed in like the usual nutcase to mention that it was stealing. Maybe now you get it!!

You're a liar.
You knew exactly what you were doing with your "savvy" thieving skills.

Nawww, you are the biggest liar and fraudster as you have zero responses with regards to your fake threads, based on alt right conspiracy theorists, ignorant allegations like hacking, blatantly lying that you started fake threads, and now have come up with the most stupidest allegation like Stealing. You also accused the Liberal Government of "ROBBING"!! What a clown you are. Just take up to writing some fairy tales for 5 year olds!!

 

[bver_hunter]

So you're cheap and don't want to buy a subscription like honest people do?
You don't want to support the company who employs people by taking their product for free?
You believe that just because you can, you should?

But if it is legal to use numerous devices to access those additional articles, why are you so concerned about it??

If my friend even decided not to allow me access to her account as she has every right to, but tells me to read it from her device and to keep that device for as long as I want to, is it still "stealing"?

If she then says that she will print all of the articles and hand it to me is it once again "stealing"??

Obviously you are the only individual who is concerned with such pettiness like a child in a candy store. I posted a link relating to the Technology Section and specifically VPN. Have you even tried to tell them that they are stealing with having such web IP address blockers??

By the way which media do you suscribe to??

 

[Boober69]

No I am not. See that is a full presumption from you with no real facts. My buddy subscribes to it and has given me his password etc. So it is legal. But all along all you had to do was to keep on clearing the history from your computer. Then you would have the two free articles renewed on a continuous basis. So there you were wrong once again. Guess you should spend your time with some Board Games with some 12 year old children. Maybe you will be able to win for once!!

As for Dumb DOFO, he obviously did not pay taxes on the income generated from his street hash sales. That is called the real robbing, and you defend the real thief!!

Still no reasonable response as to how Ontario is "bankrupt" as you have posted on a constant basis!!

Still think I'm making up the part about you sharing an account?

 

[bver_hunter]

Still think I'm making up the part about you sharing an account?

I shared her account with her full consent. What is wrong with that?? You are going around in circles.

That is exactly what I am saying, but you still have not answered the fact that if she let me have her device to read all the articles, is that still stealing?? Again I get full access to the hard copy at work and just pick up one or two articles at a time and not religiously the whole edition for that day. JEEZ, you are very obsessive!!

 

[Boober69]

I do not read it on a religious basis but have access to it. Most of the time that I do, she is the one who is logged in anyway!!

Still think I'm making false accusations about you sharing an account?

 

[Boober69]

I shared her account with her full consent. What is wrong with that?? That is what I am saying, but you still have not answered the fact that if she let me have her device to read the whole articles, is that illegal??

You accused me of making false accusation about you sharing an account. Now you're admitting it? Consent has nothing to do with this. Sharing is sharing.
Make up your mind. Am I making false accusations or not?

 

[bver_hunter]

You accused me of making false accusation about you sharing an account. Now you're admitting it? Consent has nothing to do with this. Sharing is sharing.
Make up your mind. Am I making false accusations or not?

You got your panties in a twist. Show me where I stated that it was a false accusation of sharing the accounts, when I told you just that right up from day 1 of you accusation then??
It was fully with her consent and everything to do with it!! Yes you are making false accusations!!

 

[Boober69]

Where did I mention bver in my question.
Do I need to rephrase it in shorter sentences for you do digest?

Are you having trouble following the context of the discussion?
Shared accounts.
Not allowed.
You agree to those terms when you subscribe and are granted an account. ie you click "agree".

That is the context.

wrt free articles...how about you answer my questions from the previous post?

So you're cheap and don't want to buy a subscription like honest people do?
You don't want to support the company who employs people by taking their product for free?
You believe that just because you can, you should?

 

[SchlongConery]

Are you having trouble following the context of the discussion?
Shared accounts.
Not allowed.
You agree to those terms when you subscribe and are granted an account. ie you click "agree".

That is the context.

wrt free articles...how about you answer my questions from the previous post?

So you're cheap and don't want to buy a subscription like honest people do?
You don't want to support the company who employs people by taking their product for free?
You believe that just because you can, you should?

The context of the discussion was DoFo's political involvement in licence plates.

Do you have any idea how pathetic you look?

You have gone to such insane lengths to defend DoFo's political meddling that the best you can do is to try to call some internet handle a thief?

Booober...indeed.

 

[apoptygma]

Are you having trouble following the context of the discussion?
Shared accounts.
Not allowed.
You agree to those terms when you subscribe and are granted an account. ie you click "agree".

That is the context.

wrt free articles...how about you answer my questions from the previous post?

So you're cheap and don't want to buy a subscription like honest people do?
You don't want to support the company who employs people by taking their product for free?
You believe that just because you can, you should?

And there it is...
Bver did not click 'agree' on ANYTHING.
So maybe, after 19 pages, you need to take your misdirected rage, convoluted 'arguments', and false accusations somewhere else.

To answer your questions and illustrate your blind rage:
1. How do you know I do not have a subscription?
2. Who is to say that I do not support the organization in question? For all you know (not much), I run a business and purchase MANY of these newspapers a day for my customers.
3. Just because boob CAN debate for 19 pages, wage multiple VERY LOSING battles, should boob do that?

 

[Boober69]

The context of the discussion was DoFo's political involvement in licence plates.

Do you have any idea how pathetic you look?

You have gone to such insane lengths to defend DoFo's political meddling that the best you can do is to try to call some internet handle a thief? And in the process, show you, again, don't know what you are talking about.

Booober...indeed.

If you didn't clue in, we have people on hear accusing DoFo of all kinds of awful things, while they themselves do things that are wrong, both legally and morally.

It was never about license plates.
I'm just using Bver's faux pas as an example of the hypocrisy some people demonstrate.

Glad you're enjoying the dismantling of his integrity.

 

[Boober69]

And there it is...
Bver did not click 'agree' on ANYTHING.
So maybe, after 19 pages, you need to take your misdirected rage, convoluted 'arguments', and false accusations somewhere else.

To answer your questions and illustrate your blind rage:
1. How do you know I do not have a subscription?
2. Who is to say that I do not support the organization in question? For all you know (not much), I run a business and purchase MANY of these newspapers a day for my customers.
3. Just because boob CAN debate for 19 pages, wage multiple VERY LOSING battles, should boob do that?

Yeah just like I thought...answering questions with questions...a sure sign someone can't answer the questions. Amateur.

 

[apoptygma]

Yeah just like I thought...answering questions with questions...a sure sign someone can't answer the questions. Amateur.

I'm an amateur, but you have spent 19 pages accusing someone of being a thief according to some terms and conditions that he didn't even agree to.

If I'm an amateur, your in pee-wee.