you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why are you repeating the same arguments in two threads? The user didn't simply use the Windows Snip Tool; I've already asked you to demonstrate using Problem Steps Recorder or a third-party screen recorder how it would be possible to produce such an image simply with that tool, without creating a composite image from multiple screenshots and you still haven't.

You're consistently trying to change the topic in order to win the argument. This isn't about whether the law exists or whether it contains that text (the answer to both is yes, as we both know); this is about whether the law was misrepresented. I say yes, you say no, fine, but don't use unethical, deceptive "debating techniques" to try to "prove" your point.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because you're repeating the same tired argument, which deserves the same concise response.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Windows Snipping Tool is a screenshot program combined with a basic graphics editor. Whether or not it was used is almost completely independent of whether the screenshot was modified more than cropping and doodling.

I've offered you several simple ways to prove that the image shown can be produced simply by cropping a screenshot and drawing over it in red pen. You have sidestepped them, refusing to prove your argument. (Look, not the only one who knows how to bold things!)

I know it's hard to accept – this was basically me two months ago – but is this really the hill you want to die on? You're losing your hard-earned reputation here.