No I simply refuted your inference from 45 it was criminal, which it isn't, nor do you have any case history to show it can be, meanwhile you've endlessly lied in the face of case history that your foreign hacker heroes couldn't have possibly been criminal, even attempting to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf and calling Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution quote "BS". You can keep lying and lying lying trying to lower the bar for the criminal actions of your foreign hacker heroes, but there's no way to lie your way out of what you're trying to do, talking in circles and trying to put words in my mouth is obviously failing for you as well.
You refuted nothing. You in the past called criminal the same action (circumvention) on another copyrighted work. I was just applying your logic to the situation. What I want to know is what is different about the two situations that makes one criminal/illegal and the other not.
you've endlessly lied in the face of case history that your foreign hacker heroes couldn't have possibly been criminal
Lie. I said your claim to them being criminal was unsupported since there was 1) no evidence of financial gain, and 2) they weren't distributing OS X itself in quantities to qualify for criminal prosecution (that's the "180 day rule" that is our law that you keep mocking).