[Golden Eagle]

Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it

Here is his quote I linked above, which is merely one of them from the former thread, it's quite clear he is now attempting to claim a lesser offense somehow IS actually criminal, without subjecting it to his own previous requirements for criminal.

What you call "his current claims" are in fact his attempts to argue the force of your position

My position is obvious, he needs to provide equal evidence that personal backups of one's own media is more "criminal" than distributing cracks to the entire world. I've shown case history and threatening letters that distributing cracks is more criminal, yet he's called that "BS" without having anything equivalent of his own.

I did not see on this thread where he claimed the OSX hack was NOT illegal

You're lost again. "Criminal" is the context, not "illegal". He brought the word up in post 45, and the overall context is he's been defending these hackers from Russia for almost a year now, insisting they weren't "criminal", even trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution", and claiming Apple's letter threatening "criminal" prosecution was quote "BS", all linked above. He clearly brought up the word in the one false context he thought he could pretend, that personal backups were equivalent to the actions of the Russian hackers, which he might even believe himself. But since there's no factual reason to believe that, he's had to resort to lying once again, something he's already admitted to knowingly doing before, including when he knowingly made up lies regarding the US Department of Defense, only to claim months later it was some sort of "trick" he was trying to play, to make up these lies about the US DoD on behalf of his Russian hackers, then claimed it was quote "fun", accused me of sex with goats and other psychotic babble. You can read more here, by all means please do.

[Petronski]

Here is his quote I linked above, which is merely one of them from the former thread, it's quite clear he is now attempting to claim a lesser offense somehow IS actually criminal, without subjecting it to his own previous requirements for criminal.

He's not doing that at all. You're delusional. I've been following these threads and you seem to believe you can make your claims into truth by sheer repetition.

The reality is that you are a laughingstock. Your babbling is not as lucid as that of an irrational Greenwich Village panhandler.