they're only illegal if you don't make them yourself, and if you don't have to break any encryption to do so.
Double negative. YOU LOSE! :P
Contrary to popular beliefs, prefixes/suffixes that invert the definition of a word is usually not considered to be a negative. The following sentences should highlight the difference: (underline denotes negatives, bold denotes inverted meanings) I did not go to the park without my dog. Without is inverse of with but this is a valid sentence. He did not go unnoticed. Another legit statement. He hardlynever punched the illegitimate lawyer. Yes, hardly is considered a negative. No illegitimate is not. You ain'tnever suppose to not use no double negatives! This is just fun to say when people are pissing you off with negatives.
Quote from Nate:
dude. we're not all engineers. my logic sucks. you will interpret what i have said correctly regardless.
He was pointing out your grammatical "mistakes". Engineers need not grammar. Your logic does indeed suck :P.
Double negatives are also perfectly valid - contextually, of course. A double negative is not a positive, and as such carries a separate weight and meaning which is occasionally more elucidative than a mere positive assertion.
Oh sush, everyone. Eka, I'm not sure if you picked up on it or not, so I apologize if it sounds like I think you're an idiot, but the point was after the comma, the sentence goes from "it's only illegal if" to "it's only legal if".
Technically not. "Ain't" is a contraction of "am" and "not"; it's applicable to any structuring (i.e. it can stand in for "is" or "are" rather than just "am"), but it's still a derivative of "to be". The second clause doesn't include the "to be" concept in its verb structure, and as such, "ain't" is misplaced. Given this, "no one" and "never" form an improper double negative.