FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

Oliver Wong wrote:

>You misrepresent me.

Piss off, Wintroll.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:451bd32c$42$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <AyASg.34678$bf5.1105@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
> at 07:46 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> said:
>
>> So AFAICS, Microsoft got rich because it got a lucky deal with
>> IBM,
>
> Lucky? M$ got the deal because it misled both IBM and Seattle. Some
> might consider that evil, or at least unethical.

Can you elaborate? I didn't see anything about misleading IBM nor
Seattle. (i.e. if you're making an accusation, please explicitly say what it
is the alleged guilty party did wrong).

- Oliver

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

Oliver Wrong wrote:

>Can you elaborate?

Why don't you just piss off, wintroll?

We know what you're doing, wintroll. You're trolling, demanding proof
of something that's already been well-proven, so you can nit-pick and
bicker about every point, defending Micro$oft with "I don't see
anything wrong with that" or "you didn't prove your accusation" or
whatever.

>I didn't see anything about misleading IBM nor Seattle.

Yeah, well you apparently don't see anything wrong with breaking the
law if it brings-in more money, either. To you it's the "damn
straight" responsible decision. Obviously it would be "real easy" to
convice a scumbag like you that Micro$oft is evil.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Mathew P." <Mathew DeleteThis @COLA.com> wrote in message
news:eNLSg.10573$KK.9474@trnddc08...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Microsoft is company made up of many parts and many thousands of
> employees. Microsoft in and of itself, is not evil. Those that create
> and steer it's unethical practices, are.

I think there's also an issue of crowd psychology here. If someone looks
like they are in need of aid, and there is one witness present, that witness
is likely to try to help. However, if there are a crowd of people available
to help, each person in the crowd is less likely to try to help, as the
responsibility no longer falls on one particular person, but in a sense is
shared across the group. So it's possible that none of the people who "steer
Microsoft" are evil in themselves, but when they get together, and can hide
behind the name of the corporation, the worst is brought out in them.

>
> At least in this thread, there has been no claim that contrasts microsofts
> misdeeds in a comparitive fasion, with those of other business entities.
> It's really irrelevant anyway. Relative evil is a meaningless concept.
> Evil
> is evil. There are no shades of grey. Whether or not microsoft is 'more
> evil'
> than, say, google, is as I said, irrelevant. This is true of any kind of
> company, and any individual or group. As I said previously, it's all about
> the choices that are made. Animals have instinct and must act according to
> them. We have the power of reasoning, and the responsibility of choice.

I disagree with this, and I think there ARE shades of grey, in all of
life, but especially with respect to the concepts of good and evil. I think
up until this point, we've been our intuition to determine whether an act is
evil or not, which is fine when we both agree that a certain act or thing is
evil, but of course is problematic once we disagree. So do we have a formal
definition of "evil" for the purpose of this thread? Otherwise when you say
"Microsoft is evil" and I say "Microsoft is not evil", we may be in
agreement about what Microsoft has or has not done, but be in disagrement
about the term "evil".

Also, I think relative evil is a very meaningful concept. If everybody
(individual and corporations alike) is equally evil, then when you say
"Microsoft is evil", where does that leave us? Should we therefore boytcott
their products because they are evil? If so, we'd have to boycott every
other product in the universe, since all other corporations are equally
evil. If evilness is to be used as an argument of shunning one product in
favor of another, then it's not sufficient to say that Microsoft is evil,
but to show that the manufacturer of the competing product is *not* evil (or
at least, less evil).

[...]
>> EULAs which ask you to surrender all rights (e.g. by stating that
>> they
>> are free to change the EULA at any time they wish, and that you are
>> forced
>> to automatically agree to those changes) are quite common in software. In
>> this respect, I suggest that Microsoft is not particularly more evil than
>> any other software company. Perhaps the only reason few other software
>> companies have broken laws and bribed law makers is that those other
>> companies simply were not powerful or rich enough to do so, not because
>> their intents were any more pure.
>>
>
> I must disagree. This is an illogical conclusion in my opinion. It does
> not
> follow that just because it is easy to observe unethical and evil
> practices of
> many businesses (ie. Enron), all businesses are equally unethical and evil
> and simply lack the ability or opportunity to successfully follow through.

Right, it wasn't meant as a conclusion, but as a possible alternative
theory that might not have received the attention it deserved.

>
> This is analagous to saying that every individual is amoral and restrained
> from raping and pillaging only for lack of opportunity or a high
> probability
> of recieving punishment. Clearly, this is not the case.

I argue that this is not as clear as you claim. I've only recently
revealed on this forum (I've already admited it on alt.lang.cobol, but not
on comp.lang.java.* yet) that I'm a strong subscriber to the ethics of
utilitarianism as a model for behaviour of rational agents, so I'll leave it
at that for now, in case you want to defend your claim before we proceed.

>
> I find this conversation quite interesting. Thanks Smile

Same on this side. Wink

I'll be impressed if you manage to convince me
Microsoft is evil, which is not to say that I'm particularly stubborn, or
that I think that task is impossible. Rather, I'm remarking on this because
I think there is a strong possibility of it happening, and is meant as a
compliment on your capability for formal reasoning.

- Oliver

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

William Poaster <wp.DeleteThis@suseoss101.eu> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:28:14 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> espoused:
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:02:18 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:38:13 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oliver Wrong wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm just trying to be helpful,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, you're "just" trying to be helpful, Wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and letting the Microsoft bashers know
>>>>>>>>that Microsoft-bashing is offtopic in this newsgroup, and that if they
>>>>>>>>wish to continue bashing Microsoft, there are newsgroups specifically
>>>>>>>>set up or that purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, thanks for the tip, Wrong. Now, I'll be helpful and inform you
>>>>>>> that your M$ apologizing is off-topic in this group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It doesn't help when you attack a fairly neutral and balanced poster,
>>>>>>call him stupid names and accuse him of being a 'apologist' just because
>>>>>>he doesn't assume MS is evil. There is not much point in driving away
>>>>>>users who might be receptive to using Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this the same "fairly neutral and balanced poster" who accuses
>>>>> advocates of hypocrisy and double-standards where none exist? The
>>>>> same "fairly neutral and balanced poster" who feels the need to
>>>>> chastise advocates for occasional M$-bashing? With all the dross in
>>>>> this group, a little M$ bashing is hardly worth worrying about.
>>>>
>>>> He's a damn sight more balanced than many here. You didn't give him a
>>>> chance from day one. Try reading what he actually writes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He actually *did* have his chance. Even a second one
>>> He blew them
>>
>> I remain suspicious of Kier's motives... he does seem to go out of his
>> way to encourage the trolls, even when their position is blindingly
>> clear to the rest of us.
>
> I have permanently binned him. He not only appeared to encourage the
> trolls, but at times seemed positively naive.
>

Oh look. Willy Boaster and his amazing technicolour killfiles
again. What a jester.

Poor Kier : always jumping to the advocates defense. And binned by Mr
Filters LOL: You couldn't make it up.

But what a thread!!! Kier, Köhlmann, Boaster circling Oliver. Others
sniffing blood from far away no doubt!!! Keep it up guys, the pop corn
is roasting.

>>>>> And no one is asking anyone to "assume" that M$ is evil. M$ IS evil,
>>>>> and those who don't know it simply haven't educated themselves.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. It's an overlarge, overbearing company, with some
>>>> seriously poor business practices. But evil? You ought to think harder
>>>> about what 'evil' really is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, MS *is* evil. Its business practices, combined with their wealth,
>>> makes them so
>>
>> They've certainly put a lot of people out of work through illegal
>> activity. And they've extracted billions of taxpayers cash through
>> illegal manipulation of their monopoly, money which could've been used
>> to stop ill people from dieing, or could've educated people, they've
>> somehow managed to alter the course of justice in the US, and are
>> attempting to do so in the EU. There was even a chap who was either
>> made seriously ill or died in NZ some time back because of Windows
>> crashing and preventing access to urgent medical information. I don't
>> really know how you'd define evil, myself.
>
> Nor do I. They're only out for *one* thing, & that's *MicroSoft*. The
> rest

Stop Press : Business interested in making money and staying viable. In
another article, water is wet.

> of the world can go to hell, & they don't care. As Edward Heath once
> called it (referring at the time to Tiny Rowlands, Lonrho who bribed
> African leaders and violated international sanctions imposed on Rhodesia),
> "the unpleasant & unacceptable face of capitalism".

--
At participating locations only.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:35:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

> Oh look. Willy Boaster and his amazing technicolour killfiles
> again. What a jester.
>
> Poor Kier : always jumping to the advocates defense. And binned by Mr
> Filters LOL: You couldn't make it up.
>
> But what a thread!!! Kier, Köhlmann, Boaster circling Oliver. Others
> sniffing blood from far away no doubt!!! Keep it up guys, the pop corn
> is roasting.

Make sure to read my play by play!!

It's a classic example of the COLA Nutsack Gang at work!

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2610

On 2006-09-28, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap.TakeThisOut@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> Lucky? M$ got the deal because it misled both IBM and Seattle. Some

How?

--
--Tim Smith

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap.RemoveThis@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:451afb08$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <0XaSg.35769$cz3.16794@edtnps82>, on 09/26/2006
> at 02:37 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.RemoveThis@castortech.com> said:
>
>> Okay. Well, as I've said, I think Microsoft bashing is off topic,
>>and I cited the part of the FAQ
>
> K3wl. Do you know what a FAQ is? Do you know the difference between a
> FAQ and a charter?
>
>>If those people wish to ignore the FAQ, I guess there isn't much I
>>can do to force them to abide by it.
>
> Indeed, since it is totally irrelevant to what is on topic in this
> news group.
>
>> Now you're telling me that my "M$ apologizing" is off topic, but
>>you haven't actually cited where in the FAQ it states this.
>
> Hardly surprising, since it would be irrelevant. They haven't cited
> anything in the East Village Other, either.

So are you encouraging me to ignore the advice in the FAQ written by Roy
Culley and Mark Kent, among others, when determining whether my posts are
ontopic or not in this newsgroup?

My point is that if you want the people to listen to the advise listed
in the FAQ, the very least you could do is listen to it yourself. If you
don't care about people listening to the FAQ, what's the point of having Roy
Culley post it every week?

- Oliver

Peter Köhlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 795

Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> "Kier" <vallon.DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.09.28.11.55.29.445671@tiscali.co.uk...
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:36:06 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:30:41 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:25:00 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org.invalid>
>>>>>>> espoused:
>>>>>>>> begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
>>>>>>>> at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.DeleteThis@castortech.com> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>>>>>>>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has
>>>>>>>>>been
>>>>>>>>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>>>>>>>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>>>>>>>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>>>>>>>>straight they're going to break the law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize
>>>>>>>> revenue
>>>>>>>> *within* the law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating
>>>>>>> /breaking
>>>>>>> the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
>>>>>>> theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
>>>>>>> shareholders!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh come on, Mark, he's doing nothing of the kind. He's saying that
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> companies *will* almost certainly bend or break the law in order to
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> money, which is hardly news. Big business is unfortunately
>>>>>> very often cut-throat. How is that *him* advocating breaking the law?
>>>>>> And to suggest that this means he sees nothig wrong in drugs cartels,
>>>>>> etc, is not only ludicrous, but dishonest of you. I thought you a
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> man than that.
>>>>>>
> [...]
>>>>> What part of "Every corporation has a responsibility to their
>>>>> shareholders to maximize profit. And if breaking the law brings in
>>>>> more revenues than costs, then damn straight they're going to break
>>>>> the law."
>>>>> was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>>
>>>> I understood it perfectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently not
>>
>> I understood it perfectly.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Because that is exactly, verbatim what O. Wong has written. In short,
>>>>> he
>>>>> says that companies have the *responsibility* to their shareholders to
>>>>> brake the law in order to maximize profits
>>>>
>>>> NO, he said that they would in all probibility resort to breaking the
>>>> law
>>>> if that's what it took.
>>>
>>> "then damn straight they're going to break the law" has now the meaning
>>> of "all probibility"? Welcome, Erik II
>>
>> Where does it make him in approval of it? Nowhere.
>
> For the record, Kier has correctly interpreted the message I wish to
> convey. I am not saying breaking the law is a good thing. I'm saying it
> happens.

Except you haven't said this before
Your Erik Funkenbusch style of redefining words is not exactly convincing

< snip more excuses, redefinitions and other blather >
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:11:56 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> For the record, Kier has correctly interpreted the message I wish to
>> convey. I am not saying breaking the law is a good thing. I'm saying it
>> happens.
>
> Except you haven't said this before
> Your Erik Funkenbusch style of redefining words is not exactly convincing
>
> < snip more excuses, redefinitions and other blather >

There it goes, more lies built on top of more lies from the COLA gang.

And all this started from ONE SINGLE LIE that Mark Kent posted about
Oliver.

See, how the COLA Nutsack Gang operates?

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 1500

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:29:45 +0100, Kier wrote:

< snip >

>>> That position is outrageous. Perhaps Kier might see a problem here?
>>
>> Yes, I see one. You aren't being honest here. Sorry, Mark, but that's the
>> truth.
>
> Exactly kier!!!
>
> Now you are seeing how the COLA Nutsack Gang works to discredit people.
>

You know your position *has* to be wrong when flatfish is rushing to the
rescue

< snip more flatfish droppings >
--
You are a shining example for the advances in artificial stupidity

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:22:45 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:29:45 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>>> That position is outrageous. Perhaps Kier might see a problem here?
>>>
>>> Yes, I see one. You aren't being honest here. Sorry, Mark, but that's the
>>> truth.
>>
>> Exactly kier!!!
>>
>> Now you are seeing how the COLA Nutsack Gang works to discredit people.
>>
>
> You know your position *has* to be wrong when flatfish is rushing to the
> rescue
>
> < snip more flatfish droppings >

Yet another tactic by the COLA Nutsack Gang to deflect their false
statements and turn the discussion in a different direction.

BTW I'm not coming to anyone's rescue.
I am simply pointing out how this group and in particular the COLA
Nustsack Gang make false statements, me too posts and attack a person for
the sole purpose of discrediting that person.

And you and your boys have performed right on cue.
You'd think after all these years you would try an be more subtle.
But you're not all that bright so it doesn't surprise me in the least.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>And you and your boys have performed right on cue.
>You'd think after all these years you would try an be more subtle.
>But you're not all that bright so it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Irony needle pegged.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

"Oliver Wong" <owong.RemoveThis@castortech.com> writes:

> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap.RemoveThis@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
> in message news:451afb08$17$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
>> begin In <0XaSg.35769$cz3.16794@edtnps82>, on 09/26/2006
>> at 02:37 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.RemoveThis@castortech.com> said:
>>
>>> Okay. Well, as I've said, I think Microsoft bashing is off topic,
>>>and I cited the part of the FAQ
>>
>> K3wl. Do you know what a FAQ is? Do you know the difference between a
>> FAQ and a charter?
>>
>>>If those people wish to ignore the FAQ, I guess there isn't much I
>>>can do to force them to abide by it.
>>
>> Indeed, since it is totally irrelevant to what is on topic in this
>> news group.
>>
>>> Now you're telling me that my "M$ apologizing" is off topic, but
>>>you haven't actually cited where in the FAQ it states this.
>>
>> Hardly surprising, since it would be irrelevant. They haven't cited
>> anything in the East Village Other, either.
>
> So are you encouraging me to ignore the advice in the FAQ written
> by Roy Culley and Mark Kent, among others, when determining whether my
> posts are ontopic or not in this newsgroup?
>
> My point is that if you want the people to listen to the advise
> listed in the FAQ, the very least you could do is listen to it
> yourself. If you don't care about people listening to the FAQ, what's
> the point of having Roy Culley post it every week?

Why try to argue logically? They're deranged. They actually think that
posting it so often will "deter wintrolls". Other than Nudds kicking ass
I dont think anyone else here is a wintroll - just more realistic linux
users with no self interest. The biggest "trolls" are the zealots :
they're enough to terrify new Linux adopters away in a heart beat.

>
> - Oliver
>

--
Other restrictions may apply.

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:46:00 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

> Why try to argue logically? They're deranged. They actually think that
> posting it so often will "deter wintrolls". Other than Nudds kicking ass
> I dont think anyone else here is a wintroll - just more realistic linux
> users with no self interest. The biggest "trolls" are the zealots :
> they're enough to terrify new Linux adopters away in a heart beat.

Deranged is an understatement.
Some of them are mentally ill.

As for scaring new Linux users away, that's a fact.
A friend of mine is big on irc and he was telling me how he asked a couple
of questions about Fedora on a channel and got blased with RTM, you're an
idiot, we won't do your homework for you, your computer is broken etc....

Needless to say, Fedora was removed from his system because he is so
soured on Linux now.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>Deranged is an understatement.
>Some of them are mentally ill.

Irony meter pegged again.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Peter KÃ¶hlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:efgol8$pth$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> For the record, Kier has correctly interpreted the message I wish to
>> convey. I am not saying breaking the law is a good thing. I'm saying it
>> happens.
>
> Except you haven't said this before

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hopefully everything is clear now?

> Your Erik Funkenbusch style of redefining words is not exactly convincing
>
> < snip more excuses, redefinitions and other blather >

What words do you feel I've redefined, what do you think my
(re-)definition is, and how does your preferred definition differ?

- Oliver

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:44:04 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:efgol8$pth$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, Kier has correctly interpreted the message I wish to
>>> convey. I am not saying breaking the law is a good thing. I'm saying it
>>> happens.
>>
>> Except you haven't said this before
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hopefully everything is clear now?
>
>> Your Erik Funkenbusch style of redefining words is not exactly convincing
>>
>> < snip more excuses, redefinitions and other blather >
>
> What words do you feel I've redefined, what do you think my
> (re-)definition is, and how does your preferred definition differ?
>
> - Oliver

They redefined your entire post, took your words out of context all in a
vain attempt at discrediting you because you are a more moderate poaster.
That's what they did.

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1649

flatfish+++ wrote:

>They redefined your entire post,

Liar.

>took your words out of context

Another bald-faced lie.

>all in a vain attempt at discrediting you

Nope. I believe he's quite discredited, to any impartial observer.
The opinion of a proven liar and nym-shifter (you), has zero weight.

>because you are a more moderate poaster.

"Moderate" or not, he's a scumbag. He should be working for M$.

>That's what they did.

It doesn't seem to embarrass you to lie through your teeth, flathead.
Interesting.

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:22:46 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:28:14 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> espoused:
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:02:18 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:38:13 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oliver Wrong wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm just trying to be helpful,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, you're "just" trying to be helpful, Wrong?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and letting the Microsoft bashers know
>>>>>>>>>>that Microsoft-bashing is offtopic in this newsgroup, and that if they
>>>>>>>>>>wish to continue bashing Microsoft, there are newsgroups specifically
>>>>>>>>>>set up or that purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, thanks for the tip, Wrong. Now, I'll be helpful and inform you
>>>>>>>>> that your M$ apologizing is off-topic in this group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It doesn't help when you attack a fairly neutral and balanced poster,
>>>>>>>>call him stupid names and accuse him of being a 'apologist' just because
>>>>>>>>he doesn't assume MS is evil. There is not much point in driving away
>>>>>>>>users who might be receptive to using Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the same "fairly neutral and balanced poster" who accuses
>>>>>>> advocates of hypocrisy and double-standards where none exist? The
>>>>>>> same "fairly neutral and balanced poster" who feels the need to
>>>>>>> chastise advocates for occasional M$-bashing? With all the dross in
>>>>>>> this group, a little M$ bashing is hardly worth worrying about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's a damn sight more balanced than many here. You didn't give him a
>>>>>> chance from day one. Try reading what he actually writes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He actually *did* have his chance. Even a second one
>>>>> He blew them
>>>>
>>>> I remain suspicious of Kier's motives... he does seem to go out of his
>>>> way to encourage the trolls, even when their position is blindingly
>>>> clear to the rest of us.
>>>
>>> What 'motive's are you ascribing to me, Mark? Frankly, I think Oliver is
>>> far less of a troll than many supposed wintrolls here.
>>>
>>
>> I genuinely don't know, but as I said just above, you seem to be able to
>> blind yourself to off-topic posting and seem to go out of your way to
>> encourage it. I do not understand why you do it. I do not know what
>> your motives are, but they might not be good, hence, I remain suspicious
>> of them.
>
> You complain of off-topic posting, yet you aren't worried about MS
> bashing, which is pretty much the same, and you assume that somehow this
> means I have a hidden agenda of some sort?

No, I say again, I DO NOT KNOW what your motivation is. I don't assume
that it's anything, but I remain suspicious of what it might be.

> Please don't be stupid, Mark.

?

>
> I argue with trolls because I hate them. That good enough for you?

Not for me, no. My belief is that doing so will merely serve to keep
them here.

>
> If you are going to assume every poster here who is not a Linux advpcate,

Anyone who isn't advocating linux is posting off topic, the clue's in
the group's name...

> and who doesn't automatically think MS is eveil is wintroll,

As I said elsewhere, I don't really know what evil means in this
context.

> you might as
> well stop posting at all.

> Int is perfectly possible to be interested in
> Linux without hating MS or Windows.

Not really relevant to the point in question.

My point remains a simple one. Troll-feeding is a really good way of
keeping a stock of trolls here. Why do it? I /do not/ understand the
motivation.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
When I woke up this morning, my girlfriend asked if I had slept well.
I said, "No, I made a few mistakes."
-- Steven Wright