FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

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

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:27:41 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> 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.

Who the heck, except for Roy Schestowich gives a hoot what you think Mark
Kent?
Nobody.

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

Haha!
You haven't a clue.

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

And you and the rest of the COLA gang, especially Roy Schestowich violate
that rule hundreds of times a day.

Exactly what does Microsoft bashing, misleading subject lines and
attacking people for the sole purpose of discrediting them, have to do
with Linux advocacy?

You should take your own advice.

>> 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.

Yea right.
In your case it means anything anti-Linux no matter how true.

> Not really relevant to the point in question.

And your BS is?
All you have done is lie, throughout this entire thread.

> 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.

As usual you are making no sense at all.
WTF does that last statement mean?

Are you drinking again Mark Kent?

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Oliver Wong <owong.DeleteThis@castortech.com> espoused:
>
> "chrisv" <chrisv.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8pjnh21iij7lce3qoaktn0o6c2mj8g4a33@4ax.com...
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz espoused:
>>>>
>>>> Oliver Wong 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!
>>
>> With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
>> Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!
>>
>> "If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
>> going to break the law!"
>>
>> "Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."
>
> You misrepresent me. I do believe in utilitarianism, in the sense that
> if breaking the law brings me more advatanges than disadvantages, then yes,
> I'm going to break the law.

You'd be some kind of sociopath, then.

--
| 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

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@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?
>

It has been clear from the start. You told us that "naturally corporations
will break the law if it suits them"

>> 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

You have been told before. Don't act that stupid
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.

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

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

> "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
>

Its becoming evident to me now, that this isn't a big game. These people
really do believe in what they saying. In blatant denial to the actual
thread Köhlmann & Ko are accusing you of all sorts of bullshit which you
are simply not guilty of. I suspect their ancestors used to burn witches
for fun too.

I'd assumed it was a bit of tongue in cheek : but now I see its much
more sinister than that. These people are etherterrorists.

And the only tongue in cheek evident is Mark's in Roy's.

--
A word to the wise: a credentials dicksize war is usually a bad idea
on the net.
-- David Parsons in c.o.l.development.system, about coding in C

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

Hadron Quark checked our message ID's while writing:

>Its becoming evident to me now, that this isn't a big game. These people
>really do believe in what they saying. In blatant denial to the actual
>thread Köhlmann & Ko are accusing you of all sorts of bullshit which you
>are simply not guilty of.

Bald-faced lie from Quark. Documented.

Wong is only being "accused" of precisely what he wrote.

>I suspect their ancestors used to burn witches for fun too.

More gibberish from the Quark troll.

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <LrRSg.31755$Lb5.4673@edtnps89>, on 09/28/2006
at 02:59 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.DeleteThis@castortech.com> said:

> 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.

Then why the sentence about their responsibility to their
stockholders? They do *NOT* have a responsibility to their
stockholders to enhance profits by breaking the law.

> The point that I'm sort of hinting at, but am a bit too lazy to
>discuss in depth right now, is that Microsoft is just maximizing
>utility, just like every other rational agent

When someone's concept of "utility" includes inflicting illegal damage
on others, we call that behavior evil. Your defense applies equally
well to any other criminal. If you broke into Bill Gates's mansion and
stole his artwork, you would only be enhancing utility. Would you use
that as a defense of your actions?

>What I don't really care to get into is whether the ethics of
>utilitarianism is morally "good" or "evil".

You don't need to; it's the choice of utility function that makes it
evil or not evil.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <PARSg.31757$Lb5.3745@edtnps89>, on 09/28/2006
at 03:09 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong DeleteThis @castortech.com> said:

> Can you elaborate? I didn't see anything about misleading IBM nor
> Seattle.

Maybe if you didn't rely on wiki so much you'd know more history.
Gates implied to IBM that he already had an operating system and
concealed from Seattle that he wanted to sell the OS to IBM. The whole
sordid deal was well covered in the trade journals, and was mentioned
in several books as well. Now, I understand that you may see nothing
wrong with that, but to pretend that it didn't happen is dishonest,
and to quote wiki as your sole source is naïve.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap DeleteThis @library.lspace.org

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <12hnsm5bosvt5e1.DeleteThis@news.supernews.com>, on 09/28/2006
at 04:05 PM, Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> said:

>How?

It concealed from each the existence opf the other.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <pQSSg.40671$bf5.14265@edtnps90>, on 09/28/2006
at 04:34 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong DeleteThis @castortech.com> said:

> 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?

Yes. More generally, I'm encouraging you to learn the difference
between firsthand and secondhand information, and to go to the source
when talking about what's on topic. The charter is what's relevant;
the information in the FAQ is there for those to dumb, too ignorant or
to lazy to read the charter.

> 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.

I don't want people to listen to the advice in the FAQ without also
listening to what's in the charter.

>If you don't care about people listening to the FAQ, what's the
>point of having Roy Culley post it every week?

Do you have any idea of what a FAQ is? Roy posts it because people ask
those questions. Perhaps he should add the question "Where is the
charter?". Just because a hammer is not a screwdriver doesn't mean
that it is useless; it just means that using it to drive in a screw is
inappropriate.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap DeleteThis @library.lspace.org

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

>(snip attempt to justify illegal, immoral behavior)

Piss off, scumbag.

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:27:41 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:22:46 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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...

Then let's stop with the MS posts, then. All of 'em.

>
>> 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.

Frankly, teh use fo the word evil in this context is stupid. Serial
killers are evil, Hitler was evil. MS is a business.

>> 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.

Yes, it is. You accuse Oliver of being a troll, when I don't believe he
is. Idf fact, you could probably convert him, if you only bothered to
treat him decently, instead of accusing him of being 'MS apopligist' etc.

>
> 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.

Would you rather have them in the help groups? Because ten to one, that's
where they'll go if they don't stay here.

--
Kier

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:16:46 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:29:45 +0100, 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:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, if you want to argue that Microsoft is evil, you
>>>>>should probably state something they did which was morally wrong, as
>>>>>opposed to something which was illegal (there's a subtle, but
>>>>>important difference).
>>>>
>>>> Ripping off Stac Electronics was morally wrong. Using the money that
>>>> IBM paid them to devlope OS/2 code for NT was morally wrong.
>>>> Sabotaging DRDOS was morally wrong. The list goes on.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> 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 are no better, flatfish, in fact you're far worse.

Don't imagine that because I disagree with Mark that I agree with what
you're constantly doing in this group.

--
Kier

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

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 >

Boyo, the day I need flatfish's 'help' is the day I turn into the King of
Prussia. Don't equate me with that turd in any way, shape or form.

--
Kier

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:30:16 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:37:32 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz espoused:
>>>>
>>>> Oliver Wong 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!
>>
>> With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
>> Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!
>>
>> "If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
>> going to break the law!"
>>
>> "Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."
>
>
> And now chris "the plonk king" arrives at the frenzy to make another false
> statement based on the other false statements.
>
>
> We now have the beginnings of "The Tower Of Babel".
>
> Are you updating your scorecard kier?

Get lost, flatty.

--
Kier

Kier · External Since: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 2207

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:30:57 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Oliver Wong <owong.DeleteThis@castortech.com> espoused:
>>
>> "chrisv" <chrisv.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:8pjnh21iij7lce3qoaktn0o6c2mj8g4a33@4ax.com...
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>>Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz espoused:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver Wong 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!
>>>
>>> With an attitude like that, Mr Wrong should be working for Micro$oft.
>>> Indeed, if he does not, he's missing his calling!
>>>
>>> "If I have to break the law to make more money, then damn straight I'm
>>> going to break the law!"
>>>
>>> "Oh, but I'm not evil. I'm actually a really nice guy."
>>
>> You misrepresent me. I do believe in utilitarianism, in the sense that
>> if breaking the law brings me more advatanges than disadvantages, then yes,
>> I'm going to break the law.
>
> You'd be some kind of sociopath, then.

Oh for God's sake, Mark grow up. That's utterly ridiculous.

--
Kier

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

Kier wrote:

> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> Oliver Wong espoused:
>>>
>>> You misrepresent me. I do believe in utilitarianism, in the sense that
>>> if breaking the law brings me more advatanges than disadvantages, then yes,
>>> I'm going to break the law.
>>
>> You'd be some kind of sociopath, then.
>
>Oh for God's sake, Mark grow up. That's utterly ridiculous.

Would you prefer "unethical scumbag"? Because Wrong is most certainly
that.

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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:04:27 +0100, Kier wrote:

>> Now you are seeing how the COLA Nutsack Gang works to discredit people.
>
> You are no better, flatfish, in fact you're far worse.
>
> Don't imagine that because I disagree with Mark that I agree with what
> you're constantly doing in this group.

Unlike others in this group, I don't expect you to agree with me any more
or less than you do with anyone else.

I'm simply pointing out the gang mentality of certain people in this group
and this thread is an A+ example of it in action.

No matter what you, I or anyone else says, their behavior is undeniable.

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

flatfish+++ wrote:

>I'm simply pointing out the gang mentality of certain people in this group
>and this thread is an A+ example of it in action.

How ironic, considering that the Wintroll gang seems to be always in
full agreement, no matter how obviously wrong and/or despicable their
position on the issue at hand.

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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:05:50 +0100, Kier wrote:

> 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 >
>
> Boyo, the day I need flatfish's 'help' is the day I turn into the King of
> Prussia. Don't equate me with that turd in any way, shape or form.

Like I said before, I'm not defending you.
I am only stating the facts and the facts are that Oliver and now you have
both been smeared by the COLA gang and for no reason at all other than the
fact that you chose to challenge them instead of drinking the KoolAid.

It's blatantly obvious.
If you choose to take your head out of the sand that is.

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

"Mark Kent" <mark.kent RemoveThis @demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11otu3-gr7.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Oliver Wong <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> espoused:
>>
>> You misrepresent me. I do believe in utilitarianism, in the sense
>> that
>> if breaking the law brings me more advatanges than disadvantages, then
>> yes,
>> I'm going to break the law.
[restoring the snipped part]
>> For example, if I have to cross a red light to
>> save my mother's life, then I will do so.
[/restoring the snipped part]
>
> You'd be some kind of sociopath, then.

So Mark, you'd rather let your mother die (assuming she's still alive
now) than cross a red light?

- Oliver