FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

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

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:451d041e$10$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <LrRSg.31755$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.

See my response to Mark in which I recommend he reads
http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp...4324744

>
>> 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?

Not a defense, but an explanation. If I was in the unfortunate
circumstances of having stolen his artwork and getting caught, and people
ask me WHY I did it, I'd probably say "'Cause I figured the benefits
outweight the drawbacks". I'm not saying this means I should not be punished
or anything like that. I'm saying that the advantage of stealing the artwork
outweighed the disadvantages of getting punished. E.g. perhaps some criminal
was holding my family hostage, and told me that I had to steal that artwork
to regain their lives. I consider the punishment of me going to jail
insignificant in comparison to the benefit of allowing my family to live, so
I'm willing to take the punishment (going to jail). However, I'm *NOT*
willing to go to jail just to own a piece of artwork, so stealing the
artwork just for the pleasure of owning it is not something I'd do.

- Oliver

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

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap.TakeThisOut@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:451d04e0$11$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <CyRSg.31756$Lb5.30185@edtnps89>, on 09/28/2006
> at 03:07 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.TakeThisOut@castortech.com> said:
>
>> I acknowledge that this philosophy is a very controversial one,
>>but I think it underlies the behaviour of all rational agents.
>
> Not all rational agents apply the same metric.

I do not dispute this.

>
>>If you claim that you don't consider all possible actions and
>>always choose the most optimal one, then you are either irrational,
>>stupid, or dishonest.
>
> If you claim that everyone shares your choice of utility function,
> then you are either irrational, stupid, or dishonest.

I did not make that claim.

- Oliver

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2707

On 2006-09-29, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spamtrap.RemoveThis@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> 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

That was after IBM's representative told Gates that they hadn't been able to
make a deal with DR, and that if MS didn't propose providing an OS, the PC
project was likely to be cancelled.

--
--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:451d05bb$12$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <PARSg.31757$Lb5.3745@edtnps89>, on 09/28/2006
> at 03:09 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @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.

I *am* pretty naive when it comes to Microsoft's history, when compared
to other Linux advocates, because Microsoft's history wasn't/isn't something
which really interests me. I don't read books about Microsoft, for example.
This is a recurring theme in this thread: I don't *KNOW* what the Microsoft
bashers are talking about when they make vague references to something "bad"
that Microsoft has done in the past. A good example is that I see a constant
reference to "Halloween documents", so I assume it's some incriminating
document that Microsoft produced around Halloween. But I have no idea what
they contain, or what is incriminating about them, as I never got into an
argument about them, and never had to research their content. So I'm trying
to point out that the Microsoft bashers seem to imagine that I'm in denial
or hiding facts or "pretending it didn't happen", but I *honestly* have no
idea what they're talking about. So I'm (politely?) asking them to please
state in explicit terms what it is they're accusing Microsoft of doing, so
that I may open my eyes and see evil in Microsoft as well, for example.

- Oliver

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

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap.RemoveThis@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:451d0631$13$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <12hnsm5bosvt5e1.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>, on 09/28/2006
> at 04:05 PM, Tim Smith <reply_in_group.RemoveThis@mouse-potato.com> said:
>
>>How?
>
> It concealed from each the existence opf the other.

I don't know about Seattle, but isn't it difficult (on the order of
making your claim implausible) to conceal the existence of IBM?

- Oliver

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

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap DeleteThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:451d0891$14$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
> begin In <pQSSg.40671$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.

Okay, noted. But perhaps I will disobey you and choose to obey the
(current incarnation[*] of the) FAQ anyway. Wink

If that makes me "to dumb,
too ignorant, or to lazy" in your eyes, then so be it.

>
>> 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.

Point taken.

>
>>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.

I thing these statements are misleading, if not an outright lie. Who is
asking "those questions"? What are "those questions" anyway? I don't think
anybody here is asking "What's on topic here?" On the contrary, people are
making assertions "*THIS* is on topic" or "*THIS* is *NOT* on topic".
Everybody seems to already know themselves what's on or off topic. Nobody is
*asking* what's on topic.

I'm not suggesting that we should ignore the charter. I'm saying that
telling people to obey parts of the document, but not others, weakens the
credibility of the document as a whole:

A: "We should promote Linux and bash Microsoft here."
B: "Why?"
A: "Because this official document says we should promote Linux here."
B: "The document also says to not bash Microsoft here."
A: "Ignore that part."

- Oliver

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent DeleteThis @demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:11otu3-gr7.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Oliver Wong <owong DeleteThis @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

You really want to compare a company breaking the law to maximize profits to
a situation where life and health of a person is at stake? Really?

Why don't you make it easier and simply admit that you are full of it?
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.

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

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:efj6hk$k4$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent.TakeThisOut@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:11otu3-gr7.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Oliver Wong <owong.TakeThisOut@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?
>>
>
> You really want to compare a company breaking the law to maximize profits
> to
> a situation where life and health of a person is at stake? Really?

What is the distinction? One is "good" and the other is "evil"? That
just begs the question, doesn't it? The point I'm getting at here is to
illustrate that there is a significant difference between obeying the law
(being legal) and doing "good" actions (being good). I choose to break laws
when it suits me (e.g. to save my mother's life). Does that make me a bad
person? Microsoft chooses to break the law when it suits them. Does that
make them a bad corporation?

My personal beliefs (which by no means am I forcing you to agree with or
believe in) is that the concepts of good and evil aren't really meaningful,
and is a fantasy or fairytale to get young children to listen to their
parents. "Why should I share my toys?" "Why should I eat all my vegetables?"
etc. As you get older and wiser, you realize that there isn't really any
good or evil. If your religion doesn't forbid you to do so, you might want
to study Buddhist philosophy a bit (I'm just saying to study it, not to
switch your religion to it or anything). Buddhist are stereotypically
depicted (e.g. in movies, etc.) as being serene, pure and "good" people. And
yet in Buddhism, there is no concept of good or evil either; only of cause
and effect. Karma is often misunderstood as meaning good things happen to
good people and bad things happen to bad people, but that's a westernized
oversimplification.

>
> Why don't you make it easier and simply admit that you are full of it?

I think your view of the world is too simplistic. If you think
everything I said is a lie, then feel free to disregard what I've said. If
it makes your life easier to believe there is an objective absolute concept
of good and evil, and that certain things can objectively said to be good,
and others evil, then go ahead and keep on believing that. I don't think
we'll ever meet in person, so your worldviews probably won't have a
significant effect on my life. I'm just voicing my opinion. You're free to
voice yours too.

- Oliver

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1798

Oliver Wrong wrote:

>Microsoft chooses to break the law when it suits them. Does that
>make them a bad corporation?

You are an Ignorant, logically-handicapped troll, Wrong.

It is the sum total of Micro$oft's behavior, not just the allegedly
illegal bits, that leads some to describe them as "evil".

Duh.

Jamie Hart · External Since: Sep 12, 2005 Posts: 602

Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
> in message news:451d05bb$12$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
>> begin In <PARSg.31757$Lb5.3745@edtnps89>, on 09/28/2006
>> at 03:09 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @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.
>
> I *am* pretty naive when it comes to Microsoft's history, when
> compared to other Linux advocates, because Microsoft's history
> wasn't/isn't something which really interests me. I don't read books
> about Microsoft, for example. This is a recurring theme in this thread:
> I don't *KNOW* what the Microsoft bashers are talking about when they
> make vague references to something "bad" that Microsoft has done in the
> past. A good example is that I see a constant reference to "Halloween
> documents", so I assume it's some incriminating document that Microsoft
> produced around Halloween. But I have no idea what they contain, or what
> is incriminating about them, as I never got into an argument about them,
> and never had to research their content. So I'm trying to point out that
> the Microsoft bashers seem to imagine that I'm in denial or hiding facts
> or "pretending it didn't happen", but I *honestly* have no idea what
> they're talking about. So I'm (politely?) asking them to please state in
> explicit terms what it is they're accusing Microsoft of doing, so that I
> may open my eyes and see evil in Microsoft as well, for example.
>
Wouldn't it be simpler to just read the Halloween document? A simple
Google Search will find it.

Aw, hell. Here it is.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html

BTW, it's an interesting read, though fairly dated now.

You might also want to read

http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml

Which highlights some of the other things Microsoft is accused of, note
that this is not exactly an unbiased article, but you can go on from
there and check on the specific incidents if you want.

Jamie Hart · External Since: Sep 12, 2005 Posts: 602

Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that we should ignore the charter. I'm saying that
> telling people to obey parts of the document, but not others, weakens
> the credibility of the document as a whole:
>
When it comes down to differences between the charter and the FAQ
(Frequently Asked Questions), always take the charter as the final word.

Nobody should _obey_ the FAQ, it doesn't give instructions, it answers
questions that have been asked. The answers are often just the FAQ
maintainers personal take on things and not necessarily correct.

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2707

On 2006-09-29, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>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

Where have you seen people asking these questions?

--
--Tim Smith

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

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:

> 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.

Which would be who? All gmail, yahoo and hotmail users?

Does your arrogance know no bounds?

>
>> 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.

And few could give a flying damn about what *you* want.
>
>>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.

Are you suggesting that there factual inaccuracies in the FAQ which
makes it unsuitable reading material for posters to this NG?

Do try and remember that not everyone is as, snigger, clever as you.

--
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

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

"Jamie Hart" <usenet DeleteThis @jhart.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:1159541458.79565.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap DeleteThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:451d05bb$12$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
>>> begin In <PARSg.31757$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.
>>
>> I *am* pretty naive when it comes to Microsoft's history, when
>> compared to other Linux advocates, because Microsoft's history
>> wasn't/isn't something which really interests me. I don't read books
>> about Microsoft, for example. This is a recurring theme in this thread: I
>> don't *KNOW* what the Microsoft bashers are talking about when they make
>> vague references to something "bad" that Microsoft has done in the past.
>> A good example is that I see a constant reference to "Halloween
>> documents", so I assume it's some incriminating document that Microsoft
>> produced around Halloween. But I have no idea what they contain, or what
>> is incriminating about them, as I never got into an argument about them,
>> and never had to research their content. So I'm trying to point out that
>> the Microsoft bashers seem to imagine that I'm in denial or hiding facts
>> or "pretending it didn't happen", but I *honestly* have no idea what
>> they're talking about. So I'm (politely?) asking them to please state in
>> explicit terms what it is they're accusing Microsoft of doing, so that I
>> may open my eyes and see evil in Microsoft as well, for example.
>>
> Wouldn't it be simpler to just read the Halloween document? A simple
> Google Search will find it.
>
> Aw, hell. Here it is.
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html
>
> BTW, it's an interesting read, though fairly dated now.

You missed the point. I'm not interested in the Halloween document in
particular[*]; it's just an example of something I suspect most Microsoft
bashers have read, but which I (and I imagine many people) have not. I
wanted to show that not everything a Microsoft-basher knows, everyone else
knows. I chose it because I actually know it's name. There may be other
documents which Microsoft-bashers are aware of and assume that everyone is
aware of them, but since I don't know their names, I couldn't refer to them.

Because "Halloween document" is such a unique term, you're right that
it's easy to google. But some of the vague accusation made are not so easy
to google. E.g. "Some guy died or became seriously ill due to Windows
crashing" didn't turn up anything useful.

>
> You might also want to read
>
> http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
>
> Which highlights some of the other things Microsoft is accused of, note
> that this is not exactly an unbiased article, but you can go on from there
> and check on the specific incidents if you want.

Thanks.

- Oliver

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

Jamie Hart <usenet DeleteThis @jhart.ath.cx> writes:

> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting that we should ignore the charter. I'm saying
>> that telling people to obey parts of the document, but not others,
>> weakens the credibility of the document as a whole:
>>
> When it comes down to differences between the charter and the FAQ
> (Frequently Asked Questions), always take the charter as the final
> word.
>
> Nobody should _obey_ the FAQ, it doesn't give instructions, it answers
> questions that have been asked. The answers are often just the FAQ
> maintainers personal take on things and not necessarily correct.
>

You really believe that Oliver doesn't understand what a FAQ is? I'm
incredulous. Typical COLA tactic : twist and turn and make imperious
statements which have seemingly little, if anything, to do with what was
being discussed.

--
Chastity:
The most unnatural of the sexual perversions.
-- Aldous Huxley

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

Tim Smith <reply_in_group.TakeThisOut@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> On 2006-09-29, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap.TakeThisOut@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>>>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
>
> Where have you seen people asking these questions?

He hasn't. Seemoretrolls makes things up as he goes along. And since he
has the whole world killfiled if their email domains aren't sufficiently
up-market and "untellygunk" like what he is, then I wonder how he sees
much at all.

--
Availability is limited.

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5565

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon.DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> 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.

This remark serves to confirm my suspicions as to your motivations. Of
course, as soon as MS are not relevant to linux, then there will be no
need to mention them.

>
>>
>>> 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.

So why did you raise it?

>
>
>>> 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.

No, it's not.

<snip bit not relevant to the above>

>
>>
>> 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?

I'd like you to answer my question - why do you feed them?

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.
- W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5565

begin oe_protect.scr
chrisv <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> espoused:
> 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.
>

That's pretty much the same thing. Of course, you can spin it how you
like, but it comes do to putting self beyond anything else; which to a
sociopathic extreme, is beyond the law, as Mr Wong indicates he is.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.
- W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5565

begin oe_protect.scr
chrisv <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> espoused:
> Oliver Wrong wrote:
>
>>Microsoft chooses to break the law when it suits them. Does that
>>make them a bad corporation?
>
> You are an Ignorant, logically-handicapped troll, Wrong.
>
> It is the sum total of Micro$oft's behavior, not just the allegedly
> illegal bits, that leads some to describe them as "evil".
>
> Duh.
>

He is a pretty revolting character. I think Kier likes to keep such
people here, I don't know why.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.
- W. K. Clifford, British philosopher, circa 1876

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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:43:14 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:

> 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.

So is yours, so don't start claiming some moral superiority to those you
are so keen to condemn, you have none.

--
Kier