FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:23:22 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> 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.

Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being an
ass.

--
Kier

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

Kier wrote:

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

>> 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.
>

Well, they can try.
In those groups, people are not at all tolerant towards idiots
Messages to abuse are done quite fast there, and usually they are not
announced
--
Microsoft: which revised Eula do you want to accept today?

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

Kier wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:23:22 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being an
> ass.
>

The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
The difference to you is that he also understood it
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<pan.2006.09.29.21.51.55.462386.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk>,
Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:23:22 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> He is a pretty revolting character. I think Kier likes to keep
>> such people here, I don't know why.
>
> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop
> being an ass.

I cannot believe you are defending Wong considering his followup to
Mark about crossing a red light to save his mother. It is clear he
truly believes there is nothing wrong with breaking the law as long as
you get away with it.

--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<pQSSg.40671$bf5.14265@edtnps90>,
"Oliver Wong" <owong.TakeThisOut@castortech.com> writes:
>
> 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?

As I've mentioned in another post, I did not contribute anything that
is written in the FAQ. I did participate in some of the threads
discussing it when it was being developed but there is not a single
bit of it written by me.

That does not mean I don't agree with it in general. I just wasn't a
member of the group who were writing it.

If none of the other contributers still reading COLA do not object
I'll remove my name because I have no right to be included as one of
the contributors.

--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Culley <rgc.TakeThisOut@nodomain.none> espoused:
> begin risky.vbs
> <pan.2006.09.29.21.51.55.462386.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:23:22 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> He is a pretty revolting character. I think Kier likes to keep
>>> such people here, I don't know why.
>>
>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop
>> being an ass.
>
> I cannot believe you are defending Wong considering his followup to
> Mark about crossing a red light to save his mother. It is clear he
> truly believes there is nothing wrong with breaking the law as long as
> you get away with it.
>

That is exactly and precisely my problem with Mr Wong. Should I need a
police escort for my mother, I'll get one! Mr Wong's justification is
puerile.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while
you're being miserable.
-- C.B. Luce

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Culley <rgc.TakeThisOut@nodomain.none> espoused:
> begin risky.vbs
> <VU8Tg.4735$N4.620@clgrps12>,
> "Oliver Wong" <owong.TakeThisOut@castortech.com> writes:
>>
>
>> So Mark, you'd rather let your mother die (assuming she's still
>> alive now) than cross a red light?
>
> What if by crossing the red light he hit another car killing several
> people? He would then be severely punished I would hope.
>
> My brother was once stopped for speeding on a motorway in the UK. He
> was doing over a ton in the wee hours. His wife had given birth
> prematurely and the baby wasn't expected to live. On hearing this the
> officer let him go but with these words of advice. You'll be more help
> to your wife alive than dead.
>
> Your trying to equate breaking the law in a life and death situation
> compared to a company doing so to maximise the profits for its
> shareholders shows you are seriously lacking in ethical values. You
> dug yourself into a hole. Better to get out before you are in too
> deep.
>

Quite. As I said elsewhere, the best solution if you need a police
escort is to get one. Laws are in place for a good reason. If you do
not agree with a law, we have democratic and legal processes to force
their revision.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while
you're being miserable.
-- C.B. Luce

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

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:02:54 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:23:22 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being an
>> ass.
>>
>
> The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
> The difference to you is that he also understood it

Evidently not.

---
Kier

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:02:54 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:23:22 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> chrisv <chrisv DeleteThis @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.
>>>
>>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being an
>>> ass.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
>> The difference to you is that he also understood it
>
> Evidently not.
>

This is what I cannot understand. Apparently, everyone except you can
comprehend what was posted. I do not understand why you like keeping
such people here, and I'm ever more suspicious of your motives.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.

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

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
news:efk53p$48m$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> Kier wrote:
>>
>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being an
>> ass.
>>
>
> The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
> The difference to you is that he also understood it

If Mark has read my posts and understood them, why does he continue to
avoid answering the questions I directed at him?

- Oliver

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:efk53p$48m$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being
>>> an ass.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
>> The difference to you is that he also understood it
>
> If Mark has read my posts and understood them, why does he continue to
> avoid answering the questions I directed at him?
>
> - Oliver

Why should he?
I don't answer questions from wintrolls either
Except I am in a playfull mood. But that's rare with these idiots

And you certainly have put yourself in a spot where only other slime like
flatfish like to be. Deal with it. You had all the opportunity in the world
to explain your real beliefs. Instead you explained with great detail why
it is OK for MS to break the law

And spare us the bullshit weasel words
--
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> espoused:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>>
>> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:efk53p$48m$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being
>>>> an ass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
>>> The difference to you is that he also understood it
>>
>> If Mark has read my posts and understood them, why does he continue to
>> avoid answering the questions I directed at him?
>>
>> - Oliver
>
> Why should he?
> I don't answer questions from wintrolls either
> Except I am in a playfull mood. But that's rare with these idiots
>
> And you certainly have put yourself in a spot where only other slime like
> flatfish like to be. Deal with it. You had all the opportunity in the world
> to explain your real beliefs. Instead you explained with great detail why
> it is OK for MS to break the law
>
> And spare us the bullshit weasel words

I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates law-breaking as
a right and proper way of responding to shareholder wants.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
In order to get a loan you must first prove you don't need it.

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

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:09:01 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:efk53p$48m$03$1@news.t-online.com...
>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>> Come back when you actually *read* what he wrote, Mark, and stop being an
>>> ass.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, he actually *did* read it.
>> The difference to you is that he also understood it
>
> If Mark has read my posts and understood them, why does he continue to
> avoid answering the questions I directed at him?
>
> - Oliver

Because this is COLA and YOU have seen a CLASSIC example of how this
newsgroup operates.

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

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:56:05 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates law-breaking as
> a right and proper way of responding to shareholder wants.

Still telling lies Mark Kent?
Oliver never advocated breaking the law and you know it.
It's all in google.

But, it's the typical run with a lie and it will become truth method of
discrediting people when you can't debate the topic.

Man you guys are truly disgusting.

This group has sunk to an all time low.

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

flatfish+++ wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:56:05 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates law-breaking as
>> a right and proper way of responding to shareholder wants.
>
>Still telling lies Mark Kent?

Not that I saw.

>Oliver never advocated breaking the law

Liar.

>and you know it.

Yet another bald-faced lie.

>It's all in google.

That much is true.

>But, it's the typical run with a lie and it will become truth method of
>discrediting people when you can't debate the topic.
>
>Man you guys are truly disgusting.

From a lying POS like you, that really hurts, flatshit.

>This group has sunk to an all time low.

No, you've trolled here many times before.

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

flatfish+++ wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:09:01 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>
>> If Mark has read my posts and understood them, why does he continue to
>> avoid answering the questions I directed at him?
>
>Because this is COLA

Wrong as usual, flatshit. In fact I've already explained why Wrong's
trolling should recieve no answers, here:

<p1qnh29rhfvrjpkt1eo39lh27cj9phl3br RemoveThis @4ax.com>

>and YOU have seen a CLASSIC example of how this
>newsgroup operates.

You mean the low tolerance for the trolling idiots, unethical
scumbags, and lying filth that make-up the wintroll gang?

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

flatfish+++ <flatfish.DeleteThis@linuxmail.org> writes:

> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:56:05 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>
>> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates law-breaking as
>> a right and proper way of responding to shareholder wants.
>
> Still telling lies Mark Kent?
> Oliver never advocated breaking the law and you know it.
> It's all in google.
>
> But, it's the typical run with a lie and it will become truth method of
> discrediting people when you can't debate the topic.
>
> Man you guys are truly disgusting.
>
> This group has sunk to an all time low.

It does appear to have done just that.

Pete has even appointed himself as "Roy's snipper" : he even got a pat
on hand from the great man himself for just that.

--
Cleveland:
Where their last tornado did six million dollars worth of improvements.

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

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:56:05 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>
>> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates law-breaking as
>> a right and proper way of responding to shareholder wants.
>
> Still telling lies Mark Kent?
> Oliver never advocated breaking the law and you know it.
> It's all in google.
>

Yes, it is. He told us that it is perfectly normal that a company will break
the law to enhance earnings to make shareholders happy
Nice piece of scum you are defending here, flatfish

> But, it's the typical run with a lie and it will become truth method of
> discrediting people when you can't debate the topic.
>
> Man you guys are truly disgusting.
>

That may well be. But then, we are not 1% as disgusting as a racist and
software thief like you, flatfish

> This group has sunk to an all time low.

No, it hasn't. It is currently recovering from the lows brought on it by
you, Hadron Quark and Scott Nudds
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?

Roy Culley · External Since: Aug 14, 2004 Posts: 647

begin risky.vbs
<w1wUg.16$iS5.12@newsfe11.lga>,
flatfish+++ <flatfish.TakeThisOut@linuxmail.org> writes:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:56:05 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates
>> law-breaking as a right and proper way of responding to shareholder
>> wants.
>
> Still telling lies Mark Kent?
> Oliver never advocated breaking the law and you know it.

Yes he did and then he gave an example of where Mark might break the
law. Wong clearly sees nothing wrong in law breaking as long as you
get away with it.

> It's all in google.

I suggest you read it all again. You are clearly most confused.

> But, it's the typical run with a lie and it will become truth method
> of discrediting people when you can't debate the topic.
>
> Man you guys are truly disgusting.
>
> This group has sunk to an all time low.

It is you and the likes of Wong that make this so.

--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006

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

"Roy Culley" <rgc.TakeThisOut@nodomain.none> wrote in message
news:ft9bv3-h8h.ln1@dog.did.it...
> begin risky.vbs
> <w1wUg.16$iS5.12@newsfe11.lga>,
> flatfish+++ <flatfish.TakeThisOut@linuxmail.org> writes:
>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:56:05 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates
>>> law-breaking as a right and proper way of responding to shareholder
>>> wants.
>>
>> Still telling lies Mark Kent?
>> Oliver never advocated breaking the law and you know it.
>
> Yes he did and then he gave an example of where Mark might break the
> law. Wong clearly sees nothing wrong in law breaking as long as you
> get away with it.

So there are two hypothetical law breaking situations here.

(1) A company may break the law (e.g. via illegal monopolies) in order
to garner more profits.
(2) A citizen may break the law (e.g. via running through a red light)
in order to save his/her mother's life.

I am not advocating 1, I merely said that it happens.

I am not advocating 2 either, but I do claim that *I* would be willing
to run a red light in order to save my mom's life. Again, I'm not advocating
it: I'm not saying *YOU* should do the same as me. I'm just saying what I
would do. I'm not saying anything about whether it's "good" or "bad", or
whether I'm being "good" or bad", or whether you are "good" or "bad" for
disagreeing with me. Please don't try to add meaning that isn't there.

Anyway, it surprises me that Mark would rather let his mother die than
run a red light. I've asked him directly to confirm or deny this belief, but
he refuses to do so, instead vaguely insinuating that law-breaking of any
form is "bad". Therefore, one can only conclude that he actually would let
her die.

Again, that's Mark's perogative. I'm not saying he should change his
ways or anything. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying I'm surprised
by it. I'm also not saying Mark is a "bad" person for letting his mom die.
Everybody is different, and has different priorities. Perhaps Mark feels
that the needs of society as a whole outweight the need of any one
individual, and thus places the law above saving lives. Again, that's Mark's
perogative. He's free to believe anything he wants, and that in itself
neither makes him a "good" person nor a "bad" person in my eyes.

- Oliver

PS: Sheesh, it's incredible how carefully I have to phrase things in this
forum, less someone jumps on my words, trying to find the most reprehensible
interpretation possible. It's almost as if they're more interested in
casting me out to be the boogeyman, than actually listening to what I have
to say.