FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

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

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:39:34 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

> 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

Mark Kent is a crazed Linux zealot who will go to any length to discredit
a person who brings up Linux's faults.

If Mark would not chance running a red light to save his mother, then he
is a complete idiot as well as a fool.

However, taking that side of the argument allows Mark Kent to discredit
Oliver further and that in and of itself shows what a totally sicko bunch
of people these Linux zealots are.

> 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.

They are.
You are a major threat to them, just like I, Erik and others are and they
will go to great lengths to discredit us because that is the game they
play.

Mark Kent is even allowing his mother to die (as a metaphor) just so that
he can argue against you.

It's really getting sick in here.

These yo-yo's surely are incapable of discussing Linux, that is for
certain.

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

In article <WFSWg.6897$P7.2793@edtnps89>,
"Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> wrote:
> "Roy Culley" <rgc RemoveThis @nodomain.none> wrote in message
> news:ft9bv3-h8h.ln1@dog.did.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.

I wonder what they think of the British authorities driving Alan Turing
to suicide because of his homosexuality? Engaging in homosexual
behavior was against the law at the time, so Turing was a law breaker.

--
--Tim Smith

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

[post re-ordered to put related topics together]

"Mark Kent" <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lka9v3-e4v.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@t-online.de> espoused:
>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> I've no desire to correspond with someone who advocates law-breaking as
> a right and proper way of responding to shareholder wants.

I'm sorry to say that I had to laugh at this. I'm sorry to have put you
in such an uncomfortable position. I guess our beliefs simply differ. I
honestly and truly would cross a red light to save my mother's life. If you
think that makes me a sociopath, then so be it. However, I'd just like to
warn you that I'm fairly confident there's a large number of people who
would be willing to also cross those red lights to save their mothers. I was
asking whether you would do it to try and get an understanding of your
mindset, and tailor the subsequent explanation depending on your answer. But
if the question makes you this uncomfortable, I suppose there's no way for
me to "force" you to answer.

>> 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

I know this is a difficult concept to swallow. I've tried several
explanations already. Here's another. Hopefully with all these perspectives,
you can come to appreciate how complex a concept "good" and "evil" are:

First, consider the fable of the scorpion and the frog:

<quote>
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the
frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you
won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion
stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink,
knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."
</quote>

Now I'm sure some of the trolls here will miscontrue the above as my
"admitting" that it is in Microsoft's nature to be "evil" or something like
that, but that's not the point of the fable. Consider a boulder which falls
onto a person, killing them. Can it be said that the rock is "evil"? Should
we be somehow "punishing" the rock? Or is it more like the size and position
of the rock, the laws of physics, etc. which, interacting together, cause
the rock inevitably to fall, and the person was at the wrong place, at the
wrong time?

If you read the book that I linked to earlier in this thread, you'll see
that due to the way that the concept of a corporation was founded, and the
way that the US laws were created, corporations have no choice but to do
everything in their capability to maximize profits. The book even cites one
example in which a judge held a manager in a corporation accountable for NOT
breaking the law, when it could have maximized profits.

http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp...4324744
<quote>
He [the author] shows by citing court cases that it is the duty of
management to make money and that any compromise with that duty is
dereliction of duty.
</quote>

So what is "evil"? What was the purpose of talking about evil in the
first place? As I've said elsewhere in this thread, nobody seems to be able
to define it. If we don't even know what it means, why are we arguing about
whether or not Microsoft is "evil"? I suspected that perhaps someone wanted
to convince people that Microsoft is "evil" as a justification to avoid or
boycott their products. And that's perfectly fine: I fully agree that if one
company is "more evil" than another company, then we should definite not
support "evil", and buy "non-evil" products whenever possible. *However*,
this is where it's important to note that the "evil" nature of Microsoft is
actually the evil nature of corporations in general. In otherwords, ALL
corporations are "evil" in this sense by nature, and so all products are
equally "evil" in this regard.

>>
>> And spare us the bullshit weasel words

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
<quote>
A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening
the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or
avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue.
[...]
Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack
the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background
information against which these statements are made.
</quote>

IMHO, I haven't beem using weasel words. I've not been "softening" the
force of my controversial statement. I fully acknowledge that my position is
controversial. But I also emphasize that it is the truth. I used the term
"evil", which is extremely loaded, as is "Microsoft" in this forum. And my
position, I hope, is very clear. If there is something you are unsure of, or
confused about, with respect to my position, by all means, go ahead and ask
me questions, and I will answer them to the best of my abilities. I feel I
have been substantiation my claims where-ever possible, by providing
citations, and direct URL links when possible.

If you disagree, can you give me an example of my usage of a weasel
word, and how I could have phrased it less "weasily", without modifying the
message I'm trying to convey?

- Oliver

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, flatfish+++ belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Mark Kent is a crazed Linux zealot who will go to any length to discredit
> a person who brings up Linux's faults.
>
> ...and that in and of itself shows what a totally sicko bunch
> of people these Linux zealots are.
>
> You are a major threat to them, just like I, Erik and others are and they
> will go to great lengths to discredit us because that is the game they
> play.
>
> Mark Kent is even allowing his mother to die (as a metaphor) just so that
> he can argue against you.
>
> It's really getting sick in here.

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't reading you wrong.

--
Windows -- the OS that likes to hear itself talk.
Flatfish -- the OP that likes to hear itself talk.

Jesse F. Hughes · External Since: Nov 04, 2004 Posts: 301

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

> I wonder what they think of the British authorities driving Alan
> Turing to suicide because of his homosexuality? Engaging in
> homosexual behavior was against the law at the time, so Turing was a
> law breaker.

Er, so? Did anyone in this thread suggest that it's okay to drive
lawbreakers to suicide?

This is a terrible non-sequitur, Tim. You're usually better than
this.

Breaking the law is always bad does not entail encouraging lawbreakers
to die is good.

--
"[ISPs] have to comply with privacy regulation which, ironically,
require you to keep track of who your users are so you can send
them annual notices telling them that you are not storing personal
information about them." -- Ed Felten explains new FCC policy.

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

>
> - 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.
>
Now you know how we feel when the wintrolls use the same tactic. It's
ugly no matter who is doing it.

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

In article <87lknnxdxx.fsf.DeleteThis@phiwumbda.org>,
"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse.DeleteThis@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > I wonder what they think of the British authorities driving Alan
> > Turing to suicide because of his homosexuality? Engaging in
> > homosexual behavior was against the law at the time, so Turing was a
> > law breaker.
>
> Er, so? Did anyone in this thread suggest that it's okay to drive
> lawbreakers to suicide?
>
> This is a terrible non-sequitur, Tim. You're usually better than
> this.
>
> Breaking the law is always bad does not entail encouraging lawbreakers
> to die is good.

Yeah, you're right. That didn't come out well.

--
--Tim Smith