FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

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

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

I hope he gets paid enough for this...

>
> P.S. Micro$oft is evil.
>

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
modesty, n.:
Being comfortable that others will discover your greatness.

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

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.

--
Kier

>
> P.S. Micro$oft is evil.

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

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.

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.

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

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:59:31 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <mdeku3-p43.ln1.TakeThisOut@dragon.myth>,
> Jim Richardson <warlock.TakeThisOut@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> So, having read the post, do you support FF's mangling of the URL and
>> then attributing the words to another?
>
> Editing things marked as quoted (other than standard edits, like
> replacing things with [...] and marking things with (sic)) is always
> wrong. He should not have done that.
>
> Mangling the URL in the quotes is wrong. He should not have done that.
>
> If the URL had not been quoted, so the mangling was just to prevent
> people from going to the references site, rather than to make it look
> like someone else mangled it, then I think it is annoying, whether he
> does it, or whether Roy S does it.

I generally don't do it, I was only trying to prove a point and give
Roiboi a little of his own medicine.

IOW subject lines that have nothing to do with the body of the message.

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

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:55:30 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> I hope he gets paid enough for this...

You'll have to ask Roy Schestowhich about that.
He's the one laughing all the way to the bank while you lackeys worship
him.

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

"chrisv" <chrisv DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:aafgh21gmn0fq6ai7c31r8teeqk2c05hti@4ax.com...
> 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.

Okay. Well, as I've said, I think Microsoft bashing is off topic, and I
cited the part of the FAQ (written by Roy Culley, Mark Kent and others)
*stating* that Microsoft bashing is off topic. If those people wish to
ignore the FAQ, I guess there isn't much I can do to force them to abide by
it.

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. I know the FAQ
states that Windows *ADVOCATING* is offtopic, but not Windows *APOLOGIZING*.
In this context, "apologizing" doesn't mean to make an admission of error,
but to speak in defense of something. I wouldn't be defending Microsoft in
this newsgroup if nobody attacked them in the first place.

So as soon as the Microsoft bashing stops, the Microsoft apologies will
stop. This isn't a deal or a negotation: I'm not claiming that the Microsoft
apologists will honour an agreement of "ceasefire" or anything; rather, it's
because they'll have no choice but to stop, since there won't be anything to
defend Microsoft against.

- Oliver

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

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:14:11 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

> Few of Roy's cronies appear to have any real
> industry experience at all. And if thats all there to the so called
> "advocacy" component of this NG then it might as well close
> down. Fortunately, however, there are some of us who like Linux for what
> it is and not what it can be : and that support will help Linux get to
> where its trying to go. Mindless ass kissing and hero worship never
> works : its reminiscent of the Emperors New Clothes.

That's exactly what it is, only the little kid hasn't crawled out of the
crowd and yelled "but he has no clothes on!"
yet....

At some point it will happen though and of course when it does the COLA
gang, what's left of them, will justify it and re-write history to turn it
into a good thing for COLA.

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:07:59 -0400,
flatfish+++ <flatfish.TakeThisOut@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:59:31 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <mdeku3-p43.ln1.TakeThisOut@dragon.myth>,
>> Jim Richardson <warlock.TakeThisOut@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>> So, having read the post, do you support FF's mangling of the URL and
>>> then attributing the words to another?
>>
>> Editing things marked as quoted (other than standard edits, like
>> replacing things with [...] and marking things with (sic)) is always
>> wrong. He should not have done that.
>>
>> Mangling the URL in the quotes is wrong. He should not have done that.
>>
>> If the URL had not been quoted, so the mangling was just to prevent
>> people from going to the references site, rather than to make it look
>> like someone else mangled it, then I think it is annoying, whether he
>> does it, or whether Roy S does it.
>
>
> I generally don't do it, I was only trying to prove a point and give
> Roiboi a little of his own medicine.
>
> IOW subject lines that have nothing to do with the body of the message.
>

IOW, you lied, mangled someone elses words, and pretended they said
them.

Figures.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFGfTEd90bcYOAWPYRAuGyAJ9dH7j+06oR0A+raXnkI5mwL/BXwwCeI7Uv
Q58JG+RBghM6FBISRzk3APQ=
=w5F/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.

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

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.

>
> 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.

--
Kier

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

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

> 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.

They're a necessary evil.

Muuuuah-ha-ha-ha!

--
"Take her in for regrooving." -- The Firesign Theatre

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

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

>>
>> 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
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course

Mathew P. · External Since: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 277

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2006-09-26, flatfish+++ spake thusly:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:55:30 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>
>> I hope he gets paid enough for this...
>
> You'll have to ask Roy Schestowhich about that.
> He's the one laughing all the way to the bank while you lackeys worship
> him.

Flatfish, are you Bipolar? Not that it's a character defect, or anything
to be ashamed of. I made a joke about meds earlier, but really, you seem
to be cycling. It's nothing to be taken lightly. If you haven't seen a doctor,
and you are experiencing severe mood swings and/or racing thoughts, it's
best to get checked out.

I just ask because you were posting some pretty interesting stuff for
quite some time, and now you have just kind of shifted in the opposite
direction. Now you seem fixed on being nothing more than obnoxious again.

I really am not making fun of you. I have wondered from time to time about
this.

Best regards,

Mathew

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFGjSElkJ5K/IU2ToRAmeIAKCsDP8gMf0gYQZK7ciyUTecgFuAPwCg0ytE
B6xW7DO8uJ25CPkn3p3Bk2U=
=ZMAc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
"Always do the right thing: It will delight / Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies
some and astound the rest" - Mark Twain / Psychotronic protection, low prices

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Mathew P. <Mathew.RemoveThis@COLA.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2006-09-26, flatfish+++ spake thusly:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:55:30 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I hope he gets paid enough for this...
>>
>> You'll have to ask Roy Schestowhich about that.
>> He's the one laughing all the way to the bank while you lackeys worship
>> him.
>
> Flatfish, are you Bipolar? Not that it's a character defect, or anything
> to be ashamed of. I made a joke about meds earlier, but really, you seem
> to be cycling. It's nothing to be taken lightly. If you haven't seen a doctor,
> and you are experiencing severe mood swings and/or racing thoughts, it's
> best to get checked out.
>
> I just ask because you were posting some pretty interesting stuff for
> quite some time, and now you have just kind of shifted in the opposite
> direction. Now you seem fixed on being nothing more than obnoxious again.
>
> I really am not making fun of you. I have wondered from time to time about
> this.
>

I've mentioned in the past my own feeling that I think he's genuinely
ill in some way. His behaviour is far from any kind of normality, and
the work he puts in to chasing people, nym shifting, having
conversations with self, attention seeking and so on strongly suggest to
me that he really could use some help.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
To be considered successful, a woman must be much better at her job
than a man would have to be. Fortunately, this isn't difficult.

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

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.

>
>>>
>>> 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.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
To be considered successful, a woman must be much better at her job
than a man would have to be. Fortunately, this isn't difficult.

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

Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> writes:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Mathew P. <Mathew.RemoveThis@COLA.com> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2006-09-26, flatfish+++ spake thusly:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 05:55:30 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I hope he gets paid enough for this...
>>>
>>> You'll have to ask Roy Schestowhich about that.
>>> He's the one laughing all the way to the bank while you lackeys worship
>>> him.
>>
>> Flatfish, are you Bipolar? Not that it's a character defect, or anything
>> to be ashamed of. I made a joke about meds earlier, but really, you seem
>> to be cycling. It's nothing to be taken lightly. If you haven't seen a doctor,
>> and you are experiencing severe mood swings and/or racing thoughts, it's
>> best to get checked out.
>>
>> I just ask because you were posting some pretty interesting stuff for
>> quite some time, and now you have just kind of shifted in the opposite
>> direction. Now you seem fixed on being nothing more than obnoxious again.
>>
>> I really am not making fun of you. I have wondered from time to time about
>> this.
>>
>
> I've mentioned in the past my own feeling that I think he's genuinely
> ill in some way. His behaviour is far from any kind of normality, and
> the work he puts in to chasing people, nym shifting, having
> conversations with self, attention seeking and so on strongly suggest to
> me that he really could use some help.

Wow. Finally Mark Kent posted something positive about Linux. Oh. Hang
on. Sorry, it was just another "me too" post making unsubstantiated
claims about trolls yet again.

Yawn.

William Poaster · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 125

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.

I have permanently binned him. He not only appeared to encourage the
trolls, but at times seemed positively naive.

>>>> 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
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".

--
Never argue with a wintroll, they drag
you *down* to their level of stupidity,
then beat you with their experience.
-- Paraphrased, with acknowledgement to Dilbert --

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

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:efc9fi$ca9$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> Well, MS *is* evil. Its business practices, combined with their wealth,
> makes them so

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Why would wealth be a factor in
whether someone/something is evil or not?

"Well, he's a really nice guy, wouldn't harm an insect, but he's just
too damn rich, so he's evil."?

- Oliver

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

>"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
>news:efc9fi$ca9$00$1@news.t-online.com...
>>
>> Well, MS *is* evil. Its business practices, combined with their wealth,
>> makes them so
>
> This statement doesn't make sense to me. Why would wealth be a factor in
>whether someone/something is evil or not?
>
> "Well, he's a really nice guy, wouldn't harm an insect, but he's just
>too damn rich, so he's evil."?

It's how the money was obtained. To put it mildly, you don't go from
almost nothing to being world's richest person in the space of a few
years by being a "really nice guy".

William Poaster · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 125

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:22:52 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> Mathew P. <Mathew.RemoveThis@COLA.com> espoused:

>> Flatfish, are you Bipolar? Not that it's a character defect, or anything
>> to be ashamed of. I made a joke about meds earlier, but really, you seem
>> to be cycling. It's nothing to be taken lightly. If you haven't seen a doctor,
>> and you are experiencing severe mood swings and/or racing thoughts, it's
>> best to get checked out.
>>
>> I just ask because you were posting some pretty interesting stuff for
>> quite some time, and now you have just kind of shifted in the opposite
>> direction. Now you seem fixed on being nothing more than obnoxious again.
>>
>> I really am not making fun of you. I have wondered from time to time about
>> this.
>>
>
> I've mentioned in the past my own feeling that I think he's genuinely
> ill in some way. His behaviour is far from any kind of normality, and
> the work he puts in to chasing people, nym shifting, having
> conversations with self, attention seeking and so on strongly suggest to
> me that he really could use some help.

I would agree. As for being bipolar, it's interesting that it can
triggered (or exacerbated) by severe mental stress and high doses or
chronic use of drugs such as amphetamines, LSD, PCP, cocaine or
scopolamine. It makes you wonder if he *is* on something or, as suggested,
he's off his meds...

There is also this:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect16.htm
See under "List of Common Psychopathic Traits"

--
Never argue with a wintroll, they drag
you *down* to their level of stupidity,
then beat you with their experience.
-- Paraphrased, with acknowledgement to Dilbert --

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

"William Poaster" <wp.TakeThisOut@suseoss101.eu> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.09.27.14.24.52.79211@suseoss101.eu...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:28:14 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> 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.

There's a lot of "appeal to emotion" here. If you're going to accuse
Microsoft of something, I wish you'd be more explicit about what it is
you're accusing them of. For example, someone died (or became ill) because
Windows crashed. Are you suggesting Microsoft intentionally made Windows
buggy specifically in an attempt to assassinate that guy? There's a saying
"Never attribute to malice, what could be explained by incompetence".

I'm not saying you're wrong or lying or anything; I'm just saying your
arguments would be a lot more powerful if you didn't assume that your
audience already knew what you were talking about. I don't think it's
effective, for example, to make vague, obscure references to things
Microsoft did in the past, and when someone doesn't know what you're
referring to, to call them naive.

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).
"Altering the course of justice in the US" in itself doesn't sound that bad
to me. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to alter in the US's course of
justice too (get rid of the silly DMCA thing, for example). That's what I
mean when I say be more explicit.

>> I don't
>> really know how you'd define evil, myself.

(This isn't addressed specifically to Mark:) Right, well until we DO
have an agreed upon definition for "evil", it's kind of pointless to argue
about whether Microsoft is evil or not.

> Nor do I. They're only out for *one* thing, & that's *MicroSoft*. The rest
> 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".

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.
That's the winning strategy, after all. EVERY corporation cares only for
themselves (or more specifically, their shareholders), and the world can go
to hell, and they won't care. How can they care? They're not a sentient
being. They don't experience emotions. They're corporations.

- Oliver