FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

Oliver Wrong wrote:

>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.

Do your own research, Wrong. We're not going to educate every
stinking troll who comes in here and demands proof of M$ dirty
dealings. It's out there on the Web, from DOJ findings on down.

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

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

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

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

and

"Money is power."

Stick those two axioms in your pipe and smoke 'em! <grin>

--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

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

"chrisv" <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:8vdlh25u3l1je2lh0jgsu51rip30drckbg@4ax.com...
> Oliver Wrong wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Do your own research, Wrong. We're not going to educate every
> stinking troll who comes in here and demands proof of M$ dirty
> dealings. It's out there on the Web, from DOJ findings on down.

It's not easy to find unless you know what you're looking for, though.
Googling for "Microsoft is evil" doesn't turn up evidence, but more vague
claims. And presumably if you ask *those* authors what they're talking
about, they'd just tell you to google again.

It's actually not even a question about research. It's a question of
phrasing your claim in concrete and explicit enough terms so that if I did
want to do the research, it'd be possible. For example, googling for "Some
guy got died or got ill because Windows crashed" doesn't turn up much. If he
gave the name of the person, the name of the hospital, or something similar,
it'd be a lot easier. Dropping "DOJ" as a keyword is a good start.

- Oliver

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

"chrisv" <chrisv DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:m5elh2d480hbva2nn0nnubc3pcbmd1l02r@4ax.com...
> 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".

Perhaps, but the converse is not nescessarily true. In other words, the
statement "being a really nice guy guarantees you won't become the world's
richest person in the space of a few years" is not true. In other words,
being rich is not sufficient evidence to guarantee you weren't a really nice
guy.

If the reason Microsoft is evil has to do with how they obtained the
money, then just say that: e.g. "Well, MS *is* evil. Its business practices,
combined with how they obtained the money, makes them so."

The problem with not saying what you actually mean, and then forcing the
reader to "guess at" what you meant, is that it leaves the writer with a
very sneaky way to confuse the debate.

A: [bla bla bla], therefore MS is evil.
B: The way you phrased it, what you said makes no sense at all.
A: Okay, well, adjust the phrasing until it does make sense, but keep the
conclusion the same. QED.

B is now in a very unfortunate position. Whenever he tries to guess what
A meant, and show that this interpretation doesn't yield the conclsuion "MS
is evil", A could just turn around and say "Nope, you misinterpreted me. If
you had guessed the REAL interpretation, you would see the conclusion is
inevitable."

If you think Microsoft is evil because of the way they acquired the
money, fine, say so, and then we can proceed to discuss how exactly they
acquired their money, and debate about whether that is illegal or not. But I
don't want to bother arguing about whether a certain method of acquiring
money is evil if it turns out nobody is claiming Microsoft's money
acquisition tactics are what makes it evil anyway.

Alternatively, we can accept that discussing whether or not Microsoft is
evil is off topic in this newsgroup, and drop the discussion altogether, and
move on to more important things, like advocating Linux. Wink

- Oliver

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

Oliver Wrong wrote:

>> 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".
>
>Perhaps, but the converse is not nescessarily true.

But in this case it was.

If you really care about the truth, you'll do some digging.

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

begin In <pan.2006.09.26.08.43.42.961364.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk>, on
09/26/2006
at 09:43 AM, Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> said:

>It doesn't help when you attack a fairly neutral and balanced poster,

Nor does it help to invent such an attack out of the whole cloth.
Wrong certainly does not qualify as fairly neutral and balanced.

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

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

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

begin In <0XaSg.35769$cz3.16794@edtnps82>, on 09/26/2006
at 02:37 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> said:

> Okay. Well, as I've said, I think Microsoft bashing is off topic,
>and I cited the part of the FAQ

K3wl. Do you know what a FAQ is? Do you know the difference between a
FAQ and a charter?

>If those people wish to ignore the FAQ, I guess there isn't much I
>can do to force them to abide by it.

Indeed, since it is totally irrelevant to what is on topic in this
news group.

> 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.

Hardly surprising, since it would be irrelevant. They haven't cited
anything in the East Village Other, either.

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

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

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

begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong.RemoveThis@castortech.com> said:

> For example, if you want to argue that Microsoft is evil, you
>should probably state something they did which was morally wrong, as
>opposed to something which was illegal (there's a subtle, but
>important difference).

Ripping off Stac Electronics was morally wrong. Using the money that
IBM paid them to devlope OS/2 code for NT was morally wrong.
Sabotaging DRDOS was morally wrong. The list goes on.

> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>straight they're going to break the law.

No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
*within* the law.

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

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

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

begin oe_protect.scr
William Poaster <wp.DeleteThis@suseoss101.eu> espoused:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:22:52 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Mathew P. <Mathew.DeleteThis@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...

Both are certainly possible. I've no idea how much time and effort Gary
has put into trolling cola over the years, but it's something huge, I'm
sure.

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

You can recognise a lot of the basic social disorders in trolls,
including the constant attention seeking, huge sense of self-importance,
willingness to be dishonest, and so on!

--
| 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.

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

"chrisv" <chrisv RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:97jlh2tq5hrl79ivboj7c200lor1frpupc@4ax.com...
> Oliver Wrong wrote:
>
>>> 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".
>>
>>Perhaps, but the converse is not nescessarily true.
>
> But in this case it was.

Whether it's true or not in this case, I'm saying your arguments don't
support your conclusion. I.e. it is not logically sound to argue that just
because being a nice guy doesn't guarantee one becoming rich logically
implies that being rich is evidence of not being a nice guy. I know poor
people who are not nice, and I know rich people who are very nice.

>
> If you really care about the truth, you'll do some digging.

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_gates
<quote>
In 1980 IBM approached Microsoft to make the BASIC interpreter for its
upcoming personal computer, the IBM PC. When IBM's representatives mentioned
that they needed an operating system, Bill Gates referred them to Digital
Research, makers made the widely used CP/M operating system that ran on a
related type of microprocessor.[21] When IBM's representatives did not reach
immediate agreement with DR, they went back to Gates to ask about
alternatives. Gates offered to provide a CP/M compatible operating system
himself; He licensed a CP/M-compatible OS called QDOS ("Quick and Dirty
Operating System") from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products,[22], had
it adapted for the PC, and IBM shipped this as PC-DOS.[23]

Later, after Compaq successfully cloned the IBM BIOS, the market saw a flood
of IBM PC clones.[24] Microsoft was quick to license DOS to other
manufacturers, calling it MS-DOS (for Microsoft Disk Operating System). By
marketing MS-DOS aggressively to manufacturers of IBM-PC clones, Microsoft
went from a small player to one of the major software vendors in the home
computer industry.
</quote>

So AFAICS, Microsoft got rich because it got a lucky deal with IBM, and
Bill Gates got rich because he founded Microsoft. Nothing evil there.

Perhaps you were referring to antitrust or monopoly related events? If
so, that happened *AFTER* Microsoft/Bill Gates became rich. In other words,
the speed with which they became rich has nothing to do with evilness.

But again, if that's the claim you're making, please state so
explicitly, instead of making me "guess" what your claim is.

- Oliver

chrisv · External Since: Nov 02, 2004 Posts: 1797

Oliver Wrong wrote:

>Whether it's true or not in this case,

Piss off, I'm done with you, Wintroll.

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

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

On 2006-09-27, Oliver Wong spake thusly:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann.RemoveThis@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?

It's not. In and of itself. Wealth often makes a "fertile" environment for evil
acts and evil hearts however. The reason? Wealth is synonymous with power,
and the truism "power corrupts" is often the case.

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

Powerful men can be ethical and just. Actions demonstrate the character of the
individual with greater conviction than words. I don't like microsoft products
mainly because they are poorly designed and cause grief to those who use them,
and those who must by neccesity utilize the output they create or provide. Unless
they are intentionally designed this way, that dosen't make thier creators
evil; it makes them incompetant.

However, if it ever was discovered beyond any doubt that these products
were intentionally designed this way, that would be evil. That remains
nothing more than an 'if' as of now (AFAIK). A demonstration of
evil actions.

The Windows Eula is an example of evil intentions. By seeking to control
the manner in which infomation may be disseminated and used, by forcing
the *purchaser* to agree to make thier computer the host of a
software computer control system that they *may not under any conditions own*
or even have knowledge of how it is *using thier own information system*
and _the personal data processed and stored by it_ , they display
thier evil intentions.

By seeking to control the *type* of data allowed in and/or processed by
the computer system and using the owners own system to enforce thier
agenda's in this area (DRM is the perfect example), their *actions* reveal
evil intentions and evil acts, in the same manner as the EULA.

These are just some examples of what can be observed of Microsofts
behaviors as a company, that are evil. And this has less to do with
wealth than it does the seeking of wealth without regard for what is
right and ethical. What is non-evil, as it were.

By the way, discussion of this topic is a good thing. But selective
manipulation of the conversation by quoting out of context and snipping
partial paragraphs is not. That is unethical behavior. I mention this
because I fully expect many people to disagree which is fine, not because
you have done this.

Best regards,

Mathew

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

iD8DBQFFGtoElkJ5K/IU2ToRAu53AJ9x1U/7P3Y55KZHs9SrK2Zhb88UMgCgl3BX
CaMcMz8zl/Vv660lFBQUV40=
=2/yk
-----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

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

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

On 2006-09-27, chrisv spake thusly:
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>>"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @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".

An inaccurate assumption. One can, in fact, go from "rags to riches" and
do it ethically. One can also do so, unethically. Which one is the case
is completely the result of the choices that the individual makes. It's all
about choices.

Regards,

Mathew

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

iD8DBQFFGtq7lkJ5K/IU2ToRAuR+AKDBtnVp6WpFF4FSVOfBIHdk+87NHACgiWJV
Rgk6gdfQtn7bx2vRsC/lvgc=
=mdZa
-----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

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

"Mathew P." <Mathew.DeleteThis@COLA.com> wrote in message
news:gSASg.10452$KK.2776@trnddc08...
>
> The Windows Eula is an example of evil intentions. By seeking to control
> the manner in which infomation may be disseminated and used, by forcing
> the *purchaser* to agree to make thier computer the host of a
> software computer control system that they *may not under any conditions
> own*
> or even have knowledge of how it is *using thier own information system*
> and _the personal data processed and stored by it_ , they display
> thier evil intentions.
>
> By seeking to control the *type* of data allowed in and/or processed by
> the computer system and using the owners own system to enforce thier
> agenda's in this area (DRM is the perfect example), their *actions* reveal
> evil intentions and evil acts, in the same manner as the EULA.
>
> These are just some examples of what can be observed of Microsofts
> behaviors as a company, that are evil. And this has less to do with
> wealth than it does the seeking of wealth without regard for what is
> right and ethical. What is non-evil, as it were.

You bring up good and hard to refute points. One thing I'd like to point
out is that by making the claim "Microsoft is evil", one is implying that
Microsoft is particularly evil; i.e. more so than other software companies
(such as Redhat or Google, etc.). However, I suspect that for Microsoft, as
it is for other companies, it's all about business, and they'll all just do
whatever it is that brings in the most profits. Google had the motto "Don't
do evil", and it sounded quite noble at the time, but as of late, it seems
that they too have succumbed to the temptation of considering all possible
actions (evil, or otherwise, illegal or otherwise, etc.) and choosing the
one with the highest utility.

EULAs which ask you to surrender all rights (e.g. by stating that they
are free to change the EULA at any time they wish, and that you are forced
to automatically agree to those changes) are quite common in software. In
this respect, I suggest that Microsoft is not particularly more evil than
any other software company. Perhaps the only reason few other software
companies have broken laws and bribed law makers is that those other
companies simply were not powerful or rich enough to do so, not because
their intents were any more pure.

- Oliver

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

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.

--
Kier

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

Oliver Wong wrote:

< snip >

> EULAs which ask you to surrender all rights (e.g. by stating that they
> are free to change the EULA at any time they wish, and that you are forced
> to automatically agree to those changes) are quite common in software.

They maybe common. But not in the OSS segment
And they are meaningless in several countries

> In
> this respect, I suggest that Microsoft is not particularly more evil than
> any other software company.

Maybe not, but that's not the point

> Perhaps the only reason few other software
> companies have broken laws and bribed law makers is that those other
> companies simply were not powerful or rich enough to do so, not because
> their intents were any more pure.
>

Which is totally moot. Since we don't know if those other companies would
have behaved euqally unethical like MS did. One can assume they would have.
And one can also, with equal probability, assume they would not have.

The point is: MS *did* behave that way, and we simply don't know if others
would have done same under comparable circumstances

So, yes, MS *is* exceptionally evil. And should be treated accordingly
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...

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

Kier wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:28:14 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.TakeThisOut@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.
>

Yup. Like Snot, for example
So nice a guy. So really nice to chatter with
And for everyone except Kier the worst troll seen in a long time
--
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.

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

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.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
When I woke up this morning, my girlfriend asked if I had slept well.
I said, "No, I made a few mistakes."
-- Steven Wright

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

begin oe_protect.scr
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org.invalid> espoused:
> begin In <GZwSg.34631$bf5.1718@edtnps90>, on 09/27/2006
> at 03:42 PM, "Oliver Wong" <owong RemoveThis @castortech.com> said:
>
>> For example, if you want to argue that Microsoft is evil, you
>>should probably state something they did which was morally wrong, as
>>opposed to something which was illegal (there's a subtle, but
>>important difference).
>
> Ripping off Stac Electronics was morally wrong. Using the money that
> IBM paid them to devlope OS/2 code for NT was morally wrong.
> Sabotaging DRDOS was morally wrong. The list goes on.
>
>> I think this is much closer to the central issue. It's not
>>whether Microsoft is evil or not. It's just that Microsoft has been
>>so successful as a capitalistic corporation. Every corporation has
>>a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profit. And if
>>breaking the law brings in more revenues than costs, then damn
>>straight they're going to break the law.
>
> No; their responsibility to their stockholders is to maximize revenue
> *within* the law.
>

That is absolutely incredible - Mr Wong is actually advocating /breaking
the law/ in order to make a profit. Presumbly he sees nothing wrong in
drugs cartels, prostitution pimping gangs, loan sharking,
theft/burglary/mugging, /so long as/ they're by a company with
shareholders!

That position is outrageous. Perhaps Kier might see a problem here?

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
When I woke up this morning, my girlfriend asked if I had slept well.
I said, "No, I made a few mistakes."
-- Steven Wright

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

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

On 2006-09-27, Oliver Wong spake thusly:
> "Mathew P." <Mathew.RemoveThis@COLA.com> wrote in message
> news:gSASg.10452$KK.2776@trnddc08...
>>
>> The Windows Eula is an example of evil intentions. By seeking to control
>> the manner in which infomation may be disseminated and used, by forcing
>> the *purchaser* to agree to make thier computer the host of a
>> software computer control system that they *may not under any conditions
>> own*
>> or even have knowledge of how it is *using thier own information system*
>> and _the personal data processed and stored by it_ , they display
>> thier evil intentions.
>>
>> By seeking to control the *type* of data allowed in and/or processed by
>> the computer system and using the owners own system to enforce thier
>> agenda's in this area (DRM is the perfect example), their *actions* reveal
>> evil intentions and evil acts, in the same manner as the EULA.
>>
>> These are just some examples of what can be observed of Microsofts
>> behaviors as a company, that are evil. And this has less to do with
>> wealth than it does the seeking of wealth without regard for what is
>> right and ethical. What is non-evil, as it were.
>
> You bring up good and hard to refute points.

Thank you. I gave your previous post considerable thought.

> One thing I'd like to point
> out is that by making the claim "Microsoft is evil", one is implying that
> Microsoft is particularly evil; i.e. more so than other software companies
> (such as Redhat or Google, etc.).

Sorry, I am going to be addressing things fairly often.

I agree that the singular, generalized statement, "microsoft is evil", is
a fairly simplistic view of the company and it's influence. As I said
in my previous post, actions are the true measure of character, and
as an extension, actions are the true measure of ethical non-evil
behaviour, and speak much louder than words. I feel fairly sure that the
statement, "microsoft is evil" is simply a statement reflecting those
business practices of microsoft that are blatantly unethical, and yes,
evil. Amoung these is a history of victimizing others; individuals,
business entities, and governments, in many, many different ways.

Microsoft is company made up of many parts and many thousands of
employees. Microsoft in and of itself, is not evil. Those that create
and steer it's unethical practices, are.

At least in this thread, there has been no claim that contrasts microsofts
misdeeds in a comparitive fasion, with those of other business entities.
It's really irrelevant anyway. Relative evil is a meaningless concept. Evil
is evil. There are no shades of grey. Whether or not microsoft is 'more evil'
than, say, google, is as I said, irrelevant. This is true of any kind of
company, and any individual or group. As I said previously, it's all about
the choices that are made. Animals have instinct and must act according to
them. We have the power of reasoning, and the responsibility of choice.

> However, I suspect that for Microsoft, as
> it is for other companies, it's all about business, and they'll all just do
> whatever it is that brings in the most profits. Google had the motto "Don't
> do evil"

Theory: Google was a startup. It now has suits.

> and it sounded quite noble at the time, but as of late, it seems
> that they too have succumbed to the temptation of considering all possible
> actions (evil, or otherwise, illegal or otherwise, etc.) and choosing the
> one with the highest utility.

Perhaps. I am not anywhere as familiar with the business practices and
philosophy of operation of Google as I am Microsoft.

> EULAs which ask you to surrender all rights (e.g. by stating that they
> are free to change the EULA at any time they wish, and that you are forced
> to automatically agree to those changes) are quite common in software. In
> this respect, I suggest that Microsoft is not particularly more evil than
> any other software company. Perhaps the only reason few other software
> companies have broken laws and bribed law makers is that those other
> companies simply were not powerful or rich enough to do so, not because
> their intents were any more pure.
>
> - Oliver

I must disagree. This is an illogical conclusion in my opinion. It does not
follow that just because it is easy to observe unethical and evil practices of
many businesses (ie. Enron), all businesses are equally unethical and evil
and simply lack the ability or opportunity to successfully follow through.

This is analagous to saying that every individual is amoral and restrained
from raping and pillaging only for lack of opportunity or a high probability
of recieving punishment. Clearly, this is not the case.

I find this conversation quite interesting. Thanks Smile

regards,

Mathew

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

iD8DBQFFG4jIlkJ5K/IU2ToRAixdAJ0cKPW0LtrvWHlQ/IcOmze6OvHNhgCg4Ra/
5Rwi+/VL4Au6eiu/JdTz4JA=
=dwmg
-----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