__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Tuesday 22 August 2006 07:51 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Monday 21 August 2006 19:20 \__
>>
>>> Oliver Wong wrote:
>>>> <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:1156094732.975162.260120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > Dear Roy,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm posting here instead of below the recent impersonation, because I
>>>> > don't want to add to it.
>>>> [...]
>>>> >
>>>> > In cases like this I have noticed that not a single Windows advocate
>>>> > ever speaks up to condemn this kind of behavior.
>>>>
>>>> When I saw (the real) Roy's reply of "This isn't me" (paraphrased,
>>>> can't
>>>> recall the exact wording), I was considering replying with something
>>>> along the lines of "Don't worry, I doubt anyone would actually think
>>>> this was written by you, Roy." but decided it didn't add enough value to
>>>> the thread, and like you, I didn't want to add to it unless I really did
>>>> have something valuable to contribute.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, for the record, I'll state that I condem that
>>>> behaviour. I thought it'd be obvious that I wouldn't approve of it, but
>>>> I find a lot of things I thought would be obvious about my positions
>>>> turn out not to be so obvious on this newsgroup. So there, I've said it:
>>>> I don't approve.
>>>>
>>>> I'll go one step further, and tell you, Roy, to persevere.
>>>> Obviously,
>>>> someone out there doesn't like you or your viewpoints, but rather than
>>>> agreeing-to-disagree, or addressing your viewpoints, they decide to
>>>> anonymously attack your character. That's completely childish, and no
>>>> rational person would have their opinion of you swayed in anyway by
>>>> those attacks. Just ignore them. That they would resort to such tactics
>>>> shows their desperation and your success.
>>>
>>> Dear Oliver,
>>>
>>> I really, sincerely appreciate your decency. Sometimes I use the term
>>> "windows advocate" because it's a polite if somewhat inaccurate way of
>>> referring to some of the people who post here. I know you consider
>>> yourself an advocate of choice (the best OS for the purpose), and my
>>> impression of the posts of yours that I've seen is that you are indeed
>>> very balanced and fair.
>>
>> Yes, I concur. And Roy C's label assignment should probably be
>> revised/changed. I have always enjoyed discussions with Oliver. Mark feels
>> very differently about this, but I digress.
>
> Politeness is not (and should not be) related to on or off-topic
> posting. I would prefer it if everyone were polite, but they're not.
> Some polite people post on-topic, some post off-topic.
>
> I'm afraid that I find Mr Wong's logic, well, not logical, much of the
> time. An example of this would include the claim that (paraphrasing):
> Windows Vista is not just a service pack for NT5, because you have to
> /pay/ for it.
>
> At best, it is a circular (and thus pointless) argument, at worst, it
> shows a naivety and lack of comprehension of the business world well
> beyond the call of duty for any advocate of a lock-in model.
He later clarified and said it was sarcastic, at full or in part. But a
facial expression would have been appreciated. *smile*
|
|