__/ [ 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.
|
|
