"amicus_curious" <ACDC@xxxxxxx> writes:
> "B Gruff" <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4u2tbqF163bbaU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Saturday 09 December 2006 14:37 amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>>> Are you sure you've got the script right?
>>>> Shouldn't you be checking back with Redmond for the latest version?
>>>>
>>> That illustrates another curious thing. I am merely an observer of the
>>> scene
>>
>> No. Once more, you are wrong.
>> If you were "merely an observer", we would not be having this exchange.
>> You are an extremely verbose mouthpiece for Microsoft, who pushes the
>> Microsoft "party line" in this and many other forums.
>>
> No. I am a mere observer. Perhaps you could quarrel with the level
> interest implied by "mere", but that is all you can do.
>
>>> and a number of people here, typically based in the UK, seem to take
>>> offense at what I am seeing.
>>
>> Again, you are wrong.
>> Absolutely no offence is taken at what you see.
>> It is your commentary to which my comments were addressed.
>>
> Which is what I effectvely said when I said "take offense at what I am
> seeing". You dislike the concepts that I see and so object to my
> commentary. That is fine with me.
>
>>> They have suggested several times now that I
>>> am in the pay of Microsoft, the evidence being that I have a positive
>>> view
>>> of their products. Can you be so jaded as to believe that is the only
>>> explanation for that point of view?
>>
>> Jaded? Jaded? What IS your native tongue?
>>
> My use of the term is in the sense of being so apathetic and tired of the
> continual appearance of counter arguments that they are no longer examined.
> I mostly speak Southern, y'all.
>
>> I'd say that you had rather more than "a positive view of their products"
>> In fact, "amicus_curious" features in approx. 26,400 hits on Google over
>> several years, and all seem to be *very* pro-Microsoft, with some
>> wonderful
>> quotes of the party line.
>>
> Actually my interest and nom de plume stem from the 1996 and onward Federal
> District Court actions filed by the DOJATD. I was very curious as to how a
> business created by a single company out of nothing and so not formed by an
> aggregation of businesses in the conventional monopoly sense could be
> prosecuted under Sherman, et al, for their activities. Single entity
> businesses had always been a take it or leave it situation unless they
> affected the public health or were the product of a regulatory exclusive
> license. To me, the whole matter was a trumped up travesty of justice and
> an attempt to use the antitrust statutes to force consumers to pay more for
> products in the PC industry. I took some solace from the appeals court that
> basically ruled in Microsoft's favor and was apalled by the hordes of
> vultures that surround successes such as Microsoft in the hope of scoring an
> easy dinner due to some technicality. I was amazed by the din of the
> whining of the technologists who seemed to be terribly offended that Bill
> Gates and his flock could acquire so much wealth from merely operating a
> business that wasn't the cornerstone of technology and so profited by
> dealing in things invented by others. That seemed un-American to me and led
> me to discover the OSS "community" behind much of the whining.
>
>
>> Quoting a few from the *first* page:-
>>
>> - "As long as linux is being driven by a bunch of chumps trying to mimic
>> Windows and get by on the cheap, it will never be a serious contender"
>>
>> - "The OSS geeks don't seem to understand this, not having operated a
>> non-computer business themselves. But a company that has used VBA to
>> create
>> custom forms that interface to Excel, Word, Access, and SQL Server
>> for...."
>>
>> - "As partially noted, putting the kabosh on illegal copies of Windows for
>> upgrade might simply drive the market to try linux and that is just giving
>> the OSSers some free publicity. It is best to turn a blind eye on the
>> issue
>> as has been the case in the past. It is quite enough to roast the
>> undercover hardware makers who poach Windows for profit and have some
>> money
>> to attach via court order"
>>
>> .... and then you wonder why you, trolling a Linux group, are met with
>> some
>> animosity?
>
> I continue to expect that an adult response will produce some counter
> argument that made some sense. I look for that and, like Diogenes searching
> for the honest man, I do not find much to support the OSS mottos. Have you
> ever actually read the comments of many of the pro Linux posters here?
>
Please do not mistake the COLA gang to be pro Linux. They are Linux
zealots : there is a huge difference.
Posters like Mark Kent and Gregory Shearman are on record as saying they
simply don't care about other "thick" users, so long as it works for
them. The level of selfishness, in the light of companies beginning to
charge and make money which might filter back to the originating
programmers, that this display simply boggles the mind.
"I'm alright Jack"
|
|
