Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ cc ] on Tuesday 19 December 2006 11:23 \__
>
> >
> > Mark Kent wrote:
> >> begin oe_protect.scr
> >> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> >> > flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:36:01 -0800, cc wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mark Kent wrote:
> >> >>>> In today's digest, we have:
> >> >>>> * PS3 Linux, nonstarter
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You forgot to attach my new article. My millions of fans are
> >> >>> disappointed.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "The digest is created from my leafnode news spool, which is
> >> >> pre-filtered, so some poster's articles might not appear."
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark Kent, like Roy Culley and other Linux maniacs is trying to
> >> >> re-write history.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > But dont you love the way that the nutsacks are more interested in
> >> > stroking each other up about HOW they get their news, rather than what
> >> > news they get? For some reason the Roy'z Boyz are bigging up Leafnode
> >> > now. Some of us have been using it for ages.
> >>
> >> Your homosexual fantasies aside, I also edit the digest before it goes
> >> out. Articles which are clearly anti-charter are removed, unless
> >> there's a very good justification their retention.
> >
> > My apologies Mark, didn't read the disclaimer at the top. It's nice to
> > know everything is Big Brotheresque around here. Censorship and
> > whatnot. "Linux is perfect, and has always been perfect"(sorry been too
> > long since I read the book, can't remember the quote.)
>
> CC,
>
> There's a difference between preaching /in favour/ of Linux in a Linux
> advocacy group and preaching /against it/. There are scenarios to look at:
>
> 1. Pro-Windows site/forum gets pro-Windows feedback/content
> 2. Pro-Windows site/forum gets pro-Linux feedback/content
> 3. Pro-Windows site/forum gets anti-Windows feedback/content
> 4. Pro-Windows site/forum gets anti-Linux feedback/content
> 5. Pro-Linux site/forum gets pro-Windows feedback/content
> 6. Pro-Linux site/forum gets pro-Linux feedback/content
> 7. Pro-Linux site/forum gets anti-Windows feedback/content
> 8. Pro-Linux site/forum gets anti-Linux feedback/content
>
> Cases (3) and (8) are classified as "trolling". Cases (2) and (5) are
> classified as "arguments". (1) and (6) are evangelism, while (4) and (7) are
> means of fighting trolls, once/if they emerge. Sites such as LinuxToday can
> include criticism of Linux, for example, because they do not attract the
> types of 'creatures' that c.o.l.a. must tolerate. In a forum such as this,
> weaknesses of Linux ought not to be shown and weaknesses of Windows can be
> used to deter and drive away those who do /NOT/ belong here.
>
Oh I disagree 100%. Weaknesses of Linux have to be shown, otherwise how
will it improve? How many disappointed newbies will there be if they
don't understand some of the limitations? I don't think the purpose of
this group is to show only the sunny side of Linux, and the dark side
of Windows. But there have been many arguments about what the purpose
of this group is exactly, and I don't want to get into that again. So
we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
