Mark Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:04:46 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >
> >> __/ [ cc ] on Monday 18 December 2006 13:41 \__
> >>
> >>
> >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >>>> __/ [ cc ] on Monday 18 December 2006 12:12 \__
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Roy Culley wrote:
> >>>> >> ngstats.pl version 1.21
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> This report covers 2654 articles received by this system to
> >>>> >> newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy [1]
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> > As Roy S. would say, "Thank you, Roy, for the biased statistics."
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/d15e2c554d331322?dmode=source&hl=en
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to have a lot of spare time. Many of my remarks are, needless
> >>>> to say, sarcastic/satirical.
> >>>
> >>> You telling me I have a lot of spare time is ironic. You make 20x more
> >>> posts than I do. I have a good memory, and a simple search found it in
> >>> about 2 minutes. So are these unbiased statistics then? The fact that he
> >>> doesn't give a word on how he measures his quality posters, plus
> >>> includes labels such as TROLL, IDIOT, and RACIST(which is terrible),
> >>> should clue you in on the answer to that question.
> >
> > The labels TROLL, IDIOT, and RACIST are good descriptions IMO & let a
> > newbie to the group know *exactly* who is what. If teh wintrolls,
> > mactrolls & shills don't like it, they can always leave. They wouldn't be
> > missed.
>
> Of course, if they respected the charter, and behaved as reasonable
> gentlemen (and ladies, on those rare occasions that females are not, in
> fact, Gary Stewart having a feminine moment), then they'd not be in the
> list at all.
>
> >
> >>> [snip everything else that has nothing to do with my comments]
> >>
> >> That incident happened yesterday, so it was fresh in my mind. I used it to
> >> argue a broader point.
> >
> > Which the OP apparently didn't like, hence the snip.
> >
>
> Didn't like it at all, did he? I thought it raised a very interesting
> point about how small computing shops have been doing business for a
> very long time.
About time Clueless Twin #2 chimed in. Sorry I snipped the irrelevant
story, here it is in it's entirety. You and William continue your
offtopic lovefest now.
"A lot of moms (and dads) fall prey to the ?Your computer is too old -
buy a
new one!? scam. First a little explanation as to how the scam develops:
1. Mom buys new computer
2. Computer comes with ?Free? AOL/NetZero/random ISP account, as
well as
loads of unwanted software
3. A month later, the ?free? antivirus? license has expired, so has
the
?free? firewall?s license
4. Mom uses computer for 6 months, so do an increasing number of
trojans,
spyware and adware
5. Mom finds computer too slow
6. A visit to the local electronics/computer store is planned
7. Computer ?diagnosed? at $60 per hour
8. Diagnosis: Computer too old, buy a new one, OR, we can fix it for
you
in 4 hours (and it will cost $240)
9. Mom buys new computer
10. Computers-at-home+=1
11. GOTO 1"
http://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2006/12/17/ubuntu-mom-loves-it/
You know, it's things like that which motivate me to come here and make
it
more apparent that Windows is utter rubbish and it's time to move on
(to
Linux). Which leads me back to the point of 'biased' statistics. The
stats
identify those who serve Microsoft in their never-ending
brainwash---that
which makes a mustard-chocolate cake look like a Grand Royale.
The Internet is the means for fighting and exposing/bashing/criticising
acquired 'studies' and owned 'media'. Even the NYT gave up yesterday
and
moved to social news/blogging. Bye-bye to MS brainwash. They can no
longer
buy time by buying astroturfers, forum posts, blog posts, and vaporware
promises. It's an endgame and they know it.
Let them try to compete with iPod, using some DRM-ridden brown Zune
Let them try to compete with PS2/3, which has sold over 100 million
unit.
Let them try to compete with Google, by deploying an army of 100,000
*LMAO*
Windows XP PC's.
Microsoft's so 90's (technology-wise, because it's curruption is more
akin to
Capone). It's time to step up. Microsoft is paralysed (good employees
are
fleeing), so it's too late for it to step up.
|
|
