Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 06:29:31 -0800, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it's time that you GROW UP and stop being a pathetic little liar
> > with your faux "News" titles. Absolutely nothing was converted to Linux
> > "En Masse" but you already knew that.
>
>
> From dictionary.com, "en masse": "in a mass; all together; as a group: The
> people rushed to the gate en masse."
Thanks, but I know how to use a dictionary and I know the meaning of
the term "en masse."
> From the article, those in attendance did, in fact, do the conversion en
> masse. That they are but a small portion of iPod users really doesn't
> apply; iPods were, in fact, converted en masse.
If used this way "en masse" has no meaning. "People were buying Lexmark
printers en masse at BestBuy" because last Sunday they sold 8 printers.
"People are installing Vista en masse" because two dozen guys installed
the OS. "People were crashing their cars en masse" because there were a
dozen accidents in Boston today. For the term 'en masse' to have any
practical meaning, it should refer to something being done "by all" or
"by the masses" and not mearly a few people during the course of a day
or weekend.
> However, that does bring up an interesting little point. You, in your
> usual style, fail to stop and consider what, if any, implications the
> event has, focusing on the trees instead of seeing if you're in the forest.
Oooh. Sounds interesting. I shall read on.
> Here's a question for you to cope with: how about showing us that this
> wasn't simply a low-key "trial" event to judge whether there was enough
> interest in doing it again, but on a larger scale. While you're at it,
> how about showing us how other places, other organizations, aren't going
> to see this event and duplicate it, on smaller or larger scales.
Not so much a question as much as a challenge but I get the point. I
can't show that this was not a trial event but you can't show that it
was one either. To play devil's advocate here... how about showing us
that this event wasn't a government sponsored covert operation to
collect the names of people who circumvent DRM.
The article addresses my "government operation" theory equally as much
as they address your "trial event" theory. Since neither is mentioned
and there is no reason to believe that either one is true.
> All you've got to spew is that one event was reported, not that there are
> no other events which weren't reported, or which might be coming up; you
> have nothing to say that just because something was tried on a small scale
> that this is as far as it will go. Hell, you can't even tell whether that
> 40 people was 1% or 100% of the "customer pool" marketed to, so you have
> no idea how popular such conversions actually are to people, what sort of
> impact the ability to do this can have in the long run.
Events that "might come up" Again - the article makes no mention of
what "might" happen, only of what did happen.
> Of course, you feel free to spew forth your conclusions as if they mean
> something and call people liars while demonstrating your fundamental
> cluelessness, but hey, that's okay, right?
So, can you show me where this event was NOT a government sponsored
conspiracy to collect names? The point is that you're making
conclusions based on what "might" happen someday and on what the
article did NOT say. My statements are based on what was actually
written and said in the article. Not on wild-ass assumptions of what
this "might" have really been.
|
|
