begin oe_protect.scr
Sinister Midget <phydeaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On 2006-10-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:30:53 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> On 2006-10-17, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:03:20 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft: Unethically Dominating the Security Industry
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>| If you were to look up "monopoly" in the dictionary, then you'd probably
>>>>>| find mentions of the beloved board game and Microsoft - at least that's
>>>>>| how some people think it should be. Internet Explorer and Windows
>>>>>| Media Player in particular have put them in hot water in the past,
>>>>>| and they?ve learned some hard lessons and been fined for unbelievably
>>>>>| large amounts of money because of how they've handled their software.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2367&Itemid=449
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yfdec9
>>>>
>>>> Ahh yes, I knew Roy couldn't help himself. This was addressed last friday,
>>>> but here's Roy continuing to post incorrect articles...
>>>
>>> Author: Brandon Watts
>>> Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2006
>>> Topic: Columns
>>>
>>> Gosh, Mister Weasel. If I didn't know better I'd think you were going
>>> out of your way to look an idiot. But I *do* know better. You can't
>>> help it because you *are* an idiot. No extra work required.
>>
>> What's your point? Last Friday Microsoft agreed to address the issue the
>> security companies have raised, just because some moron doesn't read the
>> news and keeps posting about a situation that is no longer true doesn't
>> mean Roy should keep posting this misinformation.
>
> My point is above. Unless they changed last Friday's date to "Tuesday,
> 17 October 2006", Roy was quoting a current article.
>
> Whether or not the article itself is accurate makes no difference in
> the context of posting links and snippets of information provided on
> those sites. If it was original information, Roy might be at fault.
>
> It's one thing to post quotes from articles (what Roy is doing). It's
> another altogether to research every word of every article (what you
> wish Roy would do to slow him down) to see if it's correct at that
> given moment.
>
> If it's incorrect, jump on osweekly. That's where his information
> originated.
>
> Furthermore, "agreed to address" isn't the same thing as "fixed". Did
> you know that? If not, maybe we can help. If so, there probably *is* no
> help.
>
Obviously there's nothing to which Erik will not stoop in order to stop
Roy's postings... now why would that be, I wonder? This is a linux
advocacy group... Microsoft's illegal monopoly abuse is a major barrier
to linux adoption... this abuse is preventing people from appreciating
the benefits of linux, this would seem to be on topic.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
consultant, n.:
Someone who knowns 101 ways to make love, but can't get a date.
|
|
