Kier wrote:
(Lots of snippage....)
> Using the word 'retaliation' is hardly enough reason
> to assume he has some sort of problem.
I prefer to look at the sum of the parts instead of trying to
rationalize each individual item.
> First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
This is Usenet.... hardly anything can be "proved" but one can still
apply common sense and come to a reasonable conclusion.
> > Roy did
> > make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
> > degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
> > his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
> > believes.
> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
> common or garden bullshit, which is shovelled by the ton on both
> sindes in this group on a daily basis?
So which is it? In another post you made an hour or so before this one
you excuse Roy twisting the truth as: (I'll quote you directly)
<quote>
Roy is perhaps overly-enthusiastic in making his negative
interpretations
of much of the MS news, but is he lying? That would depend on whether
or
not he really believes what he writes, and I think he most probably
does.
</quote>
But now when his posts become really bizzare you excuse it because you
don't really think he believes it: (I'll quote you directly again)
<quote>
Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
common or garden bullshit...
</quote>
You can't have it both ways. He either believes the tripe he posts or
he doesn't.
> Is that in fact what he does? Have you checked everything he's posted?
> Merely because you disagree with his interpretation of the items of news
> he's posted doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
When he intentionally modified "quotes" or intentionally modifies the
headlines of what is supposedly "News" then it's not a matter of
disagreeing with his interpretation. It's a matter of taking a factual
quote/news-story and intentionally changing it to falsely mislead
people as to what the quote/article really says.
No disagreement or "interpretation" is required. The quote and title of
the news story say one thing. Roy modifies/edits it to say something
completely different. In my book that makes him a liar. What would you
call this type of behaviour?
> Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
> right.
Again. His opinions are his own and I'll respect anyones opinions if
they are willing to back them reasonably. But I'm not talking about his
"opinions." I'm talking about the several instances where he
intentionally modifies a "quote" from an article or the "title" of a
news-story to something that was never written or said. This isn't his
opinion. This is lying.
> Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
> to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
That's fine, I'll gladly drop this discussion. Our opinions on some of
the points are different but that's fine. I respect your opinion and
understand what you're trying to say even if I don't happen to agree
with all of your points.
Regarding discussing this "behind his back" - this is clearly out in
the open and not behind Roy's back at all. Don't kid yourself... anyone
who spends this much time and effort on this newsgroup reads each and
every post made here.
Have yourself a good weekend.
- Larry
|
|
