On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:14:37 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:24:46 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > tha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> Larry Qualig <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In retaliation to trolls who discredit Novell.
>> >> >
>> >> > So your posts are now "retaliation" ??? As Thad wrote in another
>> >> > thread:
>> >> >
>> >> > <quote>
>> >> > Anyone who becomes that wound up over crap going on in usenet
>> >> > seriously needs to turn the computer off and re-engage with the
>> >> > real world.
>> >> > </quote>
>> >>
>> >> Well, in fairness to Roy, his 'retaliation' could better be classified
>> >> as a 'response' or 'counter-argument'.
>> >
>> > Most normal people would classify it as a response or counter-argument.
>> > I think the trouble with Roy is that in his mind he does view this as a
>> > "retaliation."
>>
>> Perhaps he takes things more personally than he should. So some people are
>> like that. None of us here are perfect.
>
> There are billions of people on this planet and not one of them is
> perfect. Seeking perfection isn't the issue I was raising. The issue I
> raised is how he is so serious about his posts that he (by his own
> admission) considers this thread to be some sort of "retaliation.
There have been a number of personal attacks made on him, so maybe he has
the right to feel a bit sensitive to criticism. Using the word
'retaliation' is hardly enough reason to assume he has some sort of
problem.
>
>> >
>> >> If he was tracking these
>> >> people down and leaving dead fish in their mailbox... then I would
>> >> worry about him. ;)
>> >
>> > Look at what's going on now, connect the dots and extrapolate the
>> > future. Perhaps one day he will be doing this sort of thing.
>>
>> And perhaps he won't. What Roy is doing is far less obsessive and
>> offensive than the years and years flatfisgh has spent in trolling COLA,
>> and some of the vile things he's said about posters here.
>
> I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but if someone else behaves
> in offensive behavior then perhaps Roy should "take the high road", try
> and set an example and not drop to that level. Posting lies and
> distortions of the truth isn't excusable because someobody else
> did/does it.
Maybe not, but where is your criticism of flatfish, who is IMO far more
obsessed with attacking Roy? Perhaps Roy has decided to beat the trolls at
their own game. I don't know. Maybe you should try asking him?
>
>> > Today he's making several *thousand* posts each month to this newsgroup
>> > during all hours of the day and night. Hey... free speech, I know but
>> > it certainly is a bit strange. This doesn't include the time and effort
>> > spent his own web-site.
>>
>> You think this is strange? Come on, man, there are far weirder pursuits
>> and much worse obsessions in this world. So he posts a lot to Usenet and
>> keeps up a website. Big deal.
>
> Of course there are weirder pursuits and worse obsessions in this
> world. In theory everyone and anyone with an obsession can claim "big
> deal... there's worse than that" - except for the one person who is the
> weirdest and strangest. But just because there is some guy out there
> with a bunch of heads in his freezer doesn't mean that there are other
> people out there who act strangely. (Hell... I also have plenty of
> quirks. But minor quirks are not the same as being overly obsessed with
> something.)
First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
>
>> > Today he's degenerated to the point where he's thinking and posting
>> > things like "Microsoft has degraded to the point where it's akin to a
>> > 80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " I'm
>> > sure posts like that will surely 'impress' any potential employers who
>> > may read it.
>>
>> Most likely not, and the words are ill-chosen, but scarcely worse
>> than much of what is written of Linux and Linux advocates at times.
>
> I'll go back to the point I made earlier. Because some people decide to
> be vile and disgusting this somehow gives Roy carte blanche to do the
> same? Wouldn't this basically mean that he's (very close to) just as
> disgusting as those people that you're referring to? After all, what he
> said is only "scarcely worse" than what they said?
>
> (PS - I know that's not what you meant. But exactly what is the
> difference between lies and vile statements made against Linux vs.
> equally distasteful statements made against Microsoft? There isn't a
> difference and I don't see how anyone can justify that somehow one is
> acceptable but the other isn't.)
While I couldn't give a monkey's about the hurt feelings of a monopolistic
company like MS, I don't believe that untrue or distasteful statements
against it are a good thing, nor that lying about it does much good.
However, if you actually look at what people say here, nine tenths of it
is really opinion and not 'fact', even when stated as fact. The varying
levels of knowledge and experience here make it impossible, IMO, to
really, truly 'prove' anything unless absolutely verified. And even then,
half of the people reading will probably not accept it.
We're all a bit entrenched in our beliefs here, IMO, even those of us who
try to be open-minded. That inevitably leads to some stretching of the
truth at times. Unless they're superhuman, advocates ion boths sides will
tend to exaggerate the virtues and suppress the deficiencies of their
chosen OS/religion/football team/fandom/whatever. And not always
consciously.
>
>
>> > At what point does it become excessive and unhealthy?? When he starts
>> > leaving dead fish in mailboxes or when he starts sending letter-bombs
>> > to Microsoft Offices? Or maybe we've already crossed that threshold?
>>
>> Please. Do you honestly believe this? All you're doing is giving obvious
>> credence to flatfish's obsessive dislike of Roy. By all means point out
>> flaws in Roy's arguments, but don't stoop to this type of nonsense.
>
> Re-read what I wrote. I didn't state this as a matter of fact. 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?
While you didn't state it as fact, you did seem to imply by what you said
that Roy might well be capable of doing such things as sending
letter-bombs to MS, merely because he dislikes MS and its business
practices.
If everyone posting a lot to Usenet without always checking his facts
properly was a nutter, the jails would be overflowing. Words and actions
are not the same thing.
>
> What I did was ask a question. The question being "At what point does
> it (Roy's behaviour) become excessive and unhealthy? Different people
> will have different answers and I was asking for his (or yours now)
> idea of where "that line" is where it goes from a hobby/obsession to
> something unhealthy.
When it does actual damage.
>
> Where is that threshold? Is it okay to send threatening mail to
> Microsoft? How about threatening posts/blog entries? Dead fish in
> mailboxes? Note that I didn't say he ever did or will ever do this but
> I'm using these as examples of where that boundary between healthy and
> unhealthy behaviour lies.
Threatening mail? Not okay. Nor dead fish. But he's done none of this,
unless you can point to where.
>
> My own opinion... Making literally thousands of posts each month is a
> bit strange but in of itself, no big deal. Spending each day and
> weekend twisting every bit of news into some anti-MS propoganda is also
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.
Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
right.
And is he actually spending 'each day and weekend' producing anti-MS
propaganda, or knocking the stuff out here and there in a few idle minutes
from time to time, without thinking much about it? He's hardly some
criminal mastermind FUD-producing machine dedicated to the destruction of
Microsoft and its minions, far more likely an overzealous youngster with a
burning conviction that MS is a Bad ThingTM.
> a bit strange but all by itself, not a real big deal. When your mind
> warps to the point where the purpose of your posts is "retaliation" and
> you honestly believe 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" then that is definitely beyond what I would call a healthy
> state of mind.
Can you prove that it is not merely a rather tasteless turn of phrase?
Personally I think Roy, and a few others here go a little too far in their
condemnation of MS, but that doesn't mean I think they are some sort of
obsessed crazies because of it. MS is a public entity, not an individual.
Why not simply chanllenge his statement and ask him what he means by it?
>
> But combine all of the above and you're now looking at something that
> most people would consider unhealthy behaviour.
Isn't flatfish's behaviour unhealthy, then?
>
> Example -> Fred tells a small lie. It's no big deal. Fred then tells
> another lie or two. Again, no big deal. Each one of the individual lies
> might not be a big deal all by themselves but at some point you need to
> stop looking at each lie individually and and come to the conclusion
> that Fred is a liar.
Then refute what you consider to be Roy's 'lies', but don't go around
making attacks of this kind on him. Show us where he lies. But his biases,
whatever they may be, and the reasons for them, are his own affair.
Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
--
Kier
|
|
