____/ Mark Kent on Friday 24 August 2007 17:59 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ waterskidoo on Tuesday 21 August 2007 02:57 : \____
>>
>>> On 2007-08-20, [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rick spake thusly:
>>>>
>>>>> "Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small
>>>>> percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of
>>>>> online spending,"
>>>>>
>>>>> What demographics show Firefox users "are even smaller in terms of online
>>>>> spending,"?
>>>>
>>>> Why do I get the feeling that the author is desperately trying to not
>>>> use the words "cheapskate" and "commie"?
>>>
>>> Paranoia.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The style of that piece seems uncannily familiar somehow. It may well
>>>> have been written by our very own DooFuS.
>>>
>>> More paranoia.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If, as I suspect, this site was anonymously commissioned by one or more
>>>> advertising companies, then the style of that piece gives quite an
>>>> insight into the debase mindset of such people, and pretty much confirms
>>>> what everyone already knew about the advertising industry; they're just
>>>> a bunch of reprehensible thugs.
>>>
>>> And even still more paranoia.
>>>
>>> Do you feel someone is always watching you?
>>> Do you peer around corners before turning them?
>>> Do you call the phone company every time you hear clicks in the phone?
>>> Is that car following you?
>>> Is everyone out to get you?
>>> etc..
>>>
>>> I'll bet you do.
>>
>> As I wrote a couple of minutes ago (different thread), you are criticising
>> the wrong people. I can understand why you feed people who post anti-charter
>> meterial and come here to disrupt. They just haven't shown you evidence of
>> their malice (which was proven many time in the past).
>>
>> As for [H]omer, he is one of the posters here whose views best align with
>> mine. "Paranoia" and "tinfoil hat" are words which, just like "commie"
>> or "nerd", are used to discourage a behaviour that either exposes
>> exploitation (including the modern pyramid scheme) and a route to financial
>> bliss.
>>
>
> One of the standard techniques for undermining arguments is to refer to
> any criticism of the clearly orchestrated PR campaigns as "conspiracy
> theories" or "paranioa" or any number of other, similar, emotive terms.
> And yet, anyone who's ever been involved in _any_ decision making knows
> that every decision reached is based around some degree of consensus.
Excellent point. I have come to realise that all these 'paranoia' dismissal
arguments are grounds to plonking. It's /ad hominem/ in disguise and it can be
powerful. Consider words like 'commie'.
> People do work together, it's how the world works. Pointing out that
> people work together is not paranioa, it's just reality. Those people
> who claim that it's obsessional, or paranoic, are either only here to
> undermine, and to troll, or they're exceptionally naive, presumably
> believing that the world works entirely by accident, with nobody ever
> agreeing to anything.
A short while ago I posted a link to an article from Heise. The article said
that China has begun sending bloggers it does not like to mental institutes
rather than prison. How convenient, eh? S/he doesn't like the government. This
must be insanity....
> Look at it like this: free software is typically written by disparate
> groups of programmers across the planet; often they never meet, however,
> they *do* discuss their intentions, and reach agreement for what they're
> going to do. Often, they will take part in private email conversations,
> too, particularly if there are unusually controversial matters under
> debate. This is *normal behaviour*. It's not about "conspiracy", it's
> about normal discussions between groupings of people.
Well put. The conspiracy often involved those who have secret meetings
(Microsoft and the RIAA were caught having them) whereas OSS developers thrive
in transparency.
> So, what is the difference, exactly, between a normal discussion and a
> conspiracy? Well, not a lot; a conspiracy should have "evil intent".
> Well, since "evil" is not readily definable, it being a matter of
> viewpoint, then almost any discussion can be regarded as a conspiracy.
> Or, if you're more grown up than waterskidoo, it's just normal
> discussion, normal business practice, normal politics, and so on.
>
> I would suggest that you killfile her, she is clearly here to disrupt,
> and in particular, is working hard to drive wedges between the on-topic
> pro-charter posters. Don't encourage or help her any more, please.
Well, we'll see. As I said in the E-mail, I'm on wait-and-watch. There's
no 'smoking gun'.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Slashdot is standard-compliant... in Japan"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
