On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 02:01:45 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Kier ] on Sunday 28 January 2007 01:12 \__
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:16:24 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Saturday 27 January 2007 23:22 \__
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:11:24 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recommend posting according to the charter. Concerns of a poster's
>>>>> external activity beyond c.o.l.advocacy are not "discussion of the
>>>>> benefits of Linux compared to other operating operating systems", does
>>>>> not interest the Linux advocates and is best left for other forums.
>>>>
>>>> Is it all right for Linux advocates to lie? I don't think so. And if it's
>>>> done it COLA, it is most definitely relevant.
>>>
>>> See my reply (posted earlier). As I said once before (an elaborate post),
>>> I don't lie. If incorrect information is posted it's either because the
>>> source
>>
>> I'd very much like to believe you don't lie. Maybe you don't. But some of
>> the stuff you post isn't true. It's easy to get carried away by
>> enthusiasm. But what you post here may well remain available for years to
>> come, in some archive. You're still very young. Better that you make
>> certain what you're remembered for is your honest advocacy, not some
>> foolishness.
>
>
> Lying is for people without morals. Rest assured that I only post what I
> believe to be true at the time of reading. I go through many hundreds of
> posts/articles a day and I do try to get details about the site/author in
> order to gain trust. PJ does this as well because people constantly try to
> question her credibility. It's only natural for trolls to nitpick, looking
> at dozens of posts and spot inaccuracies (which are often not mine, they are
> embedded in somebody else's brand-new post).
Maybe you should just cut down on your volume of posting, then. Leave out
the MS stuff and you'll save yourself a lot of work. Concentrate on the
important Linux matters. There's plenty to talk about in the Linux world,
without dragging MS into it at every opportunity.
This meant as friendly advice, not an attack. Your heart's in the right
place, you just need to work on your methods. The more descriminate and
accurate you are in your posts, the less ammunition people willing to
attack you will have.
>
>
>>> was unreliable (I try to grab stories from the grapevine, before they hit
>>> the news) or because I misunderstood something, in which case the mistake
>>> is
>>
>> Yours. You are responsible for what you post. It's much better to check
>> everything, and be sure of it, than just shove it onto the group in the
>> hope that it's okay.
>
>
> I wrote the last paragraph before I even read this followup of yours. So yes,
> I do check things carefully. Sometimes, however, I'm in a hurry, so my
> checks are shallower. I still have other things to do at the Division, at my
> job, the gym, etc. so sometimes I just want to get past the feeds and do so
> in a hurry. It's either sloppy/fast reporting (as a risk to be taken), or
> nothing at all.
Sometimes, then, it should be nothing at all. Quality is definitely
preferable to quantity, IMO. It will also be much more effective.
Otherwise, you're just leaving yourself wide open to criticism.
>
>
>>> accidental. When an army of shills and a hudred nyms repeats the word
>>> "liar" it forms The Big Lie, which yes... it is a lie in its own right.
>>> Let them get to you and sooner or later you'll lose respect for honest
>>> folks, just as you lost your trust in Rex (yes, I do respect him).
>>
>> Look again. All *I* respect about Rex is his honest representation of his
>> sexual history. But as far as Linux goes, he's out to lunch. And there
>> aren't really all that many nyms and shills in COLA.
>
> Yes, call it figure of speech. :-)
>
> Some nyms have 'retired' because Gary could no longer find the sticky which
> holds the username/password for {yet another}^tm Web account.
Maybe. But not all of them are or were the flat one.
--
Kier
|
|
