On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:57:33 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Kier ] on Wednesday 24 January 2007 17:15 \__
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:58:15 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> __/ [ Kier ] on Wednesday 24 January 2007 15:49 \__
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:25:40 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:32:36 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 24 January 2007 00:33 \__
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, VistaKing
>>>>>>> <BushIsATraitor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>> on Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:19:30 -0500
>>>>>>> <3yxth.2353$WL2.1713@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <schestowitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>>>>>> The next generation will run Linux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ya, Linux is always one generation away. It will be ready any day
>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>> Next month. Next year. Next never.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Linux = Shit Stick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is Vista ready?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ghost. Please don't feed him. You fed him a lot the last time he was
>>>>>> here (before the ushering for Vista become more necessary than ever)
>>>>>> and it makes plonking less than constructive, despite it destructive
>>>>>> nature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fear noted.......
>>>>
>>>> What 'fear'? Disgust, more like. Or do you enjoy reading Linux = Shit
>>>> Stick?
>>>
>>> He's a sick man. No need to feed him, either. I spoke to Mark on the phone
>>> this morning and it appears evident that Gary has been paid (directly or
>>> indirectly) for quite some time. Feeding him is just a way of justifying
>>> the need for his job at/for Microsoft.
>>
>> What proof does he have of that? I've never believed it, of flatfish or
>> even Erik. And most certainly not of Tim. We don't get paid, why should
>> they? Why shouldn't Erik believe what he says, when someone like Rex or 7,
>> who both post fairly obvious nonsense, beleive what *they* post?
>
> We have some disagreements here, but we can probably cope with this. What Rex
> says is largely true and accurate (with careful attention to details). The
Sorry, Roy, but that's just wrong. He's usually completely full of shit.
Sad, but true.
> trolls' personal assassination compaign has certainly led you to lose trust
> in him. The systematic and repetitive nitpicking proves to have been
> effective.
No,, I merely recognise that he's posting mostly tripe. I'm sorry if that
comes as a shock to you, but you should stop wearing rose-coloured
glasses. Not all Linux advocates are perfect or honest, and not all
Windows advocates are liars or trolls.
Rex can be a good advocate - for one thing, though his grasp of the facts
may be shaky, he is seldom if ever prone to sling insults. I just wish
he'd stop making things up.
>
> As for the former part, not all of them get paid. Some of them do. When I say
> "paid" I don't mean "get sent a cheque". But they are selling something.
What? If they aren't getting money, they're not getting paid.
> Some get "compensated" for their time. People other than myself have spotted
> marketeers who spend their time in Netscape and Digg as well. When people
> like Will Wheaton (now a colleague of mine) talk about stalkers and SEO
> marketeers that set up networks and relationships for profit, then that
> ought to have some credence, not just concrete proof. The Web becomes the
> new marketing ground and there are few (if any) limits. It's one of these
> "he did it, I just retaliated" routine of 5 year olds. Microsoft tells
> Jelliffe (?) that fanboys corrupt Open XML in blogs (or Wikis), so it takes
> that as a valid excuse to play hardball.
Given teh behaviour of some people on Wikipedia, I wouldn't totally
discount this. Some people, whatever they are advocating, are just stupid
and malicious.
Of course, there are always going to be some dirty tricks going on here
and there, but I doubt there is a huge campaign by MS to subvert COLA.
>
> Microsoft's involvement in Wikipedia (the most recent story) is just the tip
> of the iceberg. Also bear in mind that most people who have edited Wikipedia
> on their behalf offered no disclosure. This was not the first such incident;
> it was only the first one that got _reported_ (in Wikipedia, that is).
First off, is it true? Second, it can be done by *both* sides
'Our' side isn't lily-white, because like all communities, it is made up
of human beings. The 'opposition' isn't all bad hats, either
One thing I've learned in my forty-six years: nothing is black and white.
Everything is grey.
--
Kier
|
|
