begin oe_protect.scr
William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:20:14 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ William Poaster ] on Monday 22 January 2007 23:07 \__
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:13:32 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:50:55 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How Microsoft Lost a Customer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>> | While growing up I only used Microsoft products as I had no need to
>>>>>> | use anything else. When Windows XP first came out I purchased it
>>>>>> | within a week of its release date. At that point you could have
>>>>>> | even called me a Microsoft Fanboy as anything Microsoft did was
>>>>>> | absolutely correct there was no other way.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | [...]
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Today I use Linux, but still follow Microsoft because that is what
>>>>>> | the average person uses. For me to convert back to Windows it will
>>>>>> | take Microsoft about two years of staying on top of updates and
>>>>>> | having a secure operating system. Right now I want to believe in
>>>>>> | Microsoft, but their history speaks for them. It is hard to believe
>>>>>> | that they have changed until its proven with the test of time.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://zacgarrett.com/2006/12/17/How-Microsoft-Lost-a-Customer/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Zac could make this mental and technical transition, so can our
>>>>>> resident trolls.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt they (the trolls) could tie their own bootlaces (if they're
>>>>> allowed to have shoes with laces in the "home"). Before I filtered
>>>>> them, the trolls used to regularly post that they couldn't do this,
>>>>> couldn't do that, etc in linux (maybe they still do). I often wondered
>>>>> whether they could find their own arse with both hands, & did they
>>>>> know how incompetent & stupid they looked....or did they even care.
>>>>> Lord knows who would employ them, I *certainly* wouldn't have.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting observation on employability. We've just, finally, let go
>>>> our last au-pair. We've had several nannies, followed by several
>>>> au-pairs (when the kids were old enough not to need formally trained
>>>> carers). Our very last au-pair was by far the least capable character
>>>> we've had, I can only describe him as a mummy's boy. He was not really
>>>> able to take care of himself, let alone anyone else; he couldn't cook,
>>>> clean, was unreliable about personal hygeine, didn't understand basics
>>>> like at what temperature germs die, couldn't really drive (managed to
>>>> crash the car on first time out, into a wall!). He could, however,
>>>> manage to get onto a chat server, and would spend as much of his spare
>>>> time as he could on audio/video chat.
>>>>
>>>> We've had some fantastically good nannies and au-pairs, some of whom
>>>> we're still in touch with now, and some who I doubt are ever likely to
>>>> retain any gainful employment for any reasonable period. Perhaps these
>>>> are the kind of people who end up trolling usenet for a few groat?
>>>
>>> Could be! Your description above sounds like a profile of some of the
>>> wintrolls in here.
>>
>> Behind the scenes, I have been getting some E-mails from people who read
>> the newgroup. There is good evidence to suggest that quite a few of them
>> (not all) are being compensated for their endeavours.
>
> I mooted this way back, but people didn't believe it. As I recall, I
> pointed out that some of these trolls (DFS etc) are either being paid to
> look stupid, or really *are* stupid. They repeated the same old garbage
> time after time, even though it had been disproved. I see now that some
> posters are thinking that some of the trolls & apologists *are* being
> paid.
I've held the same view for many years. I'm convinced that some are
getting some reward for what they're doing - to manage to maintain the
posting rates they do without some reward, considering that most of
their material is off-topic and anti-charter, is just amazing. I cannot
see why anyone would be willing to do that without some kind of reward.
>
>> Erik is probably a 'veteran' because his work goes back to the OS/2
>> forums. We already have concrete proof that these had heavy-duty
>> astroturfing budgets behind them. it's all over the news and yet the
>> trolls shy away any time it's mentioned.
>
> Do they indeed...
>
Hehe - wonder why?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
SEMPER UBI SUB UBI!!!!
[ Always wear underwater ]
|
|
