Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> waterskidoo wrote:
>>>
>>>> You guys are cherry picking posts to suit your POV.
>>>
>>> We don't have to cherry pick, he does crap all the time.
>>>
>>> How about the time he got caught pirating images for his blog? And,
>>> when caught, refused to take it down, even after the artist himself
>>> asked him to do so.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/
>>> browse_thread/thread/e8c5347cf29e598a/cca760d8ed09213e
>>
>> Hmmm, looks like a Funkenbusch situational ethics scenario to me. See:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/07c0d83305c13caa
>>
>> [quote]
>>> Further, COLA is IMMORAL. I have one of your leaders, stealing art
>>> pictures, and posting on his own web site, without permission.
>>
>> You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You take a single example
>> of a personal blog with one image. Then you associate that one instance
>> with the C.O.L.A. posting community, as though that one individual
>> represents C.O.L.A.
>>
>> Rather than approach that one individual personally and express your
>> concerns, you feel that C.O.L.A. is the place to publicly bash a
>> personal blog. Then you make a sweeping generality about the entire
>> posting community being immoral over personal disagreements on one art
>> image on a personal blog.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> That was a reply to TAB, however, it sums up your accusations as well.
>
> So let me get this straight. You couldn't find anything to bitch at me
> about in that thread, so you had to take a response from someone else and
> apply it to mso that you could have something to argue about.
Except that it was you that started that debate.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/
e8c5347cf29e598a/83a7d0b04be7c8f4?lnk=gst&q=funkenbusch+roy+stealing&rnum=1#
or http://tinyurl.com/2f26b2
It was you that took a situation over a personal blog site and turned it
into a forum issue.
You made the assumption that Mr. Schestowitz violated law regarding
charitable giving as though it fell under American law instead of
British, which Mr. Schestowitz is British. You also made the assumption
that in his charitable reception Mr. Schestowitz had a major revenue
generating site at 3 average hits per day.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4e5414cae69fbc6d
From: High Plains Thumper <h...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006
[quote]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> 4) He is collecting revenue via advertising through the use
>>> of the image.
>> At the top of
>> http://www.schestowitz.com/
>> it states when mouse is hovered over "Non-Profit Site" text at
>> the top, "Non-Profit Site: Revenue donated to charity".
> Bull. He can say that all day long. He doesn't mention the charities
> he donates to. Given how he likes to toot his horn in so many other
> ways, that seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
Does he have to? It sounds like he got under your skin.
> If he's a non-profit, he's required to file information about his
> non-profit status. Otherwise, he's accepting money. Even if he does
> donate the money to charity, that doesn't make him a non-profit
> organization.
You are assuming. It says that the site is non-profit. Also he falls
under British law, not American.
>> That calculates to 3 hits per day. If he were making a profit,
>> at that rate he better not quit his other sources of revenue.
> Irrelevant.
Now, how practical is that attitude? I see a mountain out of a molehill
of a target.
[/quote]
The argument you presented was a "mountain out of a molehill.
http://www.sitecash.com/math.htm
Revenue generating at $0.03 US per click would have earned Mr. Schestowitz
$0.09 per day on the average or about $2.70 US per month. At $3 US per
month or $36 US (18 quid) per year, his charitable earning is a "mountain
out of a molehill".
> All that does is prove how weak your argument is nymshifter.
Interesting .... Let me get this straight. Individual behind flatfish
nyms number in the hundreds, linux-sux@xxxxxxxxx has quite a few, Hadron
nymshifts as Damien O'Leary and Hans Schneider. You said nothing about
those and now my limited usage is sin? That is a "mountain out of a
molehill".
>> You seem to have a pension for taking a singular example of an incident
>> and puffing it up into a major crisis. This holds true of my use of two
>> alternate nyms to my real name.
>
> Ok, so you finally admit it. Now you're trying to pretend it's no big
> deal. You weren't just using 'alternate names', you were pretending to be
> different people. That's a cardinal sin in any newsgroup.
>
>> You still have not answered the question to:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f5791387d34096e5
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/yvj4js
>>
>> [quote]
>> Although this green feature has been available on PC's for a while, then
>> why has not Microsoft supported Wake-on-LAN with their SMS 2003?
>> Wake-on-LAN has been around for a while. [/quote]
>>
>> Green PC's is a function that has been around for a while. There is
>> potential to save considerably in reducing KWH consumption and
>> associated green house gases that are emitted by fosil power plants,
>> producing power to supply those PC's.
>
> I fail to understand why you expect me to know the answer to that
> question. I don't work for Microsoft, nor am I privy to their reasons for
> (or for not) supporting any given technology. So why are you asking me?
>
> Oh, right, you have to make up arguments to prove your superiority.
Superiority? You seem to readily defend every jot and tiddle of
Microsoft, but you seem unable to provide a response to a simple server
question? That is a "mountain out of a molehill".
>> provides an indicting reflection of your actions; not just you but what
>> Hadron and Timmy have been been doing on this newsgroup.
>
> Hardly. I don't excuse bad behavior because there's also good behavior.
--
HPT
Riding since 1979. Current stable:
1987 Suzuki LS650 Savage
1971 Honda CB100
|
|
