On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:02:49 +0900, 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.
All that does is prove how weak your argument is nymshifter.
> 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.
> 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.
|
|
