On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:48:05 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ El Tux on Friday 22 February 2008 22:36 : \____
>
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:18:43 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:54:55 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <24587767.vkvgJOoX8X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Tim harlowmoneys is seen as part of the "anti-ODF gang". I'll write
>>>>> about it tomorrow. He has something coordinated there, like most
>>>>> shills and Microsoft partners and it's starting to come loose.
>>>>
>>>> Post some proof, Roy.
>>>
>>> Not to mention, *NOBODY* is anti-odf, not even Microsoft.
>>
>> Some days, this group is funnier than xkcd. :)
>
> Yes. Never mind the purpose of OOXML
The purpose? You mean storing office documents in a more easily parsed
format and publishing the specifications for that format?
> and the attacks they launch by proxy using
> partners like the Burton Group, which does consulting for Microsoft.
Nothing in the Burton Groups report is anti-ODF, though there is some that
is anti-Sun and anti-OASIS ODF TC (in regards to Sun controlling it)
You consistent misrepresent the message, Roy. Why is that?
> Yeah, right... Microsoft is not anti-ODF... *LMAO*
Microsoft voted for ODF in the INCTS vote. Microsoft has never tried to
get ODF replaced with Office. They have attempted to thwart Sun and IBM's
attempts to get ODF installed as the only acceptable format in regulatory
bodies, but that wasn't an attempt to remove ODF, just allow OOXML as well.
Microsoft has not made any attempt to block ODF from being used anywhere,
only blocking ODF-exclusive arrangements.
But you're so busy spreading disinformation to realize that.
|
|
