Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Jim Richardson on Tuesday 04 March 2008 20:13 : \____
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:44:31 +0000,
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ____/ 7 on Monday 03 March 2008 02:44 : \____
>>>
>>>> Micoshaft Fradster and Asstroturfer Erik Funkenbusch wrote on behalf of
>>>> micoshaft corporation:
>>>>
>>>>> I've posted
>>>>> 36,000 posts in 17 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also seems kind of odd, given the number of people that accused me of
>>>>> being paid to post, and that nobody could post as much as I do without
>>>>> being paid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes you wonder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guilty as charged!
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine anyone having such zealous attachment to micoshaft
>>>> products so as to waste 17 years of their life time posting
>>>> anti-linux messages. I think it is an incredible sad day
>>>> for micoshaft loosers.
>>>>
>>>> Despite all your looser efforts, Linux has blossomed.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.livecdlist.com
>>>> http://www.distrowatch.com
>>>
>>> STILL with the big lie!! Erik, you little rotten...
>>>
>>> I AM NOT BEING PAID FOR ANY OF THIS. GET IT?
>>>
>>> I've seen the same dirty tricks being used to discredit other people, using
>>> libel essentially.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Erik's point, and it's a valid one. Is that if your sole reason for
>> accusing someone of being paid to post here, is based on the rate of
>> posts they make. Then the same criteria can be applied to you, as anyone
>> else.
>
> This escapes the issue that they post against a charter with malevolent intent.
> Why would anyone do this voluntarily? 'Bad boy' genes? Maybe. Still, given
> what you find in Microsoft's past /and/ present (Munchkins and astroturfing,
> respectively), why should it be so far fetched?
>
Jim's initial statement contains the key error, which is perhaps why he
said it that way.
There are multiple reasons for believing that Erik and others are paid,
which include:
1. posting anti-charter material over years
2. posting pro- a wealthy company
3. posting pro- a wealthy company with an axe to grind - publicly stated
4. evidence of MS's paid astroturfing efforts is plentiful
5. evidence of MS bribing bloggers is plentiful
6. evidence of MS bribing journalists is plentiful
7. evidence of MS paying lobbyist firms to corrupt political process
8. evidence of MS directly lobbying politicians
9. MS found guiltly twice of anti-trust/monopoly abuse
10. MS's regular settlements for all manner of anti-trust issues
Contrarily, it's not clear just who would pay anyone posting pro-charter
material here. Certainly, when most of us started, there was nobody
with enough funds to even consider it, although it's possible that there
could be now.
Furthermore, you can inspect the kind of material posted by the
shilcosystem here: it lines up amazingly well with Microsoft's own
marketing propaganda. I even saw Erik use the word "fidelity", probably
for the first time in all his 36,000 posts, shortly after Microsoft's
marketing and spin department had used it in trying to claim that OOXML
was somehow better than ODF. This is no coincidence, indeed, I do not
believe in coincidences.
You can additionally note that the rate of troll posts rises rapidly
on the launch of Microsoft products, or indeed, the release of key
pro-charter related material or events. This is also no coincidence.
The probability that Erik and co are paid is very high, although I will
agree remains unproven in these specific instances, but that is against
a backdrop of several validated events where people have been and are
paid to lobby or shill for Microsoft.
So, we have people trolling for a company with a long history of
lawbreaking, dishonesty and so on versus people posting pro-charter,
on-topic material related to a philosophy of software development which
is entirely based on freedom and openness.
Erik's constant dishonesty means that he is not to be trusted. Given a
trust choice between Roy and Erik, Roy will win every time. Of course,
that doesn't mean that Erik is necessarily being disingenuous, but it
does mean that he will need to go far further than Roy in order to gain
trust for his position.
There is another option for Erik, though, and it's one which would get him
all the credibility he needs. He could take his off-topic, anti-charter
material to the appropriate Windows advocacy group. He won't, of course,
because then, he wouldn't get paid. This is the most powerful bit of
evidence, and should not be ignored.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
