"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> writes:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:aa0p95-vsf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
>>> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/02/29/brm-is-done-time-to-sleep.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You mean that same comment that you discredited because; 'You can
>>> not in any way what so ever conclude that any "abstain"-vote by any
>>> country is the same as a negative vote.'?
>>
>> No - I was referrring to the comment listing the raw numbers. All I
>> said was that I did not agree to the conclusion of those figures.
>
> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely negative
> votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions (I don't know
> for a fact, since I do not have access to that data). And you further
> assert that an abstention is not tantamount to a rejection.
>
> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of OOXML,
> of Roy's claims that Microsoft attempted to buy the Indian vote, is
> without foundation, since you assert that they may not in fact have
> rejected it at all.
>
> Thank you for your clarification.
>
>>> As someone who apparently has inside information into the secretive
>>> BRM, perhaps you could enlighten us as to why that process was
>>> conducted in secret.
>>
>> It was not conducted in secret. 37 countries participated in an open
>> discussion about technical details on OOXML. There is nothing secret
>> about that.
>
> Then how would you describe a meeting that is closed to members of the
> public and the Press?
Idiot. WTF would you want the public and the press in there for? You'd
never get anything done.
Sometimes I wonder if you're health insurance is withholding your meds.
|
|
