Craig Gullixson wrote:
>Thank you so much for editing my response to your posting to fit
>into your arguments. I would generally only expect such an honor
>from a microsoft supporter in this group. Thank you for the vaguely
>creepy feeling of Hadron supporting some of my statments. And please
>forgive me for trying to have a real discussion in an advocacy group.
>I should have known better. I have (truely) enjoyed some of your
>comments in this group in the past and I hope to again in the future.
>However, the wheels have clearly come off in this thread.
>
>For the three others that my be still following this thread, I will
>end my participation in this thread with the following comments:
>
>There are those who don't give a damn about standards. Fine.
>
>There are those who believe that a source implementation can serve
>as a standard. That is also fine, although believing this does not
>make it true.
>
>Then there are some of us that care about standards because we
>believe that they are an essential part of the true path to freedom
>of choice.
>
>That Microsoft is spending so much effort in their loathsome attempt
>to corrupt the standardization process for OOXML may indicate that the
>size of the market that cares about standards, for whatever reason,
>may be significant.
>
>I am surely not the only developer that has been following the
>evolution of Linux with interest and believes that it could play
>and important role in future projects. However, the fraction of
>the Linux development community that espouses the "standards,
>we don't need no stinkin standards" sentiment does not help one
>such as myself to get more interested and excited about using
>Linux for upcomming development projects.
Sorry to see you go. You seem like a breath of fresh-air in here, to
me. I cannot understand why Mark felt the need to go on the offensive
with you, but, knowing him, I can't say that I'm surprised, either.
|
|
