Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft-Sponsored "Net Applications" Hand-tweaks 'Statistics'

On Feb 8, 4:46 am, "Ezekiel" <Z...@xxxxx> wrote:
> ><unionpe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:b5b2baec-17ac-4e33-a325-34bd71f5bf00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >On Feb 6, 11:36 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> <unionpe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>news:776a5d67-ec66-4299-aa48-023aae924dda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Feb 6, 7:10 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> >>news:83745b6c-8dff-45d7-bad5-fede8e5ee3fd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> > On Feb 6, 6:48 am, George Kettleborough
> >> >> > <g.kettleboro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 06/02/09 11:09, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> >> > When net applications was soliciting sites to be part of their
> >> >> > counter, it gave a pretty good clue as to why the counts are a bit
> >> >> > "off". The wanted sites to serve up this ActiveX control that would
> >> >> > got to user's browsers and count the individual users, sending the
> >> >> > stats to Net Applications' counter via http post requests.
> >> >> Prove it. You have zero proof of what Net Applications "wanted to do"
> >> >> and
> >> >> you spew this nonsense out over and over again.
> >> >Do you have any inside information about what Net Applications "wanted
> >> >to do"?
> >> Learn to read - it's Rex, not me who's making claims of what Net
> >> Applications "wanted to do." If he's going to make these claims then he
> >> needs to prove how he could possibly know this. I'm not the one making
> >> ridiculous claims...it's your fellow "advocate" who is.
> >> >You scream "prove it" quite a lot. Just what are you looking for?
> >> How about "proof" for starters. You know... something to backup these
> >> ridiculous claims.
> >> > A press release from Microsoft saying Rex is correct?
> >> Let's start with anything that can backup his ridiculous claims.
> >> > Hell, even with court released evidence, you would
> >> > find SOME way to make the "proof" inconsequential.
> >> According to Rex all of this information was "sealed by the courts" yet
> >> somehow Rex is the only man in America who knows the contents of the
> >> sealed
> >> files.
> >> >I really like the harping you were doing against Rex a few days ago.
> >> It's not just a few days ago. I jump on that liar every time he opens
> >> his
> >> pie-hole.
> >> >Remember? You had no problem with the vile, petty, disgusting, or
> >> >illegal things Microsoft has done to their partners, customers,
> >> >competitors, or the community at large. Your whining was that
> >> >internal communications made public by the court is not a public
> >> >admission. "How much can you pervert the truth without actually
> >> >lying?"
> >> Let's start with Rex's fable of how the "Vista EULA gives Microsoft the
> >> right to access *ANY* file on your computer for *ANY* reason at all."
> >> Talk about perverting the truth. Do backup Rex on that idiotic lie and
> >> tell me how you actually believe this nonsense.

Are you a lawyer?  Have you had the EULAs gone over by a lawyer to
make sure Rex is wrong?  Which EULA?  Do you know if it is the same
one Rex is complaining about?  Are you sure there is _nothing_ in the
EULA that could ever give MS an opening?  Nothing they could fight you
in court about?  Remember, it will only cost you about a million
dollars to be proven right in the court system.

Why would I believe Rex?  You don't know much about Microsoft, do
you?  For starters, they have a EULA for their retail products.  That
right there is a red flag that they have no problem with fraudulent
sales tactics.  When I pay hundreds of dollars at the retail counter
of Best Buy for Vista, they have sold me the right to use it.  Thats
the way the retail market works.  Its been like that for what?  Just a
few THOUSAND years? Any claim that a EULA is also required to use the
product means the sale was a bad faith fraud.

So tell me again how Microsoft is too moral a company to ever attempt
that, even with their current EULAs.

> >> >Wow! How much more like Scientology can Microsoft get?
> >> How much more Kool-Aide can the zealots in the Linux cult drink?
> >> >> > This of course is a problem because most people who use other
> >> >> > browsers
> >> >> > use them because they don't want Active X invading their PCs all
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > time.
> >> >> The real problem is that you post your random hallucinations here as
> >> >> "facts."
> >> >You are very good, Ezekiel. How much does MS pay you to go slogging
> >> >through the slums of the internet? A goon of your quality should get
> >> >a raise.
> >> Another idiot who thinks that people are paid to post to some obscure
> >> "slum"
> >> newsgroup that few actually read.
> >No.  Just you.  I took a quick look at your recent
> > posting history ...very impressive.
> You ability to comprehend what you claim to have looked at is not very
> impressive:
> COLA Statistics, 08 Feb 2009
> 1: Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :    293 posts
> <snip>
> 20: William Poaster <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :       33 posts
> Me - Not even in the top 20 list with < 33 posts.
> COLA Statistics, 08 Feb 2009
> 1: Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :    377 posts
> <snip>
> 20: Sinister Midget <fardblos...@xxxxxxxxx> :         44 posts
> Me - Not even in the top 20 list with <44 posts.
> > You spend a startling amount of time
> > interacting with people you despise.
> I never claimed to despise anyone. You should keep your words out of my
> mouth.
> And if I'm "getting paid" to post here do explain the people who post 10x
> as much as I do. Are they getting paid?

They have their reasons.  I don't care about them.  You are a puzzle.
I have long wondered why super smart people, hardworking types, would
work for a company like Microsoft.  The team that dreamed up ACLs did
a wonderful job ... only to see it all made useless because Windows
makes it sooooo easy to root.  What is the point?  You are good at
what you do?  Why do you fight for a shoddy product?  Paid or not?
Making sure your stock options will still be worth something?

Some of the goons here claim they just want to make sure the lies
don't get out of hand.  Trouble is they never complain about the wild
things in pro-windows posts.  Take a look at the thread about
thousands of Nigerians dumping Linux for Windows on the OLPC.  Even
Ghost got suckered into taking that seriously.  None of the regular
wintrolls spoke up about that bit of idiocy.

> > If you aren't getting paid for this, you
> >have a serious personality problem ...
> > and you are a sucker as well.
> Another baseless conclusion.

Could be.  After all, I am here along with you.  You are entertaining.

> >You are way too good to do this for free.  DFS and Hadron are pikers
> >compared to you.  The way you made Richard Rasker look so stupid
> >because his wife's college uses floppies and off-line computers for
> >tests was absolutely beautiful.
> Tone and intent aren't easily attained in a usenet post but I'm surprised
> that anyone would interpret my posts this way. I wouldn't say that I made
> Rasker look stupid and it clearly wasn't my intent to do any such thing.
> Rasker is one of the more reasonable posters here IMO. If he gets a flat
> tire while driving home from work he'll try to find a way to blame Window
> for it but otherwise I have absolutely nothing againt him and have had some
> decent conversations with him. It's not Richard - but rather the entire
> test methodology of saving the tests to a floppy, handing in the floppy and
> then having someone (his wife) copy the file contents to a server that's
> stupid. In summary: Test procedure stupid. Richard not stupid.

"Richard not stupid."  Very generous.
Here is one of your posts in that thread (reformatted to allow Google
to reformat) ...

"Richard Rasker":
Being a college teacher, my spouse has to mark students' tests. In
this particular case, the test was a 'digital paper' -- i.e. students
had to do the test on a college Windows computer running XP, and save
it on a 3.5" diskette. So far, so good, and some 70 students took the
test. Only afterwards, it turned out that some 90% of diskettes handed
in were b0rk3d --

It's clear that Linux users still rely on floppy disks to transfer
data around 1.44 megs at a time.  Meanwhile the rest of the computing
world has learned to send a 1.4 meg email attachment in about 1-second
vs the 3 minutes Linux users spend to format their floppy and then
write 1.4 megs of data to it.

Sorry Exekiel, I don't see any "Test procedure stupid." in that post.
Oh! There it is.  I see it now.  It was very cleverly hidden in the
"Linux users stupid" part of the message.  Ezekiel, you _really_ are
good at this.

Wait a minute.  "Linux users still rely on floppy disks".  Richard did
not say that.  The school is running Windows, not Linux.  Windows is
using floppies.  Why did you say Linux users?  Perhaps you are not as
good as I gave you credit for.

> > Richard has no authority at the
> >college, no knowledge of how the classes operate, or why.
> It's his wife's class that was tested. I'm working on the presumption that
> she has some authority over her own classroom.
> > Yet you made him look like an ignorant fool.
> Only in your misinterpretation of the events.

I see.  It must be misinterpretation.  Can't be what you wrote.

> > Effectively blaming a passer by
> >for unrelated complex problems takes real talent, Ezekiel.  You should
> >be getting paid to be here.
> Then it would become a job. What's the fun in that.
> >I notice you did not deny getting paid, why not?
> Because it's so ludicrous that it's not worth denying.

No more so than the claims that Linux is stuck at 1 percent, or that
there is no market for preloaded consumer Linux computers.  It can't
be Microsoft interference.  No no no.  "There is no PROOF".  It has to
be that there is no market.  Must be.

> > This is usenet. There is no penalty for lying here,
> > it won't matter if you lie or tell the truth.
> It sounds like you're trying to justify lying. Usenet or not, there is
> still a moral component to knowing telling lies.

Only for us niggers, apparently.  It doesn't seem to slow down Bill
"Wow, just Wow" Gates.
How about Microsoft "let's sell Sun a license to make an ABI and not
tell them its for last year's Windows" Company?  Does that count?  Not
quite lying, lots of wiggle room there.  Just good business to betray
your customers.
Wait, is this more like it: Microsoft "lets take IBM's OS/2 money and
use it to develop Windows" Corp?
Here is another ... Microsoft "let's buy an ISO number for our
obsolete Office file format" Corporation.  Does that count a lying?
There _is_ a moral component there.

Should I go on?  There is an embarrassment of riches here.

You are running with the wrong crowd to be claiming any moral high

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index