It seems Mr. Wong did eventually publish my comment, and here's my
response to his reply (he did bring this discussion to COLA, after all):
Verily I say unto thee, that Homer spake thusly:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jonathan Wong spake thusly:
>> Slated, it is about me. And you made it about me the moment you
>> inferred that I am "sinister", "criminal" and insult me by implying
>> that I "stoop so low as to evangelize for [Microsoft]".
> Well it's only "about you" if you can't distinguish yourself from the
> company you work for, since that is the target of every one of my
> above remarks, with the single exception of the conditional statement
> regarding your possible failure to understand.
> I have no idea of your personal moral stature, but I am painfully
> aware of Microsoft's, and since you support them in a very specific
> and professional manner (TE) then that would seem to suggest either:
> a) You still don't understand/believe Microsoft's moral depravity,
> which is why you sympathise with them (ignorance), or
> b) You fully understand how reprehensible Microsoft is, but you hold
> a sympathetic position anyway (malice)
> Given your later comments, I'll be generous and assume it's the
> former, although I find this barely credible, given Microsoft's long
> history of corruption.
> Under the circumstances, I think the least you can do is give me the
> courtesy of actually /reading/ the links I posted. Ignorance is one
> thing, but you've demonstrated an unwillingness to even hear the
> truth, that borders on cultism.
>> I have already explained myself multiple times regarding my
>> disclosures. I am not going to repeat it here.
> I'll take your word for it, but frankly the mere presence of a
> Microsoft TE in a group of Linux advocates is something I find quite
> disturbing, regardless of if and when you "outed" yourself. What is
> your purpose? You'll have to forgive the cynic in me, who already
> has a pretty good preconception of what a Microsoft TE might be doing
> lurking amongst Linux advocates.
>> (And who do you work for or represent, exactly?)
> I'm retired, so I don't work at all, and I represent myself, and only
> myself. If others choose to agree with me, then that's fine too.
> I've only ever worked for no-name agencies as an independent
> consultant, providing UNIX, Linux and bespoke solutions for (mainly)
> heavy industry. AFAIK I have no professional ties to any company
> that has ever been Microsoft's direct competition, but equally I've
> never worked on or with any part of Microsoft's stack, and indeed
> have never used any Microsoft software in the course of my work at
> all - ever.
> In the past, I have had non-professional ties to Red Hat, as a
> volunteer (packaging, QA, etc.). My current activities are all
> non-technical in nature, as I've developed a passion for politics and
> philosophy, and in particular a passion for exposing corruption in
> corporate politics (a la Groklaw). I am not a lawyer, just a
> concerned member of the public.
>> You can provide as many links as you want ... So you guys don't
>> like Microsoft. Fine, we all get that.
> This is what I mean by my previous comment. You have an utterly
> blinkered mentality.
>> As I mentioned above many times, all I am appealing to the
>> community (both FOSS and MS) for is for this mindless zealotry to
> Being outraged by Microsoft's criminal behaviour is hardly "mindless
> zealotry", Jon.
> Are you being disingenuous again, or are you simply in denial?
> Tell me, how would you characterise Microsoft's (and Intel's) attack
> on the OLPC?
> Microsoft sabotaged the efforts of a *charity*, Jon. A *charity*, for
> God's sake! And to what end? For no better reason than to inhibit
> Linux mindshare ... that's all. Just that.
> The OLPC offered a form of *aid* to Third World countries, which no
> Western company had ever even considered as a "market" for PCs
> before, and this was all it took for both Microsoft and Intel to hit
> the panic button, and completely undermine Negroponte's efforts. OLPC
> deals were signed and sealed, until those goons from Intel and
> Microsoft did their little tour of the Third World.
> For mindshare.
> No profit (indeed considerable losses), just mindshare.
> Sickening, and utterly indefensible.
> What does it say in the Microsoft TE handbook about that one, Jon?
> "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
> make sure that you don't make any money, either." ~ Bob Cringely.
> Then to add insult to injury, Microsoft did it again, by bribing
> Nigerian education suppliers to replace Mandriva with Windows, but
> were caught red handed, so they bailed out.
> Is there a chapter in the handbook for that one too?
> There are literally /thousands/ of other examples, possibly tens of
> thousands (that I could find), and God knows how many more that have
> yet to be exposed.
> But is there even any point in me telling you this, if you've already
> been indoctrinated by Microsoft's propaganda, to the point that you
> yourself have become one of those propagandists ... professionally,
> no less?
> Can you see the source of my cynicism?
>> You don't have to be either black or white. It's OK to be a shade
>> of grey.
> Ah yes, the old "black or white" mantra that's currently doing the
> rounds on the TE circuit. Sorry, I'm out of the Guerilla Marketing
> Buzz® loop, so I didn't get that memo. I'm afraid I don't hold much
> stock in pragmatism – it's just a euphemism for selling out, or being
> a sucker, take your pick.
>> I will still continue to evangelize my ideal of an interoperable
>> world where different technologies can co-exist together. The
>> market is big enough for everyone. In order to win, you don't need
>> everyone else to lose.
> Well I hope you won't be doing any of that on company time, because
> something tells me you'd be in contravention of company policy.
> Since when have Microsoft ever been interested in interoperability
> and peaceful coexistence? They're corporate thugs, rampaging through
> the IT industry, hell bent on the destruction of anything that
> stands in their way.
> If you don't share that goal, then I'd venture to say you may be
> working for the wrong company.
>> Yes, there are people within Microsoft that actually think that
>> way. (gasp!)
> Well I truly don't know what to believe, since the position of
> Microsoft TE puts your credibility at a fatal disadvantage, but if
> you say so...
> Assuming, for one minute, that you really are a sheep in wolf's
> clothing (to coin a phrase) ... what can you possibly hope to achieve
> in a company so institutionally indoctrinated with the ideals of
> domination and corruption?
> How many of you sheep are there in Microsoft, exactly?
>> You have a beef with Microsoft?
> Oh dear, such platitudes.
> I have a "beef" with corruption, monopolisers, corporate thugs and
> racketeers, and grossly unethical business practises – yes. Microsoft
> just happens to be one of the worst examples, and certainly the
> worst in my particular field of technical interest.
>> Fine. Yell and moan all you want.
> Yes I will.
> And so will you. After all, as a professional Microsoft TE that's
> what you're paid to do. You sing Microsoft's praises by burying or
> obfuscating the dirty truth about them, and people like me uncover
> that truth and loudly complain about it. So at the end of the day, I
> suppose it just comes down to who shouts loudest.
>> There will be people who are willing to hear your story, just like
>> there will be people who will rather you just shut up.
> Do you profess to being one of the former, or the latter?
> If your stated intentions (above) are genuine, then surely it must be
> the former.
>> But stop with the ad hominem attacks.
> It may seem that way to you, since you find yourself emotionally,
> inextricably intertwined with the company you work for. This is
> hardly surprising, after all you are a professional Microsoft
> Evangelist. That is a morally questionable position to be in, but it
> only calls your morality into question if you are truly devoted to
> Microsoft's cause. Then again, if you're not devoted to that cause,
> then you're clearly not doing your job properly.
> That's quite a conundrum to be in, isn't it?
>> You just make yourself sound petty and angry.
> Petty? Hardly. These are extremely important issues of justice,
> market balance, and liberty. Specifically: Bringing Microsoft to
> account for their unethical and/or criminal business tactics, ending
> Microsoft's monopoly, and bringing true choice and freedom to
> software consumers.
> But yes, I am angry, and rightfully so, since I have been personally
> subjugated by Microsoft's racketeering operation, and continue to
> be: Every time I try to buy a PC without Windows; every time I try to
> get technical support – only to be told the company only supports
> Windows; every time I see *my efforts undermined* by Microsoft and
> their cartel of "partners".
> Yes, I'm damned angry. In fact I'm bloody furious, and that anger
> will never subside, until every last trace of Microsoft's criminal
> empire has been extinguished.
>> You see, in the real world
> I've seen your Real World®.
> Now it's time for something better.
> NB: Please be assured that I am genuinely willing to engage in
> reasonable discourse, if you are willing to listen to, and actually
> care about, some of the more ugly truths about the company you
> evangelise for.
> Can you make that leap of faith, I wonder?
| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 22.214.171.124-57.fc8
00:16:24 up 56 days, 4:14, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.52, 0.69