Goblin <bytes4free@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Let get this straight, you no more know the identity of anyone here than
> I do. As has already been shown pro-MS opinion has been exposed as
> sometimes being as a result of gifting to which Ive examples on my site
> . Pro MS opinion can have many different motives.
>
> Now apparently, I'm some sort of easily led crack pot, yet you didn't
> make a comment regarding the imposter posing as a legitimate company
> pimping Microsoft stock on Twitter. Why? (and if I missed that in your
> response I'm sorry, but it appears you've snipped that bit out)
There is no value in engaging in debates with the likes of DFS. He's a
modern-day flat-earther, no amount of evidence will shake him from his
position, as it is given to him, most likely along with inducement to
encourage him to maintain the position which he does. He's been
polluting this newsgroup with his off-topic, anti-charter "flat-earth"
tosh for years, and will continue to do so.
You won't change his mind on any of this, because his viewpoint is not a
resulting of considered opinion based on fact, it's a result of a leap
of faith. Faith is, of course, unshakable.
>
> Quote " you're all victims of the evil Microsoft Corporation."
>
> Don't be so silly. Microsoft is not a living entity and ergo cannot
> itself be evil (merely the people who run it). I'm not a victim of
> anything, my evidentially documented articles exposing underhanded
> practice only serve to show the lengths some will go. Was it Microsoft
> who impersonated Optionetics? Dont know and who cares? It was someone
> promoting MS stock under false pretences and needed to be challenged
> regardless.
>From a philosophical viewpoint, organisations most certainly can and do
have culture which causes actions by individuals. This is an area which
has been studied in detail, many times over, with extremely convincing
results. Whilst it's quite correct to say that the individuals take
action, it's also correct to note that they are influenced by their
environment, which might well be culturally morally vapid.
>
> Whoever you are, I still haven't seen you provide any convincing
> argument about why Linux shouldn't be considered by users. This is
> linux.advocacy is it not? So I'm wondering why you seem so outraged
> that people would advocate it and why do you spend your time merely
> making personal remarks to people you've never met?
It's part of the flat-earth approach. If you can be goaded into
responding unpleasantly, the flat-earthers will hold that up as proof
that you cannot be trusted. They will use any tactic, of course, to
achieve that, and you will be held to a far greater standard of
behaviour than the FEs.
>
> You seem to be confusing MS faithful with MS employee. MS faithful can
> be anyone (paid, employed or not) it is someone who either seeks to
> distort a message about alternatives or someone who posts
> Fud/vulgarity/lies. The motive behind it is irrelevant to me, it needs
> to be challenged.
Perhaps, but perhaps it's better not to validate it by even acknowledging
it? By giving DFS and other flat earther trolls a response, you give
them a platform on which they can expound their vitriol, half-truths,
acts of faith, propaganda and so on, in the guise of arguing with you,
but in reality, they don't care what you think, they just want the
opportunity to keep spreading their intolerant poison.
>
> Before you accuse me of being on some Anti-MS campaign, please first
> read my blog, you will see I have:
Only to goad you...
>
> 1. Championed the XP platform over Vista/7 (and not tried to force Linux
> onto anyone)
>
> 2. Challenged a Linux advocate on what I considered was a misleading post.
>
> 3. Refused to agree with the EU in respect of MS anti-trust, as I
> believe it would be harmful to the IT world as a whole.
That I have to challenge you on. There is positively no way, in my book,
that permitting illegal behaviour by a company can be considered to
be acceptable - also, I note that you are inconsistent here, as below,
you appear to expect higher standards of behaviour from individuals than
you do from MS, which is, to my mind, rather shocking...
>
> 4. Condemned the piracy of Microsoft products.
It's not piracy, btw, it's copyright violation - piracy is a nasty crime
involving ships - don't get caught up in the spin of the BPI marketing
folk!
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with you, copyright violation should
not be tolerated. What I find hard to understand is why you think that
anti-trust violations should be tolerated when copyright violations
should not.
>
> 5. More recently, not published an article as a result of a Microsoft
> comment which (IMO) could have looked bad for them. - Please, if you
> want to call me a liar in respect of this, challenge me, I will be happy
> to print it (although I did tell the poster(s) their correction was enough)
>
> Think on this, peoples opinion comes from many sources if everyone was a
> clone of Roy there would be no diversity in the posts here. Just as
> people saw on Eweeks Microsoft Watch, the alternative view to MS
> products is stronger, more passionate and IMO based on honest held belief.
>
Part of the MO of the FE trolls is to lump everyone into a nice simple
category. Ideally, to characterise anyone who disagrees with Microsoft
being able to run a global monopoly as people who are feeble-minded in
some way.
--
| 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/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
