Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>> >By showing me all of these quotes, you have decided to use a
>> >fallacious construct by attacking not his argument, but attacking the
>> >man (an ad-hominem attack).
>>
>> Why did you accept, without question, Hadron's attack on 'Roy and his
>> "troops"'?
>
>You did not pay attention to anything I wrote, please re-read it.
I paid plenty of attention. Along with a few actual points, I noticed
lots of raving about "extremism", and false accuations of "thinking in
black and white" and "living in a world of hate". I see no need to
read any of it again.
>> I sought to provide you with history and insight as to the dishonesty
>> and anti-freedom attitude of this "Hadron" person who trolls cola.
>
>Fine, but it is off-topic.
>
>All you do with an ad-hominem attack is trying to distract from
>whatever point is being discussed and turn the attention, not to the
>arguments, but to the person.
What was this "point being discussed", beyond cola advocates being
attacked as being "without a clue" and "filled with hate for
Microsoft" and "hypocritical for accepting pro-Microsoft advertising"?
It was nothing *but* an ad-hominem attack on the advocates, coming
from a troll who is known to lie to attack the advocates. And you
chastise *me* for an ad-hominem attack? For shame.
>It is the equivalent of saying "But he is ugly".
No, it's saying "nothing he says about the cola advocates has any
credibility".
>> >The problem with extremists (snip)
>>
>> I'm not an extremist. I only want what is fair and right. One
>> company seeking to monopolize desktop computing and seeking to control
>> our data *is not* right.
>
>Yet you seek black and white answers.
Not always. Sometimes.
Requesting a direct, evasion-free "yes or no" answer to a simple
question is *not* necessarily a bad thing.
>You closed with one your post
>and demand and answer, I am just not interested in that level of
>discussion.
In other words, you want to evade questions which may reveal your
biases.
>I am not sure how you made the quantum leap from a discussion about
>GNote into control of data.
>
>And I have no idea what data you are talking about that the Great
>Satan is trying to Control.
To quote John McEnroe, you *cannot* be serious.
>> Having full freedom to choose our OS,
>> without fear of being "left out in the cold" in regards to software
>> availability and/or data exchange, *is* right.
>
>Yup, very much what I have been advocating for years.
Good.
>> You presume to know a lot (of negatives) about me, but you give
>> "Hadron" the benefit of the doubt. Interesting.
>
>You launched yourself into an ad-hominem attack, Hadron merely stated
>the obvious.
LOL
> ALL they see is MS - and they hate MS. Which is surprising
> since they make their money from MS SW and Adverts. Yes - Roy has MS
> adverts generating him income on his anti Novel/Mono
> websites. Astonishing eh?
That's not "stating the obvious", buddy, and you claiming that it is
is treading very closely to what I would call a "lie".
Hadron's "ALL they see is MS - and they hate MS" is bald lie, and
indicative the of the "black and white" thinking that you so abhor.
Also, there's nothing "astonishing" or hypocritical about accepting
pro-MS advertising on a pro-FOSS Web site. Indeed, what would be
hypocritical (or "priceless") would be for a FOSS advocate to practice
censorship by rejecting advertising that did not match his or her
agenda.
>> I pray that "your world" does not include the likes of "Hadron", who
>> has advocated, time and time again, control and suppression of freedom
>> in computing, and who ridicules those who advocate FOSS, while
>> defending the Microsoft Corp on *every* issue.
>
>This is getting offtopic with GNote and language choice.
>
>I would be curious to see how he advocated the "suppression of
>freedom".
He believes FOSS should be controlled. He believes it's use should be
restricted, with only "approved" projects being released. Ostensibly
this is to "focus for the good of Linux", but, as you must know, it is
entirely antithetical to FOSS.
>Microsoft has its share of defects. But rehashing defects from 15
>years ago is hardly making a point.
Who is doing that? The closest thing we have to that in here are
posts from trolls, who google the planet for proof the "Linux is not
perfect". This practice, of googling-for and posting Linux-problem
cases in the Linux advocacy group, is fully-endorsed by your friend
"Hadron", BTW...
>> "Darkness and hate"? Stick-around and read "Hadron" if you want to
>> see "darkness and hate", not to mention a whole lot of *shameless*
>> lying, used to attack Linux advocates.
>
>I am not sure that I will hang around here for long. It is not
>possible to have a discussion here without someone attacking someone
>else.
Indeed. Particularly if you advocate Linux, you will be quickly
attacked by "Hadron" and other trolls.
>> >In general, you can spot people that live in this world of hate when
>> >they use expressions like "Micro$oft" or "Lie-berals". They have to
>> >resort to primitive insults because they have been jailed for too long
>> >between the walls of despair that prevent them from experiencing the
>> >world and expanding their minds.
>>
>> I believe it's quite unfair of you to compare the mild disrespect of
>> "Micro$oft" with the epithet "Lie-berals".
>
>They are both primitive insults.
>
>The sign of shallow arguments.
Sounds to me like you're thinking in terms of "black and white", guy.
One is merely a weak sign of disrespect, easily ignored in context.
>> Would it be not be fair to say that Microsoft is the enemy of Free
>> software?
>
>See above re: "extremism"
No, you are wrong. It's not "extreme" at all to consider them
*exactly* that. Their motives are obovious, and the evidence
overwhelming.
We do not live in Nirvana. Selfish, unethical, and even criminal
things *do* happen. It is not "extreme" to recognize this.
|
|
