Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror (a.k.a. David "Lefty"
Schlesinger) spake thusly:
> On Jul 31, 7:31 pm, Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Well that rules out political campaign worker, and public relations
>> manager, for your new job, after they sack you from ACCESS Co.,
>> Ltd. for bringing their company into disrepute.
>
> Why don't you just hold your breath while waiting for that to happen,
> Homer? Can we assume that you alao subscribe to the view that Roy
> apparently favorsâsince he approved of Mark Fink's attempts to do
> just that
It seems your crusade against Roy hinges on a logical fallacy.
How does proclaiming "I like what you do", as a direct response to Mark
*denying* any involvement in trying to get you fired, make Roy
sympathetic to getting you fired?
Even if Mark was lying, that doesn't alter what Roy was responding to.
I can't speak for Roy, but my opinion is this: If a high profile figure
in a position of responsibility, be they a member of the LiMo
Foundation's Architectural Steering Committee, or a member of the GNOME
Foundation Advisory Board, behaves as you have in public, then I'd be
wholly in favour of bringing that behaviour to the attention of those
organisations, since IMHO you have a higher obligation to exhibit good
conduct that comes with such responsibility - IOW you are publicly
accountable for your actions.
Mark Fink, OTOH, is someone of no particular note, who lost the plot
because of his frustration at being censored. I happen to agree that he
/should/ have been censored, because his rants /were/ in fact off topic,
and his presentation was belligerent and uncouth. Although the overall
trend of /unwarranted/ censorship on the Ubuntu forums is worrisome.
So you defended yourself, and rightfully so, since your behaviour at
/that/ time did not not warrant such an attack, and Mark "trying to get
you fired" (if he did indeed make such an attempt) was equally unwarranted.
But then you turn this into a crusade against Roy, who merely aggregates
any and all information that comes his way. Naturally he's shows
enthusiasm for anything that might seem, either directly or indirectly,
to support his cause (one which I generally share, BTW), but you're too
quick to infer that this "zeal" means he must therefore support
/everything/ his informants do.
Roy aggregates information sympathetic to his cause, prolifically and at
great speed, and often with little more than cursory proof-reading and
fact checking. Over time, the details of particular subjects become
clearer, and Roy's arguments become more refined. He provides
corrections, where warranted, as he goes. Certainly this method lacks a
degree of integrity, but he nonetheless succeeds in exposing large
quantities of information about corruption relating to Microsoft and its
supporters, and I find in general that his mistakes tend to be minor and
mostly inconsequential, especially in comparison to the greater-good of
his eventual exposure of the truth. It's Freedom-fighting at the speed
of light, and there's bound to be some casualties along the way. Deal
with it.
To compound the problem, you then start a hate campaign against
Stallman, because he made a joke you find tasteless. But with the
exception of a handful of equally humourless people you've rallied
support from, most people I've talked to think your reaction is
completely over the top, and they're suspicious that your /real/
objection is to the main topic of Stallman's presentation, rather than
some harmless "virgins" joke.
Combine this with your crusade against Roy, the Mark Fink affair, and
the true underlying thread of causality becomes crystal clear: it's
about Mono. It's /all/ about Mono. It's only /ever/ been about Mono.
And yet you feign indifference to Mono.
Then you post more of your tirade against Mono antagonists, anonymously
on COLA, presumably in an attempt to establish the appearance of a
grass-roots support for your cause (commonly referred to as
"astroturfing", and recently made a criminal offence in the EU).
Can you see how this might not exactly help your defence?
> âthat in the case of folks who hold differing opinions than you do,
> there's nothing wrong with attempting to harass them through their
> places of employment?
I don't propose to do so, but then given your high profile attacks
against Stallman et al, it seems you're doing an admirable job of
damaging your own reputation, so you hardly need any help from me.
[snip commercial spam for your sex shop]
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "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 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
17:06:02 up 64 days, 21:04, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00
|
|
