Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror (a.k.a. David "Lefty"
>> Schlesinger) spake thusly:
> On Aug 1, 9:06 am, Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror (a.k.a. David "Lefty"
>> Schlesinger) spake thusly:
>> 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?
>
> After Mark's chortling on the ubuntu-devel list about how happy he
> was about my manager being contacted, coupled with Roy's approval of
> Mark's past actions and direction of future actions...? Pretty
> straightforwardly, really.
Like I said, even if Mark was lying, that doesn't alter what Roy was
responding to. It seems you are just as guilty of mis-characterisation.
> Well, since I've already brought it to the attention of all of them
> weeks ago, anticipating that you folks would threaten to
If you expected people to complain to the organisations/companies you
represent, then why the faux outrage when it inevitably happens?
>> But then you turn this into a crusade against Roy, who merely
>> aggregates any and all information that comes his way.
>
> Roy does more than that: he twists facts, misrepresents events
That's purely subjective. I could easily claim the same about you.
> and tell outright lies. As I said, he's admitted to libeling me,
> retracted that libel and apologized for it
And what exactly was that libel?
>> you're too quick to infer that this "zeal" means he must therefore
>> support /everything/ his informants do.
>
> Sorry, his email demonstrates clear and ongoing collusion.
So you assume.
>> Roy aggregates information sympathetic to his cause, prolifically
>> and at great speed, and often with little more than cursory
>> proof-reading and fact checking.
>
> Roy does about zero "fact-checking".
I'll concede that it does appear to be very little, but hardly "zero".
And contrary to your claims, Roy /does/ post corrections ... if those
corrections can be irrefutably proved.
If your position were not diametrically opposed to his cause, I might be
inclined to say - give him a break, the sheer volume of material he
posts must make proof-reading a near impossibility. Perhaps you'd like
to volunteer, since you seem to follow the "bring me solutions" ethos.
> It's not a "hate campaign against Stallman", as much as you would
> like to characterize it that way. It's a clearly directed criticism
> of the content of Stallman's keynote
No Lefty, it's petty and trivial, and frankly just an excuse for you to
grind your axe.
Be honest.
>> And yet you feign indifference to Mono.
>
> I'm not feigning.
So the common thread of Mono in all this is just pure coincidence?
> I'm not happy with the tone your "side" seems to bring to the Mono
> debate, nor the methods you seem to use. You make invalid hysterical
> arguments in the wrong places, yet none of you seems to have stepped
> up to run for an open seat on the Ubuntu Technical Board, which is
> the _appropriate_ way to get change.
That's a pretty clear opinion for someone who's not feigning disinterest
in Mono.
>> ...anonymously on COLA...
>
> "Anonymously", "Homer"? I've made it clear who _I_ am; who are _you_?
>
No, you only "made it clear" after Roy correctly guessed who you were.
As for me, well I'm not a member of the LiMo Foundation's Architectural
Steering Committee, nor a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory Board,
so I'm not publicly accountable. Not that I've done anything that I'd be
ashamed of being held accountable for.
>> 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).
>
> Hahahahahahahahaha! That's funny. Exactly in favor of whom am I
> supposed to be astroturfing here?
Well you've already promoted at least one commercial business in this
thread (a sex shop, no less), although I doubt if your pro-Mono stance
has much to do with that.
However, the ultimate beneficiary of Mono adoption is Microsoft, since
it increases use and dependence of their standards, and Microsoft have a
documented history of leveraging their standards to dominate the market.
This, indeed, is the crux of my dissent against Mono, although Mono
supporters insist that it must be a personal attack against them - IOW
they see attacks on Microsoft as personal, hence my conclusion that they
are sympathetic to Microsoft - a company with an aggressively anti-Linux
agenda. Is this making any sense to you?
So a cynic might suppose that your anonymous appearance in this group is
intended to support Microsoft's agenda, albeit via the indirect route of
promoting Mono ... by attacking those who oppose it.
Yes I fully admit that's paranoid thinking, but that's the inevitable
result of being part of a community that's been viciously and
continuously attacked by a global Monopolist for 15 years. Can you
appreciate /that/ much, at least?
Microsoft also have a documented history of using shills, astroturfers,
shell organisations set up by them to provide fake grass-roots support,
and even non-existent and/or dead people to write supportive testimonies
on their behalf, so I don't think it's a stretch to assume there are
also Microsoft shills trolling this group.
> Please show me the statute of which I am in violation
Well since you've now admitted your identity, you're not violating any
statute, but here it is anyway, for your future reference:
[quote]
Under laws due to come into force at the beginning of next year, but
likely to be delayed until April for the UK, companies posing as
consumers on fake blogs, providing fake testimonies on consumer rating
websites such as TripAdvisor, or writing fake book reviews on Amazon
risk criminal or civil liability.
The new rules are the result of the EU's Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive, which is designed to do exactly what it says on the tin. Not
only will it impose a general ban on unfair practices, but it will also
include two main categories of unfair commercial practice: misleading
practices and aggressive practices. Whether a commercial practice is
unfair will be assessed in light of the effect it has, or is likely to
have, on the average consumer's decision to buy.
The directive catches all commercial organisations - big or small - and
the upshot is that companies (including sole traders) will no longer be
able to pay individual bloggers or professional agencies to post false
or misleading blogs or reviews online. Nor will they be able to do it
themselves.
The directive is not just aimed at online activity, and a number of
commercial practices will be unfair in all circumstances. This black
list of practices includes "falsely claiming or creating the impression
that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade,
business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a
consumer". In other words, companies will not be able to pretend to be
someone else, without clearly stating who they actually are.
[/quote]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/03/eu_flogging_ban/
> Well, no one whose opinion _matters_ to me seems to feel that way,
> Homer, I don't know what I can tell you. You're entitled to your
> opinion, but not to expect it to make a difference to me.
And yet here you are, continuing to seek my opinion.
--
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
02:16:10 up 65 days, 6:14, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
|
|
