On Bob Sutor's blog (<http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/>), every article currently on the front page allows comments, except for one. That one is about criticism of Microsoft's Open XML patent pledge.
Is he afraid that someone will point out that IBM's patent pledge has exactly the same problems? Of course, it is just a coincidence that IBM is his employer...
Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in news:reply_in_group- 7DA023.13284415032...@news.supernews.com:
> On Bob Sutor's blog (<http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/>), every > article currently on the front page allows comments, except for one. > That one is about criticism of Microsoft's Open XML patent pledge.
> Is he afraid that someone will point out that IBM's patent pledge has > exactly the same problems? Of course, it is just a coincidence that IBM > is his employer...
Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it public.
In article <Xns9A62EF6BD4845jlundstoch...@130.225.247.90>, Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote:
> Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it > public.
> I think it's kindda sad.
It's interesting how your blog, and to a lesser extent Brian Jones' blog, contain links to blogs from the other side, whereas people like Weir and Sutor only link to blogs on their side.
A good rule of thumb is that the side that is not bullshitting is not afraid for people to see the other side's arguments.
Micoshaft Fraudster and Asstroturfer Tim Smith wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:
> On Bob Sutor's blog (<http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/>), every > article currently on the front page allows comments, except for one. > That one is about criticism of Microsoft's Open XML patent pledge.
No need - we all know micoshaft patent pledge is an oxymoron. And about as corrupted as micoshaft claims on Linux patent infringement. And about as anti-trust as funding SCO to do patent trolling.
Micoshaft has not done any work on making patent pledges to open source movement, or making it absolute watertight and irrevocable for an important ISO approval process.
Everything they have engaged in is fraudulent and they are now under investigation for fraud.
Micoshaft Fraudster and Asstroturfer Tim Smith wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:
> In article <Xns9A62EF6BD4845jlundstoch...@130.225.247.90>, > Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote: >> Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it >> public.
>> I think it's kindda sad.
> It's interesting how your blog, and to a lesser extent Brian Jones' > blog, contain links to blogs from the other side, whereas people like > Weir and Sutor only link to blogs on their side.
> A good rule of thumb is that the side that is not bullshitting is not > afraid for people to see the other side's arguments.
Yeah, but don't you think this can all wait until the fraud investigations into micoshaft corruption and fraud at ISO is completed first?
Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote: > Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it > public.
Which is presumably why Sutor has blocked comments, to prevent people like you and Smith from astroturfing all over his blog, just like you try to do here, in COLA. Having an alternative view is one thing, but AFAICT most of the trolls; shills and astroturfers have nothing other than deceitful spin, are much too close to the source to be credible, and so have a vested interest in trying to bury the truth, which they seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
>> Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it >> public.
> Which is presumably why Sutor has blocked comments, to prevent people > like you and Smith from astroturfing all over his blog
Seriously, that's nuts. Blocking comments with personal attacks is one thing, but blocking simply because I disagree is not cool. Also, Bob Sutor made another article about ODF Alliance and this post has also had comments disabled. I believe this blocked comment was my second post to his blog - ever. It's not like I'm a daily annoyance to his blog.
Btw - Rick Jelliffe has also blocked comments to his posts about OOXML ... I dissagree with this as well. There is a reason why we call the tools "blogs" and not "bulletin-boards" ... it's the conversations that matter.
In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: > seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken > up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you > be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
Perhaps you can do what Roy cannot--post proof of this claim.
Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I read, I sometimes see them and respond.
In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: > Which is presumably why Sutor has blocked comments, to prevent people > like you and Smith from astroturfing all over his blog, just like you > try to do here, in COLA. Having an alternative view is one thing, but > AFAICT most of the trolls; shills and astroturfers have nothing other > than deceitful spin, are much too close to the source to be credible, > and so have a vested interest in trying to bury the truth, which they
The bad Microsoft language:
New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list.
The good IBM language:
IBM will evaluate new versions or additional specifications for inclusion based on their consistency with the objectives of this pledge which is to support widespread adoption of open specifications that enable software interoperability for our customers, and may, from time to time, make additional pledges.
Can you explain to us, please, why the first is bad and the second is good?
More bad Microsoft language:
The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specification(s).
and IBM's good language:
IBM irrevocably covenants to you that it will not assert any Necessary Claims against you for your making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale Covered Implementations [...]. Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification.
Please explain how pointing out that the Microsoft language and the IBM language say the same thing is "deceitful spin".
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:50:47 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: >> Which is presumably why Sutor has blocked comments, to prevent people >> like you and Smith from astroturfing all over his blog, just like you >> try to do here, in COLA. Having an alternative view is one thing, but >> AFAICT most of the trolls; shills and astroturfers have nothing other >> than deceitful spin, are much too close to the source to be credible, >> and so have a vested interest in trying to bury the truth, which they
> The bad Microsoft language:
> New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately > considered for addition to the list.
> The good IBM language:
> IBM will evaluate new versions or additional specifications for > inclusion based on their consistency with the objectives of this > pledge which is to support widespread adoption of open > specifications that enable software interoperability for our > customers, and may, from time to time, make additional pledges.
> Can you explain to us, please, why the first is bad and the second is > good?
> More bad Microsoft language:
> The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of > the covered specification(s).
> and IBM's good language:
> IBM irrevocably covenants to you that it will not assert any > Necessary Claims against you for your making, using, importing, > selling, or offering for sale Covered Implementations [...]. > Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product > (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that > implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included > in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification.
> Please explain how pointing out that the Microsoft language and the IBM > language say the same thing is "deceitful spin".
Key word "Microsoft" Key word "IBM"
[Homer] is nothing but a parrot of Roy's.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:39 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: >> seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken >> up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you >> be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
> Perhaps you can do what Roy cannot--post proof of this claim.
> Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I > read, I sometimes see them and respond.
Proof of what COLA Linux advocates spew? It will never happen.
They will lie through their green teeth to make Linux look good and Microsoft look bad.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
How about, what's Bob Sutor (And everyone else) tired of?
Really, advocating OOXML is quite a low thing to do by now. We do not need more than one standard and MS' attempt to take over the ISO are all but harming ISO, ECMA and MS' images.
Regarding to your strawman about IBM's OSP being the same as MS', here's a little gift from you: IBM and Sun both have implemented the specs under the GPL, MS hasn't , as a matter of fact, all what MS got about the GPL in the OSP FAQ is actually a long, complicated way of saying "If a developer wants to use the GPL to implement this spec, it is HIS problem".
Anyways I find something that's quite funny, MS and friends are attempting to look like everybody is biased against them, it is a fallacious argument, but still... Even if IBM and Sun's actions were equal to MS (and they aren't) the FLOSS community got plenty of reasons for this 'bias' , MS got a heck load of precedents of abusive behavior, and betrayal. As a matter of fact, although MS would like to appear otherwise, they have not changed at all, all the Novell and other distros' deals, behavior with Silverlight and OOXML, for example show that we still got the old, abusive MS among us attempting to be our feudal lord by adding taxes to the usage of computer hardware.
On Mar 15, 4:28 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On Bob Sutor's blog (<http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/>), every > article currently on the front page allows comments, except for one. > That one is about criticism of Microsoft's Open XML patent pledge.
> Is he afraid that someone will point out that IBM's patent pledge has > exactly the same problems? Of course, it is just a coincidence that IBM > is his employer...
On 2008-03-16, Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> claimed:
> Seriously, that's nuts. Blocking comments with personal attacks is one > thing, but blocking simply because I disagree is not cool. Also, Bob Sutor > made another article about ODF Alliance and this post has also had comments > disabled. I believe this blocked comment was my second post to his blog - > ever. It's not like I'm a daily annoyance to his blog.
You're speaking for yourself. Timmy and others are relentless trolls and stalkers. They might even be recognized quickly by those they've trolled and stalked repeatedly, even when they try to game the system by changing identities.
He may have allowed responses to those areas in the past and been burned by assholes and jerks who abuse the opening. If I was doing it I'd imagine I'd close either certain topics or all of it after being hit by the South Park Retard Gang, as led by Timmy. Since allowing /no/ comments would lead to a total lack of interest by anyone eventually, the next best tactic would be to close off certain topics that draw the maggots in.
Why not write to him and ask about it in a reasonable manner. You may find his response deals with something along those lines. Or maybe he'll assume that your writing to him about it might point to you being in with the same 'Tard crowd, and ignore the query.
-- Whom gods would destroy, they first gave Windows.
>> Seriously, that's nuts. Blocking comments with personal attacks is one >> thing, but blocking simply because I disagree is not cool. Also, Bob Sutor >> made another article about ODF Alliance and this post has also had comments >> disabled. I believe this blocked comment was my second post to his blog - >> ever. It's not like I'm a daily annoyance to his blog.
> You're speaking for yourself. Timmy and others are relentless trolls > and stalkers. They might even be recognized quickly by those they've > trolled and stalked repeatedly, even when they try to game the system > by changing identities.
You are lying.
> He may have allowed responses to those areas in the past and been > burned by assholes and jerks who abuse the opening. If I was doing it > I'd imagine I'd close either certain topics or all of it after being > hit by the South Park Retard Gang, as led by Timmy. Since allowing /no/ > comments would lead to a total lack of interest by anyone eventually, > the next best tactic would be to close off certain topics that draw the > maggots in.
> In article <Xns9A62EF6BD4845jlundstoch...@130.225.247.90>, > Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote: >> Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it >> public.
>> I think it's kindda sad.
> It's interesting how your blog, and to a lesser extent Brian Jones' > blog, contain links to blogs from the other side, whereas people like > Weir and Sutor only link to blogs on their side.
> A good rule of thumb is that the side that is not bullshitting is not > afraid for people to see the other side's arguments.
Bullshit.
-- Bill Gates is a very rich man today ... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions. -- Dave Barry
> In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: >> seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken >> up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you >> be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
> Perhaps you can do what Roy cannot--post proof of this claim.
> Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I > read, I sometimes see them and respond.
Here, in COLA, you and Erik take great glee in Roy and in his predicament.
-- Until we're educating every kid in a fantastic way, until every inner city is cleaned up, there is no shortage of things to do. -- Bill Gates
Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> writes: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <Xns9A62EF6BD4845jlundstoch...@130.225.247.90>, >> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote: >>> Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it >>> public.
>>> I think it's kindda sad.
>> It's interesting how your blog, and to a lesser extent Brian Jones' >> blog, contain links to blogs from the other side, whereas people like >> Weir and Sutor only link to blogs on their side.
>> A good rule of thumb is that the side that is not bullshitting is not >> afraid for people to see the other side's arguments.
> Bullshit.
Which bit is bullshit?
Are you advocating closed blogs? With only one side being represented?
On Mar 16, 11:27 am, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
> > In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: > >> seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken > >> up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you > >> be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
> > Perhaps you can do what Roy cannot--post proof of this claim.
> > Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I > > read, I sometimes see them and respond.
> Here, in COLA, you and Erik take great glee in Roy and in his > predicament.
It's the same with Eliot Spitzer. Ordinarily no one would take such joy in the downfall of a man, but when you're that hypocritical things begin to change. Open-minded people who admit they're not perfect generally garner a little more sympathy. Whether it was a specific attack or Roy was just unlucky, seeing someone who is completely unwilling to bend on issues, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, get their comeuppance brings a sort of satisfaction to most people.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:26:28 -0400, Linonut wrote: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <Xns9A62EF6BD4845jlundstoch...@130.225.247.90>, >> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote: >>> Well, I wrote a comment to his very article but he refused to make it >>> public.
>>> I think it's kindda sad.
>> It's interesting how your blog, and to a lesser extent Brian Jones' >> blog, contain links to blogs from the other side, whereas people like >> Weir and Sutor only link to blogs on their side.
>> A good rule of thumb is that the side that is not bullshitting is not >> afraid for people to see the other side's arguments.
> Bullshit.
Come on Linonut. Can't you see the difference between Jesper's blog and Sutor's blog? It doesn't matter which side they are on, personally I want an open standard, but look at both sites.
Jesper offers his opinions, shows and allows what the other side is interested in doing and discusses it, like an honest blogger should.
Can the same be said of Sutor?
I don't think so. -- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:27:37 -0400, Linonut wrote: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: >>> seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken >>> up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you >>> be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
>> Perhaps you can do what Roy cannot--post proof of this claim.
>> Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I >> read, I sometimes see them and respond.
> Here, in COLA, you and Erik take great glee in Roy and in his > predicament.
So do I. Not because he got hacked, that can happen to anyone but because he is a dishonest, pompous, self serving asshole who is using this and other groups as his own playground and for his own financial gain.
If you and the others can't see this, well, then nothing is going to convince you.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:37:10 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote: > On Mar 16, 11:27 am, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote: >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>> In article <7b4ua5-49h....@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <s...@uce.gov> wrote: >>>> seem to do with prolific zeal. Just ask Smith, who's apparently taken >>>> up a position as a professional creep, stalking Roy all day. Will you >>>> be joining him in his new venture, I wonder?
>>> Perhaps you can do what Roy cannot--post proof of this claim.
>>> Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I >>> read, I sometimes see them and respond.
>> Here, in COLA, you and Erik take great glee in Roy and in his >> predicament.
> It's the same with Eliot Spitzer. Ordinarily no one would take such > joy in the downfall of a man, but when you're that hypocritical things > begin to change. Open-minded people who admit they're not perfect > generally garner a little more sympathy. Whether it was a specific > attack or Roy was just unlucky, seeing someone who is completely > unwilling to bend on issues, even in the face of evidence to the > contrary, get their comeuppance brings a sort of satisfaction to most > people.
Like I said, Roy Schestowitz is the Elliot Spitzer of COLA.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Linonut wrote: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo: >> Roy's sole "evidence" is that when he posts messages on forums that I >> read, I sometimes see them and respond.
Thanks for providing the proof you asked for.
Oh and you need to buy a new can of silver polish, the shiny is wearing off your halo.
> Here, in COLA, you and Erik take great glee in Roy and in his > predicament.
AFAICT astroturfers like Smith /are/ Roy's predicament.
But like the saying goes; Illegitimi non carborundum.
Linonut wrote: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo: >> A good rule of thumb is that the side that is not bullshitting is >> not afraid for people to see the other side's arguments.
> Bullshit.
Yes. An even better rule of thumb is that the side that is exposing the corruption will be attacked by the other side, because the other side is corrupted and tries to bury the truth. Guess which side Smith is on.
