Hello
verofakto
among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
weeks as I have time.
http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
Thanks!
--
verofakto
http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
Andrew Halliwell
> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
> weeks as I have time.
>
> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't wrapped in
lies and FUD.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
> weeks as I have time.
>
> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>
> Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
> well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>
> Thanks!
Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
dildo shop you're running online?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpyxy8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6rOQCeKx/0WAp6ip6Ozz5I/BlLia51
uFkAnA/RVGUUvvPPSBlK1mC2hdoLQynP
=iQi1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DFS
> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>> weeks as I have time.
>>
>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>
> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't
> wrapped in lies and FUD.
And yet every time I ask you to point to a lie you claim I made you run
away.
chrisv
>Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated.
*plonk*
Andrew Halliwell
No, I just yawn and ignore it.
Anyone who sees your posts knows damned well you're lying.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
DFS
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>>
>>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
>>> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
>>> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't
>>> wrapped in lies and FUD.
>>
>> And yet every time I ask you to point to a lie you claim I made you
>> run away.
>
> No, I just yawn and ignore it.
> Anyone who sees your posts knows damned well you're lying.
Like I said, you're a run-away idiot who proves he's a liar every time he
can't back up his claims.
Ezekiel
"Andrew Halliwell" <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote in message
news:fd4bk6-...@ponder.sky.com...
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>>
>>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
>>> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
>>> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't
>>> wrapped in lies and FUD.
>>
>> And yet every time I ask you to point to a lie you claim I made you run
>> away.
>
> No, I just yawn and ignore it.
> Anyone who sees your posts knows damned well you're lying.
You ought to expose some of his lies then. The 'anyone knows damned well' is
a very lame cop-out. So show a list of his lies because DFS as sure as hell
posted a long list of "advocate" lies. Think of it as 'evening the score' so
be a man and show him up.
* "half of Europe dumped Windows", [H]ypocrite
* Linux "commands almost 100% of the desktop machines in China.",
Christopher Hunter
* "the entire German government, French government, most of Scandinavia,
/all/ of China, much of India..." switched to Linux, Christopher Hunter
* Brazil switched to Linux, Dumb Willie Poaster
* Israel got rid of MS Office, Dumb Willie Poaster
* "Linux is expanding at the rate of 1 million+ desktops per week", 7
* "Linux shipping 3 million embedded devices PER DAY and increasing.", 7
* "Linux is 50x faster than Windows", Linuxiac
* "Vista actually requires more ram than a 32bit cpu can address.", AZNomad
* "Vista will probably be based on the BSD kernel", Rex Ballard
* "Microsoft executives openly admitted, under oath, that they had
frequently engaged in fraud, extortion, blackmail, and obstruction of
justice as routine business practices.", Rex Ballard
* Microsoft "locks out multimedia, security, and OSS applications.", Rex
Ballard
* Paul Thurrott of Win Supersite doesn't like Windows 7, Spamowitz
* I used to spend 7000 to 9000 pounds a year on Microsoft software, 7
* XP crashes on me 3x per day, 7
* Microsoft Office "barely works", The Lost Packet
* Windows has to be rebooted 20x per day, RonG
* FWBuilder is not available for Windows, Terry Porter
* "Vista32 can only use 3GB of RAM and Vista64 is limited to 4GB of RAM",
Terry Porter
* Windows 7 will never support USB3, Terry Porter
* Vista requires "quad core, 4GB RAM, 512MB graphics, and a SATA RAID stack
of at least a TB" for acceptable performance, The Lost Packet
* "GNU/Linux is the Best Operating System for SSD" drives, Spamowitz (the
article he linked said Windows 2000)
* Microsoft "products can only access 3Gb of RAM to compete with Linux while
Linux has no limits at any RAM limit.", 7
* Vista created 1 million temp files, AZNomad
* 80 million Linux sub-notebooks were sold in 11 months, Rex Ballard
* I was "European Inventor Of The Year 1995", 7
* "Microsoft had to buy [Visio] since they couldn't compete with it.", RonG
* Microsoft requires retailers to turn off all Windows systems if Linux
computers are displayed nearby, Rex Ballard
* "Vista doesn't run on sub-notebooks", Spamowitz
* Vista "requires all new equipment and applications", RonG
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> ____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
>
>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>> weeks as I have time.
>>
>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
>> well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
> dildo shop you're running online?
"Highlights" from IRC archives? What'll they think of next?
I'm going to start posting politico-joco banter from my office mates on my
new blog, http://officefarts.blogspot.com/
Sheeee! Someone already copped that domain! Has an interesting story about
Brussels sprouts.
--
You will be attacked by a beast who has the body of a wolf, the tail of
a lion, and the face of Donald Duck.
Hadron
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>>
>>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
>>> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
>>> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't
>>> wrapped in lies and FUD.
>>
>> And yet every time I ask you to point to a lie you claim I made you run
>> away.
>
> No, I just yawn and ignore it.
> Anyone who sees your posts knows damned well you're lying.
No. They don't. Only dishonest little twits like you. And you only think
so because someone told you and leads you by your nose.
Go on.
Post a link to a lie from DFS.
You can't. You won't. You're a dishonest "advocate".
--
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/
"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4
Ezekiel
>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>>
>>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
>>> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
>>> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't
>>> wrapped in lies and FUD.
>>
>> And yet every time I ask you to point to a lie you claim I made you run
>> away.
>
> No, I just yawn and ignore it.
> Anyone who sees your posts knows damned well you're lying.
Actually - anyone who sees these posts can see you trying to slither and
slink away from your earlier statement that you can't prove.
Hadron
"Slither and slink" is what "advocates" do when asked to back up their
bullshit.
verofakto
> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
> dildo shop you're running online?
I suggest you use those extra-mojo investigative powers of yours before
publicly accusing people of stuff.
Speaking of friends and desperate ad-hominems, did you know that your
pal David Gerard hosts lemonparty.org? I kid you not, look it up.
Anyway, since I haven't had the time to create an account on your blog
to say this, please keep in mind that I am always open to corrections or
clarifications. I will try to be more honest about it than you.
--
verofakto
http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
William Poaster
say:
> Hi Roy,
>
>> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
>> dildo shop you're running online?
>
> I suggest you use those extra-mojo investigative powers of yours before
> publicly accusing people of stuff.
>
> Speaking of friends and desperate ad-hominems,
PKB.
> did you know that your
> pal David Gerard hosts lemonparty.org? I kid you not, look it up.
> Anyway, since I haven't had the time to create an account on your blog
> to say this, please keep in mind that I am always open to corrections or
> clarifications. I will try to be more honest about it than you.
Yeah, riiiight. "verofakto" no prevous posting history (according to
google) & User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
What a shining example of honesty & integrity.
Don't bother replying.
--
Some of Hadron Quack's blunders & stupidity:
Surely you are not comparing the
non-existent Linux (at that time)
with Windows 98?
Hadron: Message-ID: <npk5rvz...@homelinux.net>
Linux as a desktop OS is pretty much doomed it would appear.
Too little too late.
Hadron: Message-ID: <fnd3jj$or8$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
Google Earth on Linux runs through its own Wine installer. Unless they
have gone "native"
Hadron: Message-ID: <gu1v6l$dmo$1...@news.motzarella.org>
Getting high performance Video cards working is a damn sight
easier on XP because the installers are better.
Debian/Ubuntu are a pain in the hole �- you need to recompile the latest
NVidia drivers using a set version of the compiler, for example, when
changing kernels.
Hadron: Message-ID: � <c9rks4-...@news.individual.net>
WINE is and was an emulator.
Hadron - Message-ID: <h2a282$t95$2...@news.motzarella.org>
The Hadron M$ fanboi troll contradicts himself!
"Ubuntu has really set the standard for quality."
Hadron Quark in a.o.l.u Jan 2007
"Ubuntu leaches off Debian where all the real hard work was done."
Hadron in cola - Message-ID: <gknmm8$9i1$1...@news.motzarella.org>
Stone Mirror
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
>
> > I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
> > among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
> > intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
> > weeks as I have time.
>
> >http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>
> > Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
> > well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals?
Sorry, Roy, that's not my blog. Once again, you leap to unsupported
conclusions. My blog is at http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com, as you
well know.
It's where your approval of attempts to cause trouble for me on my
job, and your directions around future such attempts at disruption,
are documented in some detail. The timeline mentioned seems to support
my version of things and cast some significant doubt on yours; I'm
guessing this is the reason that you refer to it as "an attack" rather
than responding to what it says. It is indeed "factual and
verifiable", and it doesn't make you look especially good. Whining
about it doesn't make you look better.
> How about that dildo shop you're running online?
It's not a "dildo shop", although we do sell some high-end vibrators
and such, but it's doing quite well, thanks. If you see something
you'd like, Roy, let me know, I can get you a discount above the
already-generous 20% off MSRP we currently offer.
How about your continued attempts at character assassination online?
Moshe Goldfarb
> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
> weeks as I have time.
>
> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>
> Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
> well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>
> Thanks!
Very good job !!
This is a classic example of the FOSS community at work and how,
just like I've said for years, you are either 100 percent with
them and their radical beliefs or you are the enemy and will be
attacked.
I'll be honest, I never thought they would have the balls to
attack Linus Torvalds, well I know Roy Schestowitz doesn't,
literally, but the rest of the community?
That really surprised me.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> writes:
>
>> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>> Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>>>> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
>>>> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
>>>> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't
>>>> wrapped in lies and FUD.
>>>
>>> And yet every time I ask you to point to a lie you claim I made you run
>>> away.
>>
>> No, I just yawn and ignore it.
>> Anyone who sees your posts knows damned well you're lying.
>
> No. They don't. Only dishonest little twits like you. And you only think
> so because someone told you and leads you by your nose.
>
> Go on.
>
> Post a link to a lie from DFS.
>
> You can't. You won't. You're a dishonest "advocate".
Take a look at Roy's site and see him attacking Linus.
A nothing like Roy Schestowitz has no business attacking Linus.
Roy isn't qualified to shine Linus's shoes.
Moshe Goldfarb
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
>
>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>> weeks as I have time.
>>
>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
>> well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
> dildo shop you're running online?
Dildo shop?
You sound like a customer, Roy "Racine" Schestowitz.
Tell me, does your particular brand of dildo run embedded Linux,
Roy Schestowitz?
Moshe Goldfarb
> Hi Roy,
>
>> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
>> dildo shop you're running online?
>
> I suggest you use those extra-mojo investigative powers of yours before
> publicly accusing people of stuff.
What makes you think "let's seed Google" Schestowitz is going to
stop now?
The voices in his head are stronger than ever!
> Speaking of friends and desperate ad-hominems, did you know that your
> pal David Gerard hosts lemonparty.org? I kid you not, look it up.
Yikes!
Roy "Racine" Schestowitz must be the hit of the party around
that place!
Hadron
You'll have Marti wetting his panties talking about "splash screens"
next. Stop!
RonB
> Yeah, riiiight. "verofakto" no prevous posting history (according to
> google) & User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
I beginning to wonder if Thunderbird has a limit on its killfile size.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Moshe Goldfarb
> Moshe Goldfarb <mosheg...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:27:59 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> ____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
>>>
>>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>>
>>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
>>>> well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about that
>>> dildo shop you're running online?
>>
>> Dildo shop?
>>
>> You sound like a customer, Roy "Racine" Schestowitz.
>>
>> Tell me, does your particular brand of dildo run embedded Linux,
>> Roy Schestowitz?
>
> You'll have Marti wetting his panties talking about "splash screens"
> next. Stop!
Hahaha!
Yea!
verofakto
> Yeah, riiiight. "verofakto" no prevous posting history (according to
> google) & User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
Ah, the "not pure enough" Chewbacca defense. You guys sound all the
same, it's just scary.
I never said *I* was an advocate of any kind, nor that I use anything
other than Windows on the desktop, by choice.
> Don't bother replying.
Wow, USENET is as stupid as I remember it.
Let me share something with you. This came from a wise old man many
years ago on comp.lang.java:
"When you're done writing that post, take a moment to read it out loud
(or at least mumble it) to yourself. As you do this, visualize that you
are talking to the person you're replying to, face to face. If you get
to a point where you sound like a witless, pantsless ass-candle, then a
re-write is probably in order"
--
verofakto
http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
Ad Hominem (Don Zeiglers and HPT's coach)
news:h4v5f9$ntd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hi Roy,
>
>> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals? How about
>> that
>> dildo shop you're running online?
>
> I suggest you use those extra-mojo investigative powers of yours before
> publicly accusing people of stuff.
>
> Speaking of friends and desperate ad-hominems, did you know that your pal
> David Gerard hosts lemonparty.org? I kid you not, look it up.
Roy's "friend" is quite famous ;-)
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/David_Gerard
Roy/Racine might show up on one of his freak sites.
http://www.lemonparty.org/
http://reddragdiva.co.uk/
Homer
> ____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
>
>> I've created a site to
Attack Stallman, Roy, and anyone else who opposes Microsoft and their
toxic "IP", such as Mono?
> Hi, David.
Is this the same David "Lefty" Schlesinger who is a "member of the LiMo
Foundation's Architectural Steering Committee and chair of the Open
Source Committee, as well as a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory
Board", but who has taken to attacking Stallman for making harmless
"virgin" jokes, publishing Stallman's private correspondence without
permission, and even censoring his own blog comments when commenters
rightfully criticise him for it?
Of course, I think it's pretty obvious exactly what's got Mr.
Schlesinger spitting venom at the father of Free Software, and it has
absolutely nothing to do with virgins.
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26166/1090/
Schlesinger's attack on RMS is pitiful, juvenile, and simply
embarrassing. It also brings into disrepute the other organisations that
he's supposed to represent as a mature, level-headed professional,
instead of like some teenage thug on a bullying rampage.
Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation
exactly what they think of such behaviour.
--
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
01:34:11 up 64 days, 5:32, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.04
Stone Mirror
>
> Is this the same David "Lefty" Schlesinger who is a "member of the LiMo
> Foundation's Architectural Steering Committee and chair of the Open
> Source Committee, as well as a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory
> Board",
Indeed. It only took Roy about a week or two to figure that out, in
spite of its being prominently posted on my blog. He's one heckuva
journalist.
> but who has taken to attacking Stallman for making harmless
> "virgin" jokes,
I've strongly criticized Stallman for both his sexually-loaded attempt
at "humor" as well as for his apparent inability to recognize the
issue with his "joke", yes, as have a lot of people. Is Stallman
somehow above any criticism? I have not "attacked" him.
> publishing Stallman's private correspondence without
> permission,
Since Stallman considers all email exchanges to be matters of public
record, and since there was no private information in either of the
emails, it's unclear what you're whining about here.
> and even censoring his own blog comments when commenters
> rightfully criticise him for it?
It's my blog. Don't like it? Criticize me on your own blog. "Freedom
of the press" doesn't mean that /you're/ free to use /my/ press.
> Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation
> exactly what they think of such behaviour.
Knock yourself out. They'll undoubtedly tell you that I'm quite
entitled to express what opinions I like, as long as I'm not
representing them as being those of either of the Foundations. You
wouldn't be attempting to stifle my freedom of speech here, would you,
Homer?
I really enjoy the folks who insist on "freedom" the way that they /
tell/ you to.
Stone Mirror
>
> > ____/ verofakto on Friday 31 July 2009 06:15 : \____
>
> >> I've created a site to
>
> Attack Stallman, Roy, and anyone else who opposes Microsoft and their
> toxic "IP", such as Mono?
>
> > Hi, David.
However, as I pointed out, I'm not "verofakto", nor is that my blog...
I'm still interested in seeing Roy refute or respond to that
(accurate) version of events, though.
Homer
Schlesinger) spake thusly:
> On Jul 31, 5:34 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Is this the same David "Lefty" Schlesinger who is a "member of the
>> LiMo Foundation's Architectural Steering Committee and chair of the
>> Open Source Committee, as well as a member of the GNOME Foundation
>> Advisory Board",
>
> Indeed. It only took Roy about a week or two to figure that out, in
> spite of its being prominently posted on my blog. He's one heckuva
> journalist.
>
>> but who has taken to attacking Stallman for making harmless
>> "virgin" jokes,
>
> I've strongly criticized Stallman for both his sexually-loaded
> attempt at "humor"
Well here's someone with a very personal reason to rebuke Stallman's
joke, and yet she seems more concerned by your exploitation of feminism
to further your pro-Mono agenda:
[quote]
Oh dear. It looks like I'm a relative latecomer to an unfortunate tale
of sexism and co-option in the open source software development world.
It started with Richard M Stallman, founder of the Free Software
movement that eventually produced stuff like Linux, making some sexist
remarks, and a blogger calling him on it. (This isn't particularly
surprising, unfortunately - he's well known to be both sexist and
unpleasant.) Now, the blogger criticizing him for it is a good thing,
right? Well, I thought so at first, but then I smelt a rat.
You see, one of the other things RMS did in his speech was strongly
criticize Mono, a very controversial piece of software. Though he
attempts to pretend otherwise, the author of the blog, David "Lefty"
Schlesinger, is a strong Mono supporter. In fact, his previous blog post
is a fairly vicious attack on both a specific anti-Mono individual and
on everyone who's anti-Mono. This is an area where Stallman's views have
some actual influence, mainly because he has an annoying habit of being
right about this type of thing. Oh, and Lefty hasn't shown any interest
in the issue of sexism in the open source world before, but is suddenly
launching a campaign against it (main target: RMS). Finally, it appears
he may have form when it comes to trolling.
So, I'm confused. On the one hand, sexism is a big problem (particularly
in software development, which is heavily male). On the other hand, it
feels like this is less about fighting sexism and more about destroying
someone's reputation to win an entirely unrelated dispute, which makes
me more than a little alarmed. I'm not even sure if using it as a
political weapon in this way is good or bad for the fight against
sexism. (I suspect Stallman is not the place to start; he's a slightly
eccentric irrelevance for the most part.)
Any thoughts? When does fighting sexism justify joining the campaign of
someone whose motives are less than pure?
[quote]
http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/feminism-co-option-and-open-so.html
But I see from the comments that you've already read it.
[quote]
I'm also sorry to say that I'm not much of an anti-Mono zealot. Well,
wasn't until I ran headlong into your blog, anyway.
[/quote]
LOL!
Keep up the good work, "Lefty".
Not only have you succeeded in losing yet another convert to the
anti-Mono campaign, but you managed to alienate a potential customer in
the process:
http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/my-first-vibrator.html
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.
Oh well, you've always got dildos to fall back on.
--
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
03:31:06 up 64 days, 7:29, 5 users, load average: 0.04, 0.04, 0.08
Stone Mirror
>
> 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 favors—since he approved of Mark Fink's attempts to do just
that—that 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?
By the way, that website (and the associated brick and mortar store)
just got named a "Best of the Bay" by the San Francisco Guardian.
verofakto
Homer wrote:
Well hello Slated/Homer/Keith/etc. My man. The "uber reader". Guest
author extraordinaire. Man behind the curtain and all that. A rare
surprise. A rare surprise indeed. Sucks to be outside BoycottBoy's
little sandbox where you can be protected from the eeebil people,
doesn't it?
Seriously now, I was going to tell you to fuck off and feel good about
it, but I'll give you a chance. Let's play this psycho game you guys
love so much. Hey, maybe you can invite Gerard and 'twitter' over, that
would be a blast. Shall we begin?
> Attack Stallman
Can you point out where I attacked Richard Stallman?
Thanks ever so much. I'll be waiting.
> Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation
> exactly what they think of such behaviour.
Perhaps you would like to delineate said behavior and then prove that
I'm David or viceversa. Breathlessly waiting for that as well.
Don't shy away now, I definitely want to _engage_ you in dialogue. Too
bad you can't kick me from IRC or censor me like BoycottBoy does, but
you'll just have to live with that handicap.
--
verofakto
http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
Stone Mirror
> attempts to pretend otherwise, the author of the blog, David "Lefty"
> Schlesinger, is a strong Mono supporter.
No, I'm not. I've consistently said that I don't care much one way or
the other about Mono, that I use F-Stop and Tomboy. If there were
better alternatives (and as a photographer with thousands of photos,
there aren't better alternatives than F-Stop for Linux), I'd use them.
I don't program in C#, and I've got no interest in learning to. So, if
you want to claim otherwise, you're going to need to show your work.
> In fact, his previous blog post
> is a fairly vicious attack on both a specific anti-Mono individual and
> on everyone who's anti-Mono.
In fact, the blog post that you refer[1] to takes issue with an
attempt to interfere with my employment which the "specific anti-Mono
individual", Roy Schestowitz, both condoned and was aware of, based on
digitally signed email from him. My disagreements with Roy have
nothing at all to do with Mono, but with Roy's tactics in pushing his
agenda, as the blog posting makes completely clear. Roy's multiple
failures in the comments to explain what he _really_ meant and
_really_ said speak for themselves. Badly.
> So, I'm confused.
I'm guessing that this is a fairly chronic thing with you, Homer.
Although this will doubtless cause you further confusion, you may want
to consider that folks like Celeste Lyn Paul[2], Matthew Garrett[3]
and Chani Armitage[4]--none of whom are Mono users at all, all of whom
were actually at GCDS--have taken strong issue with Stallman's remarks
as well.
[1] http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html
[2] http://identi.ca/notice/6304540
[3] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/113401.html
[4] http://chani.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/rms-emacs-virgins/
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Jul 31, 7:31�pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>
>> Though he
>> attempts to pretend otherwise, the author of the blog, David "Lefty"
>> Schlesinger, is a strong Mono supporter.
>
> No, I'm not. I've consistently said that I don't care much one way or
> the other about Mono, that I use F-Stop and Tomboy. If there were
> better alternatives (and as a photographer with thousands of photos,
> there aren't better alternatives than F-Stop for Linux), I'd use them.
> I don't program in C#, and I've got no interest in learning to. So, if
> you want to claim otherwise, you're going to need to show your work.
>
>> In fact, his previous blog post
>> is a fairly vicious attack on both a specific anti-Mono individual and
>> on everyone who's anti-Mono.
>
> In fact, the blog post that you refer[1] to takes issue with an
> attempt to interfere with my employment which the "specific anti-Mono
> individual", Roy Schestowitz, both condoned and was aware of, based on
> digitally signed email from him. My disagreements with Roy have
> nothing at all to do with Mono, but with Roy's tactics in pushing his
> agenda, as the blog posting makes completely clear. Roy's multiple
> failures in the comments to explain what he _really_ meant and
> _really_ said speak for themselves. Badly.
The people in COLA don't believe Roy Schestowitz *has* an
agenda.
They believe that Roy Schestowitz is running this 24x7 operation
of hate, out of the goodness of his heart.
I know it sounds unbelievable, but it's true.
>> So, I'm confused.
>
> I'm guessing that this is a fairly chronic thing with you, Homer.
> Although this will doubtless cause you further confusion, you may want
> to consider that folks like Celeste Lyn Paul[2], Matthew Garrett[3]
> and Chani Armitage[4]--none of whom are Mono users at all, all of whom
> were actually at GCDS--have taken strong issue with Stallman's remarks
> as well.
>
> [1] http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html
> [2] http://identi.ca/notice/6304540
> [3] http://mjg59.livejournal.com/113401.html
> [4] http://chani.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/rms-emacs-virgins/
Stallman, for better or worse is basically a "what you see is
what you get" entity.
I say take it or leave it.
In my case, I prefer to leave it, and far, far away.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Homer wrote:
>
> Well hello Slated/Homer/Keith/etc. My man. The "uber reader". Guest
> author extraordinaire. Man behind the curtain and all that. A rare
> surprise. A rare surprise indeed. Sucks to be outside BoycottBoy's
> little sandbox where you can be protected from the eeebil people,
> doesn't it?
COLA is Schestowitz's little sandbox.
The problem with it is that Schestowitz is like a cat and we all
know what cats do in sandboxes.
If you think BN is loony, you should hang around here for a
while.
We have complete freetards here in COLA.
For example:
7 whose nanobots and holodeck inventions are going to take the
world by storm.
William Poaster aka Geoff Finton who is a complete empty suit
and talks non-stop about his USENET filter system.
HPT = High Plains Thumper = Wendy Toiletwater who has more nyms
than Carter has liver pills.
...and so forth.
It's like a dysfunctional ant farm around here.
Sit back and enjoy the show!
High Plains Thumper
> verofakto wrote:
>
>> Well hello Slated/Homer/Keith/etc. My man. The "uber reader". Guest
>> author extraordinaire. Man behind the curtain and all that. A rare
>> surprise. A rare surprise indeed. Sucks to be outside BoycottBoy's
>> little sandbox where you can be protected from the eeebil people,
>> doesn't it?
>
> COLA is Schestowitz's little sandbox.
>
> The problem with it is that Schestowitz is like a cat and we all know
> what cats do in sandboxes.
Nope, rather it's flatfish who is marking its territory.
> If you think BN is loony, you should hang around here for a while.
>
> We have complete freetards here in COLA.
>
> For example:
>
> 7 whose nanobots and holodeck inventions are going to take the world by
> storm.
>
> William Poaster aka Geoff Finton who is a complete empty suit and talks
> non-stop about his USENET filter system.
>
> HPT = High Plains Thumper = Wendy Toiletwater who has more nyms than
> Carter has liver pills.
That is a lie. Flatfish is a known, brazen liar. Following is a subset
of Flatfish nyms:
The flatfish troll nyms shifts an extraordinary amount often using the
nyms as sock puppets. Here is a list of some of the nyms the flatfish
troll has used (NB: flatfish will often use the names of other posters as
nyms):
Sandeep Kumar, Abbie Diaz, achmed.jones, Aftab Singh, Allen Cusimano,
Allie Perkins, Allison Juergans, allison_hunt1969, Alicia Hunt, Ana
Thema, andyschipowitz, Anna Banger, anonymous, arkady.duntov, Archie,
Archie Moss Bunker, Archie Watermann, Attila, Baba Booey, Babcock
Johnson, babcock.latreen, Babu Singh, ball.cock.the.plumber,
banjo.boy69, Bill Thomson, Billy, bill.gates.loves.me, BingoBongo, bison,
Bjarne Jensen, bjornstad8800, BklynBoy, bones4jones, bonobo magilla,
Boyce Mabri, BSEE, Bunsen Burner,
Buster, c.baumstumpff, CBFalconer, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers
McGee, Chris Thomas, Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Clippy, Clock
King, collie4roy, Collie Entragion, Colon Singh, common cold,
compton.plaines_kid, Connie Hines, Corrie, corry.lebeu, Corrie Titlaand,
Cory Dyvik, Curtis Wilson, cymon.says, Damian O'Leary, Dana Bush, Danny
Kwong, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Debbie, detective48, Devon Dawson,
dismoqualifetch, Donn Carlsbad, donna.bunting_tv, dont.pullout,
doris.gets.her.oates, Doug Richardson, Dragon.Boy, Dr.Long John Jones,
dy.sector, echo.valley_26809, Elliot Zimmermann, Elwin Winters, Emmanuel
Arias, Fawn Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, frank boson, Franz Klammer,
Fred Simmons, gabriele howorth, Gary Stewart, GayClod, George Cotton,
George Littlefield, Gilbert, Gilbert Goiter, Gilbert Hochaim, gilligan,
goldfarb44, gooseborg, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm, Hans
Tomlinson, Harry Hilton, Harvey Fogel, Heather, Heather69, Heather Trax,
Heddy Seafield, Heidi van Wong, helmut.ginter, hepcat, high_pain_humper,
Hugh Himless, hymen.the.jew, llanalott, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan
Mctavish, IvanaB, Jason, jeff.smiley, Jeff Szarka, jjwassermann, Joe
Josephson, John, John King, John Shelton, John Smith, johnnyscotrun,
jolt.n.pizza, Jorge Jorgensen, jorge_shillingford, Jose Lopez,
juke_joint, kaptain kaput, Karel Olish, karen.bullfinch, Karen Hill,
Karla Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kaylie Solomon, Kendra, Kenneth Downs,
Kenny Dugan, Kent Dorfman, Ken Johnson, Kim Coinop, Kinglen Wang,
Kristen, kumba killington, Kurt Janker, Kyle Cadet, lafferty6, L Didio,
Laura Shillingford, Le Farter, Le Yammy, Leaking Onion, Leo Diaz, Les
Cramer, Les Turner, Les Walton, Leslie Bassman, Lilly, Lindy,
linux.curious, Linux Exposer, linux.freak.detector, Lisa Shavas, Lisa
Cottmann, Lois Hunt, Long, long_tong_ling, luisortizhome, Lukumi Babalu
Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor, Manny, mark.kent.is.owned, Mario Fermin,
McSwain, mista twista,Mogumbo, Moses, Mooshoo Bong Singh, mr.macfeelme,
mycarisfast, narrows_whitefish, nate_mcspook, Navid Shakibapour,
oh.bama.da.rack, okto_pussy, opensource.sucks, organ.creep, OSS KDE User,
Paddy McCrockett, Paul Wannamaker, Paris Marriot, Patricia, Patrick
Landrum, Patty LeGrange, patty pippins, Patty Poppins, percy samson,
Peter Gluckman, Peter Kohlmann, peter.traphagen, Phil, Phillip Cornwall,
phoung, phoung quoak, pickle_pete, Piss Clam, Polly Ester, Poopy Pants
McGee, pus.boy99, pyles69, Quimby, Quinton Magee, Quizno Backer, Ray
Schitzmepantz, Reporter, Rich, Richard P. Johnson, Richie, Richie
O'Toole, Richie Spano, right.wanger, Robert Strunk, rodolfo.garcia44,
rothstein_ivan, Roy_Pestowitz, Roy.Schakemetitz, Roy.Schavedmenutz,
Roy.Schavesmewankz, roy.shysterwitz, Roy.Schitzowitz, roys.testicles,
roy.the.spam.king, RP Modell, ryebra, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen,
Saul Goldblatt, schavemetitz, Schestertitz, schestowizzle, schestowitz,
schitzmepantz, schisterwitz, Schlomo Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon
Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean Macpherson, Sewer Rat,
sewer_clown, Shelly K., Sherlock Holmes, Schlomo Rabinowitz, Simon, Simon
Lewis, simply.lisa, Singer, sista sledgehammer, slacker.mcspritze,
Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stefan Karstensen, Stephan Simonsen,
Stephanie, Stephanie Mannerz, Stephen, Stephen Olsen, Stephen Townshend,
stomach.pump, SuckyB, Sue, sue quinterra, sully1999, SunnyB, Susan, Susan
Bladder, Susan Lapinski, Susan Wong, Suzi Wong, suzie.linux, Suzie Wong,
Swampee, swing.cock, sylvano12tegriorgriach, Ted Bennington, Terri
Sorensen, Terry Porter, The Beaver, Thorsten, Thorsten Thigpen, Timmy
Luncford , Toby Rastus Roosovelt III, toe.mein, Tomas Bicsak,
tomas.bozak, Tomas Dunton, Tomas Lucatorto, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Torre
Stanslaand, Trace Dennison, Tracee, Traci, traci.alicock,
traci.manicotti, traci.pusey, Traci Spritzendrainer, trailerpark, Trina
Swallows, Trolly, Trudi Simpkins, Tryxie Lustern, udayshankar29, Uday
Shankar, victimizedb, victimizedbyms, Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano,
Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Wasser, Waterskidoo, wendy, Wendy Duzz,
Whizzer, Wilbur J, willy watkins jr, Willy Wong, wiltons_pypes, Winnie
Septos, wizard.shot, wm_walsh, Wobbles, wylbur.horseman, Yanick Schmuley
and zyklon_C.
Plus many, many, many more.
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/flatfish-troll.html
> ...and so forth.
>
> It's like a dysfunctional ant farm around here.
>
> Sit back and enjoy the show!
Only in Flatfish's mind.
--
HPT
Ezekiel
>
> Schlesinger's attack on RMS is pitiful, juvenile, and simply
> embarrassing. It also brings into disrepute the other organisations that
> he's supposed to represent as a mature, level-headed professional,
> instead of like some teenage thug on a bullying rampage.
>
> Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation
> exactly what they think of such behaviour.
>
Homer shows that he is another SCUMBAG "advocate" by threatening to
contact and harass Lefty's employer.
Real class act these "advocate" scumbags.
Stone Mirror
> Homer wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation
> > exactly what they think of such behaviour.
>
> Homer shows that he is another SCUMBAG "advocate" by threatening to
> contact and harass Lefty's employer.
>
> Real class act these "advocate" scumbags.
This is precisely the sort of tactic the "advocates"—who have nothing
to do with what I know as "the open source community", and who are
universally scorned and despised by the people who actually work on
projects, attend conferences, etc.—use to try to silence folks who
won't sign up for their little anti-Microsoft jihad. I've had my
employer called (with Roy's complicity), my employer's contact details
have been posted both in comments on the "Boycott Novell" site (by
someone who was too much of a coward to complain about me himself, but
hoped that "someone else would make the call") and on their IRC
channel.
I'm not that easily intimidated. The folks I work for don't hire and
fire based on demands from Nameless Hordes. Sorry For The
Inconvenience, Homer, but you're not going to be able to scare me or
shut me up that way. All you do is make yourself, and Roy there, look
like the lunatics you are...
Stone Mirror
>
> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
What about them? (Who are you talking about?)
> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
So you type, anyway.
> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't wrapped in
> lies and FUD.
So? Show your work. Put up your own evidence. Or discuss what
verofakto has put up. But 'Proof by Repetitive Blunt Assertion"—
admittedly par for the course on USENET—isn't too impressive, really.
Was there actually any sort of a "science" component to that BSc
you're evidently so proud of...?
Alexander Terekhov
Stone Mirror wrote:
[...]
> Sorry, Roy, that's not my blog. Once again, you leap to unsupported
> conclusions. My blog is at http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com, as you
Hello Stone,
Who cares that MS allegedly "violates" the GPL
http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/
(Microsoft, the GPL, and Nonsense from Folks Who Know Better)
given that according to Richard Stallman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bdN3ZUUJuU
Linux itself allegedly "violates" the GPL for several years already
thanks to Linus Torvalds!!!
LOL
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Aug 1, 4:06 am, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email-address.com> wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation
>>> exactly what they think of such behaviour.
>>
>> Homer shows that he is another SCUMBAG "advocate" by threatening to
>> contact and harass Lefty's employer.
>>
>> Real class act these "advocate" scumbags.
>
> This is precisely the sort of tactic the "advocates"—who have nothing
> to do with what I know as "the open source community", and who are
> universally scorned and despised by the people who actually work on
> projects, attend conferences, etc.—use to try to silence folks who
> won't sign up for their little anti-Microsoft jihad. I've had my
> employer called (with Roy's complicity), my employer's contact details
> have been posted both in comments on the "Boycott Novell" site (by
> someone who was too much of a coward to complain about me himself, but
> hoped that "someone else would make the call") and on their IRC
> channel.
That sounds very much like the work of Roy Schestowitz, [Homer],
Twatter or any of the other freaks of nature that inahabit BN.
> I'm not that easily intimidated. The folks I work for don't hire and
> fire based on demands from Nameless Hordes. Sorry For The
> Inconvenience, Homer, but you're not going to be able to scare me or
> shut me up that way. All you do is make yourself, and Roy there, look
> like the lunatics you are...
Good for you.
If any evidence of those vermin harrassing your employer
surfaces, I would the living daylights out of Schestowitz and
company.
You can stand behind Microsoft, Novell and others who are
cataloging his every move.
Bwaaaaaaa!
Stone Mirror
>
> Who cares that MS allegedly "violates" the GPL...given that according to Richard Stallman...
> Linux itself allegedly "violates" the GPL for several years already
> thanks to Linus Torvalds!!!
I think that if Mr. Stallman feels that Mr. Torvalds is infringing his
license terms in some way by allowing dynamic loading of drivers in
the kernel, then Mr. Stallman should most certainly direct the SFLC to
begin an enforcement action against Mr. Torvalds.
_That'd_ be interesting.
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Stallman may be the only one who
holds this particular opinion.
Stone Mirror
>
> Good for you.
> If any evidence of those vermin harrassing your employer
> surfaces, I would the living daylights out of Schestowitz and
> company.
Actually, there's clear evidence in my blog[1], in the form of a
digitally signed email from Roy. Specifically, the person most
directly responsible for efforts to harass me, a "Mark Fink", sent an
email, specifically mentioning "getting David [i.e. me] fired", to Roy
expressing some dismay about the negative reaction he'd been getting
(e.g. people referring to him as a dangerous "psychotic", etc.) since
word of the attempt to contact my manager got around. Roy responded,
"I liked what you do"--showing knowledge and approval of Fink's past
actions--as well as saying, "try to distance yourself from the site to
give it credibility. Make it look like a personal gripe while the site
keeps it polite"--showing that Roy is directing Fink's future
activities to disrupt and harass. Fink was not pleased with Roy's
response, I guess, since he forwarded the email to me, telling me that
Roy had put him up to the whole thing.
Roy has never come up with any sort of adequate response to any of
this. Appropriate responses on my end are underway, as Roy is well
aware.
It's worth noting that Roy has already admitted to libeling me[2],
having posted a full retraction and a apology, as well as a promise to
be more responsible in the future. He broke that particular promise in
less than a day, as it happened.
[1] http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html
[2] http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/13/correction-about-schlesinger/
Stone Mirror
> On Aug 1, 7:47 am, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who cares that MS allegedly "violates" the GPL...given that according to Richard Stallman...
> > Linux itself allegedly "violates" the GPL for several years already
> > thanks to Linus Torvalds!!!
>
> I think that if Mr. Stallman feels that Mr. Torvalds is infringing his
> license terms in some way by allowing dynamic loading of drivers in
> the kernel, then Mr. Stallman should most certainly direct the SFLC to
> begin an enforcement action against Mr. Torvalds.
Better still, Mr. Stallman and the FSF should immediately cease all
use of "GNU/Linux" as being non-free and in violation of the terms of
the GPL and move to pure GNU/HURD systems. Everyone who values
"software freedom (the way we _tell_ you to)" to the point that
they'll harass other people over differing opinions should do
likewise.
I'd very much like to see the FSF put their money where Mr. Stallman's
mouth is on this.
Homer
Schlesinger) spake thusly:
>> 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 favors—since 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?
> —that 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
Moshe Goldfarb
Roy Schestowitz's flagrant yellow journalistic approach is not
only dangerous it is unfair.
He rarely retracts anything and even when caught red handed he
will markup the text with a line through it on the site, which
means it will still show in search engines, which is really his
mission in life.
Seeding search engines with propaganda, lies and half truths.
In an effort to expose exactly how Roy Schestowitz will post
anything, from any source without first verifying his source, an
experiment was performed.
For some oddball reason, he believes my name is Gary Stewart and
he has been trying to dig up dirt on me for years.
He has been totally unsuccessful, because my name is not Gary
Stewart, but that's neither here nor there.
I, along with others, concocted an email which was send from a
proxy and purported to be from a person who knew Gary Stewart
back in the 80's.
It contained all kinds of false information, most of it
believable, but also contained one "fact" which was so
unbelievable it bordered on ridiculous.
This was done on purpose to show how roy Schestowitz will
believe anything, slander/libel anyone, based solely on an
anonymous email.
That fact BTW was that Gary was so large he could barely fit
through the elevator doors in the skyscraper where he worked in
NYC.
In fact the "fact" was so absurd that several COLA regulars
almost unwittingly spoiled the scam by pointing this out!
Well Roy Schestowitz went to town with this and posted it in
COLA as well as on his BN site and every other place he could
find.
We let it stew and simmer for a few days as the freetards
scurried around thinking they had discovered the holy grail and
then we lowered the boom on Schestowitz.
We posted the anon name along with his emails, including
Schestowitz's PGP signature and information that only Roy
Schestowitz could have known because he did not publish the name
of his source as well as other details he left out.
Schestowitz's tactics were exposed.
However the freetards just disappeared and made like it never
happened.
They are so fooled by this con artist, Roy Schestowitz that they
don't even seem to have any self worth left.
Here is the thread:
enjoy!
Andrew Halliwell
> Linux itself allegedly "violates" the GPL for several years already
> thanks to Linus Torvalds!!!
SO?
There's a difference, if you can't see that then you're dumber than a
brick.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Stone Mirror
>
> There's a difference, if you can't see that then you're dumber than a
> brick.
Well, since this "difference" is so obvious to you, why don't you just
assume that we're all "dumber than a brick" and _explain_ it to us,
Andrew?
Stone Mirror
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror (a.k.a. David "Lefty"
> Schlesinger) spake thusly:
>
Well, so you _say_, Homer...
> 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.
> 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.
Well, since I've already brought it to the attention of all of them
weeks ago, anticipating that you folks would threaten to, I can tell
you what answer you'll get, in general terms. "He's not representing
us when expressing his opinions, as he's consistently made quite
clear. He's entitled to express his own opinions, and we back his
right to do so 100%." So, knock yourself out, I'm not intimidated, or
terribly concerned by the assessment of a nameless nonentity as to my
level of "professionalism". (And don't forget that Roy has admitted to
libeling me...)
> 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, and
tell outright lies. As I said, he's admitted to libeling me, retracted
that libel and apologized for it; he also promised to be more
responsible in the future, and then went on to break that promise
before a full day had passed.
> ....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.
> 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". He also consistently fails to
correct errors when they're pointed out to him...
> 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.
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, and his unwillingness to even recognize
the situation. I dispute your anecdotal evidence regarding "most
people" in the face of the substantial direct evidence coming from
people who were actually present. And, trust me, we are not "humorless
people", as you'd know well if you ever did anything like _attend_ a
community conference (something Roy is evidently frightened to do...)
The people who are "suspicious" are a) attempting to deflect criticism
from Stallman, b) minimizing a real problem for the FLOSS community
where the ratio of women is one tenth what it is in proprietary
software development, and c) trying to drum up support for their own
little anti-Mono crusade. That includes you, Homer, and Roy, too.
> And yet you feign indifference to Mono.
I'm not feigning. I don't use Mono other than as an F-Stop or Tomboy
user--although Aaron Bockover's work with Banshee looks very nice--and
I think the Ubuntu Technical Board's position makes better sense than
the FSF's, but I don't much care whether Mono is in Ubuntu or any
other distribution or not, as long as I have something I can use to
catalogue my (thousands of) photos in an reasonable way. Period.
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.
> ...anonymously on COLA...
"Anonymously", "Homer"? I've made it clear who _I_ am; who are _you_?
> 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? Please show me the statute of which
I am in violation; I travel to the EU a lot, and I wouldn't want any
misunderstandings... (You haven't got a slight clue what you're
mumbling about, Homer...)
> Can you see how this might not exactly help your defence?
Heh. No, Homer, not really. Especially not with all the helpful
additional digging that Roy's undertaken on his own.
> > —that 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.
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.
Homer
> On Aug 1, 4:06 am, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email-address.com> wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME
>>> Foundation exactly what they think of such behaviour.
>>
>> Homer shows that he is another SCUMBAG "advocate" by threatening
>> to contact and harass Lefty's employer.
>>
>> Real class act these "advocate" scumbags.
Is expecting accountability from public figures, such as representatives
of the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation, synonymous with being a
"scumbag"?
> Sorry For The Inconvenience, Homer
Your behaviour isn't so much an inconvenience as a disappointment.
> like the lunatics you are...
Etc.
--
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
18:18:12 up 64 days, 22:16, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
Andrew Halliwell
My pleasure.
1: What stallman claims to breach the GPL (the ability to load properietory
drivers) in fact DOESN'T
Just cos an extremist says it's so doesn't make it true. In what way does
the ability to load in proprietory drivers cause linux to break the GPL?
As you wish to prove yourself as not dumber than a brick, perhaps you could
tell us?
Remember, the kernel has GPL exceptions built into the license that allows
it to run software NOT covered by the GPL. So the license is in no way
broken. No matter how many times stallman complains about our "freedoms"
being impinged.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Stone Mirror
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>
> > On Aug 1, 4:06 am, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email-address.com> wrote:
> >> Homer wrote:
>
> >>> Perhaps we should ask the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME
> >>> Foundation exactly what they think of such behaviour.
>
> >> Homer shows that he is another SCUMBAG "advocate" by threatening
> >> to contact and harass Lefty's employer.
>
> >> Real class act these "advocate" scumbags.
>
> Is expecting accountability from public figures, such as representatives
> of the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation, synonymous with being a
> "scumbag"?
Except that I've made it consistently clear that I'm not representing
the views of either the LiMo Foundation or the GNOME Foundation (and
I'm not a "representative" of the GNOME Foundation at all, Homer, I'm
a member of the Advisory Board, quite a different thing: I don't get
to "represent" the GNOME Foundation at all). You seem intent on
ignoring that inconvenient fact, Homer.
And your apparent determination to do so in order, seemingly, to make
a cheap attempt at intimidation, indeed, the act of a scumbag.
> > Sorry For The Inconvenience, Homer
>
> Your behaviour isn't so much an inconvenience as a disappointment.
Well, you'd better resign yourself to disappointment. Ask me how
concerned I am.
Stone Mirror
>
> 1: What stallman claims to breach the GPL (the ability to load properietory
> drivers) in fact DOESN'T
Well, it seems we agree on this. I may have misjudged you. My comments
were more directed to those who take every word from Mr. Stallman's
mouth as a sort of gospel, subject to neither criticism nor debate.
> Just cos an extremist says it's so doesn't make it true. In what way does
> the ability to load in proprietory drivers cause linux to break the GPL?
> As you wish to prove yourself as not dumber than a brick, perhaps you could
> tell us?
Actually, I think I'm rather smarter than a brick in these matters,
and I honestly haven't the slightest clue what Stallman is going on
about. My point was that if he's that committed to "free software",
why does he support the use of the (apparently) "non-free" Linux
kernel. That seems hypocritical (and, yes, extremist) to me.
\> Remember, the kernel has GPL exceptions built into the license that
allows
> it to run software NOT covered by the GPL. So the license is in no way
> broken. No matter how many times stallman complains about our "freedoms"
> being impinged.
Stallman has a lot of interesting ideas about freedom, many of which
amount to his demanding that everybody else do things _his_ way...
So, I think we're actually in violent agreement here.
Homer
> Homer wrote:
>
> Well hello Slated/Homer/Keith/etc. My man. The "uber reader". Guest
> author extraordinaire. Man behind the curtain and all that. A rare
> surprise. A rare surprise indeed.
Thank you. I had no idea was so influential, and such an influence on
you in particular, whoever you are.
> Sucks to be outside BoycottBoy's little sandbox where you can be
> protected from the eeebil people, doesn't it?
Pass.
I post primarily here and on my blog. Roy copy 'n pastes that to BN
sometimes, which is nice because his site generally receives a much
wider audience. This elicits a lot of feedback that I often respond
to, along with my comments on many other sites too, pretty much the
sort of thing most social-networking types do.
Beyond criminal law, I'm not sure I need much protecting from this
"eeebil" you refer to (is that a killer-robot version of gerbil?),
and since, unlike "Lefty's" (and your) heavily censored sites, BN does
/not/ in fact censor comments, I'm not sure what "protection" it is
supposed to offer me anyway, assuming I need any.
Are you suggesting I need protection from you?
> Perhaps you would like to delineate said behavior and then prove that
> I'm David or viceversa.
Great. So you're not "Lefty", but you've been conscripted by him into
his little pro-Mono cult. I feel so much better.
> I definitely want to _engage_ you in dialogue. Too bad you can't kick
> me from IRC or censor me like BoycottBoy does, but you'll just have
> to live with that handicap.
The phrase I used was "engage in reasonable discourse", Jonathan,
something you're clearly not capable of - mostly due to your fatal
"handicap" of being a paid propagandist for one of the world's most
disreputable companies.
BTW, when are you going to publish my final response to your blog?
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it rather curious that a Mono
supporter and a Microsoft Evangelist form a tag-team to attack Linux
advocates?
Oh right...
(PS: Did I get it right this time, or are you going to keep hiding
behind that rock, throwing stones, then running away?)
--
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
19:01:04 up 64 days, 22:59, 4 users, load average: 0.16, 0.04, 0.01
Stone Mirror
wrote:
>
> Hi, David. Is this like your 10th attack blog on individuals?
I wonder whether Roy will ever respond to the well-documented timeline
[1] which Verofakto has presented in his blog, rather than whining
(again) that he's being "attacked"...
[1] http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2009/07/timeline-of-david-schlesingermark.html
Stone Mirror
>
> ...since, unlike "Lefty's" (and your) heavily censored sites,
Don't forget mono-nono.com, which also moderates comments...
> BN does
> /not/ in fact censor comments
Roy certainly _editorializes_ around the comments of those who
disagree with him, as well as selectively deleting accounts, etc.,
when it suits him. I wouldn't be too quick to claim him as a paragon
of "non-censorship"
> > Perhaps you would like to delineate said behavior and then prove that
> > I'm David or viceversa.
>
> Great. So you're not "Lefty", but you've been conscripted by him into
> his little pro-Mono cult. I feel so much better.
Everything's a conspiracy with you folks. Having admitted leaping to
one erroneous conclusion, and showing an inability to learn from
experience, you leap headlong into another, equally erroneous, one...
> The phrase I used was "engage in reasonable discourse", Jonathan,
> something you're clearly not capable of - mostly due to your fatal
> "handicap" of being a paid propagandist for one of the world's most
> disreputable companies.
Show your work. I don't believe "Verofakto" is Jonathan Wong, either:
he has his own blog[1] and isn't apparently shy about using it.
However, everything in Verofakto's blog seems to be extremely well-
documented. Avoiding responding to it seems...escapist, to say the
least...
> Is it just me, or does anyone else find it rather curious that a Mono
> supporter and a Microsoft Evangelist form a tag-team to attack Linux
> advocates?
Except that I'm not a Mono supporter and he's not a Microsoft
Evangelist. Yeah, it's just you.
[1] http://armchairtheorist.com/2009/07/21/the-curious-case-of-boycott-novell/
Moshe Goldfarb
Roy Schestowitz, [Homer], twatter and the other miscreants that
infest BN are complete paranoids.
They think there is a Microsoft person around every corner just
waiting to attack them.
[Homer] in particular can go on for paragraphs spewing theories
that would make Art Bell and his reptile people look sane by
comparison!
I'm not certain what makes a person reach that level of insanity
but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with having an
unhealthy obsession with foss and Linux.
Schestowitz sits 24x7 spewing out his SPAM.
Doesn't the guy have a life?
Doesn't he have a job?
Go to school?
etc?
Who is paying his bills?
Stone Mirror
>
> I'm not certain what makes a person reach that level of insanity
> but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with having an
> unhealthy obsession with foss and Linux.
An unhealthy obsession with anything can do that. With some people,
it's UFOs; with some people, it's Microsoft.
> Schestowitz sits 24x7 spewing out his SPAM.
Pretty much.
> Doesn't the guy have a life?
Judging from the frequency of updates to the site, and his activity on
IRC, the answer would seem to be a clear "no".
> Doesn't he have a job?
No. He's evidently a "professional graduate student", working toward,
but never quite making it to, a PhD in something or other...
> Go to school?
In some metaphysical sense, anyway...
> Who is paying his bills?
His mom, from all appearances. He claims someone donates the server
and the bandwidth.
Andrew Halliwell
> Actually, I think I'm rather smarter than a brick in these matters,
> and I honestly haven't the slightest clue what Stallman is going on
> about. My point was that if he's that committed to "free software",
> why does he support the use of the (apparently) "non-free" Linux
> kernel. That seems hypocritical (and, yes, extremist) to me.
But he doesn't.
Watch the whole youtube clip.
He says after complaining about the proprietory drivers/firmware in linux,
that the FSF have their own version of the kernel with all that stuff
stripped out, called "linux libre"
As for HURD.
That's been in development now for longer than linux iirc, and it's only at
about the stage linux was 15 years ago.
> \> Remember, the kernel has GPL exceptions built into the license that
> allows
>> it to run software NOT covered by the GPL. So the license is in no way
>> broken. No matter how many times stallman complains about our "freedoms"
>> being impinged.
>
> Stallman has a lot of interesting ideas about freedom, many of which
> amount to his demanding that everybody else do things _his_ way...
>
> So, I think we're actually in violent agreement here.
So do I. My attack was against one of those wintrolls who delight in talking
in FUD I talked about in another thread. (the idiot who posted that youtube
link in the first place)
Tim Smith
Andrew Halliwell <spi...@ponder.sky.com> wrote:
> My pleasure.
> 1: What stallman claims to breach the GPL (the ability to load properietory
> drivers) in fact DOESN'T
>
>
> Just cos an extremist says it's so doesn't make it true. In what way does
> the ability to load in proprietory drivers cause linux to break the GPL?
> As you wish to prove yourself as not dumber than a brick, perhaps you could
> tell us?
>
> Remember, the kernel has GPL exceptions built into the license that allows
> it to run software NOT covered by the GPL. So the license is in no way
> broken. No matter how many times stallman complains about our "freedoms"
> being impinged.
In which case Microsoft didn't violate the GPL. They simply loaded
non-GPL GPL drivers--which you note is fine. They did reference symbols
that were marked GPL ONLY, but that is just an advisory mechanism to
allow the authors of the code that exported those symbols to say that
they don't want them used by non-GPL drivers. It was rude of Microsoft
to ignore that, but not a GPL violation.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
<dbe0f466-50d8-4aff...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Stone Mirror <stone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:47�am, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > Who cares that MS allegedly "violates" the GPL...given that
> > according to Richard Stallman... Linux itself allegedly "violates"
> > the GPL for several years already thanks to Linus Torvalds!!!
>
> I think that if Mr. Stallman feels that Mr. Torvalds is infringing his
> license terms in some way by allowing dynamic loading of drivers in
> the kernel, then Mr. Stallman should most certainly direct the SFLC to
> begin an enforcement action against Mr. Torvalds.
You are a bit confused here. Even if Stallman were 100% right about
loading dynamic non-GPL code into a GPL kernel violating GPL, he and the
SFLC would not be able to do anything about it, because the kernel code
is not theirs.
To sue someone for violating your copyright (and that's how you sue for
a GPL violation), it has to be *your* copyright. If party X sees party Y
violating GPL on party Z's code, X can't step in and enforce GPL. Only Z
gets to do that.
--
--Tim Smith
Stone Mirror
> In article
> <dbe0f466-50d8-4aff-8e2e-dead85707...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Stone Mirror <stonemir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 7:47 am, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > > Who cares that MS allegedly "violates" the GPL...given that
> > > according to Richard Stallman... Linux itself allegedly "violates"
> > > the GPL for several years already thanks to Linus Torvalds!!!
>
> > I think that if Mr. Stallman feels that Mr. Torvalds is infringing his
> > license terms in some way by allowing dynamic loading of drivers in
> > the kernel, then Mr. Stallman should most certainly direct the SFLC to
> > begin an enforcement action against Mr. Torvalds.
>
> You are a bit confused here. Even if Stallman were 100% right about
> loading dynamic non-GPL code into a GPL kernel violating GPL, he and the
> SFLC would not be able to do anything about it, because the kernel code
> is not theirs.
Indeed.
> To sue someone for violating your copyright (and that's how you sue for
> a GPL violation), it has to be *your* copyright. If party X sees party Y
> violating GPL on party Z's code, X can't step in and enforce GPL. Only Z
> gets to do that.
I'm entirely aware of all of that. That didn't, however, stop the SFLC
from sending Bradley Kuhn out to moan to the press about Microsoft's
"violations" _after_ they'd already been corrected. (Maybe we'll hear
from Bradley all about how Nvidia and ATI have been similarly
violating the GPL all this time once _they_ finally get into
compliance. He for sure hasn't been complaining about it _so far_...)
Homer
>> Schlesinger) spake thusly:
> On Aug 1, 9:06 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> 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
Homer
> On Aug 1, 11:01 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> ...since, unlike "Lefty's" (and your) heavily censored sites,
>
> Don't forget mono-nono.com, which also moderates comments...
Irrelevant. I'm talking about Boycott Novell and your site.
>> BN does /not/ in fact censor comments
>
> Roy certainly _editorializes_ around the comments
That's a rather evasive way of complaining about being marked as a troll
and/or shill. The comments remain intact. They have not been censored.
> I wouldn't be too quick to claim him as a paragon of "non-censorship"
Frankly I'm all for it, and indeed have encouraged Roy to do so in the
past, to no avail. I know that if a paid Microsoft shill astroturfed on
/my/ site, I'd purge every last trace of him in a heartbeat. I'll be
damned if I'm going to /assist/ Microsoft with spreading their propaganda.
>> Great. So you're not "Lefty", but you've been conscripted by him
>> into his little pro-Mono cult. I feel so much better.
>
> Everything's a conspiracy with you folks.
Actually, I misspoke.
If that really is Jon Wong, then the "conscription" probably happened
the other way round.
--
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
02:37:57 up 65 days, 6:36, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.01
Homer
Schlesinger) spake thusly:
>> I'm not certain what makes a person reach that level of insanity
>> but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with having an
>> unhealthy obsession with foss and Linux.
>
> An unhealthy obsession with anything can do that. With some people,
> it's UFOs; with some people, it's Microsoft.
And with you, it's Mono ... I mean feminism, or whatever your excuse du
jour happens to be.
So we're /all/ obsessed - you, me, everybody.
Great. Now that we've established parity in the obsession stakes,
perhaps you'd care to forward even /one/ good reason why any FLOSS
advocate /shouldn't/ be obsessed with Microsoft ...
... right after you've justified "me too'ing" a long established and
dedicated anti-Linux troll.
Oh, and just to help you answering the former, I've provided some
background information for you, coincidentally related to your "UFO"
comment:
[quote]
Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental
deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and
OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups,
whatever.
[/quote]
The "Evangelism is WAR!" TE training brief, James Plamondon, Microsoft's
former chief Technology Evangelist.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
--
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
03:19:58 up 65 days, 7:18, 5 users, load average: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00
Stone Mirror
>
> If you expected people to complain to the organisations/companies you
> represent, then why the faux outrage when it inevitably happens?
I don't actually expect many people to complain, if any. We've gotten
zero calls about my criticism of Stallman. I take exception to your
not-terribly-veiled threat since it's nothing more than a sleazy
attempt at intimidation on your part. Did I fail to make that clear?
I'm simply telling you it won't work on me. Unfortunately, when you
folks resort to threats like this, you create a chilling effect for
people who might _not_ feel as secure in their situations as I do, and
that discourages them from doing things like participating fully in
mailing lists, feeling safe in airing their opinions, etc. After all,
if you'll go after me for my views on Stallman, what's to keep you
from going after anyone who happens to feel the same way?
> > 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?
Read all about it: http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/13/correction-about-schlesinger/
> > 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.
Really? He's got an article there titled "Microsoft CEO Admits That
Vista 7 is Vapourware" for weeks now. He's got no basis for that
headline, and he knows it. I could come up with numerous other
examples of uncorrected misstatements.
There's a new one today: he claims that the City of of Angeles is
"dropping" Novell and Microsoft infrastructure to move to Google Apps.
The story he bases this on supplies no support for his claim: instead,
it's about the concerns raised against the (only-proposed) move to
Google Apps by, among others, the city police department, the city
attorneys' office, and numerous privacy groups. It goes way beyond
inadequate fact-checking, it's simply dishonest.
> 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.
I'm not in the business of supplying assistance to irresponsible
"journalists" in the habit of misrepresentation and defamation, other
than to encourage them to stop. Unlike Roy, I _have_ a job, thanks. If
the volume of material Roy pushes out exceeds his ability to adhere to
journalistic standards for accuracy, then he needs to rethink what
he's doing.
> So the common thread of Mono in all this is just pure coincidence?
No, it's pure imagination and unsupported assertions on your part.
Even Roy was forced to admit that there was no evidence that I was a
"Mono supporter".
> > 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.
My objections have nothing to do with _Mono_; they're purely with the
disruptive methods you use to press your case. If you had a problem
with Qt, or with D-Bus, and attempted to handle it in the same way,
I'd have the same objections.
> No, you only "made it clear" after Roy correctly guessed who you were.
Actually, I made it clear from the first point at which I mentioned
"my blog".
> 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.
Nor have I. And I take exception to your suggestion to the contrary.
> 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.
You and Roy were the ones who mentioned the web site, not I. And if
you think that qualifies as "astroturfing", you're quite insane.
> 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.
So might a paranoid, as you seem to be agreeing with me that you are.
_All_ paranoids will insist that _their_ fears are _warranted_, so
that doesn't really prove much....
> 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
So, of course, anyone who happens to disagree with you is by
definition a shill, an astroturfer, and a non-existent or dead
person...?
> > 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:
I wasn't violating any before.
> 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.
Well, let's see: I'm not a company, I'm not posing as a consumer on a
fake blog, I'm not providing fake customer testimonials on consumer
websites, or writing fake book reviews on Amazon. Your claims would
seem to be completely without substance. Unsurprising.
Feel free to show the _specific_ points of the law that you were going
on about, or admit that you're simply waving your hands around without
having any clear idea what you're talking about.
> > 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.
You've got an overly high opinion of yourself, Homer.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Verily I s> 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.
So Roy posts stories that are for the most part unchecked and
not verified for factual content, in fact 1000's per month, yet
he needs iffefutable proof to post a correction.
Yea, that makes sense.
And BTW Roy's corrections more often than not are nothing more
than a markup to the page consisting of a line drawn through the
offending part so that it will still show up in search engines
which is what he is really interested in.
> 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.
But.....he claims it's done manually.
Someone isn't telling the truth.
BTW I said a long time ago it's not humanly possible to post the
volume he does without automating the process.
The real question is why is Roy Schestowitz so concerned with
volume vs factual content?
If Roy Schestowitz were really concerned about the foss cause
would he not want to post and debate factual information instead
of the half truths he does post?
All his ranting does is sully Linux and make the real
contributors look like loons by association.
> 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?
So the world is paranoid and that is why you are paranoid.
Yea, that makes sense.
> And yet here you are, continuing to seek my opinion.
I could be wrong but I think he is laughing at you [Homer].
Moshe Goldfarb
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>> On Aug 1, 11:01 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> ...since, unlike "Lefty's" (and your) heavily censored sites,
>>
>> Don't forget mono-nono.com, which also moderates comments...
>
> Irrelevant. I'm talking about Boycott Novell and your site.
>
>>> BN does /not/ in fact censor comments
>>
>> Roy certainly _editorializes_ around the comments
>
> That's a rather evasive way of complaining about being marked as a troll
> and/or shill. The comments remain intact. They have not been censored.
Up until recently, that's pretty much true.
I will give Roy credit where it is due, he does not censor
comments made by the opposition as far as I know.
Lately though he has been banning people with dissenting
opinions which ultimately amounts to the same thing.
Personally I feel he is making a mistake doing that, but it's
his site so....
>> I wouldn't be too quick to claim him as a paragon of "non-censorship"
>
> Frankly I'm all for it, and indeed have encouraged Roy to do so in the
> past, to no avail. I know that if a paid Microsoft shill astroturfed on
> /my/ site, I'd purge every last trace of him in a heartbeat. I'll be
> damned if I'm going to /assist/ Microsoft with spreading their propaganda.
Your site is the best testament to your weirdness one could ever
hope for [Homer].
Please keep posting and talking!
Homer
> [2] http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/13/correction-about-schlesinger/
Ah, at last I get to read about the supposed libel (contrary to your
beliefs, I don't in fact follow every one of the posts Roy makes to BN).
Let's see, Roy committed the heinous crime of suggesting that:
. You're connected with Microsoft
. You're connected with Mark Fink (that one seems odd, even to me)
. You asked Roy to contact Mark Fink
. Your attack on Stallman was actually motivated by Mono
Now to someone like me, who considers Microsoft the devil incarnate,
being associated with them is the worst of all possible crimes, but then
to an actual civil /court/, would such a thing really be considered
/libellous/?
As for the rest, that's even weaker.
If this is the "libel" you're referring to, then it's an utter joke.
Now, if Roy had accused you of being a paedophile, for example, I think
you might actually have a case ... but /this/?
Pathetic.
But it gets even better. Having somehow intimidated Roy into posting
retractions for something that even an MP would just shrug off, you then
proceed to /prove/ one of /his/ points ("suggesting that he used false
names"), by posting under such a false name right here on COLA ... and
admitting to it.
Good grief!
Go home.
--
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
03:44:05 up 65 days, 7:42, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
Homer
> On Aug 1, 10:18 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Is expecting accountability from public figures, such as
>> representatives of the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation,
>> synonymous with being a "scumbag"?
Correction: "GNOME Foundation Advisory Board"
> Except that I've made it consistently clear that I'm not representing
> the views of either the LiMo Foundation or the GNOME Foundation
You're not forwarding your views as being representative of those
organisations, certainly, but you cannot escape your responsibility as
someone whose association with them is well known (indeed you even
advertise those associations right next to every article). So when
someone reads those articles, they will make that connection, regardless
of any disclaimer.
> Well, you'd better resign yourself to disappointment. Ask me how
> concerned I am.
Concerned enough to continue this conversation, apparently.
--
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
03:59:09 up 65 days, 7:57, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
Stone Mirror
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>
> > [2]http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/13/correction-about-schlesinger/
>
> Ah, at last I get to read about the supposed libel (contrary to your
> beliefs, I don't in fact follow every one of the posts Roy makes to BN).
>
> Let's see, Roy committed the heinous crime of suggesting that:
>
> . You're connected with Microsoft
> . You're connected with Mark Fink (that one seems odd, even to me)
> . You asked Roy to contact Mark Fink
> . Your attack on Stallman was actually motivated by Mono
>
> Now to someone like me, who considers Microsoft the devil incarnate,
> being associated with them is the worst of all possible crimes, but then
> to an actual civil /court/, would such a thing really be considered
> /libellous/?
>
> As for the rest, that's even weaker.
>
> If this is the "libel" you're referring to, then it's an utter joke.
I think you want to read up a little on the UK's Defamation Act. I'm
not a public figure, and I can show that Roy's statements were
contrary to fact, easily demonstrable to be contrary to fact with
minimal _fact-checking_ on Roy's part, in flagrant disregard for the
facts, and potentially damaging to my reputation. Given that a big
part of my job is FLOSS community development, his claim that I'm
criticizing Richard Stallman solely because I'm in Microsoft's hire
and as a way to secretly further Mono somehow is clearly defamatory,
sorry.
At that point, the onus is completely on Roy to prove that the
statements he made were factually true. And courts in the UK are
extremely friendly to the defamed. Roy's problems are only complicated
by his "now you see it, now you don't" "journalist" act, while failing
to adhere to anything remotely resembling journalistic ethics and
standards.
Come back when you can demonstrate that you have any idea what you're
talking about.
Stone Mirror
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>
> > On Aug 1, 10:18 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> Is expecting accountability from public figures, such as
> >> representatives of the LiMo Foundation and the GNOME Foundation,
> >> synonymous with being a "scumbag"?
>
> Correction: "GNOME Foundation Advisory Board"
>
> > Except that I've made it consistently clear that I'm not representing
> > the views of either the LiMo Foundation or the GNOME Foundation
>
> You're not forwarding your views as being representative of those
> organisations, certainly, but you cannot escape your responsibility as
> someone whose association with them is well known (indeed you even
> advertise those associations right next to every article). So when
> someone reads those articles, they will make that connection, regardless
> of any disclaimer.
Well, let's be clear. I'm not using a "false name", as you claim. I'm
using a Google ID which I've had for three or four years now, and
which I have never used to claim to someone other than myself.
Since we can't escape our responsibilities, and since I've been
straightforward about who I am, where I work, and what organizations
I'm associated with, as well as the fact that I am not representing a
single one of them, or any combination thereof, maybe you should be
equally candid, "Homer". Who do _you_ work for? What's _your_ real
name? How do we know that _you're_ not "astroturfing"?
In fact, I think the majority of people are intelligent enough to be
able to distinguish when someone is speaking on their own behalf and
when they're speaking on behalf of their employer or an organization.
As someone who occasionally _does_ act as a spokesperson for my
employer and for LiMo (but not now), I understand the distinction and
make it clear when I'm doing so. You seem determined to conflate these
things in a transparent attempt to try to silence me through a variety
of oblique threats.
You freedom-lovers don't seem to value the freedom of speech of anyone
but yourselves. Funny Thing.
> Concerned enough to continue this conversation, apparently.
Are you begging me to leave you alone, Homer...?
Homer
> Come back when you can demonstrate that you have any idea what you're
> talking about.
How about /you/ come back when you've successfully sued someone for
suggesting you might work for Microsoft.
While you're at it, why don't you sue Stallman for defaming virgins (or
should that be deflowering?).
Pitiful.
--
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
07:12:17 up 65 days, 11:10, 5 users, load average: 0.04, 0.09, 0.02
DFS
> While you're at it, why don't you sue Stallman for defaming virgins
> (or should that be deflowering?).
Only in his wildest dreams would that foot-skin-eating maniac Stallman
deflower a virgin (unless cola "advocate" (p)Rick gets desperate).
Homer
> On Aug 1, 7:59 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Well, let's be clear. I'm not using a "false name", as you claim. I'm
> using a Google ID which I've had for three or four years now, and
> which I have never used to claim to someone other than myself.
It's still a false name. Does your passport identify you as "Stone Mirror"?
Yes, I also use a false name (although if you look harder you'll see
that's not /all/ I use). However, in my case the name "Homer" is a
nickname I've had in /real life/ for many years, and my use of a
pseudonym (in addition to my real name) on Usenet is merely a force of
habit stretching back to the days of BBS (i.e. tradition), and has
nothing to do with obfuscating the truth - not that there's a very
interesting truth to obfuscate in the first place. Like most people
online, I am nobody ... until I start criticising Microsoft and their
technology like Mono, that is. Then suddenly I'm apparently very
important indeed, judging by the amount of heckling I get from people
like you.
> Since we can't escape our responsibilities, and since I've been
> straightforward about who I am, where I work, and what organizations
> I'm associated with, as well as the fact that I am not representing a
> single one of them, or any combination thereof
That's debatable.
> maybe you should be equally candid, "Homer". Who do _you_ work for?
> What's _your_ real name? How do we know that _you're_ not
> "astroturfing"?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I've been retired for years, therefore I
don't represent /any/ company, in an official capacity or otherwise, and
even when I /was/ working, it was in a segment of the industry quite
parallel to Microsoft's. I've never worked for any company that was a
direct competitor of Microsoft's, AFAIK, so that basically rules out
astroturfing.
Now certainly, I can no more prove this than you can prove you don't
have some hidden agenda, but then /I'm/ not the one attacking Free
Software advocates. In fact I rarely attack /people/ at /all/ ... I
reserve most of my objections for /companies/ ... like Microsoft. I do
take the occasional swipe at those who /support/ Microsoft though, but I
certainly don't labour the point like you do, to the extent of
harassment. And I consider my objections fully justified, given
Microsoft's long and well documented history of corruption.
My contributions to Free Software are, and have always been, entirely
without obligation to any commercial organisation. I've packaged for Red
Hat, but I wasn't on the payroll, or even listed as an employee. My
current affiliation with Fedora is weak to say the least, since I had
grave reservations over their policies for some time. However, I'm very
encouraged by recent events (ref: Mono and Gnote).
> In fact, I think the majority of people are intelligent enough to be
> able to distinguish when someone is speaking on their own behalf and
> when they're speaking on behalf of their employer or an organization.
Well a number of people were fooled by Mike Bayard, in the infamous
Belkin astroturfing case, until some astute observer discovered what was
going on:
Presumably you think Arlen Parsa, the individual who exposed this
corruption, is guilty of "threats and intimidation", since he reported
this astroturfer to both Amazon and Belkin.
> As someone who occasionally _does_ act as a spokesperson for my
> employer and for LiMo (but not now), I understand the distinction
> and make it clear when I'm doing so. You seem determined to conflate
> these things in a transparent attempt to try to silence me through a
> variety of oblique threats.
Again, you perceive accountability as a "threat".
And I've already made it quite clear I have no interest in reporting
you, since (according to you, at least) all parties are fully aware of
the situation. I merely expressed my support for anyone who might be
motivated to do so, much like I support Arlen Parsa's actions for
similar reasons.
> You freedom-lovers
Your contempt for freedom is palpable.
> don't seem to value the freedom of speech of anyone but yourselves.
> Funny Thing.
The "freedom" to do harm is not a right, it's an abuse.
>> Concerned enough to continue this conversation, apparently.
>
> Are you begging me to leave you alone, Homer...?
On the contrary, it's you who seems to be begging me for my opinion.
How strange that you should be so obsessed with the opinion of a nobody
whose opinion "doesn't matter" to you.
--
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
08:44:22 up 65 days, 12:42, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00
Goblin
fall on deaf ears. I am not fully "privy" to this "lefty" drama that he
seems to be playing out on any forum/chat room that doesn't ban him, but
I find it strange he repeatedly posts here trying to convince people
of....something, when IMO he has as much chance of that as he does
selling a meat pie at a vegetarian conference.
That being said, some of our other resident freedom haters need to take
stock of what they actually do here. IMO their posts merely strengthen
the bonds between members of the opensource community.
For the record, I don't think our regular MS Faithful here are paid to
post by anyone. I refuse to believe any company would pay them to post
the immature and often vulgar tirades they do.
Having said that, in one sense I hope I am wrong, because if the MS
faithful that post here are not doing it for money then IMO they must do
it because these are traits of their own personality. If thats the case
then whilst they have my pity, they are also cause for concern and if
the behaviour exhibited by them is their actual personality then IMO
they should not be allowed near a computer without a responsible adult
purely for their own safety.
--
Goblin
"I refute the claim I am one of the Linux unwashed, I take a shower once
a year whether I need it or not." bytes...@googlemail.com
Visit the blog of Goblin (Openbytes)
http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/_Goblin
Or catch me on: #boycottnovell #linuxoutlaws on Freenode.net!
Goblin
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:15:30 -0700, verofakto wrote:
>
>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>> weeks as I have time.
>>
>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Feedback (constructive!) is much appreciated. Source material is as
>> well, as long as it's verifiable and factual.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> Very good job !!
>
> This is a classic example of the FOSS community at work and how,
> just like I've said for years, you are either 100 percent with
> them and their radical beliefs or you are the enemy and will be
> attacked.
>
> I'll be honest, I never thought they would have the balls to
> attack Linus Torvalds, well I know Roy Schestowitz doesn't,
> literally, but the rest of the community?
>
> That really surprised me.
Moshe you are a liar.
Have I received any attacks from Roy?
Heres some of my views and whilst I believe they are vastly different
from Roy's I have received NO INSULT OR BELITTLING BECAUSE OF THEM. On
occasion where I have had the pleasure to debate the issues with other
FOSS users we have done so in an adult way (check the IRC logs) Heres
an example of a few of my "incompatible" views:
1. I actually believe that DRM is a "necessary evil" since people can't
be trusted to act responsibly and obey the copyright laws (rightly or
wrongly there exists copyright laws and law is not something we can
"cherry pick" the bits we like)
2. I support proprietary software that offers value for money and is
"fit for purpose" - check my blog if you doubt that.
3. I don't believe in a 100% FOSS computing model. I don't believe it
could work.
4. I don't want mass migration to the Linux platform (lest we end up
with a Windows type product) and I would like to see (in my ideal world)
an equal balance of market penetration between all platforms.
5. I believe "software freedom" should extend to developers in that they
are free to release their software as they please (sell it if they wish
- point 3).
6. Whilst I don't know the view of Roy or anyone else in the FOSS in
regards to this point, I would like to add that I am completely against
piracy 100% no questions asked.
7. I don't believe MONO is a patent trap but I am against it because IMO
its another example (c#) of the de-skilling of the coder in favor of
more user friendly high-level languages. I do have other reasons for
not wanting an involvement with MONO, but thats probably the main one.
Is it so wrong to look to the past and highlight the days of the A500
and Devpac2 as examples of talented coders?
This is just a small example of my opinion and I would challenge anyone
who believes the FOSS community is a collection of "drones" who all
agree with each other. I thought that was the remit of the Windows user
who blindly supports the platform without even trying anything else.
To Moshe et al, we are adults (can't speak for you sorry) we understand
we have differing views. I wouldn't want to post here if it was simply
a newsgroup where everyone agreed. I am sure there are many others like me.
Sandy Laphon
"The Free Open Source Software Evangelist"
52 Comments - Hide Original Post Collapse comments
We humans are socials creatures that tend to flock together in groups,
bound by a common set of ideas, believes and values. Sometimes there
are tensions between groups, just because their ideas, believes or
values differ. As long as they are able to settle their differences in
a civilized way, nothing much happens, apart from the exchange of a
few insults and the flinging of a few stones and sticks.
But as soon as someone starts to claim that he is the real thing and
the others in the group are just phonies and wannabes, you're bound to
have trouble. History is full of these examples. Catholics called them
"heretics", Hitler called them "Untermenschen", Stalin called them
"Trotskists" and McCarthy called them "communists". Being one of these
unfortunates was enough reason to be burned, gassed, shot, exiled or
imprisoned. Sometimes people could save their necks by denouncing the
very thing they believed in.
And now it has happened here. Nobody is safe, not even Richard
Stallman. Evidence has been found in his very home that he is a sexist
and thus not worthy to lead the Free Software World. New leaders have
emerged and we're all about to be excommunicated unless we repent our
sins and start installing Mono. Because let's get real, that's what
it's all about. It's not because we all wear tin foil hats or that
we're harmful to the community and should be expelled. It's because we
don't like Mono. And we don't like Mono, because we don't trust
Microsoft. And we don't trust Microsoft, because.. Well, do I really
have to repeat the whole story again? TomTom, is that good enough
reason? Viral licenses? DoJ? Billion dollar fines? Hundreds of patent
violations? OOXML? Years of FUD? Being paranoid doesn't mean they're
not out to get you.
The last months we've seen that Mono is still a controversial
development environment, despite its technical merits. The main
problem is not its license, because Mono is licensed under the GPL.
The main problem is that it is still unclear whether Microsoft is able
(or willing) to destroy the FOSS ecosystem by pulling the plug out of
Mono. If substantial parts of the FOSS ecosystem depended on Mono, it
would be a devastating blow. Mono proponents went out of their heads
to show us the various benefits of Mono, how beautiful a world would
be if it were build with Mono and - to a lesser extent - how unlikely
it was that Microsoft would nuke us with their patent portfolio. And
then - oh heavenly bliss! - Microsoft promised that it would not sue
you if you fully implemented ECMA standards 334 and 335. Rejoice!
Miguel praised the gods on Mount Redmond for their gift. We are
delivered!
Well, always beware of Microsofties bearing gifts. Only a tiny part of
Mono was covered by this promise and the controversy remained. That
was the end of it. It was time for a new tactic. If you can't kill the
message, maybe you can kill the messenger.
Victim one: Richard Stallman
Richard gave a speech of over an hour and dared to pull in the Virgin
Emacs for ten seconds. If he had been excommunicated by the Catholic
Church I wouldn't have blinked an eye, but I was quite surprised when
I heard he was attacked for being sexist, simply because he had used
the word "women". That should have been "persons". Most women start up
Emacs first thing in the morning, that's why women make up a
staggering 1.5% in FOSS software.
Poor Richard should know that women have been brainwashed since their
early youth and are now completely unable to make responsible, mature
decisions concerning their life, unless carefully guided by
enlightened people and protected from horrible persons like RMS that
scare them away for life from a future in software development with
one single, well aimed, ten second soundbite. Sexism by any objective
standards? Since when are there any objective standards in ethics?
I'm Dutch, I can do that. The only things here that are hotter than
political correctness are MC Hammer's trousers.
Victim two: Roy Schestowitz
Roy is being accused of spreading FUD, calling certain Microsoft
employees "zealots for hire" and should consequently be sued. And the
guy knows what he's talking about, because his daddy is a lawyer.
If you're Microsoft and spend a lot of money on phony research reports
for the sole reason of spreading FUD, that's alright because that are
normal business practices. If you're Microsoft and you're crying for
developers because nobody has any fun developing software for that
pile of digital junk they call an Operating System, so you're forced
to hire your own community, that's alright because that are normal
business practices. If you're Microsoft and wait for the right time to
fire your legal equivalent of nuclear missiles - aka patents - that's
alright because that are normal business practices.
The problem is when you start doing the very same thing and you're
neither a company nor a hired gun. Then you are a zealot, harmful to
the community and should be hanged or - even better - lynched by the
"real" FOSS mob. You're a backseat driver anyway, so that's no big
loss! Praise the lord, the great purge has begun. I love show trials,
Volksgerichte, Committees for Unamerican Activities and public
executions on Friday!
Well, what other notorious Mono opponents can you think of? Who will
be next? Fallen by the hands of people who have no problem at all to
publish private emails in order to reach their goal. That have curious
allies with questionable job descriptions. If these are the moral
standards of real FOSS proponents I prefer not to be one at all. I
prefer to stand under the shower until that label comes off.
I'll be a Free Open Source Software Evangelist, a man who may freely
exercise his right on free speech, which is protected by any civilized
constitution in the free world. Yes, that's what I'll be: a FREE Open
Source Software Evangelist. By conviction – and unpaid. And I'll be
proud of it.
Update: Mono proponents are now frantically quoting Torvalds to prove
their point. Well, Torvalds uttered that statement in response to a
question on the recent Microsoft contribution to the kernel, not on
Mono and not on Microsoft critics in general. This is the quote in its
entire context.
"We put this question to Linus, asking whether this patch was
something he would be happy to include, even though it’s from
Microsoft. He replied:
Oh, I'm a big believer in "technology over politics". I don't care who
it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as
long as we don't have to worry about licensing, etc. issues.
In fact, to some degree, I’d be more likely to include it because it's
from a new member of the community rather than less (again, I’d like
to point out that drivers are special. They don't impact other things,
so they get merged much more easily than some core changes).
I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I
think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open
development, and that very much involves not just making the source
open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.
There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that’s one
major reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I
don’t want to be associated with the people for whom it’s about
exclusion and hatred.
So it’s highly likely that this code will be merged into the mainline
kernel and that’s a good thing. Who knows, Microsoft might even see
the light! Linus is dead right. We shouldn’t deny contributions from
anyone based on who they are. It should be the quality of the
contribution that matters."
Does anybody dare to ask Torvalds if he would allow Mono code in his
kernel? Just to settle this matter once and for all?
Update: It seems I'm not the only one connecting the dots here. Note
the numerous trolling comments at the end of the article by someone
called "Lefty", repeating over and over his favorite quote from
Torvalds. It seems we may have victim number three: Sam Varghese.
These are a couple of reasons why the activities of the online
terrorists--and I use that term with all due consideration and care--
are totally destructive of the real community they pretend to be a
part of, but in reality only wish to bend to their will.
Enough is enough. You've demonstrated yourself to be part of the
problem here, Sam: you're aligned with the bad guys, not with the
folks in the real community who are actually doing the heavy lifting
on the software you claim to support so strongly. I'd like to see you
seriously think about that as well.
So what, Lefty. Is systematically defaming people no online terrorism
or is it the real online terrorism? All three names are conveniently
combined in a single quote from "Lefty":When I talk about the "faux
FLOSS community", I'm talking about the folks voicing the most
strident complaints over my actions--people like Sam here, people like
Roy Schestowitz over on Boycott Novell, all the folks who all but
insist that Mono is the Antichrist and Steve Ballmer actually has
horns and a tail; folks who, if you disagree with them, seem decide
you're demonically possessed in some way, nothing but a "Microsoft
shill".
The people who apparently think that Mr. Stallman is completely above
any criticism. As I've said, I'm starting to really believe they view
what I've done as a sort of heresy. People who will take the low road
to try to take care of the folks who run afoul of them--as Sam here
has done--in their zealotry for their "cause".
Update: A few posts related to this subject. As usual, Glyn Moody hits
the spot and states that the "ad hominem/ad feminam attacks are not
just irrelevant, they are harmful". Note his obvious sarcasm by
applying over-the-top "political correctness". As far as I know there
were no female parties involved.
Update: The plot thickens. Note how "Lefty" lines up with a confessed
Microsoft Technical Evangelist. BTW, -1 for Roy for disabling comments
on the follow up. "Lefty" also confesses, that Roy's Mono opinion is a
major reason for bashing the site and its most active blogger. Matthew
Garrett, who recently posted on this blog, is also involved in the
defamation of Sam Varghese, who is accused of being a racist after
discrediting a known Mono proponent. Note that the post of the Mono
proponent Sam criticized was so harmful to the Mono cause that even
the guys from "Mono-nono" felt obliged to erase it.
Update: "Boycott Novell" proudly posts that there is one site that
comes to its defense. Roy, you may be mistaking. If there is any
evidence that you were involved in any of the accusations that were
posed against you, you may find me on the other side of the fence. I
certainly don't like it when you disable comments.
Update: "Lefty" suggests on his website that Chani published the
following text on her blog:
..talking about relieving women of their virginity casts women in a
submissive role, with men in a dominant role, and brings up thoughts
of oppression and (indirectly) rape. (Yes, thinking about a roomful of
guys thinking about taking womens' virginity does eventually lead me
to wondering how many of them would take it by force.) It becomes less
about the non-sexual meaning of "virgin" and more about all the crazy
ideas societies have had about virgin women. And thinking about that
stuff would make any woman uncomfortable.
That really looks like something a hysterical feminist could have
written, which is certainly not the impression Chani makes. So I
decided to dig a little deeper. A week before. A month before. Still
could find that darn R-word. Finally, I tried Chani's search feature.
Still nothing. That leaves three possiblities:Chani did write it, but
removed the post afterwards.Chani did write it, but not on her blog,
but in e.g. a private email.Chani never wrote it. Still, what Chani
does say on her blog on July 14th is:
I didn’t comment on this little incident, even though I knew I should.
I mean, it’s RMS, I don’t really expect him to change. And it's easier
to just ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. Thankfully, Lefty
tackled the issue for us. Ok, publishing private mail is rude, but I'm
glad he did.
I would be obliged if Chani would clear this up. I promise to add her
comments to this blog.
Update: Well, Chani did obviously write it, but in her comments. I
suggest "Lefty" to update the link so it points to the right place.
Still Chani, isn't it a bit over the top? Obviously, not every woman
shares your viewpoint. Thanks to an anonymous reader for clearing this
up.
Update: Although he comes from "a family of lawyers", "Lefty" admits
breaking the law by publishing Richard Stallman's emails. In short,
his daddy might have some pro deo work on his hands in the near future
if RMS decides to sue him. Go get 'em, Dick!
posted by The Beez' at 7:59 PM on Jul 24, 2009
I have a great deal of information on the long, sordid history of
David "Lefty" Schlesinger aka "stonemirror" ie his sexist articles on
'encyclopediadramatica' and also his many calculated campaigns of
harassment and stalking. This is all backed up with impeccable
evidence including the who-is registration of harassment sites with
Schlesinger's own civil name and contact information. "Lefty" has a
long, long history on the internet of making threats of violence,
lawsuits and extortion demands - in one case he demanded $5,000 for
every menacing email he sent that was published. I also have several
recent threatening emails Schlesinger sent me, with headers proving
their origins. I can post it here, but I won't do that w/o the blog
owner's permission. Anyone can have this evidence who wishes to ask
for it, email sandy...@gmail.com . RMS has seen this material, and
he endorsed it as a complaint to the Gnome Foundation. Stormy Peters
of the Gnome Foundation refused to take any action on the matter, and
she or someone at the GF shared the complaint with Schlesinger who
immediately responded to it with extremely ugly threats, and also
gloating that the headers of that email gave him new contact
information to pursue his threats with. David "Lefty" Schlesinger is a
dangerous lunatic.
July 29, 2009 9:49 PM
Delete
Blogger Sandy said...
#
Sandy Laphon says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 18, 2009 at 3:55 pm
It is quite telling here that Lefty is deleting comments that
expose his dark side, and banning anonymity to cover his history of
vile behavior online. For it is a fact that Lefty is also called
’stonemirror’ on the internet. And while “Lefty” is now presenting
himself as a self appointed White Knight of Feminism and defender of
the undeprivileged, in fact “Lefty” has spent hundreds even thousands
of hours online persecuting, goading and even stalking a mentally ill
man who requires medication to function and who gets an SSDI
disability check. Here is the article Lefty/Stonemirror wrote as only
one of literally thousands of hateful, troll comments that Lefty has
scattered all over the web in his strange hobby of harassing the
mentally ill and disabled.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Vitki
where Lefty penned this rancid line of sexism:
“Vitki claims to be an “impath”, (implicate empath, that is), to
be ‘enlightened’, to have Asperger’s Syndrome, to be a misunderstood
‘genius’, and to be regularly on the verge of committing suicide over
his inability to find even a fat girl who would let him have sex with
her. ”
a search of stonemirror + troll on google will verify all of this
wildly ugly behavior on Lefty’s part, and if Lefty again deletes this
comment, it will be brought to the attention of RMS and the larger
open source community in another forum. If you delete this again,
Lefty/Stonemirror you are proving that you are afraid of these facts,
this vicious history of relentless cruelty you have displayed online
over many years to disabled persons, and women.
Lefty has been signing email signatures with both Stonemirror and
Lefty since his days at Apple computer in the early 90’s. Use google,
you can find nearly infinite amounts of proof that David Lefty
Schlesinger has been using the username ’stonemirror’ all over the web
for over 15 years. Note also the references to Buddhism and the Bokken
staff weapon which Lefty often carries with him. He even brought it to
the funeral of Robert Anton Wilson.
stonemirror’s Profile
stonemirror
About stonemirror
Member: Lefty
Epinions.com ID: stonemirror
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Member Since: May 25 ‘00
Homepage: http://www.stonemirror.net
Favorite Websites: http://www.apple.com
http://www.imdb.com
Activity Summary
Reviews Written: 20
Member Visits: 401
Total Visits: 9,323
http://www.epinions.com/user-stonemirror
stonemirror – Profile
Basic Info:
User Name: stonemirror
Real Name: David Schlesinger
Member Since: 8/22/2001
Member ID#: 2951
Posts: 1 (0 posts per day)
Profile Views: 134
Avatar: No Avatar on file.
Additional Info:
Main PDA: Palm Tungsten T3
Homepage:
Occupation: Director of Engineering
City, State: Santa Cruz, CA
Country: USA
http://www.palminfocenter.com/profile.asp?ID=2951
July 29, 2009 10:07 PM
Delete
Blogger Sandy said...
the Bokken weapon is mentioned in the ‘Vitki’ article, the primary
evidence that Lefty aka Stonemirror is the author of that sexist and
harassing article. This photo was taken at the Robert Anton Wilson
Memorial, and Lefty under the name ’stonemirror’ blogged his presence,
and mentioned the Bokken and custom yellow shoes. And the who-is of
extinct-marsupial.org links him to other ED articles, also abusive and
sexist. Note too the mention of Palm/Access on the same page as a link
to another ED article Lefty penned, also vile and sexist.
http://quantumtantra.com/wilsonfest.html third crowd scene photo
David “Lefty” Schlesinger aka ‘Stonemirror’ has a long, long
history of other people unrelated to me in any way who have accused
him of threats of violence and extortion, in those exact verbatim
terms. This is all archived in the mid 90’s waldorf critics email
archive. In particular, Lefty so terrorized a woman named Kathy
Sutphen with his threats and demands of $5,000 legal damages for every
one of his menacing emails that she published - that Kathy was in fear
for her physical safety and suffered adverse mental and physical
effects.
This is archived here, and in other places in the Waldorf/
Anthroposophist critics archive:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/archives/WCA9711.html
and quoted verbatim :
““I’d save the ASCII totem for an occasion just prior to your
court
)) )date, in the event that ever actually comes to pass: you’ll
need all
)) )the good luck you can scrape together.
)) )
)) )–
)) )Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com), (dns netcom.com)
)) )C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
))
)) I was utterly shocked by the vicious animosity of these
messages. In all
)) honesty, I have find them to be quite intimidating. They have
affected my
)) sleep and my appetite. I do not know to what lengths this man
will go to
)) for retaliation. I hope that his anger is limited to email and
I have not
)) exhibited foolish bravado in posting these. However, I will not
participate
)) in his abuse by continuing to allow him to send me these types
of messages
)) privately with the thought that his threats of extortion will
keep me from
)) sharing. Every abuser needs to be drug into a public forum
posthaste. It is
)) only in a public arena that this type of behavior can be
halted.
))
)) I hope that others of you that have been subjected to this type
of abuse
)) will ignore his threats and make his behavior public.
))
)) Kathy Sutphen”
July 29, 2009 10:08 PM
Delete
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
July 29, 2009 10:09 PM
Blogger Sandy said...
these threats and web pages were made by david schlesinger aka
'lefty' aka stonemirror in the last 24 hours alone:
http://www.extinct-marsupial. org/new-index.htm
and here:
"Just letting everybody know…
July 16, 2009 by aqualung93
Some good shit’s about to go down.
We’re talking hardcore here, and certain people are definitely
gonna be feeling it. Stay tuned.
大麻"
from:
http://aqualung93.wordpress. com
(this blog has the sole purpose of taunting me and me only, though
it references a blog called 'aktiophi' which i have nothing to do
with, Lefty is convinced 'Aktiophi' is my blog)
Stone Mirror
to me
show details 1:58 PM (17 hours ago)
Reply
Follow up message
Thanks for providing the pointer to extinct-marsupial.org; I'm
sure everyone will enjoy the new index page (except you, but you don't
count. Well, perhaps to _two_.)
I'll put posting every single photo I have of you up there. Enjoy!
But Lumpkin, I'm not "furiously hateful and enraged". That's you.
Why would you be behaving this way, otherwise? I've been ignoring you
for months. Yet as soon as you notice that I'm getting some attention,
up you pop for another round of "Whack-a-Dope". Like I say, you can't
be all that happy with that sad excuse for a "life" which you keep
trying to tell me is so wonderful.
I'm done with ignoring you, I promise. You're going to be getting
a lot more attention now. Hope you enjoy what you've bought: we have a
strict "no returns, no refunds, no do-overs" policy here.
Love,
Lefty
Stone Mirror
to me
show details 2:20 PM (16 hours ago)
Reply
Follow up message
Harasment? On your part? Obviously, as the various commentators
have pointed out.
Don't like what I'm doing? Write the President of the Internet. Or
send me a proper DMCA takedown notice with a verifiable address. I'll
be happy to serve papers on you. I might even do it personally, ya
ugly little spud.
all this from:
Domain ID:D110554938-LROR
Domain Name:EXTINCT-MARSUPIAL.ORG
Created On:03-Jan-2006 18:25:29 UTC
Last Updated On:23-Jan-2009 14:52:32 UTC
Expiration Date:03-Jan-2012 18:25:29 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:D113630567373971
Registrant Name:David Schlesinger
Registrant Organization:David Schlesinger
Registrant Street1:499 Balch Way
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Ben Lomond
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:95005
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.6051621
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:le...@stonemirror.net
Admin ID:D113630567373968
Admin Name:David Schlesinger
Admin Organization:David Schlesinger
Admin Street1:499 Balch Way
Admin
Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Ben Lomond
Admin State/Province:CA
Admin Postal Code:95005
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.6051621
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:le...@stonemirror.net
Tech ID:D113630567373970
Tech Name:Verio Hostmaster
Tech Street1:5050 Blue Lake Dr.
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Boca Raton
Tech State/Province:FL
Tech Postal Code:33431
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.8886636648
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.8886636655
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:hostm...@VERIO-HOSTING.COM
Name Server:NS1.SUPERB.NET
Name Server:NS2.SUPERB.NET
Name Server:NS3.SUPERB.NET
Name Server:NS4.SUPERB.NET
Name Server:NS5.SUPERB.NET
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name
Server:
I have several more emails from Schlesinger aka Lefty aka
Stonemirror, all sent inside the last 10 days.
Homer
> 1. I actually believe that DRM is a "necessary evil" since people
> can't be trusted to act responsibly and obey the copyright laws
> (rightly or wrongly there exists copyright laws and law is not
> something we can "cherry pick" the bits we like)
That's a dangerous attitude, since it promotes the idea that laws should
never be challenged, no matter how unjust. There are laws in various
countries that (sometimes) violently oppress people. Should we just
ignore that?
IMO, laws like the DMCA, copyrights in general, and in particular
illicit devices such as DRM, are an unacceptable subjugation of our
ability to exchange knowledge in an environment of academic and cultural
freedom. Note: this does /not/ preclude people being paid for their
work. There is more besides the false dichotomy of Draconian
restrictions to secure an income from the creative and academic arts.
> 2. I support proprietary software that offers value for money and is
> "fit for purpose" - check my blog if you doubt that.
That's fine for people who value convenience over autonomy and freedom,
but sooner or later those same people who displayed such apathy towards
their freedom, will find themselves greatly inconvenienced by the lack
of it. Think "Abandonware", for example. As an ex-Amigan, I'm sure you
must know what I'm talking about.
> 3. I don't believe in a 100% FOSS computing model. I don't believe
> it could work.
But the fact is it /already/ works, as I, and many others who only use
Free Software can testify.
You seem to be conceding defeat without even trying.
> 4. I don't want mass migration to the Linux platform (lest we end up
> with a Windows type product) and I would like to see (in my ideal
> world) an equal balance of market penetration between all platforms.
On this point I strongly agree, but with the single caveat that each of
those disparate platforms should nonetheless be licensed freely. From a
/technical/ standpoint, there are many reasons to support a diverse
ecology of computing platforms - innovation being the main one. There is
also the question of security, since viruses do not propagate easily
within a heterogeneous environment (another reason to avoid Mono, and
yes even Java). Finally, more choice means better competition, better
prices, and more customer satisfaction (the long tail).
Again, this would not preclude earning a profit from the sale of this
freely licensed software.
> 5. I believe "software freedom" should extend to developers in that
> they are free to release their software as they please (sell it if
> they wish - point 3).
Well this is /already/ true, so no such extension is required.
However, be aware that if you, as a developer, exercise /your/ "freedom"
to subjugate /others'/ freedom, then you are not really exercising a
right of freedom at all, but actually an abuse of power.
From a practical perspective, freedom is not really freedom at all,
unless it is /protected/ from subjugation. This is the essence of
democracy, the general principle that you are free to do anything you
want, /except/ cause harm to others. So it is with the GPL. The BSD does
/not/ offer this protection, and allows software to /become/ subjugated.
Proprietary software /begins/ and /ends/ with the principle of
subjugation. By choosing either a non-free or unprotected license for
your work, you are only giving yourself freedom by taking it away from
others.
/Selling/ software, or anything else, is irrelevant to this point.
Freely licensed works can be, and /are/, sold all the time. One need not
subjugate others in order to earn a living from creative or academic arts.
> 6. Whilst I don't know the view of Roy or anyone else in the FOSS in
> regards to this point, I would like to add that I am completely
> against piracy 100% no questions asked.
That's a fallacy, since this assumes copyright is morally defensible,
and thus dissent against those laws is not. This is essentially the same
argument as point 1. Note that dissent is not synonymous with crime.
> 7. I don't believe MONO is a patent trap
It is a patent minefield, but then so is all other software. The
difference here is that the /patentor/ is one with a documented
agressive agenda of opposition to GNU/Linux and Free Software. That
isn't true, to anywhere near the same extent, with /other/ proprietary
software vendors.
> but I am against it because IMO its another example (c#) of the
> de-skilling of the coder in favor of more user friendly high-level
> languages.
I disagree. Although I believe it /is/ essential to become proficient at
lower level languages /first/, in order to get a more complete
understanding of how the system really works, and to understand how
various /higher/ level language abstractions relate to that system, so
they can be verified for optimisation and security, and even customised
and extended, the benefits of higher level languages are greater
portability and faster production. This is an especially important
consideration for the commercial products you seem to favour, but can
also be of great benefit to Free Software that might otherwise stagnate,
if the complexity of the program is greater than the available
development resources.
> I do have other reasons for not wanting an involvement with MONO, but
> thats probably the main one.
My main reason is that it spreads adoption of Microsoft's standards and
development paradigm, which it then abuses to dominate the market, thus
excluding other platforms. This would be bad enough taken in isolation,
but consider that the company which benefits most from this arrangement
is one of the world's most disreputable, and the outcome is totally
unacceptable.
> Is it so wrong to look to the past and highlight the days of the A500
> and Devpac2 as examples of talented coders?
Bare-metal programming was an exciting challenge, back in the pioneering
days of the so-called Golden Age, where it was absolutely necessary to
squeeze every last hertz from the processor.
But times change.
These days it's more important to meet the deadline, or "release early
and often", and to produce code that is actually /maintainable/ through
many generations ... *and* hardware architecture changes.
Assembly won't give you that. High level languages will.
But if you still yearn for a taste of the old days, try this:
> I thought that was the remit of the Windows user who blindly supports
> the platform without even trying anything else.
You forget that, thanks to Microsoft's monopoly, it's highly unlikely
that any given GNU/Linux user has never at least tried Windows, since it
comes preinstalled on nearly every PC in the world.
--
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
14:34:40 up 65 days, 18:32, 5 users, load average: 0.05, 0.04, 0.00
Moshe Goldfarb
The thought of that slobbering mass "floundering" around on a
bed is repulsive.
If he ever puller a "Reiser", there would be enough DNA left
around the crime scene to fill a 55 gallon drum.
Moshe Goldfarb
> However, in my case the name "Homer" is a
> nickname I've had in /real life/ for many years,
No wonder you turned out to be such an idiot.
Goblin
Hi!
WOW. Thanks for the comprehensive debate! Firstly that link is great,
thank you so much, ive never come across that before.
I will address your points individually since I didn't expect anyone to
reply and my "bullet points" were are very vague summary of views.
DRM: The point I've always made about DRM is that rightly or wrongly we
have copyright laws. Since I don't think law is something we can cherry
pick the best bits of, I accept that DRM is required to enforce/protect
the interests of those operating under those laws. The need for DRM
(IMO) only came about because people did ignore the Copyright laws, if
everyone had obeyed them DRM would be a useless exercise.
I did not put my opinions of copyright law forward fully, however Ive
always been of the opinion just like speed cameras, we cannot simply
break the speeding rules just because we find them unjust. I know in
the past laws have been overturned with similar actions, but these were
far more important (IMO) than the copyright of media (or in my case)
speeding.
Now, if I may, I will put the piracy issue into my next point.
Its very easy to highlight Sony, Warner Brothers etc when talking about
huge profits and the targetting of the "little person" (filesharers) but
there is a whole other area that is being ignored. If you take a look
at a piece of software called "Crayon Physics" it was written by one
chap in his bedroom. He sells the product (which I'm sure has done
quite well) but the game is pirated massively on BT. He's not some huge
company with team of shills on the net. He's one person trying to make
some money. Unfortunately in respect of the copyright laws we cannot
single one person out. They have to apply to everyone or no-one. I
completely agree with you when you say:
"this does /not/ preclude people being paid for their
work. There is more besides the false dichotomy of Draconian
restrictions to secure an income from the creative and academic arts."
But in many cases its not simple (IMO). I will highlight this point in
a little while when I come onto the subject of proprietary:
Quote "That's fine for people who value convenience over autonomy and
freedom, but sooner or later those same people who displayed such apathy
towards their freedom, will find themselves greatly inconvenienced by
the lack of it."
and I find myself agreeing with that too. What I will say though is
that it comes down to choice at the time. For me "software freedom" is
about choice and as I was saying to 7 a while ago, its difficult to
imagine how a return would be made from GTA4 and its massive budget if
the thing was open source.
In respect of the Amiga it is a good example, I can't argue with that,
however if you have a company that wants to release something in a
certain way, the consumer has the choice to either buy it or not, for me
piracy is not a fair option simply because the user disagrees.
The 100% FOSS computing model was maybe badly put by myself. I too know
firms that have a 100% FOSS model (ive documented them on my blog)
What I meant was on a global scale. I think there will always be a need
for custom software and for example, if a person requires say software
to control/monitor custom equipment in their business, I dont think they
will hang around sourceforge on the off chance its made, that to me is
where proprietary will step in. Thats why in some form proprietary will
always exist in my opinion.
Ive often said that I believe Microsoft's future will be in custom
software solutions for industry...that remains to be seen. In the
meantime, I, like everyone else I hope uses FOSS because it is the best
solution for them, not simply because its free. I see the freeness of
the software I use as an added bonus. We all do our bit to highlight
the advantages of FOSS to users, but at the end of the day people have
their own choices to make based on their own needs/ideals.
In respect of myself the only proprietary software I run at the moment
is WoW and that to me is fine. To be fair, I'm winding that up in
favour of a FOSS rpg, not because its free, but because its better.
Quote "Well this is /already/ true, so no such extension is required."
Agreed (hence the point 3 bit at the end) I was merely justifying my
belief in the "right" for developers to release software as they see fit
without having their work pirated.
Quote "By choosing either a non-free or unprotected license for
your work, you are only giving yourself freedom by taking it away from
others."
Very true and its up to the consumers to make a judgement on if that
loss of freedom is worth the license. Consumers often forget that in
most cases they have the power.
Quote "/Selling/ software, or anything else, is irrelevant to this point.
Freely licensed works can be, and /are/, sold all the time. One need not
subjugate others in order to earn a living from creative or academic arts."
Completely agree again. But I've always believed that this ethos was
not a blanket one that could be used to cover all media/products.
Going back to GTA4, if that was released under gpl3 how would a return
be made large enough to cover the developers initial costs?
Quote "Note that dissent is not synonymous with crime."
True, and most of the cases of copyright have been dealt with in the
civil courts not the criminal ones (in the UK) I think it depends on
your take on the actual software that is protected by copyright. I
agree that certain firms actions are disgraceful and users are
effectively being "robbed" of hard earned money, simply to be told
"yeah, sorry about that....get the next version it will be better"
We have all seen the allegations against some of these proprietary
firms, but then for me there would never be a dissent against say
Microsoft and its proprietary nature, because even if they gave away
their product for free, I wouldn't be interested.
Quote "You forget that, thanks to Microsoft's monopoly, it's highly unlikely
that any given GNU/Linux user has never at least tried Windows, since it
comes preinstalled on nearly every PC in the world."
Forget? I was challenged over making exactly the same point on a
previous discussion! :)
I won't comment on your C# opinions since you covered everything really
there.
Thanks so much for engaging in an interesting debate, or several debates
in one!
Kind regards
Stone Mirror
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>
> > On Aug 1, 7:59 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> > Well, let's be clear. I'm not using a "false name", as you claim. I'm
> > using a Google ID which I've had for three or four years now, and
> > which I have never used to claim to someone other than myself.
>
> It's still a false name. Does your passport identify you as "Stone Mirror"?
>
> Yes, I also use a false name (although if you look harder you'll see
> that's not /all/ I use). However, in my case the name "Homer" is a
> nickname I've had in /real life/ for many years, and my use of a
> pseudonym (in addition to my real name) on Usenet is merely a force of
> habit stretching back to the days of BBS (i.e. tradition), and has
> nothing to do with obfuscating the truth - not that there's a very
> interesting truth to obfuscate in the first place. Like most people
> online, I am nobody ... until I start criticising Microsoft and their
> technology like Mono, that is. Then suddenly I'm apparently very
> important indeed, judging by the amount of heckling I get from people
> like you.
Except that none of the points I've raised actually involve Mono, per
se.
You don't want Mono, remove it. Use Jo Shields' "Chicken Little"
remix. My only point around Mono is that I don't think you, or Roy, or
anyone else (other than the folks involved in the Ubuntu Technical
Board, in the case of Ubuntu, for example) have any place telling
everybody _else_ what to do, especially since you seem to be too lazy
to do anything about it (like the "Chicken Little" remix, which took
an hour of Jo's time, and which any of you folks could have done any
time in the past six months with a fraction of the effort expended in
whining about "getting Mono out of the default Ubuntu install")...
Speaking of the UTB, you _do_ know that the biweekly IRC meetings are
open...? Have you _ever_ participated? Roy hasn't. "Goblin" (and why
aren't you complaining about that "false name"...?) hasn't, as nearly
as I can tell. Why do you folks _demand_ things when you're evidently
unwilling to step up to the plate and _do_ anything about your
demands?
You would seem to not only insist that the community as a whole do
things your way, but that it should also drop established processes
and procedures and make the _decisions_ your way as well. What's up
with that? Did you ever hear of this "rough meritocracy" thing? What
"merit" do you or Roy have in here that anyone should pay attention to
your sense of entitlement?
> > Since we can't escape our responsibilities, and since I've been
> > straightforward about who I am, where I work, and what organizations
> > I'm associated with, as well as the fact that I am not representing a
> > single one of them, or any combination thereof
>
> That's debatable.
Only in your fevered imagination, I'd say, and given that you've got a
clear percentage in attempting to make that association—i.e. your
clear interest in getting me to stop being so "inconvenient" for you
and your pals—one has to take that "debatability" with a very large
grain of salt.
> And I consider my objections fully justified, given
> Microsoft's long and well documented history of corruption.
Well, I consider _my_ objections fully justified, given Roy's long and
well-documented history of playing fast and loose with the facts and
with people's reputations. Roy told me, at one point, that he and Jeff
Waugh—whom Roy has also defamed—had spoken on the phone and settled
their differences. I got an unsolicited email from Jeff within the day
(evidently he continues to take an interest in Roy) stating quite
clearly that no such phone conversation had ever taken place, that he
and Roy had "worked out" nothing, and that Roy was essentially lying
through his teeth about every particular. I pointed this out to Roy,
and his explanation (which doesn't gibe at all with his initial
representation) was that he hadn't heard from Jeff again after a
certain point, so he'd just _assumed_ they'd "worked out their
differences".
> Presumably you think Arlen Parsa, the individual who exposed this
> corruption, is guilty of "threats and intimidation", since he reported
> this astroturfer to both Amazon and Belkin.
Since we've established, quite clearly, that by no possible stretch of
the imagination could my posting here be construed as "astroturfing",
Mr. Parsa's case is completely irrelevant.
> > As someone who occasionally _does_ act as a spokesperson for my
> > employer and for LiMo (but not now), I understand the distinction
> > and make it clear when I'm doing so. You seem determined to conflate
> > these things in a transparent attempt to try to silence me through a
> > variety of oblique threats.
>
> Again, you perceive accountability as a "threat".
>
> And I've already made it quite clear I have no interest in reporting
> you, since (according to you, at least) all parties are fully aware of
> the situation. I merely expressed my support for anyone who might be
> motivated to do so, much like I support Arlen Parsa's actions for
> similar reasons.
Actually, I think you're just like "Chip B. Malroy" on Roy's site: he
posted my employer's contact information in the hope that "somebody
else would make the call" and complain to my employer, as you're
suggesting that "anyone who might be motivated to do so" might contact
the LiMo Foundation or the GNOME Foundation on your behalf.
Of course, no one did: you're all a bunch of cowards and would-be
bullies, it seems. You try to frighten people into being quiet when
they disagree with you, and when someone stands up to you, you get
very passive-aggressive. "Well, _I'm_ not going to call, but anyone
who might be motivated to do so..." "You just wait till I tell my _big
sister_ on you!"
Impressive.
> > You freedom-lovers
>
> Your contempt for freedom is palpable.
Actually, it's your contempt that's more of a concern here: I'm not
trying to silence you, while you seem to be going to some lengths to
encourage me to be silent, about Stallman, about Roy, etc.
> > don't seem to value the freedom of speech of anyone but yourselves.
> > Funny Thing.
>
> The "freedom" to do harm is not a right, it's an abuse.
And who am I harming, "Homer"? And how? Be specific. Since you've
admitted here that you want to shut me down as "abusing" my freedom of
speech, you're going to need to get quite to the point.
Moshe Goldfarb
> You don't want Mono, remove it. Use Jo Shields' "Chicken Little"
> remix. My only point around Mono is that I don't think you, or Roy, or
> anyone else (other than the folks involved in the Ubuntu Technical
> Board, in the case of Ubuntu, for example) have any place telling
> everybody _else_ what to do, especially since you seem to be too lazy
> to do anything about it (like the "Chicken Little" remix, which took
> an hour of Jo's time, and which any of you folks could have done any
> time in the past six months with a fraction of the effort expended in
> whining about "getting Mono out of the default Ubuntu install")...
Guys like [homer] and Schestowitz don't want to actually "change
anything" and certainly don't want to contribute in a positive
manner.
They just want to sit on the sidelines and whine while pushing
their own self serving agendas.
> What
> "merit" do you or Roy have in here that anyone should pay attention to
> your sense of entitlement?
The legitimate Linux community is mostly laughing at loons like
[Homer] and Schestowitz, but ultimately they wish crazy zealots
in general would just go away because they give Linux a bad
name.
> Well, I consider _my_ objections fully justified, given Roy's long and
> well-documented history of playing fast and loose with the facts and
> with people's reputations.
That's an understatement of the highest order.
Roy Schestowitz just plain lies and when he gets caught he half
apologizes but still leaves the lies in place so the search
engines remain seeded.
> Roy told me, at one point, that he and Jeff
> Waugh嚙碼whom Roy has also defamed嚙碼had spoken on the phone and settled
> their differences. I got an unsolicited email from Jeff within the day
> (evidently he continues to take an interest in Roy) stating quite
> clearly that no such phone conversation had ever taken place, that he
> and Roy had "worked out" nothing, and that Roy was essentially lying
> through his teeth about every particular. I pointed this out to Roy,
> and his explanation (which doesn't gibe at all with his initial
> representation) was that he hadn't heard from Jeff again after a
> certain point, so he'd just _assumed_ they'd "worked out their
> differences".
More evidence that Roy Schestowitz is a liar.
I heard that podcast with Jeff and Schestowitz.
Jeff, politely and professionally, made minced meat out of
Schestowitz and all Roy could do was babble on and on and on and
on and on...until the moderator finally cut him off.
It was a total and complete train wreck for Schestowitz.
> Actually, I think you're just like "Chip B. Malroy" on Roy's site: he
> posted my employer's contact information in the hope that "somebody
> else would make the call" and complain to my employer, as you're
> suggesting that "anyone who might be motivated to do so" might contact
> the LiMo Foundation or the GNOME Foundation on your behalf.
That's the way these freetards are.
They are forever expecting others to do their dirty work.
> Of course, no one did: you're all a bunch of cowards and would-be
> bullies, it seems. You try to frighten people into being quiet when
> they disagree with you, and when someone stands up to you, you get
> very passive-aggressive. "Well, _I'm_ not going to call, but anyone
> who might be motivated to do so..." "You just wait till I tell my _big
> sister_ on you!"
Sounds a lot like High Plains Thumper.
In fact your "buddy" Chips sounds a lot like High Plains
Thumper, a person in COLA who does nasty things like above.
Stone Mirror
> > straightforward about who I am, where I work, and what organizations
> > I'm associated with, as well as the fact that I am not representing a
> > single one of them, or any combination thereof
>
> That's debatable.
Okay, let's pursue this line of (for lack of a better term) reasoning,
"Homer".
Let's say, purely for the sake of the discussion, that I _am_
"astroturfing", on behalf of (I guess, correct me if you have some
other organization in mind) the GNOME Foundation or the LiMo
Foundation, as you're claiming.
The GNOME Foundation (who am I not representing here, or really,
anywhere), to the extent that it makes "statements" about such things
(and I hasten to point out that, as an Advisory Board member, I only
get to provide input to the Foundation Board; I neither get to vote
in, nor even attend, Foundation Board meetings) has essentially "cast
its vote" in favor of Tomboy, an "official GNOME application". If you
want to get it replaced with gnote--something I'd consider unlikely,
given that it trails Tomboy in features and has only a single
developer working on it--then whining on COLA, or disrupting developer
lists, or having Roy write misleading articles (to the extent that the
author of gnote felt obligated to issue a clarification of where he
stood on things[1], and it wasn't on Roy's side) is not the way to go
about it. Getting involved in the groups and bodies that _make_ such
decisions is the way to go about it. Certainly the GNOME Foundation is
no "friend of Microsoft".
The LiMo Foundation (who I am not representing here) is involved in
putting together an open-source based platform for mobile devices.
This platform doesn't include Mono. So what would be the motivation
for LiMo to "astroturf" in favor of Mono, as you'd seem to be
alternately suggesting? The LiMo Foundation, likewise, couldn't be
characterized by any stretch of the imagination as "a friend of
Microsoft".
Make some sense of this out-of-left-field accusation of yours for me,
Homer. You've been going on about it long enough; what exactly are you
talking about here?
[1] http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2009/07/27/680-why-i-did-write-gnote
Homer
> On Aug 2, 12:44 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> My only point around Mono is that I don't think you, or Roy, or
> anyone else (other than the folks involved in the Ubuntu Technical
> Board, in the case of Ubuntu, for example) have any place telling
> everybody _else_ what to do
Well that's like saying the Democrats do not have any place trying to
gain voters from the Republicans, which is, in effect, all I'm trying
to do - metaphorically speaking. I'm trying to rally support. That is
all. The specific thing I'm trying to rally support for, is expulsion
of Mono from /all/ distros, not just Ubuntu. I neither have, nor do I
expect, the unilateral power to force this expulsion, and this is the
precise reason I need to rally support. If a consensus can be reached
for this expulsion, then I'll have achieved my goal - the people will
have spoken, and Mono will be rejected (from distros).
I have no /expectations/ either way, but I aim to try, and apparently
others are trying too, so I'm ever hopeful.
Note this will /not/ mean Mono is no longer obtainable, it just means
it will no longer be distributed by the distro vendor to the users by
default. Those few who still want Mono despite my efforts to convince
them otherwise, will still be able to obtain it from upstream.
> especially since you seem to be too lazy to do anything about it
As I've already explained, if my only goal was to respin a distro for
my own personal use, then I could easily accomplish that in just five
minutes, using simple tools like Revisor, and likewise for a new Mono
-free distro (a la gNewSense). But that isn't my goal. And if my goal
was to campaign for expulsion of Mono from just one particular distro
(e.g. Ubuntu), then I could do as you suggest and join the UTB. Again
that isn't my goal, although theoretically I could join the technical
boards of /every/ distro, sequentially or in parallel, and rally some
support one distro at a time, but then given that there are some 300+
distros out there, it'd be a very long and slow process. So instead I
choose the soapbox approach - my prerogative.
>>> don't seem to value the freedom of speech of anyone but
>>> yourselves. Funny Thing.
>>
>> The "freedom" to do harm is not a right, it's an abuse.
>
> And who am I harming, "Homer"?
Since you claim to not be promoting Mono (and at this point I'll just
take that at face value), then WRT you specifically - no one. However
there /are/ those who exercise /their/ "freedom of speech" to promote
Mono. Yet when I try to exercise /my/ "freedom of speech" to /demote/
Mono, I'm told it's not my place. Now bear in mind that my opinion of
Mono is negative (i.e. I contend it does harm) so from my perspective
those who promote Mono are also doing harm ... harm which I am trying
to /undo/ by /demoting/ it.
WRT what /you/ support, I'll concede I have no idea, because you have
not really expressed any opinions either way. My first impressions of
your motives seem to be wrong, since I don't see you defending either
Mono or Microsoft, other than concerns that I may be "forcing" Ubuntu
users to do something they don't want to. I hope you now understand I
will not, and can not, force them to do something they don't want to,
but I can attempt to persuade them, and everyone else, to expel Mono.
--
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
22:00:24 up 66 days, 1:58, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>> On Aug 2, 12:44 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>
>> My only point around Mono is that I don't think you, or Roy, or
>> anyone else (other than the folks involved in the Ubuntu Technical
>> Board, in the case of Ubuntu, for example) have any place telling
>> everybody _else_ what to do
>
> Well that's like saying the Democrats do not have any place trying to
> gain voters from the Republicans, which is, in effect, all I'm trying
> to do - metaphorically speaking. I'm trying to rally support. That is
> all. The specific thing I'm trying to rally support for, is expulsion
> of Mono from /all/ distros, not just Ubuntu.
Are you against choice in general or is this a special case?
> I neither have, nor do I
> expect, the unilateral power to force this expulsion, and this is the
> precise reason I need to rally support. If a consensus can be reached
> for this expulsion, then I'll have achieved my goal - the people will
> have spoken, and Mono will be rejected (from distros).
You do realize that people value choice, and your "rally" asking them to
give that up is almost certain to fail.
> I have no /expectations/ either way, but I aim to try, and apparently
> others are trying too, so I'm ever hopeful.
>
> Note this will /not/ mean Mono is no longer obtainable, it just means
> it will no longer be distributed by the distro vendor to the users by
> default. Those few who still want Mono despite my efforts to convince
> them otherwise, will still be able to obtain it from upstream.
If current distros do not have it, won't others just get Ubuntu the day it
comes out, add Mono, and call it Mubuntu or whatever?
>> especially since you seem to be too lazy to do anything about it
>
> As I've already explained, if my only goal was to respin a distro for
> my own personal use, then I could easily accomplish that in just five
> minutes, using simple tools like Revisor, and likewise for a new Mono
> -free distro (a la gNewSense). But that isn't my goal. And if my goal
> was to campaign for expulsion of Mono from just one particular distro
> (e.g. Ubuntu), then I could do as you suggest and join the UTB. Again
> that isn't my goal, although theoretically I could join the technical
> boards of /every/ distro, sequentially or in parallel, and rally some
> support one distro at a time, but then given that there are some 300+
> distros out there, it'd be a very long and slow process. So instead I
> choose the soapbox approach - my prerogative.
Sure... and if I wanted to argue about getting OpenOffice and Firefox out of
all distros I could do that as well.
>>>> don't seem to value the freedom of speech of anyone but
>>>> yourselves. Funny Thing.
>>>
>>> The "freedom" to do harm is not a right, it's an abuse.
>>
>> And who am I harming, "Homer"?
>
> Since you claim to not be promoting Mono (and at this point I'll just
> take that at face value), then WRT you specifically - no one. However
> there /are/ those who exercise /their/ "freedom of speech" to promote
> Mono. Yet when I try to exercise /my/ "freedom of speech" to /demote/
> Mono, I'm told it's not my place. Now bear in mind that my opinion of
> Mono is negative (i.e. I contend it does harm) so from my perspective
> those who promote Mono are also doing harm ... harm which I am trying
> to /undo/ by /demoting/ it.
Choice is harm? How?
> WRT what /you/ support, I'll concede I have no idea, because you have
> not really expressed any opinions either way. My first impressions of
> your motives seem to be wrong, since I don't see you defending either
> Mono or Microsoft, other than concerns that I may be "forcing" Ubuntu
> users to do something they don't want to. I hope you now understand I
> will not, and can not, force them to do something they don't want to,
> but I can attempt to persuade them, and everyone else, to expel Mono.
Just a side note: Each of your lines is exactly 72 characters. Did you do
that on purpose? You must have... and I find it amazing. One way to make
sure your comments are fully justified. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rockinghorse Winner
(Possibly *snipped* for brevity):
> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>> weeks as I have time.
>>
>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>
> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't wrapped in
> lies and FUD.
>
Justifying behavior by pointing to worse behavior is not a good argument.
Sorry. Try again.
*R* *H*
--
The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed,
visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing
the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am
Grimaldi.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> While browsing comp.os.linux.advocacy I came across this interesting post by Andrew Halliwell (spi...@ponder.sky.com)
>
>> verofakto <vindi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've created a site to document some of the more troubling behavior
>>> among FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
>>> intolerance and fear. I will be expanding the content in the coming
>>> weeks as I have time.
>>>
>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
>>
>> What about the anti-FOSS advocates?
>> They (every last one of them) are infinitely worse.
>> Not a single grain of truth passes their fingertips if it isn't wrapped in
>> lies and FUD.
>>
>
> Justifying behavior by pointing to worse behavior is not a good argument.
> Sorry. Try again.
I'm trying to figure out which is funnier, this quote:
> ...FOSS "advocates" that preach freedom but practice hatred,
> intolerance and fear...
Or this sig:
> --
> The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed,
> visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing
> the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am
> Grimaldi.
--
Someone is speaking well of you.
Stone Mirror
> Verily I say unto thee, that Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>
> > On Aug 2, 12:44 am, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> > My only point around Mono is that I don't think you, or Roy, or
> > anyone else (other than the folks involved in the Ubuntu Technical
> > Board, in the case of Ubuntu, for example) have any place telling
> > everybody _else_ what to do
>
> Well that's like saying the Democrats do not have any place trying to
> gain voters from the Republicans, which is, in effect, all I'm trying
> to do - metaphorically speaking. I'm trying to rally support.
Which, as I've been gently pointing out, shows a complete
misunderstanding on your part of how things actually work in the FLOSS
community. This isn't an election, and it's not a democracy. It's a
"rough meritocracy", and you earn merit by doing meaningful work
—"support rallying" is not considered to be "meaningful work".
If you want a distribution without Mono, find one, there are plenty.
If you must, _roll_ one, you'd probably learn something.
But please don't labor under the gross illusion that "public demand"
counts for anything at all unless it translates into a public effort
aimed at scratching your own itch, whatever it is. Nobody else has the
slightest interest in scratching it for you, I'm afraid. This is what
I mean when I refer to "illusions of entitlement".
(Look at Linux Mint: they wanted things Ubuntu wouldn't give them. So
they _did it themselves_, quite nicely. Go thou and do likewise. If
you _really_ care so much.)
> That is
> all. The specific thing I'm trying to rally support for, is expulsion
> of Mono from /all/ distros, not just Ubuntu.
You've got no business rallying for the expulsion of anything from
anywhere.
> I neither have, nor do I
> expect, the unilateral power to force this expulsion, and this is the
> precise reason I need to rally support.
You're doing it wrong. Nobody cares about "support" from folks who
don't help out.
> If a consensus can be reached
> for this expulsion, then I'll have achieved my goal - the people will
> have spoken, and Mono will be rejected (from distros).
You've all had your say, about a million times. Some distros have
Mono; some don't. Use one that doesn't. Get on with your life, and
stop trying to tell others how to live theirs.
> I have no /expectations/ either way, but I aim to try, and apparently
> others are trying too, so I'm ever hopeful.
With equal futility. There's no consensus among the folks who do the
work that Mono should be removed, and all you folks are doing is
annoying people with your petulant demands.
> So instead I
> choose the soapbox approach - my prerogative.
Richard Stallman got on his soapbox and said you were right. Lots of
people _still_ disagree. What do you imagine you're adding here,
especially since your voice carries about zero weight among the people
who actually make the decisions you want made?
> > And who am I harming, "Homer"?
>
> Since you claim to not be promoting Mono (and at this point I'll just
> take that at face value), then WRT you specifically - no one.
Well, we're back where we started from: who on earth do you imagine
you are to tell me what opinions I can express, and threaten to "tell
my mommy" for saying things you don't like? What sort of "freedom" do
you _believe_ in? The one where everyone agrees with you? That's
certainly where you'd seem to be heading with your "support raising"
and oblique threats.
> However
> there /are/ those who exercise /their/ "freedom of speech" to promote
> Mono.
If they do it in appropriate fora, fine, that's their right. Again, if
they're non-contributors, their opinions one way or the other don't
count for much, just as yours don't. If they do it with
misrepresentation, lies, defamation, _attempts to silence people who
disagree_, _oblique threats to people's employment_, instigation of
flame wars, and so on, then that's very wrong.
Yet when I try to exercise /my/ "freedom of speech" to /demote/
> Mono, I'm told it's not my place.
If you do it in appropriate fora, fine; not that your opinion counts
for much. If you do it with misrepresentation, lies, defamation,
_attempts to silence people who disagree_, _oblique threats to
people's employment_, instigation of flame wars, and so on, then
that's very wrong.
> Now bear in mind that my opinion of
> Mono is negative (i.e. I contend it does harm) so from my perspective
> those who promote Mono are also doing harm ... harm which I am trying
> to /undo/ by /demoting/ it.
Well, that's where we go off the tracks. You're talking about software
which can be installed and removed. No one's iron lung is going to
stop working because of Mono; not a single kitten will die because of
Mono. The "harm" you imagine is not a real-world concern, not
according to the Debian folks, not according to the Ubuntu folks.
Don't like those decisions? Do what everyone else does and make a
distro to your liking. Or find one, and compromise. Stop demanding
that Ubuntu or Debian or any distro that works according to its own
governance model (which does not include taking your efforts to "raise
support" into consideration) do what you want.
Learn how things work, and work that way. Nobody cares about
"support", except from folks who actually contribute to the community
in some tangible way. No one listens to whining, and more whiners does
not make the whining more euphonious.
> WRT what /you/ support, I'll concede I have no idea, because you have
> not really expressed any opinions either way.
Well, then you certainly ought to _stop making claims about what I
support_, shouldn't you?
> My first impressions of
> your motives seem to be wrong, since I don't see you defending either
> Mono or Microsoft,
Didn't stop you from pouring out about 4000 words based on those
"first impressions". Too bad jumping to conclusions isn't an Olympic
event, hm?
> ...I can attempt to persuade them, and everyone else, to expel Mono.
Not the way you're going about it now, you can't. You'd do better
handing people CDs of Jo's "Chicken Little Remix".
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> But please don't labor under the gross illusion that "public demand"
> counts for anything at all unless it translates into a public effort
> aimed at scratching your own itch, whatever it is. Nobody else has the
> slightest interest in scratching it for you, I'm afraid. This is what
> I mean when I refer to "illusions of entitlement".
Whose itches are Mozilla and OpenOffice.org scratching?
How about IBM and Novell?
Access?
Or even Microsoft, with their hypervisor-related device drivers?
Especially the commercial companies, they /have/ to be concerned about
"public demand" to some extent.
> (Look at Linux Mint: they wanted things Ubuntu wouldn't give them. So
> they _did it themselves_, quite nicely. Go thou and do likewise. If
> you _really_ care so much.)
>
> If they do it in appropriate fora, fine, that's their right. Again, if
> they're non-contributors, their opinions one way or the other don't
> count for much, just as yours don't.
This, I don't agree with. Everyone's opinion counts, if they use your
software. If you don't satisfy them, then maybe someone else will hear
them and say "Hmmm, y'know, /I/ could do that for them.".
> If they do it with
> misrepresentation, lies, defamation, _attempts to silence people who
> disagree_, _oblique threats to people's employment_, instigation of
> flame wars, and so on, then that's very wrong.
Yeah, that's too much like the certain well-documented corporate strategies
that many don't like.
It's all too easy to get sucked into a personal war, though. :-(
> Well, that's where we go off the tracks. You're talking about software
> which can be installed and removed. No one's iron lung is going to
> stop working because of Mono; not a single kitten will die because of
> Mono. The "harm" you imagine is not a real-world concern, not
> according to the Debian folks, not according to the Ubuntu folks.
> Don't like those decisions? Do what everyone else does and make a
> distro to your liking. Or find one, and compromise. Stop demanding
> that Ubuntu or Debian or any distro that works according to its own
> governance model (which does not include taking your efforts to "raise
> support" into consideration) do what you want.
>
> Learn how things work, and work that way. Nobody cares about
> "support", except from folks who actually contribute to the community
> in some tangible way. No one listens to whining, and more whiners does
> not make the whining more euphonious.
Definitely words to chew on.
--
Q: What's a light-year?
A: One-third less calories than a regular year.
verofakto
entirely based on your theory that I'm David, and later you hilariously
decided I was that Wong guy from Microsoft instead (and maybe tomorrow I
can be the queen of England), can I conclude that you have nothing more
of value to say?
If that's _not_ the case, do let me know.
--
verofakto
http://verofakto.blogspot.com/
chrisv
> Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>>
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not certain what makes a person reach that level of insanity
>>> but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with having an
>>> unhealthy obsession with foss and Linux.
>>
>> An unhealthy obsession with anything can do that. With some people,
>> it's UFOs; with some people, it's Microsoft.
Perhaps you should lurk for a while, "Stone" before you get in bed
with some slimeball liar kook.
>And with you, it's Mono ... I mean feminism, or whatever your excuse du
>jour happens to be.
>
>So we're /all/ obsessed - you, me, everybody.
>
>Great. Now that we've established parity in the obsession stakes,
>perhaps you'd care to forward even /one/ good reason why any FLOSS
>advocate /shouldn't/ be obsessed with Microsoft ...
>
>... right after you've justified "me too'ing" a long established and
>dedicated anti-Linux troll.
>
>Oh, and just to help you answering the former, I've provided some
>background information for you, coincidentally related to your "UFO"
>comment:
>
>[quote]
>Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental
>deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and
>OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups,
>whatever.
>[/quote]
>
>The "Evangelism is WAR!" TE training brief, James Plamondon, Microsoft's
>former chief Technology Evangelist.
>
>http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
We're "paranoid" of Micro$oft, don't you know? It's "insane" for an
advocate of FOSS (or just good old-fashioned fair play) to be "anti
Micro$oft".
Marti van Lin
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>> I'm not certain what makes a person reach that level of insanity
>>>> but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with having an
>>>> unhealthy obsession with foss and Linux.
>>> An unhealthy obsession with anything can do that. With some people,
>>> it's UFOs; with some people, it's Microsoft.
>
> Perhaps you should lurk for a while, "Stone" before you get in bed
> with some slimeball liar kook.
I think you've missed the point. I think "Lefty" and Flatfish should get
a room. They can get very well along. Their both Microsoft Shills and
both are obsessed with Roy Schestowitz.
100% match!
>> And with you, it's Mono ... I mean feminism, or whatever your excuse du
>> jour happens to be.
>>
>> So we're /all/ obsessed - you, me, everybody.
>>
>> Great. Now that we've established parity in the obsession stakes,
>> perhaps you'd care to forward even /one/ good reason why any FLOSS
>> advocate /shouldn't/ be obsessed with Microsoft ...
>>
>> ... right after you've justified "me too'ing" a long established and
>> dedicated anti-Linux troll.
>>
>> Oh, and just to help you answering the former, I've provided some
>> background information for you, coincidentally related to your "UFO"
>> comment:
>>
>> [quote]
>> Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated with mental
>> deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and
>> OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts, newsgroups,
>> whatever.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> The "Evangelism is WAR!" TE training brief, James Plamondon, Microsoft's
>> former chief Technology Evangelist.
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
>
> We're "paranoid" of Micro$oft, don't you know? It's "insane" for an
> advocate of FOSS (or just good old-fashioned fair play) to be "anti
> Micro$oft".
>
--
|_|0|_| Marti van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
William Poaster
say:
> chrisv wrote:
>> Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Stone Mirror spake thusly:
>>>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>>> I'm not certain what makes a person reach that level of insanity
>>>>> but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with having an
>>>>> unhealthy obsession with foss and Linux.
>>>> An unhealthy obsession with anything can do that. With some people,
>>>> it's UFOs; with some people, it's Microsoft.
>>
>> Perhaps you should lurk for a while, "Stone" before you get in bed
>> with some slimeball liar kook.
>
> I think you've missed the point. I think "Lefty" and Flatfish should get
> a room. They can get very well along. Their both Microsoft Shills and
> both are obsessed with Roy Schestowitz.
>
> 100% match!
"Lefty" & the "Fish", huh....got a certain ring to it, like a couple of low
life gangsters in a B-rate movie.
--
WindowError:005 Multitasking attempted. System confused.