MS snubs Home users again!
Gordon
2007 doesn't contain Outlook. That must be a very cynical ploy on behalf
of MS to get people to buy a higher version, because they must realise
that people will go for the free alternatives unless they REALLY NEED
Outlook, which most "Home" users do not.
John Bailo
Since when is there a "Home" edition of Office?
--
The Texeme Construct
http://you-read-it-here-first.com
Gordon
> Gordon wrote:
>> just been informed on an MS newsgroup that the Home Edition of MS
>> Office 2007 doesn't contain Outlook. That must be a very cynical ploy
>> on behalf of MS to get people to buy a higher version, because they
>> must realise that people will go for the free alternatives unless they
>> REALLY NEED Outlook, which most "Home" users do not.
>
> Since when is there a "Home" edition of Office?
>
Apparently there is, in office 2007, according to an MVP....
have a look here:
Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Student edition.....
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/suites/FX101635841033.aspx
amicus_curious
"John Bailo" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:fdOdnawGdIQvwu3Y...@speakeasy.net...
> Gordon wrote:
>> just been informed on an MS newsgroup that the Home Edition of MS Office
>> 2007 doesn't contain Outlook. That must be a very cynical ploy on behalf
>> of MS to get people to buy a higher version, because they must realise
>> that people will go for the free alternatives unless they REALLY NEED
>> Outlook, which most "Home" users do not.
>
> Since when is there a "Home" edition of Office?
>
years now. It is to be found in many retail outlets such as WalMart's Sam's
Club and the like for about $100. It has very liberal terms for use and
permits a number of copies to be used simutaneously in the same household.
It is a boon to students below the university book store level, for example
in high school, to obtain Microsoft Office at a very low price and so be
able to claim experience in this essential office skill category. It is
also a way for the family that may have installed Office from a "borrowed"
commercial business office CD/DVD to legitimatize their activities.
Richard Rasker
You conveniently forgot to mention that it's Microsoft's way to hook new
victims, just like the drugs dealers prowling school yards and pushing
"free dope".
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Hadron Quark
> "John Bailo" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
> news:fdOdnawGdIQvwu3Y...@speakeasy.net...
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> just been informed on an MS newsgroup that the Home Edition of MS Office
>>> 2007 doesn't contain Outlook. That must be a very cynical ploy on behalf
>>> of MS to get people to buy a higher version, because they must realise
>>> that people will go for the free alternatives unless they REALLY NEED
>>> Outlook, which most "Home" users do not.
>>
>> Since when is there a "Home" edition of Office?
>>
> The Home/Student edition of MS Office has been available for a couple
> of
It was a student Edition AFAIK. Never "home".
Erik Funkenbusch
Windows has never shipped with Outlook. If you mean Outlook Express, it
doesn't exist in Vista at all, replaced with Windows Mail, which does ship
with the Home version.
Erik Funkenbusch
Sorry, I misread that. Thought you meant Vista, not Office.
The "home" version of Office Has never had Outlook. This is nothing new.
Gordon
It is, because there never HAS been a "Home" edition of Office.
Student/teacher, Academic, Standard, Small Business and Pro. Never a
"Home" edition until now.
Tim Smith
There was also the "Home Essentials" product, which included Word from
Office, plus Works, for something like $80. Technically, this was an
upgrade, as the license required you to own a prior product, but
basically everyone qualified, as the list was something like any word
processor, spreadsheet, or game for any platform.
The advertised "Home Essentials" on the radio, and the announcer did not
say the product name clearly. The first time I heard the ad, I though
he was telling me I needed Microsoft "homosexuals", and was very
confused!
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
It was called "works", and included a full version of Word and a simple
spreadsheet and PIM.
Gordon
Uh no. Works is and always HAS been, an entirely separate product from
Office. And it was only the Works SUITE that had Word in it, the plain
vanilla Works did not.
Hadron Quark
No. Works had its own word processor. All very confusing.
Tim Smith
Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> No. Works had its own word processor. All very confusing.
Later versions of Works included Word.
--
--Tim Smith
yttrx
yttrx
Gordon
I think you'll find it was the Works SUITE, not plain Works.
Gordon
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <p4vekux...@geemail.com>,
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> No. Works had its own word processor. All very confusing.
>> Later versions of Works included Word.
>>
>
> Never a FULL version.
>
I think you'll find that the Works SUITE did.
yttrx
Ah. I must have been referring to one of the hundreds of versions
that didnt.
-----yttrx
Roy Culley
<uXich.3249$Yy1....@textfe.usenetserver.com>,
You can't blame Erik for following the script put in front of
him. He's prostituted himself for MS for so many years I think he
actually believes some of the crap he's told to post. :-)
Kier
> You can't blame Erik for following the script put in front of
> him. He's prostituted himself for MS for so many years I think he
> actually believes some of the crap he's told to post. :-)
Have you ever considered he might simply believe what he posts? Why is
there always this (IMO) dumb insistence that types like Erik are getting
paid? No one pays me to post, and I deeply doubt if anyone pays Erik or
any other poster here to post.
--
Kier
Roy Culley
<pan.2006.12.02...@tiscali.co.uk>,
Poor Kier. Ever the naive chappy. I've been around COLA far longer
than you. I was in fact I think the 1st person to suss out that Erik
was a MS apologist. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
It soon became apparent that Erik was a MS apologist who wrote next to
nothing but FUD and outright lies. He was very good at it and that is
why he fooled many Linux advocates for a long time. Since then he's
gone way downhill.
It started with him posting the link that he thought would embarrass
Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't around here then
but Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than a match for Erik in
this most blatant personal attack against someone who was at the time
a highly regarded Linux advocate.
Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he has a
vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity and to
apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you have been
around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as well. It no doubt
explains why you feed the trolls so much.
Kier
> Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he has a
> vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity and to
> apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you have been
> around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as well. It no doubt
> explains why you feed the trolls so much.
Where have I ever indicated Erik didn't 'FUD' or make excuses for MS? All
I said was, why should it have to be because he's being paid? Or don't you
think anyone can actually hold sincere (if wrong) beliefs contrary to
yours without money exchanging hands?
--
Kier
flatfish+++
> begin risky.vbs
> <pan.2006.12.02...@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:56:26 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>>
>>> You can't blame Erik for following the script put in front of
>>> him. He's prostituted himself for MS for so many years I think he
>>> actually believes some of the crap he's told to post. :-)
>>
>> Have you ever considered he might simply believe what he posts? Why
>> is there always this (IMO) dumb insistence that types like Erik are
>> getting paid? No one pays me to post, and I deeply doubt if anyone
>> pays Erik or any other poster here to post.
>
> Poor Kier. Ever the naive chappy. I've been around COLA far longer
> than you. I was in fact I think the 1st person to suss out that Erik
> was a MS apologist. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
See that kier.
Disagree with the COLA gang and see what happens.
FWIW CUlley, yea you HAVE been around here longer than kier.
It's obvious you HAVE by the way you are making up stories a la Rex.
Nothing you say above is true, except that you have been here longer than
kier.
Nothing.
> It soon became apparent that Erik was a MS apologist who wrote next to
> nothing but FUD and outright lies. He was very good at it and that is
> why he fooled many Linux advocates for a long time. Since then he's
> gone way downhill.
No it soon became apparent that Erik is a very good advocate, knows his
stuff, especially when it comes to Microsoft and thus is a HUGE danger to
the Linux advocacy FUD crowd.
So of course the discredit routine HAD to be done and you boobs have been
propagating lies for years.
Like little babies you drag up some minor errors that Erik has made like
they actually mean anything to anybody but a sick bunch like you and the
boys.
> It started with him posting the link that he
thought would embarrass
> Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't around here then but
> Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than a match for Erik in this
> most blatant personal attack against someone who was at the time a
> highly regarded Linux advocate.
Evidently you weren't here either.
That link didn't backfire on him and oh BTW Rex had/has a website that is
public record and free for all to see concerning his deviant behavior.
And if you don't think blowing the bartender in order to date the waitress
is deviant behavior (male bartender, female waitress, male (at least
today) Rex) then you are a deviant also.
No Roy.
It didn't backfire on Erik.
That's just another one of your fairy tales.
Someone else was right when they said you have a compulsion to disagree
with Erik no matter what he says.
I would say the illness transcends unto the others in the gang (Roy,
Poaster,Kent) and in fact applies to ANYONE who doesn't sing the linux
song note for note.
> Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he has a
> vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity and to
> apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you have been
> around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as well. It no doubt
> explains why you feed the trolls so much.
Your'e drinking again Culley.
Most of what you say is pure fantasy contrived and *me too'd* by the Linux
crackpots for years to the point where you nutballs are actually believing
your own lies.
See kier??????
This is the group you choose to be with.
If you want to advocate Linux, take a lesson from this, and the last time
they tried to tar and feather you and speak your mind instead of becoming
a mindless drone and liar like Culley or the others.
It doesn't matter which side, if any, you are on.
Just tell it like you see it.
Kier
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:45:17 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <pan.2006.12.02...@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:56:26 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't blame Erik for following the script put in front of
>>>> him. He's prostituted himself for MS for so many years I think he
>>>> actually believes some of the crap he's told to post. :-)
>>>
>>> Have you ever considered he might simply believe what he posts? Why
>>> is there always this (IMO) dumb insistence that types like Erik are
>>> getting paid? No one pays me to post, and I deeply doubt if anyone
>>> pays Erik or any other poster here to post.
>>
>> Poor Kier. Ever the naive chappy. I've been around COLA far longer
>> than you. I was in fact I think the 1st person to suss out that Erik
>> was a MS apologist. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
>> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
>> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
>
> See that kier.
> Disagree with the COLA gang and see what happens.
What COLA gang?
>
> FWIW CUlley, yea you HAVE been around here longer than kier.
> It's obvious you HAVE by the way you are making up stories a la Rex.
>
> Nothing you say above is true, except that you have been here longer than
> kier.
> Nothing.
And are you any better? No.
>
>
>> It soon became apparent that Erik was a MS apologist who wrote next to
>> nothing but FUD and outright lies. He was very good at it and that is
>> why he fooled many Linux advocates for a long time. Since then he's
>> gone way downhill.
>
> No it soon became apparent that Erik is a very good advocate, knows his
> stuff, especially when it comes to Microsoft and thus is a HUGE danger to
> the Linux advocacy FUD crowd.
A danger? Hardly. He may or may not know his stuff, but he's no danger to
Linux advocacy.
>
> So of course the discredit routine HAD to be done and you boobs have been
> propagating lies for years.
Just like you have, then, flatty. You're not remotely honest.
> Like little babies you drag up some minor errors that Erik has made like
> they actually mean anything to anybody but a sick bunch like you and the
> boys.
Sick? Oh, come off it.
>
>> It started with him posting the link that he
> thought would embarrass
>> Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't around here then but
>> Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than a match for Erik in this
>> most blatant personal attack against someone who was at the time a
>> highly regarded Linux advocate.
>
> Evidently you weren't here either.
> That link didn't backfire on him and oh BTW Rex had/has a website that is
> public record and free for all to see concerning his deviant behavior.
Ever the prejudiced idiot, I see.
>
> And if you don't think blowing the bartender in order to date the waitress
> is deviant behavior (male bartender, female waitress, male (at least
> today) Rex) then you are a deviant also.
You would say that, of course. Because you are narow-minded and prejudiced.
>
> No Roy.
> It didn't backfire on Erik.
> That's just another one of your fairy tales.
Like your fairy tales about Roy S? Like that crap about him being involved
in a fight with police in a gay bar?
>
> Someone else was right when they said you have a compulsion to disagree
> with Erik no matter what he says.
>
> I would say the illness transcends unto the others in the gang (Roy,
> Poaster,Kent) and in fact applies to ANYONE who doesn't sing the linux
> song note for note.
>
>> Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he has a
>> vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity and to
>> apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you have been
>> around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as well. It no doubt
>> explains why you feed the trolls so much.
>
> Your'e drinking again Culley.
He doesn't drink. He's diabetic, stupid.
>
> Most of what you say is pure fantasy contrived and *me too'd* by the Linux
> crackpots for years to the point where you nutballs are actually believing
> your own lies.
>
>
> See kier??????
I see that you're a gutless liar. Calling people nutballs doesn't make you
look honest.
>
> This is the group you choose to be with.
Linux advocacy? Certainly. That's the only 'group' I'm in, or interested
in being 'in'.
> If you want to advocate Linux, take a lesson from this, and the last time
> they tried to tar and feather you and speak your mind instead of becoming
> a mindless drone and liar like Culley or the others.
Tar and feather? Oh fuck off, you stupid idiot.
>
> It doesn't matter which side, if any, you are on.
> Just tell it like you see it.
I do.
--
Kier
Hadron Quark
I had high hopes for some fun & games with Kier in the COLA RPG : but
the thrashing he took from the Gang when Mark Kent "questioned his
motives for posting" have left him a mere shell of the man he once might
have been. It's all "oo dont say that, be nice" these days and that is
not why we play the COLA charade. ok, he swears occasionally when he
feels he needs some shock jock tactics to get our attention - but thats
all pretty childish at the end of the day.
With regards to Lapdog Collie, what meds is he on? He seems to have a
pathological hatred for Erik. Erik alwas struck me as a pretty reasoned
poster - tells it how it is and certainly not an MS Shill.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Poor Kier. Ever the naive chappy. I've been around COLA far longer
> than you. I was in fact I think the 1st person to suss out that Erik
> was a MS apologist. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
That's funny, I can't recall anyone ever confusing me for a Linux advocate.
Even before you were around.
> It soon became apparent that Erik was a MS apologist who wrote next to
> nothing but FUD and outright lies. He was very good at it and that is
> why he fooled many Linux advocates for a long time. Since then he's
> gone way downhill.
I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
FUD. Yeah, I am occasionally (not the word occasionally) critical of
Linux. But most of my comments are not negative towards it at all.
You think that repeating this claim over and over again makes it true.
It's not.
> It started with him posting the link that he thought would embarrass
> Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't around here then
> but Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than a match for Erik in
> this most blatant personal attack against someone who was at the time
> a highly regarded Linux advocate.
I appologized for that on several occasions. You can't seem to accept
that, though, even though Rex did. You and your high "moral fibre" again.
> Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he has a
> vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity and to
> apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you have been
> around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as well. It no doubt
> explains why you feed the trolls so much.
I don't try to make Linux look bad. Ever. Occasionally I might shoot down
the over-zealous "linux is pure ambrosia" comments, especially from people
like Rex that invent pure fantasy to support his claims. Yeah, I've made
mistakes, so has everyone else. Live with it.
DFS
<snip beatdown>
Awesome! Great smackdown, flatfish. Everything you said is right on - Erik
Funkenbusch puts these cola idiots in their place by the dozen. The fact
that 5 of them whine for years about a minor mistake like "where does NTFS
store its journal" is PROOF-POSITIVE they're owned by EF.
Doug Mentohl
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:45:17 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>> .. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
>> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
>> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
> That's funny, I can't recall anyone ever confusing me for a Linux advocate.
> Even before you were around.
Answering the question he didn't ask. The point is that *you* pretend to
be a Linux advocate. Your posts invariable go along the lines of, I like
Linux except it doesn't have <insert random feeture>.
"Having said that, I like Linux. I just wish it was a little less flaky
when trying to modify it"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02cf86d57f20ced9?hl=en&
Kier
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:14:47 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>
>> I had high hopes for some fun & games with Kier in the COLA RPG : but
>> the thrashing he took from the Gang when Mark Kent "questioned his
>> motives for posting" have left him a mere shell of the man he once might
>> have been. It's all "oo dont say that, be nice" these days and that is
>> not why we play the COLA charade. ok, he swears occasionally when he
>> feels he needs some shock jock tactics to get our attention - but thats
>> all pretty childish at the end of the day.
>
> I think kier must be a submissive because it appears he enjoys the pain
> the COLA gang inflict upon him.
Pain? Submissive? Are you on crack? Like I'm going to take seriously
anyone who talks such tripe, and who can't even manage to get my name
right.
> This thread is a perfect example of how the gang will turn on anyone who
> doesn't agree with them.
>
> It's classic.
>
> > With regards to Lapdog Collie, what meds is he on? He seems to have a
>> pathological hatred for Erik. Erik alwas struck me as a pretty reasoned
>> poster - tells it how it is and certainly not an MS Shill.
>
> Culley used to be a decent poster and then he started drinking
> excessively and his posts would be, let's just say, different. At some
> point he discovered he had diabetes and eye troubles associated with it so
> he had to limit alcohol intake.
And exactly how much proof do you have that Roy ever drank 'excessively'?
Really, flatfish, you posts are becoming increasingly libellous and
offensive.
>
> He does seem to have a hatred for Erik.
> But then again, all of the Linux nutsack gang do.
There you go again, inventing collective terms when no collective exists.
Unless of course it's you and Hadron and your mutual bumboy club.
--
Kier
Erik Funkenbusch
> on Sun Dec 03 2006 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:45:17 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>>> .. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
>>> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
>>> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
>
>> That's funny, I can't recall anyone ever confusing me for a Linux advocate.
>> Even before you were around.
>
> Answering the question he didn't ask. The point is that *you* pretend to
> be a Linux advocate. Your posts invariable go along the lines of, I like
> Linux except it doesn't have <insert random feeture>.
I do Like Linux, that doesn't mean i'm an advocate.
> "Having said that, I like Linux. I just wish it was a little less flaky
> when trying to modify it"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/02cf86d57f20ced9?hl=en&
OOohh.. nearly a year ago. Is that the best you can do?
Hadron Quark
Doug Menthol is in the top 3 or 4 "quality" posters according to Roy Collie
flatfish+++
That in and of itself nullifies anything Culley has to say......
chrisv
>I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
>FUD.
LOL
Examples are given to you, time after time, FUDmeister.
William Poaster
And hasn't he been asked time & time again to back up his "claims"?
You know, questions such as:
Questions such as:
1] Where does NTFS store its journal?
2] How did the Morris worm spread by email?
3] What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
4]Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
standards?
5] Why is ok for *him* (without asking permission) to publicise other
people's personal information, but if a person chooses to
publicise personal information about *himself*, it is "inappropriate".
6] What about the "thousands of root exploits per month" he claimed,
& was then found to be making it all up?
7] How does Funkenbusch *know* Roy didn't come by the picture he's
ranting about, honestly?
8] How does he *know* that Roy does /not/ have the legitimate right to
use that picture despite what the copyright owner claims is the case?
etc, etc...
However, it's quite likely Ewik The Weasel will continue to ignore them.
--
When I hear of a long time smoker dying of lung cancer
I think "That's too bad, but they made their choices".
When I hear about companies getting screwed by Microsoft,
I think the same thing.
The Ghost In The Machine
<w...@kubuntu110.eu>
wrote
on Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:00:56 +0000
<pan.2006.12.04....@kubuntu110.eu>:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:39:44 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Erik "the weasel" Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>>I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
>>>FUD.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Examples are given to you, time after time, FUDmeister.
>
> And hasn't he been asked time & time again to back up his "claims"?
How can he, when he can't even back up his operating system because
files are locked? :-) ;-) :-)
> You know, questions such as:
> Questions such as:
>
> 1] Where does NTFS store its journal?
At the JournalStore(tm). (Data journaling is available for a small
extra fee.)
>
> 2] How did the Morris worm spread by email?
The hard way? :-) After all, modern worms have it much easier; they
have Outlook Express.
>
> 3] What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
What about 'em? I've not had a problem.
>
> 4]Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
> standards?
Why am I hearing "Dueling Banjos" in the background? :-)
>
> 5] Why is ok for *him* (without asking permission) to publicise other
> people's personal information, but if a person chooses to
> publicise personal information about *himself*, it is "inappropriate".
Good question.
>
> 6] What about the "thousands of root exploits per month" he claimed,
> & was then found to be making it all up?
Depends on which month. After all, the Morris worm clogged networks for
awhile.
>
> 7] How does Funkenbusch *know* Roy didn't come by the picture he's
> ranting about, honestly?
Seances are wonderful, aren't they?
>
> 8] How does he *know* that Roy does /not/ have the legitimate right to
> use that picture despite what the copyright owner claims is the case?
Ditto.
>
> etc, etc...
>
> However, it's quite likely Ewik The Weasel will continue to ignore them.
>
There's gotta be a song in there somewhere. A nasty song,
but a song nonetheless.
"Ewik The Red-Faced Weasel"...
OK, that's enough of that. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Roy Culley
<ptb4fjw8vqlo$.d...@funkenbusch.com>,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:45:17 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> Poor Kier. Ever the naive chappy. I've been around COLA far longer
>> than you. I was in fact I think the 1st person to suss out that Erik
>> was a MS apologist. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
>> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
>> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
>
> That's funny, I can't recall anyone ever confusing me for a Linux
> advocate. Even before you were around.
Don't flatter yourself Erik, no one ever regarded you as a Linux
advocate. They just believed the FUD and lies you posted.
>> It soon became apparent that Erik was a MS apologist who wrote next to
>> nothing but FUD and outright lies. He was very good at it and that is
>> why he fooled many Linux advocates for a long time. Since then he's
>> gone way downhill.
>
> I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily
> spout FUD. Yeah, I am occasionally (not the word occasionally)
> critical of Linux. But most of my comments are not negative towards
> it at all.
>
> You think that repeating this claim over and over again makes it
> true. It's not.
You have spouted FUD and outright lies for years Erik. You'll be hard
pressed to find any Linux advocate who'll dispute that me thinks.
>> It started with him posting the link that he thought would
>> embarrass Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't
>> around here then but Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than
>> a match for Erik in this most blatant personal attack against
>> someone who was at the time a highly regarded Linux advocate.
>
> I appologized for that on several occasions. You can't seem to
> accept that, though, even though Rex did. You and your high "moral
> fibre" again.
Rex is a rather mature person Erik. He did say though that the only
purpose, in his opinion, of you posting the link was malice. What you
did would have stopped anyone with any sense of moral decency ever
posting again in this forum. We know you have little to none moral
values Erik.
>> Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he
>> has a vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity
>> and to apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you
>> have been around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as
>> well. It no doubt explains why you feed the trolls so much.
>
> I don't try to make Linux look bad. Ever. Occasionally I might
> shoot down the over-zealous "linux is pure ambrosia" comments,
> especially from people like Rex that invent pure fantasy to support
> his claims. Yeah, I've made mistakes, so has everyone else. Live
> with it.
This is just an outright lie. You have done it for years. X is so
intolerably slow. Where does ext3 store its journal? The GPL is a
virus. You tow the MS line Erik. You cannot stand any criticism of
your beloved MS. Linux is a threat to MS and, for whatever reason, you
post here to denigrate Linux and portray MS in a good light. You
failed a long time ago and hence I can only conclude that your
continued posting here in some way is advantageous to you.
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
DFS
> After all, modern worms have it much easier; they have Outlook Express.
I've been using OE for 10 years - where are my worms? I've never had any:
sour, gummi, garden, Zotob or otherwise.
I'm wormless!
Roy Culley
<7oc8n2hqhgg904899...@4ax.com>,
That's a classic for sure. I feel a new .sig coming on. :-)
--
I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
FUD. - Funkenbusch, Sat, 2 Dec 2006
Erik Funkenbusch
>> I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily
>> spout FUD. Yeah, I am occasionally (not the word occasionally)
>> critical of Linux. But most of my comments are not negative towards
>> it at all.
>>
>> You think that repeating this claim over and over again makes it
>> true. It's not.
>
> You have spouted FUD and outright lies for years Erik. You'll be hard
> pressed to find any Linux advocate who'll dispute that me thinks.
Repeating that mantra doesn't make it true, Roy, no matter how much you
want it to.
>>> It started with him posting the link that he thought would
>>> embarrass Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't
>>> around here then but Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than
>>> a match for Erik in this most blatant personal attack against
>>> someone who was at the time a highly regarded Linux advocate.
>>
>> I appologized for that on several occasions. You can't seem to
>> accept that, though, even though Rex did. You and your high "moral
>> fibre" again.
>
> Rex is a rather mature person Erik. He did say though that the only
> purpose, in his opinion, of you posting the link was malice. What you
> did would have stopped anyone with any sense of moral decency ever
> posting again in this forum. We know you have little to none moral
> values Erik.
Grow up.
>> I don't try to make Linux look bad. Ever. Occasionally I might
>> shoot down the over-zealous "linux is pure ambrosia" comments,
>> especially from people like Rex that invent pure fantasy to support
>> his claims. Yeah, I've made mistakes, so has everyone else. Live
>> with it.
>
> This is just an outright lie. You have done it for years. X is so
> intolerably slow. Where does ext3 store its journal? The GPL is a
> virus. You tow the MS line Erik. You cannot stand any criticism of
> your beloved MS. Linux is a threat to MS and, for whatever reason, you
> post here to denigrate Linux and portray MS in a good light. You
> failed a long time ago and hence I can only conclude that your
> continued posting here in some way is advantageous to you.
XFree86 *WAS* intolerably slow. So much so, they finally forked it to give
it the work it so desperately needed. Xorg improved things a great deal.
Even so, I think Xorg is still too slow, however XGL is not. I've lauded
XGL and I said lots of good things about it.
There are also a lot of people besides myself and Microsoft that call the
GPL viral. In fact, the term GPV, or "Gnu Public Virus" originated from
the BSD crowd.
Criticism of Microsoft is fine. I can't stand inaccurate, or exagerate
criticism. And, I criticize Microsoft all the time, just not here that
often, because when I agree with a criticism expressed here, there is no
reason for me to chime in with a "me too". An example is that I think the
Zune is a piece of shit.
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 19:46:08 -0500
<bj3dh.62$q%1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>:
You poor thing. I'll see if I can't hunt up some emails
to send you to remedy that situation...not. :-)
But I do get a fair amount of spam with encoded zip files
and crap; mailx of course sees them as text and simply
stuffs them into my not-so-neatly-organized-mailbox file.
Hardly dangerous in that form.
Of course fetchmail (on my one box) just passes them to exim
on my other box. Not much infection possibility there either.
But somebody's sending this crud. Infected Linux machines,
maybe? Somehow, I rather doubt it.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous
munition. Please notify the US government
immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
Mark Kent
Roy Culley <mr...@spamme.zz> espoused:
> begin risky.vbs
> <pan.2006.12.02...@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:56:26 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>>
>>> You can't blame Erik for following the script put in front of
>>> him. He's prostituted himself for MS for so many years I think he
>>> actually believes some of the crap he's told to post. :-)
>>
>> Have you ever considered he might simply believe what he posts? Why
>> is there always this (IMO) dumb insistence that types like Erik are
>> getting paid? No one pays me to post, and I deeply doubt if anyone
>> pays Erik or any other poster here to post.
>
> Poor Kier. Ever the naive chappy. I've been around COLA far longer
> than you. I was in fact I think the 1st person to suss out that Erik
> was a MS apologist. When I first subscribed to COLA everyone bar none
> thought Erik was a well informed person who had a lot of credibility.
> So did I initially until I started to dig deeper into what he wrote.
>
That's going back a bit... but I do recall the general feeling that Erik
sort of knew some things.
> It soon became apparent that Erik was a MS apologist who wrote next to
> nothing but FUD and outright lies. He was very good at it and that is
> why he fooled many Linux advocates for a long time. Since then he's
> gone way downhill.
I agree. Like yourself, I would claim to be one of the first to spot
Erik's disingenuous nature.
>
> It started with him posting the link that he thought would embarrass
> Rex. Boy did that backfire on him Kier. You weren't around here then
> but Rex, for all his faults, was and is more than a match for Erik in
> this most blatant personal attack against someone who was at the time
> a highly regarded Linux advocate.
It was a dreadful thing to do, there could not possibly be any excuse
for what he did. I hope Erik considers, every day, what things might
have been like if he'd not done that.
>
> Whether Erik is paid by MS is neither here nor there. Clearly he has a
> vested interest in making Linux look bad at every opportunity and to
> apologise for all MS failings. What astounds me is that you have been
> around here long enough to have sussed Erik out as well. It no doubt
> explains why you feed the trolls so much.
He must be convinced of some personal gain from it, exactly how the gain
works, I do not know, but his dogged insistence on everything Microsoft
say being true is just scary.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I've always considered statesmen to be more expendable than soldiers.