[News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| Q: Now, when you say a smoking gun, what exactly do you mean?
|
| Mark Taylor: Well, the -- (laughter) -- the thing is, the iPlayer is not what
| it claimed to be, it is built top-to-bottom on a Microsoft-only stack, the
| BBC management team who are responsible for the iPlayer are a checklist of
| senior employees from Microsoft who were involved with Windows Media. A
| gentleman called Erik Huggers who's responsible for the iPlayer project in
| the BBC, his immediately previous job was director at Microsoft for Europe,
| Middle East & Africa responsible for Windows Media. He presided over the
| division of Windows Media when it was the subject of the European
| Commission's antitrust case. He was the senior director responsible. He's now
| shown up responsible for the iPlayer project.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
Related:
BBC Corrupted
,----[ Quote ]
| Today the BBC made it official -- they have been corrupted by Microsoft. With
| today's launch of the iPlayer, the BBC Trust has failed in its most basic of
| duties and handed over to Microsoft sole control of the on-line distribution
| of BBC programming. From today, you will need to own a Microsoft operating
| system to view BBC programming on the web. This is akin to saying you must
| own a Sony TV set to watch BBC TV. And you must accept the Digital
| Restrictions Management (DRM) that the iPlayer imposes. You simply cannot be
| allowed to be in control of your computer according to the BBC.
`----
http://defectivebydesign.org/blog/BBCcorrupted
BBC iPlayer Protests
,----[ Quote ]
| Who are the people responsible for creating this mess?
|
| * Mark Thompson, BBC director general (DG)
| * Erik Huggers, group controller at BBC Future Media & Technology
| * Ashley Highfield, director of new media and technology
|
| Right now, there is very considerable concern within the BBC that the actions
| of the Director General and his team are sending the corporation in the wrong
| direction. The BBC has been embroiled in a number of recent controversies,
| all linked back to the DG's leadership.
`----
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/iPlayerProtest
Beeb slammed for 'fawning' to Bill Gates
,----[ Quote ]
| BBC viewers have flooded the corporation with complaints over how it
| covered the launch of Microsoft Vista earlier this week.
|
| In one cringingly servile interview worthy of Uriah Heep, the
| Beeb's news presenter Hugh Edwards even thanked Gates at the
| end of it, presumably in appreciation at being allowed to give
| the Vole vast coverage for free.
|
| In other TV news items presenters excitedly explained how Vistac
| ould be obtained and installed - details courtesy of the BBC's
| website.
|
| But British viewers, currently forced to pay a £131.50 licence
| fee to maintain the BBC's "impartiality", were less than impressed.
|
| Scores got in touch to complain that so much was Auntie up Bill's
| bum that you could barely see her corset.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37411
http://slated.org/bbc_microsoft_bias
Brits! Act now to save the BBC from Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| The BBC are holding an open consultation regarding how they're
| going to delivery on-demand content, they want answers to
| questions like: "How important is it that the proposed seven-day
| catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who
| are not using Microsoft software?"
`----
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/31/brits_act_now_to_sav.html
BBC courted for Xbox link
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft was attracted to the BBC’s library of content and to
| high-definition programmes such as the award-winning series Planet Earth,
| Honey said.
`----
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2412752.ece
MPs rap BBC over Siemens deal
,----[ Quote ]
| But public spending watchdog the PAC said BBC executives misled the board
| of governors about possible savings while trying to convince them to give
| the deal the go-ahead.
|
| The committee of MPs found £60m of costs was excluded when budgets were
| put to the governors for approval.
|
| [...]
|
| The PAC said the BBC was failing to manage the contract properly.
|
| [...]
|
| The report suggests the BBC should open up its accounts to government
| officials for proper scrutiny.
`---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/pac_bbc_siemens/
Microsoft, Siemens to develop in-car infotainment
http://phunds.xxtreeme.com/sep10_microsoft_siemens_to_develop_in_car_infotainment
BBC Trust chairman scuppered by Skype
,----[ Quote ]
| The BBC has gone into a massive navel gazing operation after an internal
| investigation that revealed it had made quite a few mistakes.
|
| Naturally every hack+dog on the British national press is weighing in
| describing it as a scandal, a "breach of trust" and the rest.
|
| [...]
|
| ohn Humphreys, the interviewer, proceeded to explain that the chairman was
| using something called Skype. Sort of re-assuring that the BBC Trust isn't
| wasting licence payers' money though.
`----
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41100
BBC iPlayer ups its restrictions
http://flickr.com/photos/coneee/1321390740/?addedcomment=1#comment72157601896989250
Ubuntu Linux maker joins OSC over iPlayer campaign
,----[ Quote ]
| As the Internet becomes part of everyone's lives - we will all go online
| using more types of device. Locking access to BBC iPlayer content to phones
| and internet tablets running Windows(tm) is shortsighted and bad for
| fee-payers. Platform neutral means that we need
| a solution that supports Linux and Apple's OSX."
|
| We fully support the OSC's vital campaign that the iPlayer support Linux and
| trust that the BBC sees why this is in the interest of feepayers."
`----
http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=33204&hilite=
What tricks is the BBC up to with Microsoft?
,----[ Quote ]
| The twin elephants in the meeting room will be Microsoft's Silverlight and
| PlayReady.
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/16/silverlight_iplayer_playready/
BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak
,----[ Quote ]
| "The future of iPlayer, the BBC's new online on-demand system for delivering
| content, is continuing to look bleaker. With ISPs threatening to throttle the
| content delivered through the iPlayer, consumers petitioning the UK
| government and the BBC to drop the DRM and Microsoft-only technology, and
| threatened legal action from the OSC, the last thing the BBC wanted to see
| today was street protests at their office and at the BBC Media Complex
| accompanied by a report issued by DefectiveByDesign about their association
| with Microsoft."
`----
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/15/1721229&from=rss
BBC iPlayer protest report
,----[ Quote
| First on site with me is Tom Chance, Green Party spokesperson on Free
| Software. He has organized for Dr Derek Wall, lead spokesperson for the Green
| Party to join us and make some statements about BBC iPlayer and the Microsoft
| lock-in it establishes.
|
| [...]
|
| We have 1500 fliers to distribute, that focus on the key issue with the
| iPlayer, and why $130 Million and 4 years of development don't get you much
| when you choose Microsoft DRM.
`----
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/iPlayerProtestReport
Anti-DRM Protesters call on the BBC to eliminate DRM from the iPlayer
,----[ Quote ]
| London and Manchester, England – Two weeks after the BBC officially launched
| the iPlayer, protesters wearing bright yellow Hazmat suits gathered outside
| BBC Television Center in London and BBC headquarters in Manchester to demand
| that Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) be eliminated from the BBC.
|
| The BBC have developed the "iPlayer" at a cost to the BBC license fee payer
| of £130 Million and rising.
|
| [...]
|
| FSF Executive Director attending the protest spoke about the corrupting
| influence of Microsoft, "BBC values have been corrupted because BBC
| Executives are too closely associated with Microsoft. BBC values have been
| corrupted because the iPlayer uses proprietary software and standards made
| under an exclusive deal with Microsoft. BBC values have been corrupted
| because license fee payers must now own a Microsoft operating system to
| download BBC programming. BBC values have been corrupted because license fee
| payers must accept DRM technologies that spy and monitor on the digital files
| held on their computers. We are here today to help BBC Director General Mark
| Thompson, clean up this DRM mess, and to encourage the BBC Trust to reverse
| course and eliminate DRM from the BBC iPlayer"
`----
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/11186/anti-drm-protesters-call-bbc-eliminate-drm-iplayer
Internet groups warn BBC over iPlayer plans
,----[ Quote ]
| Some of the companies involved have told the BBC that they will consider
| limiting the bandwidth available to iPlayer – a process known as traffic
| shaping. The measure would limit the number of consumers who could access the
| iPlayer at any one time.
`----
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2856766.ece
Lobby Group: Microsoft Too Close to BBC
,----[ Quote ]
| A software lobby group is campaigning to highlight the role of software giant
| Microsoft Corp. in the British Broadcasting Corp.'s digital media strategy by
| petitioning Great Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown to address the issue.
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070803/microsoft_bbc.html?.v=1
http://labs.live.com/photosynth/BBC/default.htm
Requires ActiveX, IE, Windows...
Silverlight looks better by the Moonlight
,----[ Quote ]
| The BBC has already experimented with Silverlight and says it is looking for
| an "embedded media solution".
`----
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,,2123942,00.html
BBC iPlayer petition hits 10,000
,----[ Quote
| More than 10,000 people have signed an e-petition on the 10 Downing Street
| website urging the BBC to make its iPlayer available to non-Windows users.
`----
http://www.silicon.com/retailandleisure/0,3800011842,39167923,00.htm?r=1
EC threat to BBC over downloads
,----[ Quote ]
| However, OSC disagrees and says the next step is to make a formal
| complaint to the European Commission (EC).
|
| "We're preparing the full details at the moment and we will be
| sending a formal letter within the next week," said Mr Taylor.
`----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm
Open sourcers rattle EU sabre at BBC on demand player
,----[ Quote ]
| The BBC is being threatened with an anti-trust challenge in Europe over its
| use of the Windows Media format in its on demand service, iPlayer, which is
| in the final stages of testing.
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/22/iplayer_osc_eu_ofcom/
Free the BBC
,----[ Quote ]
| We are deeply concerned about the BBC's use of "Digital Rights
| Management" (DRM) to manage content delivered to users over the
| Internet. There are dozens of arguments against DRM, however we
| believe these are the most important and relevant to the BBC.
`----
http://www.freethebbc.info/node/5
Save the BBC from Windows DRM!
,----[ Quote ]
| Clearly, shutting out 25% of your audience sits ill with the BBC's
| remit of serving all of its users...
|
| There is no denying that this is an extremely difficult area for
| the BBC, since it must negotiate not one but three minefields -
| those of technology standards, copyright and contract law. But
| there are still things that it could do without turning into a
| global advertisement for Microsoft's flawed DRM approach.
`----
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000183
BBC plans to lock viewers into Microsoft monopoly says Open Source Consortium
,----[ Quote ]
| The Open Source Consortium (OSC) believes the plans are anti-competitive
| and will use public money to lock viewers into the technologies of
| a repeatedly convicted monopolist.
`----
http://www.publictechnology.net/article_avantgo.php?sid=7655
Microsoft Tells Apple To Stop Complaining About DRM
http://www.podcastingnews.com/2007/04/13/microsoft-apple-drm/
Microsoft launches 'PlayReady' DRM system
,----[ Quote ]
| Although digital rights management (DRM) is popular with content
| creators, it has attracted criticism. Sony was widely attacked after
| using a rootkit-like application to hide content protection on some
| music CDs, and earlier this month Apple CEO Steve Jobs called on
| the music industry to drop its use of DRM.
`----
http://news.com.com/2100-1039_3-6158553.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news
Golden Rant : Microsoft DRM's gone too far
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft appears to have hit the wrong button on its critical
| Windows XP download service late last month, pretty well forcing
| every XP user to upgrade to Windows Media Player (WiMP) 11 if
| they (like me and many others) have the automatic download/install
| option enabled for critical updates.
`----
http://securityblog.itproportal.com/?p=712
The Longest Suicide Note in History
,----[ Quote ]
| Gutmann: The genie's out of the bottle before the operating system has even
| been released! But that doesn't mean Vista users in particular - and
| the computer community at large - won't end up paying for Microsoft's
| DRM folly. At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself, yet
| another reason to move to Linux.
`---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2007/01/the_longest_suicide_note_in_hi.html
DRM in Windows Vista
,----[ Quote ]
| Windows Vista includes an array of "features" that you don't want.
| These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure.
| They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will
| cause technical support problems. They may even require you to
| upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software.
| And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're
| working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM)
| features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment
| industry.
|
| And you don't get to refuse them.
`----
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows.html
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium, by
> Sean Daly
[...]
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
Not only has MS annexed the Beeb, but they've contributed to it's
virtual destruction (lay-offs, cutbacks, relocation). Microsoft is a
plague. It's a disgrace; there should be a public enquiry and emergency
intervention by the government to reverse the destructive influence of
MS in all public institutions; such as television, health care, the
National Archive and the National Library; before it's too late.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
09:17:12 up 76 days, 8:12, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.06
Kier
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> Interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium, by
>> Sean Daly
> [...]
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
>
> Not only has MS annexed the Beeb, but they've contributed to it's
> virtual destruction (lay-offs, cutbacks, relocation). Microsoft is a
Do you have *any* proof of thatr nonsense?
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
Cause (mind the highlight):
Anti-DRM Protesters call on the BBC to eliminate DRM from the iPlayer
,----[ Quote ]
| London and Manchester, England – Two weeks after the BBC officially launched
| the iPlayer, protesters wearing bright yellow Hazmat suits gathered outside
| BBC Television Center in London and BBC headquarters in Manchester to demand
| that Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) be eliminated from the BBC.
|
| The BBC have developed the "iPlayer" at a cost to the BBC license fee payer
| of £130 Million and rising
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ .
|
| [...]
|
| FSF Executive Director attending the protest spoke about the corrupting
| influence of Microsoft, "BBC values have been corrupted because BBC
| Executives are too closely associated with Microsoft. BBC values have been
| corrupted because the iPlayer uses proprietary software and standards made
| under an exclusive deal with Microsoft. BBC values have been corrupted
| because license fee payers must now own a Microsoft operating system to
| download BBC programming. BBC values have been corrupted because license fee
| payers must accept DRM technologies that spy and monitor on the digital files
| held on their computers. We are here today to help BBC Director General Mark
| Thompson, clean up this DRM mess, and to encourage the BBC Trust to reverse
| course and eliminate DRM from the BBC iPlayer"
`----
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/general/11186/anti-drm-protesters-call-bbc-eliminate-drm-iplayer
And effect:
BBC sacks 2,500 skilled staff
,----[ Quote ]
| Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the NUJ, told a BBC hack who was clearing
| his desk: "Nothing said today reassures us that the BBC is committed to
| meaningful negotiations over the change. Unless the BBC reconsiders its
| position, strike action looks inevitable."
`----
http://rss1.mediafed.com/feed/vnunet/the_INQUIRER/?link=2f3cfc212a2eee76568c7e07d8099313
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 447100k used, 68400k free, 660k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Kier
> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 09:23 : \____
>
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:19:10 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium, by
>>>> Sean Daly
>>> [...]
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
>>>
>>> Not only has MS annexed the Beeb, but they've contributed to it's
>>> virtual destruction (lay-offs, cutbacks, relocation). Microsoft is a
>>
>> Do you have *any* proof of thatr nonsense?
>
> Cause (mind the highlight):
>
> Anti-DRM Protesters call on the BBC to eliminate DRM from the iPlayer
<snip>
> And effect:
>
> BBC sacks 2,500 skilled staff
<snip>
Not proof, and certainly not direct cause and effect, no matter how you'd
like to swing it that way.
The licence fee hasn't gone up enough in real terms. That's the
cause. MS had little or nothing to do with it (the BBC has many other
expensive committments). It's time to stop blaming MS for everything and
look at the real problems.
--
Kier
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
Yes, which is the fact that the MSBBC sends the jobs and money to other
countries. Microsoft and their partner Siemens are great examples.
MPs rap BBC over Siemens deal
,----[ Quote ]
| But public spending watchdog the PAC said BBC executives misled the board
| of governors about possible savings while trying to convince them to give
| the deal the go-ahead.
|
| The committee of MPs found £60m of costs was excluded when budgets were
| put to the governors for approval.
|
| [...]
|
| The PAC said the BBC was failing to manage the contract properly.
|
| [...]
|
| The report suggests the BBC should open up its accounts to government
| officials for proper scrutiny.
`---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/pac_bbc_siemens/
Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and a pattern.
It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being part of the problem
is still being a problem, no matter how you think about it.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Mandriva & Fedora - Gotta love them girls
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 26.3%us, 4.4%sy, 1.0%ni, 64.0%id, 3.8%wa, 0.2%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
Kier
A much smaller part than you would like to make it seem, however.
--
Kier
[H]omer
>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
what you're good at.
> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and
> a pattern. It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being
> part of the problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think
> about it.
£130 Million pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary Microsoft
technology, and hiring senior ex-Microsoft employees to pervert the BBC
media infrastructure, would be major contributing factors.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
12:34:23 up 76 days, 11:29, 2 users, load average: 0.19, 0.20, 0.14
William Poaster
> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 09:23 : \____
>
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:19:10 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium, by
>>>> Sean Daly
>>> [...]
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
>>>
>>> Not only has MS annexed the Beeb, but they've contributed to it's
>>> virtual destruction (lay-offs, cutbacks, relocation). Microsoft is a
>>
>> Do you have *any* proof of thatr nonsense?
I suppose he thinks that this waste of licence payers fees didn't contribute
to it either? As I posted before:-
How much did they pay to M$ for iPlayer? I saw somewhere it was
approximately £200 million, though I can't find teh link ATM.
There was £90million lost here:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2122369,00.html
And how much was wasted here?
http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051166
The BBC has a £2 *billion* shortfall in it's budget, & thus is making
cutbacks which include selling off the BBC Television Centre.
http://itn.co.uk/news/fbfadf1f215d2d4b1125c59163cfd804.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7050122.stm
Now if Kier doesn't think those losses are a *huge* chunk out of the BBC's
budget.....or maybe he doesn't believe they *are* losses.
http://rss1.mediafed.com/feed/vnunet/the_INQUIRER/?link=2f3cfc212a2eee76568c7e07d8099313
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"
Roy Schestowitz
>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and a
>> pattern. It is not the problem, but part of the problem. Being part of the
>> problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think about it.
>
> A much smaller part than you would like to make it seem, however.
The BBC is more guilty here for allowing this to happen, but let's remember who
calls the shots now in the (MS)BBC. It's Trojan horse... Microsoft calls it
the 'ecosystem', but it's a radius of religion-like influence, kickbacks,
and 'protection'.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
13:05:05 up 7 days, 21:50, 3 users, load average: 2.21, 2.17, 2.07
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Sophie McDowell
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:4342489.H...@schestowitz.com...
> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 09:23 : \____
>
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:19:10 +0100, [H]omer wrote:
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium, by
>>>> Sean Daly
>>> [...]
>>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071021231933899
>>>
>>> Not only has MS annexed the Beeb, but they've contributed to it's
>>> virtual destruction (lay-offs, cutbacks, relocation). Microsoft is a
>>
>> Do you have *any* proof of thatr nonsense?
>
> Cause (mind the highlight):
>
> Anti-DRM Protesters call on the BBC to eliminate DRM from the iPlayer
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | the iPlayer, protesters wearing bright yellow Hazmat suits gathered
> outside
> | BBC Television Center in London and BBC headquarters in Manchester to
> demand
> | that Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) be eliminated from the BBC.
> |
> | The BBC have developed the "iPlayer" at a cost to the BBC license fee
> payer
> | of £130 Million and rising
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ .
So if the BBC used linux it would all be free? Not a dollar would be spent
to implent their entire system? Not a single consultant or contractor would
need to be hired and everything would just magically work.
Absolutely "unbelievable".
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
William Poaster
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:09 : \____
>
>>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
>
> Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
> feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
>
> Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
> are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
> his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
> Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
> dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
>
> Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
> what you're good at.
>
>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and
>> a pattern. It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being
>> part of the problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think
>> about it.
>
> £130 Million pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary Microsoft
> technology, and hiring senior ex-Microsoft employees to pervert the BBC
> media infrastructure, would be major contributing factors.
Twice that amount, I believe. It would seem that at *least* £280million has
been handed to M$, for one thing or another.
Put into context, the annual BBC3 budget is £93.4 million, & BBC4 is £46.8
million. Just imagine the programs they could have made for BBC1 & 2 with
that £280 million they squandered.
According to 2006 figures, the BBC had a £4.5 billion budget from licence
fees *alone*. In 2007 it's estimated to be £4.68 billion. It *also* gets
revenue from its commercial subsidiary BBC Worldwide.
Roy Schestowitz
The BBC could conveniently hire /local/ programmers as they did in the past to
build a framework for delivery of content (there's information on their Web
site and there's skill to take pride in if you look at history). Such a system
would be open source, standards-based, and belonging to all those that paid
for it (taxpayers). Its cost would surely be orders of magnitude lower. Heck,
given the task at hand, the jaw fall down to the ground just watching this
figure. It looks like money-funnelling.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
DFS
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:09 : \____
>
>>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
>
> Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
> feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
>
> Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
> are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
> his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
> Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
> dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
>
> Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
> what you're good at.
This is a totally unjustified attack, and full of lies too. Kier has never
once apologized for or excused Microsoft (even I rarely do that). He just
wants cola "advocates" to act like adults, but it's never gonna happen with
morons like Roy [H]omer Kent shrieking about MS all day and night.
This thread is a perfect example of the kind of idiocy that passes for Linux
advocacy on cola: claim MS has "corrupted" (whatever that means) the BBC,
and offer nothing but bogus conspiracy theories as support. No reputable
person would ever make such a stupid claim without proof. In the real
world, these kinds of accusations get people fired when they're proven
false.
[H]omer
> The BBC could conveniently hire /local/ programmers as they did in
> the past to build a framework for delivery of content (there's
> information on their Web site and there's skill to take pride in if
> you look at history).
Yes, in fact the Beeb used to have a thriving FOSS development strategy,
producing such things as the Dirac codec, before Ballmer's goons arrived
on the scene to pervert the BBC into a Microsoft franchise.
Indeed, the Beeb already /had/ a media delivery framework based on
RealNetworks technology, which will presumably be phased out to make way
for Microsoft's expensive and insecure Slopware.
This "investment" was nothing but a criminal waste of taxpayers' money.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
16:26:36 up 76 days, 15:21, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.20, 0.16
Kier
> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 12:21 : \____
>
>>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and a
>>> pattern. It is not the problem, but part of the problem. Being part of the
>>> problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think about it.
>>
>> A much smaller part than you would like to make it seem, however.
>
> The BBC is more guilty here for allowing this to happen, but let's remember who
> calls the shots now in the (MS)BBC. It's Trojan horse... Microsoft calls it
> the 'ecosystem', but it's a radius of religion-like influence, kickbacks,
> and 'protection'.
And again, you really have no proof of this. IMO, it's bullshit. Maybe you
should loosen that tinfoil hat a bit.
--
Kier
Kier
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 11:09 : \____
>
>>> It's time to stop blaming MS for everything
>
> Another fine post from Kier the "Linux advocate", who spends his time
> feeding the Trolls, and apologising for Microsoft and its supporters.
No, I do not apologise for MS or its supporters. Don't lie.
>
> Well congratulations, you are no longer simply a Troll feeder IMO, you
> are now an actual Troll. If you are so in love with Sweaty Ballmer and
In love? Do stop being a dickhead. And don't make assumptions about me
that have no basis in fact.
> his violently destructive company, then why don't you piss off to
> Windows la-la land, and stop criticising every damn word that anyone
> dares to use against the Microsoft crime syndicate?
Are you entirely mad? MS is not to blame for all the ills of the world.
Not even for all the problems of Linux. And pretending that it is just
makes you look a fool.
>
> Go on, let's hear some more apologies and excuses for Microsoft. It's
> what you're good at.
Once again, are you entirely fucking insane? I *DO NOT* make 'excuses' for
MS. I merely live in a real world were MS is not the mass of
deveil-worshippers you seem to think it is. I don't like a lot of what
they do, or in fact agree with their involvement with the BBC. But nor am
I so blinded by hatred that I can't see past it, like you are.
>
>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and
>> a pattern. It is not *the* problem, but /part/ of the problem. Being
>> part of the problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think
>> about it.
>
> £130 Million pounds of taxpayers' money wasted on unnecessary Microsoft
> technology, and hiring senior ex-Microsoft employees to pervert the BBC
> media infrastructure, would be major contributing factors.
Perhaps. But it is not simple cause and effect, and you know it. The
Beeb's difficulties are far more of its own making than MS. You need to
step back and take a deep breath or two.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
*sigh* Don't be so naive. That's how the world works. It's no case of Alice in
Wonderland. One just needs to identify the corruption, which is what we do
here.
--
~~ Best of wishes
This sedentary lifestyle on the Net leads to fatigue. And then you wake up.
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.40 1.48 1.93 2/127 15205
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
Mark Kent
I don't think Kier wants to add it up. He's very very naive, and
reminds me of the 3 monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil).
Frankly, other than supporting proprietary software and the shilcosystem
here, I've don't know why he's here.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Mark Kent
How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model. I feel very sorry
indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be looking for another
job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging around in Microsoft
bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at all*. The BBC
owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our money.
Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
code, no possibility of going to another vendor. No possibility to
change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time anyone even
views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom? Yes, to
Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as Microsoft
own more and more of our licence-fee money.
What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
their P.45s?
Mark Kent
> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 12:21 : \____
>
>>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and a
>>> pattern. It is not the problem, but part of the problem. Being part of the
>>> problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think about it.
>>
>> A much smaller part than you would like to make it seem, however.
>
> The BBC is more guilty here for allowing this to happen, but let's remember who
> calls the shots now in the (MS)BBC. It's Trojan horse... Microsoft calls it
> the 'ecosystem', but it's a radius of religion-like influence, kickbacks,
> and 'protection'.
>
Hundreds of millions of pounds paid to Microsoft to do something they
were already doing, whilst 2,500 people get laid off... only Kier could
justify that.
Mark Kent
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> The BBC could conveniently hire /local/ programmers as they did in
>> the past to build a framework for delivery of content (there's
>> information on their Web site and there's skill to take pride in if
>> you look at history).
>
> Yes, in fact the Beeb used to have a thriving FOSS development strategy,
> producing such things as the Dirac codec, before Ballmer's goons arrived
> on the scene to pervert the BBC into a Microsoft franchise.
>
> Indeed, the Beeb already /had/ a media delivery framework based on
> RealNetworks technology, which will presumably be phased out to make way
> for Microsoft's expensive and insecure Slopware.
>
> This "investment" was nothing but a criminal waste of taxpayers' money.
>
It is, but Sophie, or should I say Gary, (dress fitting well, Gary?)
conveniently ignore the other thing which has yet to be factored in.
The BBC receive *nothing at all* for this money. Microsoft are merely
delivering what they were already developing.
And, it gets worse, since the BBC will pay *every time* a licence-fee
payer uses the system. Yup, we get to pay *over and over*. If a foss
system had been used, there would have been an up-front charge, but
after that, it would only have been maintenance costs.
Kier
Idiot, I am not doing any such thing. Merely pointing out that MS is not
responsible for everything bad that happens. And that by blaming MS for
everything bad, you are missing all the other causes.
In addition, nowhere, absolutely NOWHERE, have I praised the iPlayer and
the its connections with MS. Ever. In fact, I when I emailed Click, to
complain there wasn't anough Linux coverage in the programme, I registered
my dislike of the whole idea.
>
> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model. I feel very sorry
> indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be looking for another
> job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging around in Microsoft
> bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at all*. The BBC
> owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our money.
>
> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
Don't pull that emotive sob-story stuff on me. I am quite well aware they
are real people. And I am NOT 'apologising for MS'. HOw many more times do
you need to be told?
>
> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
> code, no possibility of going to another vendor. No possibility to
> change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time anyone even
> views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom? Yes, to
> Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as Microsoft
> own more and more of our licence-fee money.
Do you actually *know* anything about this? DO you, for instance, have
inside information about everything that goes on in the BBC? Or are you
merely dreaming up worst-case scenarios because you hate MS?
>
> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
> their P.45s?
The BBC needs to get it's house in order, certainly. I am certain it will.
--
Kier
Kier
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
>> ____/ Kier on Wednesday 24 October 2007 12:21 : \____
>>
>>>> Again, first-class corruption. Microsoft is part of a phenomenon and a
>>>> pattern. It is not the problem, but part of the problem. Being part of the
>>>> problem is still being a problem, no matter how you think about it.
>>>
>>> A much smaller part than you would like to make it seem, however.
>>
>> The BBC is more guilty here for allowing this to happen, but let's remember who
>> calls the shots now in the (MS)BBC. It's Trojan horse... Microsoft calls it
>> the 'ecosystem', but it's a radius of religion-like influence, kickbacks,
>> and 'protection'.
>>
>
> Hundreds of millions of pounds paid to Microsoft to do something they
> were already doing, whilst 2,500 people get laid off... only Kier could
> justify that.
Dishonesty will get you nowhere, Roy. Point to me where I have done any
such thing. *You* are saying all sorts of things about the BBC - how much
of it is actually *true* and not your feverish imagination?
Get your head out of your arse and stop putting words into my mouth.
--
Kier
Kier
You are a pompous idiot. Unlike like you, I can see boths sides. NOt
everything in Linux land is perfect, and not everything on the MS side is
evil. You want to believe that, go right ahead, but I'm not going to
pretend it do just because *you* say so.
>
> Frankly, other than supporting proprietary software and the shilcosystem
> here, I've don't know why he's here.
Are you *really* this fucking dishonest? I am here *to advocate Linux*.
Not to whine about how terrible MS is day in, day out. I do not even *use*
Windows any more. I do not advocate, and I do not like it. I think that
much of what MS does is wrong.
The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails, any more
than Beeb employees all have halos.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
> How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
>
> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model. I feel very sorry
> indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be looking for another
> job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging around in Microsoft
> bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at all*. The BBC
> owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our money.
>
> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>
> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
> code, no possibility of going to another vendor. No possibility to
> change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time anyone even
> views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom? Yes, to
> Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as Microsoft
> own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>
> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
> their P.45s?
I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the crooks
at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's all
too real.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Coffee makes mw to0 jittery
Kier
> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>
>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>> their P.45s?
>
> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the crooks
> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's all
> too real.
'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?
--
Kier
William Poaster
Quite amazing isn't it.
> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they have
a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless pit to
finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they should
just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
Just as an aside, with even more repeats now being shown on the BBC, who the
hell would want an iPlayer *anyway* to see something which is repeated
again & again, & again? I don't, but that's just my 2p worth. ;-)
> I feel very sorry indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be
> looking for another job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging
> around in Microsoft bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at
> all*. The BBC owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our
> money.
Nope, not a penny.
> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>
> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
> code, no possibility of going to another vendor.
No, & in effect they're "locked-in" to M$'s merry-go-round. And when M$
decide to update their iPlayer to a new version, they could charge the BBC
even *more* for using it.
> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time
> anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom?
> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
> their P.45s?
--
William Poaster
Yes, he comes over as incredibly naive. I stopped bothering to read him ages
ago, & only see replies to him now.
> Frankly, other than supporting proprietary software and the shilcosystem
> here, I've don't know why he's here.
Nor do I, frankly.
chrisv
>The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
None of them do?
Zumwalt Humphry
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.25....@tiscali.co.uk..."
The college boy actually believes that he's a secret agent or something.
"Delusions of grandeur"
[H]omer
> Kier wrote:
Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
16:20:00 up 77 days, 15:14, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.08
Kier
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Kier wrote:
>
>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>
>> None of them do?
>
> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
You're a fucking idiot, and so is the plonker chrisv.
--
Kier
Mark Kent
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Kier wrote:
>
>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>
>> None of them do?
>
> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>
What he seems utterly unable to grasp is that it's the people, perhaps
his own neighbours, who are losing their jobs, whilst those at Microsoft
are trousering our licence-fee cash.
I wonder if Kier will be celebrating when BBC Television Centre is sold?
I think he will.
Mark Kent
>> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
>> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
>>
>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model. I feel very sorry
>> indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be looking for another
>> bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at all*. The BBC
>>
>> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
>> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
>> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
>> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>>
>> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
>> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
>> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
>> code, no possibility of going to another vendor. No possibility to
>> change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time anyone even
>> views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom? Yes, to
>> own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>>
>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>> their P.45s?
>
> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the crooks
> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's all
> too real.
>
I'm quite sure it's very real indeed. They've so far wasted more money
than the combined BBC3 and BBC4 annual budgets on buying, well, nothing
at all, they will *never* own anything. What's worse, I discussed the
Dirac codec with a BBC research chap about 3-4 years ago at the Linux
expo in London, and he said that they were trying to push their free
codec because a) it was better than anything else around and b) it was
proving *too expensive* to even pay realplayer fees.
I cannot imagine just how much Microsoft are charging the BBC for the
privilege of distributing their own software and the privilege of trying
to lock BBC Licence-fee payers into using Microsoft Windows.
No doubt Kier will find a justification for them, though.
Mark Kent
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>> Kier wrote:
>
>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>
>> None of them do?
>
> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>
As I said, he's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Or, as they
say up in Yorks, "you can't make a blind man see".
Mark Kent
Perhaps he has a view that there are just millions sloshing around in
bank accounts at the BBC, and the layoffs which have been going on for
the last 10 years, since the government insisted that they bought cheap
imports instead of making good radio and television, haven't been
happening. "see no evil".
>
>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
>
> Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they have
> a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless pit to
> finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they should
> just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
Well, they've employed failed senior people from Microsoft, so clearly,
they're looking for an approach where you lock in your customers and
control their behaviour.
>
> Just as an aside, with even more repeats now being shown on the BBC, who the
> hell would want an iPlayer *anyway* to see something which is repeated
> again & again, & again? I don't, but that's just my 2p worth. ;-)
We need a reset on the whole model. The *first* thing to do is to
require the BBC to source no more than, say, 5% of its programming
externally, staged over a few years, so that they have time to build up
proper production facilities again.
Then, they can work on selling the excellent material they make abroad
in order to make up some of the costs of producing good television in
the first place.
>
>> I feel very sorry indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be
>> looking for another job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging
>> around in Microsoft bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing at
>> all*. The BBC owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of our
>> money.
>
> Nope, not a penny.
>
>> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
>> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
>> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
>> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>>
>> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
>> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
>> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
>> code, no possibility of going to another vendor.
>
> No, & in effect they're "locked-in" to M$'s merry-go-round. And when M$
> decide to update their iPlayer to a new version, they could charge the BBC
> even *more* for using it.
And Kier's answer was... wait for it... "Microsoft people are real
people too". Basically, he's quite happy for corrupt ex-Microsoft BBC
executives to shovel our, and his, licence-fee money to a foreign
company, whilst putting British people out of work, who we then have to
pay for through social costs. "See no evil".
>
>> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time
>> anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom?
>> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
>> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>
> And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
> probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
You're quite right - it is very much a downward spiral.
>
>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>> their P.45s?
>
>
He said "Microsoft people are real people too". He ignored the point
completely.
Kier
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>
>>> None of them do?
>>
>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>
>
> What he seems utterly unable to grasp is that it's the people, perhaps
> his own neighbours, who are losing their jobs, whilst those at Microsoft
> are trousering our licence-fee cash.
One again, may I remind you that MS has employees with families, and you
are always crying for it to be destroyed. So don't pull that sob-story
crap on me.
>
> I wonder if Kier will be celebrating when BBC Television Centre is sold?
> I think he will.
You continue to show yourself to be an idiot. The BBC would almost
certainly have sold TVCentre anyway, since it's not longer suitable for
the job its being asked to do. As a matter of fact, I'm sorry to see it go
in many ways, because of its history. Unfortunately, times change, and
its location makes it too valuable to keep on as a museum.
--
Kier
Kier
Stop putting words in my mouth. Now. Not one single word of
so-called 'justification' has ever been posted by me on that subject, and
you know it.
I am just sick to death of hearing MS blamed for every single bad thing
that happens.
--
Kier
Kier
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>
>>> None of them do?
>>
>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>
>
> As I said, he's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Or, as they
> say up in Yorks, "you can't make a blind man see".
I am not blind, but you certainly are, since you see more eveil than
actually exists.
I do not agree with all that MS does, and never have, which you know
perfectly well. Nor do I think MS is some super-repository of evil. Have
you ever heard of taking a balanced view? Maybe you should learn to try it
before making groundless accusations.
--
Kier
Kier
Stop putting words in my mouth.
>
>>
>>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
>>
>> Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they have
>> a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless pit to
>> finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they should
>> just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
>
> Well, they've employed failed senior people from Microsoft, so clearly,
> they're looking for an approach where you lock in your customers and
> control their behaviour.
You really are a fool, aren't you?
Still putting words in my mouth? Stop. Now.
>
>>
>>> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each time
>>> anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to whom?
>>> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
>>> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>>
>> And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
>> probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
>
> You're quite right - it is very much a downward spiral.
That remains to be seen.
>
>>
>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>>
>
> He said "Microsoft people are real people too". He ignored the point
> completely.
No, I did not. I threw you stupid argument back in your face.
--
Kier
William Poaster
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives
>>>> and children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>
>>> None of them do?
>>
>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>
>
> As I said, he's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Or, as they
> say up in Yorks, "you can't make a blind man see".
It's quite staggering to me, that he just *cannot* see what's happening.
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
William Poaster
> William Poaster <w...@pcbsd14.eu> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
<snip>
>>> How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
>>> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
>>> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
>>
>> Quite amazing isn't it.
>
> Perhaps he has a view that there are just millions sloshing around in
> bank accounts at the BBC, and the layoffs which have been going on for
> the last 10 years, since the government insisted that they bought cheap
> imports instead of making good radio and television, haven't been
> happening. "see no evil".
>
>>
>>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
>>
>> Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they
>> have a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless
>> pit to finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they
>> should just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
>
> Well, they've employed failed senior people from Microsoft, so clearly,
> they're looking for an approach where you lock in your customers and
> control their behaviour.
It would seem so.
>> Just as an aside, with even more repeats now being shown on the BBC, who
>> the hell would want an iPlayer *anyway* to see something which is
>> repeated again & again, & again? I don't, but that's just my 2p worth.
>> ;-)
>
> We need a reset on the whole model. The *first* thing to do is to
> require the BBC to source no more than, say, 5% of its programming
> externally, staged over a few years, so that they have time to build up
> proper production facilities again.
>
> Then, they can work on selling the excellent material they make abroad
> in order to make up some of the costs of producing good television in
> the first place.
Yes. The BBC has totally lost it's way IMO &, as you say, the whole model
needs resetting.
It was interesting to read an article published in The Guardian in 2006,
which contained:
<quote>
The NUJ is one of 14 trade unions signed up to "The Public Services Not
Private Profit" campaign, which is backed by 80 MPs opposed to what they
fear is a government agenda to privatise public services.
Pointing to the BBC white paper, which "opens the door to handing over large
sums of public money to commercial operators and placing substantial
restrictions on the BBC's ability to operate", Mr Dear said the corporation
was also prey to a barrage of criticism from lobby groups with vested
interests.
<unquote>
Well there you have it. A white paper published by the BBC *themselves*,
which people predicted was a carte-blanche to hand over "large sums of
public money to commercial operators" (read M$) "placing substantial
restrictions on the BBC's ability to operate" (read large redundancies).
As I said, that was in July 2006. By October 2007, that prediction came to
pass.
So you have to ask, just *whose* interest do the BBC and its public service
commitment whose serve? The viewers & listeners, or *their own* commercial
or political interest. Well we know where M$'s interests lie, & it ain't
with the consumer.
It was interesting to note too, that at the time there were loud calls for
the licence fee to be scrapped & to limit the BBC's online services. There
were fears, in some quarters, about some commercial interests "gaining the
most from the diluting or removal of the public service commitments and
marginalisation of the BBC."
IMHO that has happened, & the fee *should* be axed. The M$BBC should stand,
or fall, on it's own feet....by subscription, perhaps. Though without
the "bottomless money pit" (ie: the UK licence payer) M$ would soon walk
away. I'm sure you can see why.
>>> I feel very sorry indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be
>>> looking for another job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging
>>> around in Microsoft bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing
>>> at
>>> all*. The BBC owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of
>>> our money.
>>
>> Nope, not a penny.
>>
>>> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
>>> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
>>> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
>>> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
>>> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
>>> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
>>> code, no possibility of going to another vendor.
>>
>> No, & in effect they're "locked-in" to M$'s merry-go-round. And when M$
>> decide to update their iPlayer to a new version, they could charge the
>> BBC even *more* for using it.
>
> And Kier's answer was... wait for it... "Microsoft people are real
> people too". Basically, he's quite happy for corrupt ex-Microsoft BBC
> executives to shovel our, and his, licence-fee money to a foreign
> company, whilst putting British people out of work, who we then have to
> pay for through social costs. "See no evil".
Staggering...
>>> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each
>>> time anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to
>>> whom?
>>> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
>>> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>>
>> And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
>> probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
>
> You're quite right - it is very much a downward spiral.
>
>>
>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>>
>
> He said "Microsoft people are real people too". He ignored the point
> completely.
Totally bypassed it.
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
Kier
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> He said "Microsoft people are real people too". He ignored the point
>> completely.
>
> Totally bypassed it.
Bollocks.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
> It was interesting to note too, that at the time there were loud calls for
> the licence fee to be scrapped & to limit the BBC's online services. There
> were fears, in some quarters, about some commercial interests "gaining the
> most from the diluting or removal of the public service commitments and
> marginalisation of the BBC."
Storming analysis. Good find.
It puts it all very nicely.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "World ends in five minutes - please log out"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
15:05:01 up 9 days, 23:50, 3 users, load average: 0.06, 0.41, 0.84
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Mark Kent
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives
>>>>> and children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>>
>>>> None of them do?
>>>
>>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, he's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Or, as they
>> say up in Yorks, "you can't make a blind man see".
>
> It's quite staggering to me, that he just *cannot* see what's happening.
>
I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give Linux
a bad name.
Mark Kent
> ____/ William Poaster on Friday 26 October 2007 12:07 : \____
>
>> It was interesting to note too, that at the time there were loud calls for
>> the licence fee to be scrapped & to limit the BBC's online services. There
>> were fears, in some quarters, about some commercial interests "gaining the
>> most from the diluting or removal of the public service commitments and
>> marginalisation of the BBC."
>
> Storming analysis. Good find.
>
> It puts it all very nicely.
>
To be honest, I'm at the point where I would now support the closure of
the BBC, since it's clearly become a funnel to direct taxation money to
corrupt foreign enterprises.
When the BBC was working properly, it was fantastic. Now, it's becoming
a joke.
p5000011
> William Poaster <w...@pcbsd14.eu> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have
>>>>>> wives and children and mortgages too. None of them have horns
>>>>>> and tails
>>>>>
>>>>> None of them do?
>>>>
>>>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted
>>>> glasses.
>>>
>>> As I said, he's "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". Or,
>>> as they say up in Yorks, "you can't make a blind man see".
>>
>> It's quite staggering to me, that he just *cannot* see what's
>> happening.
>
> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give
> Linux a bad name.
I don't agree. Kier is just very naive and gullible. The mental age
I'd expect of a teenager. I believe he's a lot older and hence will
not change. The bit bucket is the best place for him.
The Ghost In The Machine
<val...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:14:10 +0100
<pan.2007.10.26....@tiscali.co.uk>:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:56:37 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>>
>>>> None of them do?
>>>
>>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>>
>>
>> What he seems utterly unable to grasp is that it's the people, perhaps
>> his own neighbours, who are losing their jobs, whilst those at Microsoft
>> are trousering our licence-fee cash.
>
> One again, may I remind you that MS has employees
> with families, and you are always crying for it to
> be destroyed. So don't pull that sob-story crap on me.
Are the moustaches, blood cells, shoes, or top hat of
Snidely Whiplash evil? [*]
Is either key launching Armageddon via nuclear winter
evil? [+]
Would that guy in the helmet pulling down the lever that
starts up the Death Star's Alderaan-destroying weapon be
considered evil? (I think he's shown in all of two shots,
right next to each other.)
For that matter, would the protective helmet of that
guy be evil?
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and in
any event Microsoft's objective is not to provide
child support for the unfortunate children of out-of-work
sales managers, software developers, and IT people. :-)
At least, not directly.
[rest snipped]
[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snidely_Whiplash . He's
the guy dressed in black.
[+] I have no idea how it's really done, but presumably
two individuals are required to turn two keys to
activate the launching system in Cold-war-era missile
silos, as portrayed in at least one movie.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?
Kier
> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give Linux
> a bad name.
Are you entirely fucking out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who encourages
trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.
Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
connection whatsoever with MS.
Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
--
Kier
Kier
You're an idiot.
--
Kier
Scott Omumo
Actually he's Roy Culley, a special breed of idiot liar.
Kier
And who exactly are *you*, dweeb?
--
Kier
Sophie McDowell
Kier experience the full wrath of the "COLA Gang."
It's all about freedom and choice. But no "advocate" is free to say anything
that goes against the narrow party-line of the "COLA Gang" without the gang
circling the wagons in effort to discredit the "troll" or "proprietary
software plant."
Peter Köhlmann
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>
>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give Linux
>> a bad name.
>
> Are you entirely fucking out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who encourages
> trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.
I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
would bite you in the arse for years to come
> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
> connection whatsoever with MS.
>
> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
>
Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the Flak
fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls
--
Try to be the best of whatever you are, even if what you are is
no good.
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> espoused:
>> ____/ William Poaster on Friday 26 October 2007 12:07 : \____
>>
>>> It was interesting to note too, that at the time there were loud calls for
>>> the licence fee to be scrapped & to limit the BBC's online services. There
>>> were fears, in some quarters, about some commercial interests "gaining the
>>> most from the diluting or removal of the public service commitments and
>>> marginalisation of the BBC."
>>
>> Storming analysis. Good find.
>>
>> It puts it all very nicely.
>>
>
> To be honest, I'm at the point where I would now support the closure of
> the BBC, since it's clearly become a funnel to direct taxation money to
> corrupt foreign enterprises.
>
> When the BBC was working properly, it was fantastic. Now, it's becoming
> a joke.
If only it was a funny one...
The only thing this excited is one's blood pressure.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "I feed my 3 penguins with electricity and love"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
he's just another nymshifter. A nonentity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHInyfd90bcYOAWPYRAo4BAKCWPmtFWdWS4V2DuQ8LrpAKzWpX9gCfTE05
KOG25+VqBkGSHWPwN8p5Au8=
=qGxW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
im in ur base, deleting ur rows
Roy Schestowitz
I don't think that rebuts his argument too well.
>>> Actually he's Roy Culley, a special breed of idiot liar.
No chance.
>> And who exactly are *you*, dweeb?
Post seems genuine. Maybe a passer-by or a lurker.
> he's just another nymshifter. A nonentity.
I'm not sure about this. Watch the header.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | GNU is Not Universal (begin recursion)
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 440980k used, 74520k free, 5400k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Sophie McDowell
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:52:07 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>>
>
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>> crooks
>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's
>> all
>> too real.
>
> 'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?
Roy's failure to answer this simple question noted.
Sophie McDowell
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.25....@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:52:07 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>>
>
>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the
>> crooks
>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's
>> all
>> too real.
>
> 'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?
So do tell us what top-secret contract you signed that does not allow you to
comment?
None. Because you are a delusional liar and a scumbag.
Mark Kent
>
> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
Mark Kent
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:56:37 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>>
>>>> None of them do?
>>>
>>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>>
>>
>> What he seems utterly unable to grasp is that it's the people, perhaps
>> his own neighbours, who are losing their jobs, whilst those at Microsoft
>> are trousering our licence-fee cash.
>
> One again, may I remind you that MS has employees with families, and you
> are always crying for it to be destroyed.
That is an out and out lie, Kier.
Once again, I remind you that these are *real people*, daddy is coming
home to tell his children that they won't be getting Christmas presents
this year, or going on holiday, because Eric Huggers has spent £130
millions with Microsoft, and has received, in return, nothing at all.
So the BBC has to sack some people and close some buildings, Kier.
These are *real people*, Kier. It's not a sob story, it's *real*.
My position on Microsoft has always been that I expect it to continue,
just not in its current form. I will *not*, however, defend their
criminal activity, any more than I will defend the criminal activities
of the BBC. I differ from you completely in this respect. Nor will I
lie about your position, whilst you are quite happy to lie about mine.
Again, I differ from you in this respect to. I value honest in others,
including businesses, and in the people I deal with, equally, I too make
the effort to be honest. You do not. You are happy to lie.
Mark Kent
Gary, even my little sister only changed her name once when she was 12
or 13. You seem to do it several times a week. Get help, please?
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>>
>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
>> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
>> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>
> Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
>
What "abuse"?
Calling you an "imbecile" or "lunatic" is sometimes an insult.
To the real imbeciles
You are so far off in la-la land about your GPL3-cult that it isn't funny
anymore
Face it: A *lot* of OSS developers are sternly against the GPL3. You can
shout your idiotic bullshit as much as you want, that does not change
anything about that situation
--
Tact, n.:
The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
>>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give Linux
>>> a bad name.
>>
>> Are you entirely fucking out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
>> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
>> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who encourages
>> trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.
>
> I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
> would bite you in the arse for years to come
I had no 'love affair' with Snit, Peter. And what on Earth has Snit to do
with any of this? Nothing. Not a single thing. You're the only one
dragging it in every time.
>
>> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
>> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
>> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
>> connection whatsoever with MS.
>>
>> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
>>
>
> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>
> That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the Flak
> fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls
Nonsense. How about you, forever dragging Snit into discussions where he
has no relevance?
This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
--
Kier
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:42:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
>>>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give
>>>> Linux a bad name.
>>>
>>> Are you entirely fucking out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
>>> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
>>> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who
>>> encourages trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.
>>
>> I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
>> would bite you in the arse for years to come
>
>
> I had no 'love affair' with Snit, Peter. And what on Earth has Snit to do
> with any of this? Nothing. Not a single thing. You're the only one
> dragging it in every time.
Do you actually claim that Snot is not a troll?
This is about your encouraging trolls. Snot *is* a troll, a hideous one. You
*did* encourage him. Your involvement with Snot in those threads some time
ago is one example of your behaviour regarding trolls and assholes. You
yourself have posted that you will "discuss" with Snot as he has
been "civil" to you.
He naturally was. He *needs* at least one poster dumb enough to answer him
in order to keep up the pretense
It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael Glasser
(Snot) than talking *with* him
>>
>>> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
>>> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
>>> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
>>> connection whatsoever with MS.
>>>
>>> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
>> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
>> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>>
>> That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the
>> Flak fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls
>
> Nonsense. How about you, forever dragging Snit into discussions where he
> has no relevance?
He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
to answer his garbage
> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>
No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Kier
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:56:37 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives and
>>>>>> children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>>>
>>>>> None of them do?
>>>>
>>>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What he seems utterly unable to grasp is that it's the people, perhaps
>>> his own neighbours, who are losing their jobs, whilst those at Microsoft
>>> are trousering our licence-fee cash.
>>
>> One again, may I remind you that MS has employees with families, and you
>> are always crying for it to be destroyed.
>
> That is an out and out lie, Kier.
>
> Once again, I remind you that these are *real people*, daddy is coming
> home to tell his children that they won't be getting Christmas presents
> this year, or going on holiday, because Eric Huggers has spent £130
> millions with Microsoft, and has received, in return, nothing at all.
> So the BBC has to sack some people and close some buildings, Kier.
You are stupid, aren't you? MS is not to blame for this. Certainly, the
iPlayer thing will have played some part in the BBCs financial
difficulties, but if you think that's the only reason they're in trouble,
you are cracked.
>
> These are *real people*, Kier. It's not a sob story, it's *real*.
Of course they're real. And so is everyone at MS. And you do want MS
destroyed. Tell me - what makes their wives and children any different? So
leave out the sob story.
>
> My position on Microsoft has always been that I expect it to continue,
> just not in its current form. I will *not*, however, defend their
> criminal activity, any more than I will defend the criminal activities
> of the BBC. I differ from you completely in this respect. Nor will I
> lie about your position, whilst you are quite happy to lie about mine.
Am I where? Because I said you want MS destroyed? Okay, I'll accept you
think you don't, but what you post suugests you'd happily see it go down
in flames and never shed one tear.
> Again, I differ from you in this respect to. I value honest in others,
> including businesses, and in the people I deal with, equally, I too make
> the effort to be honest. You do not. You are happy to lie.
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth, while you shout about how
honest you are. Don't. YOu call me a liar. I AM NOT.
You are calling me a Microsoft apologist. THAT IS A LIE.
I don't happen to like a lot of what MS does. But nor am I a mad fanatic
who thinks the whole lot are evil, or the Mafia, or any of that over-blown
crap.
The problem with MS is that it's a *very* large company and wealthy which
weilds a lot of influence in many areas - not a momopoly, but nearly one -
and it's run by Americans. They have a different way of looking at
business than we do. MS is very successful at its job, which is to make
money and expand. Most large businesses operate just the same way as MS,
or would like to, simply because that's the way business is done at that
level. Morals, as such, don't really come into it. Yet I very much doubt
that Bill Gates is a secret baby-killer, or that the majority of his
employees are Mafia Dons in the making.
What MS lacks is enough big, powerful rivals competing with it to keep it
reasonably in check. MS is just what comes naturally - in nature, an
animal with no predators to keep down its numbers can keep eating other
animals, its own prey, until they disappear altogether. Put a predator of
the right sort in, and more of a balance is achieved.
--
Kier
--
Kier
Kier
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>>
>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
>> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
>> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>
> Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
Considering the abuse you are heaping on me, without foundation, that's
really funny.
--
Kier
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:42:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
>>>>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give
>>>>> Linux a bad name.
>>>>
>>>> Are you entirely fucking out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
>>>> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
>>>> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who
>>>> encourages trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.
>>>
>>> I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
>>> would bite you in the arse for years to come
>>
>>
>> I had no 'love affair' with Snit, Peter. And what on Earth has Snit to do
>> with any of this? Nothing. Not a single thing. You're the only one
>> dragging it in every time.
>
> Do you actually claim that Snot is not a troll?
By the general definitions usually applied, yes, I suppose so.
> This is about your encouraging trolls. Snot *is* a troll, a hideous one. You
> *did* encourage him. Your involvement with Snot in those threads some time
The operative word is *did*. I did reply to him once recently in the
virtual desktops thread, but that is all. So, when are you going to stop
dragging it up again and again where it has no relevance?
> ago is one example of your behaviour regarding trolls and assholes. You
> yourself have posted that you will "discuss" with Snot as he has
> been "civil" to you.
As I have pointed out about a million times - THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. Do
you judge everything in your life by what happened two years ago? Jesus H.
Christ! Get a life, Peter. There are more important issues to be obsessed
about than a silly little troll in COLA.
> He naturally was. He *needs* at least one poster dumb enough to answer him
> in order to keep up the pretense
I don't see you attacking Rick about it, and he has been involved with
Snit far, far more than me. So stop singling me out like I was some sort
of serial offender while everyone else here is virtuous. I'm not, and
they aren't. So drop it.
>
> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael Glasser
> (Snot) than talking *with* him
Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
correct you. The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>
>>>
>>>> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
>>>> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
>>>> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
>>>> connection whatsoever with MS.
>>>>
>>>> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
>>> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
>>> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>>>
>>> That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the
>>> Flak fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls
>>
>> Nonsense. How about you, forever dragging Snit into discussions where he
>> has no relevance?
>
> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
> tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
> to answer his garbage
Look elsewhere than me, then.
>
>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>
>
> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
Actually, yes, I will, since that *is* what this is about. It's most
certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
--
Kier
William Poaster
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:56:37 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The people who work at MS are real people too, Mark. They have wives
>>>>>> and children and mortgages too. None of them have horns and tails
>>>>>
>>>>> None of them do?
>>>>
>>>> Kier the Microsoft apologist can't see them through his tinted glasses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What he seems utterly unable to grasp is that it's the people, perhaps
>>> his own neighbours, who are losing their jobs, whilst those at Microsoft
>>> are trousering our licence-fee cash.
>>
>> One again, may I remind you that MS has employees with families, and you
>> are always crying for it to be destroyed.
>
> That is an out and out lie, Kier.
It's utter bullshit.
1] AFAIK M$ were producing the iPlayer *anyway*, regardless of whether the
BBC used it or not. So his was a strawman argument, IMO.
2] People have a choice whether they use M$ products or not. There is NO
such choice of being able to subscribe to the BBC or not. You want a tv in
the UK, you pay a licence fee. The BBC aren't accountable to the fee-paying
public per-se, they squander *your* money how *they* want.
3] The ex-M$ people at the BBC *decided* to use the iPLayer, NO one else.
They *sold off* the BBC Technology arm (a *profitable* business) to Siemens
around 2004, with approval of the government (Tessa Jowell rubber stamped
it, which just goes to show how much politicians know IMO). They
effectively sold their "nerve system".
Graig Dwyer said that they had determined that the BBC would save more by
selling it. Considering what they have squandered with M$ to date, it rings
rather hollow IMO.
http://www.thewhir.com/features/euro-bbctech.cfm
I found this interesting:-
<quote>
BBC chairman Michael Grade has announced the death of the "old imperial BBC"
which can no longer make "cosy deals behind closed doors" in a speech
laying out the radical implications of the government's broadcasting white
paper on charter renewal.
<unquote>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar/30/bbc.broadcasting
Really, Mr Grade? And you were open & honest about the M$ iPlayer deal,
regarding cost etc?
<quote>
Referring to the replacement of the BBC board of governors with a BBC Trust
and separate executive board, Mr Grade said that this meant that the
corporation "can no longer be perceived as "a law unto itself".
<unquote>
Really? Well I don't trust the "BBC Trust" one bit. Who elected them, the
fee-paying public?
<quote>
He added that the new BBC Trust, of which he is designate chair, "will
deliver to the private sector the clarity and comfort they have long
demanded".
<unquote>
Hmm...a euphemism for handing over the BBC to M$?
4] Intersting to note that broadcasters in other countries (like India) have
chosen to go down the Open Source route. Although there would still be
costs incurred, it probably won't be as costly as dealing with M$ & at
least the product they end up with would be *theirs*.
> Once again, I remind you that these are *real people*, daddy is coming
> home to tell his children that they won't be getting Christmas presents
> this year, or going on holiday, because Eric Huggers has spent £130
> millions with Microsoft, and has received, in return, nothing at all.
> So the BBC has to sack some people and close some buildings, Kier.
>
> These are *real people*, Kier. It's not a sob story, it's *real*.
Quite so.
> My position on Microsoft has always been that I expect it to continue,
> just not in its current form. I will *not*, however, defend their
> criminal activity, any more than I will defend the criminal activities
> of the BBC. I differ from you completely in this respect. Nor will I
> lie about your position, whilst you are quite happy to lie about mine.
> Again, I differ from you in this respect to. I value honest in others,
> including businesses, and in the people I deal with, equally, I too make
> the effort to be honest. You do not. You are happy to lie.
>
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
< snip >
>>
>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
>
> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
> correct you.
Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.
And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot) need
posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
the "discussion" going
> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely impossible
< snip >
>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
>> tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
>> to answer his garbage
>
> Look elsewhere than me, then.
>
No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are happily
in business, too
>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>>
>>
>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
>
> Actually, yes, I will,
Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
>
It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.
--
Some people are incredibly witty AND intelligent AND sexy.
But enough about myself...
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
> < snip >
>
>>>
>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
>>
>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
>> correct you.
>
> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.
You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.
>
> And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
> any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot) need
> posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
> the "discussion" going
>
>> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
>> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>
> Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
>
> a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
> b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely impossible
Irrelevant. He still posts in response to you.
>
> < snip >
>
>>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
>>> tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
>>> to answer his garbage
>>
>> Look elsewhere than me, then.
>>
>
> No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
> If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are happily
> in business, too
So are you.
>
>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
>>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
>>
>> Actually, yes, I will,
>
> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
Show me yours.
>
>> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
>> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
>>
>
> It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
> encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.
No it isn't. You dragged him into a discussion that has nothing whatever
to do with him.
--
Kier
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:07:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
>>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
>>>
>>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
>>> correct you.
>>
>> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.
>
> You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.
Whatever Snot may "see", it has no roots in reality
>>
>> And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
>> any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot)
>> need posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
>> the "discussion" going
>>
>>> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
>>> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>>
>> Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
>>
>> a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
>> b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely
>> impossible
>
> Irrelevant. He still posts in response to you.
He posts in response to whatever his latest whims
What he needs though are posters *answering* him
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA,
>>>> and tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible
>>>> enough to answer his garbage
>>>
>>> Look elsewhere than me, then.
>>>
>>
>> No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
>> If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are
>> happily in business, too
>
> So are you.
>
Fine. You may feel free to see it that way
>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
>>>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
>>>
>>> Actually, yes, I will,
>>
>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
>
> Show me yours.
I am not the one dictating here
>>> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
>>> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
>>>
>>
>> It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
>> encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.
>
> No it isn't. You dragged him into a discussion that has nothing whatever
> to do with him.
>
It is a discussion about encouraging trolls. Snot would by default be part
of that
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
Roy Schestowitz
> Sophie McDowell <sop...@nospam.com> espoused:
>>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2007.10.25....@tiscali.co.uk...
>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:52:07 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>>>> their P.45s?
>>>>
>>>> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the
>>>> crooks
>>>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's
>>>> all
>>>> too real.
>>>
>>
>>> 'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?
>>
>>
>> Roy's failure to answer this simple question noted.
My previous message explains just why.
> Gary, even my little sister only changed her name once when she was 12
> or 13. You seem to do it several times a week. Get help, please?
He already did. He's seeing a professional, but progress is evidently too slow.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:07:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kier wrote:
>>>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
>>>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
>>>>
>>>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
>>>> correct you.
>>>
>>> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.
>>
>> You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.
>
> Whatever Snot may "see", it has no roots in reality
Yes, but the posts are still there.
>
>>>
>>> And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
>>> any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot)
>>> need posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
>>> the "discussion" going
>>>
>>>> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
>>>> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
>>>
>>> a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
>>> b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely
>>> impossible
>>
>> Irrelevant. He still posts in response to you.
>
> He posts in response to whatever his latest whims
> What he needs though are posters *answering* him
He is answered sometimes, but not by me. SO get off the subject of me and
Snit, because as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-subject.
>
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA,
>>>>> and tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible
>>>>> enough to answer his garbage
>>>>
>>>> Look elsewhere than me, then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
>>> If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are
>>> happily in business, too
>>
>> So are you.
>>
>
> Fine. You may feel free to see it that way
>
>>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
>>>>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
>>>>
>>>> Actually, yes, I will,
>>>
>>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
>>
>> Show me yours.
>
> I am not the one dictating here
Yes, you were. YOu were trying to dictate what the discussion is about,
while denying me the right to do likewise.
>
>>>> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
>>>> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
>>> encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.
>>
>> No it isn't. You dragged him into a discussion that has nothing whatever
>> to do with him.
>>
>
> It is a discussion about encouraging trolls. Snot would by default be part
> of that
You seem to be the only one talking about it.
--
Kier
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
>>>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS
>>>>>>> and ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, yes, I will,
>>>>
>>>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
>>>
>>> Show me yours.
>>
>> I am not the one dictating here
>
> Yes, you were. YOu were trying to dictate what the discussion is about,
> while denying me the right to do likewise.
>
Idiot
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>>>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS
>>>>>>>> and ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, yes, I will,
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
>>>>
>>>> Show me yours.
>>>
>>> I am not the one dictating here
>>
>> Yes, you were. YOu were trying to dictate what the discussion is about,
>> while denying me the right to do likewise.
>>
>
> Idiot
Are you? Okay.
Look, Peter, how about we stop this kind of stupidity.
In fact, neither of us is stupid.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
Peter is right.
Apache is a 'cult'.
Apache Foundation Co-Founder Likes GPLv3
,----[ Quote ]
| "This what Apache has long wanted because we do want them
| [GPL-oriented developers] to use it [Apache code], and we
| didn't like even considering the prospect of GPL-only
| re-implementations of our works just for compatibility's
| sake." GLPv3, he added, "is good news, from my perspective."
`----
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/apache_foundati.html
Novell is 'cult'.
IBM is a 'cult'.
Heck, even Red Hat is a 'cult'
GPL3 welcomed by IBM, Red Hat, Novell, MySQL
,----[ Quote ]
| The GPL is the most widely used license in the open-source realm. More
| than 30,000 projects, which is about 66 percent of the open-source
| projects tracked by the Freshmeat site, use the GPL.
`----
Google...? Yup, you've guessed it right. It's a cult.
,----[ Quoye ]
| [Chris DiBona of Google:] The latest revision [of GPLv3] is actually pretty
| good.
`----
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132480,00.asp
Let's not forget those so-called 'hippies' that spread their creativity free of
charge and available for further sharing.
[Creative Commons in Support of] GPLv3!
,----[ Quote ]
| Note that Creative Commons has always recommended the GPL and other
| free software licenses for software. We look forward to transitioning
| software we create to GPLv3.
`----
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7553
Oh, and Linux is very business-oriented, so no Linux guru could ever accept the
GPLv3. Right?
Linux guru backs new GNU licence
,----[ Quote ]
| Open source guru Alan Cox has voiced his support for the
| controversial version 3.0 of the GNU General Public Licence
| in an exclusive podcast interview with Computer Weekly.
`----
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/05/10/223693/linux-guru-backs-new-gnu-licence.htm
Maybe his tongue slipped. Or maybe not.
Alan Cox Interview
,----[ Quote ]
| Personally I think it's a bad idea and that Novell are going to
| get stung by the GPLv3, and rightfully so. The license is designed
| to keep the software free, if it fails to do this then it needs
| fixing, so GPLv3 hopefully will fix this flaw.
`----
http://www.abclinuxu.cz/clanky/rozhovory/alan-cox?page=1
Apache finally finds a licence that's compatible. It should be happy.
Apache, GPL License Compatibility Back On Track
,----[ Quote ]
| GPL 3 is now on track to be finalized in August. Its adoption will be
| a major milestone in the open-source industry and will force developers
| of GPL-licensed software to make choices about migrating to the new
| license or contributing to a potential schism between version 2 and
| version 3 software.
`----
http://www.crn.com/software/199500038
Peter said that "A *lot* of OSS developers are sternly against the GPL3". Is
that right?
OpenLogic survey warm on GPL 3
,----[ Quote ]
| A survey of open-source programming experts that start-up OpenLogic
| pays to resolve software troubles has revealed some favorable
| feelings about the new third draft of the General Public License (GPL).
`----
http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6173244.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news
Watch the figures.
--
~~ Best of wishes
A computer is like air conditioning: it becomes useless when you open windows.
~Linus Torvalds
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 515500k total, 444928k used, 70572k free, 6824k buffers
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:00:20 +0100,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>>
>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
>> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
>> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>
> Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
>
Words to live by, you should try it sometime.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHI3zKd90bcYOAWPYRAs94AJ9Dg4UcHLl22jJiGbZuDzXLRhf7ZACeN5om
6l3EHY2GWRulHJRTopIf118=
=jTk6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long
Snit
pan.2007.10.27....@tiscali.co.uk on 10/27/07 5:12 AM:
>>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
>>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
>>>
>>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
>>> correct you.
>>
>> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.
>
> You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.
And if Peter disagrees he could say so... but he does not. Instead he
claims to have me in a kill file. He also fails to point to any lie of mine
... while I am happy to point to several of his.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
Snit
ffv9is$tlq$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 10/27/07 5:07 AM:
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
> < snip >
>
>>>
>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
>>
>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
>> correct you.
>
> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.
Incorrect. Do you need proof? I am happy to provide it.
>
> And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
> any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot) need
> posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
> the "discussion" going
You repeatedly bring me up with your trolling bastardization of my online
name.
>
>> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
>> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>
> Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
>
> a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
LOL! Weren't you the one claiming I "had" to be right? Oops. :)
> b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely impossible
Well, except you refuse to actually try to support that. OK.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Snit
>> Do you actually claim that Snot is not a troll?
>
> By the general definitions usually applied, yes, I suppose so.
Agreed. I do respond to a lot of trolls, so that makes me a troll-feeder...
but that is not the same as being a troll.
>
>> This is about your encouraging trolls. Snot *is* a troll, a hideous one. You
>> *did* encourage him. Your involvement with Snot in those threads some time
>
> The operative word is *did*. I did reply to him once recently in the
> virtual desktops thread, but that is all. So, when are you going to stop
> dragging it up again and again where it has no relevance?
By bringing me up again and again he is, well, trolling for my attention.
Then he claims to not even read the posts in response. Weird.
...
>> He naturally was. He *needs* at least one poster dumb enough to answer him
>> in order to keep up the pretense
>
> I don't see you attacking Rick about it, and he has been involved with
> Snit far, far more than me. So stop singling me out like I was some sort
> of serial offender while everyone else here is virtuous. I'm not, and
> they aren't. So drop it.
Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>
>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael Glasser
>> (Snot) than talking *with* him
>
> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
> correct you. The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Publicly belittling someone is likely to bring a response.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Rick
(snip)
>
> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
You are a liar. This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt
you even know what the definitions of troll and trolling are.
(snip)
--
Rick
Snit
on 10/27/07 11:57 AM:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>
>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>
> You are a liar.
Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are some
more, just from today:
"jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy"
" passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
Many of those were repeated - and I am sure I missed some of your "finer"
moments. It also does not include your ignorant accusations where you deny
I know things I have already explained to you.
In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out things
about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have shown I can talk
about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where you are
completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are common
enough to be representative of what people use; the number of choices just
paralyzes you.
> This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt
> you even know what the definitions of troll and trolling are.
I do not care how you defend your trolling, lying, and name calling. The
fact you are engaging in such activities is very clear.
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
> 13i72gb...@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 11:57 AM:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>
>> You are a liar.
>
> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are
> some more, just from today:
>
> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy" "
> passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
You are ll of those things.
>
> Many of those were repeated - and I am sure I missed some of your
> "finer" moments. It also does not include your ignorant accusations
> where you deny I know things I have already explained to you.
>
> In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out
> things about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have shown
> I can talk about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where
> you are completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are
> common enough to be representative of what people use; the number of
> choices just paralyzes you.
>
aha HAh ahA hahah HAha HHA hah HAHaha hA...
Oh, you were serious ?
AH ah HAhaH AHA hHA hH HAAH ahAH aha HAh ahha
>> This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt you even know
>> what the definitions of troll and trolling are.
>
> I do not care how you defend your trolling, lying, and name calling.
> The fact you are engaging in such activities is very clear.
Liar.
--
Rick
Snit
on 10/27/07 7:28 PM:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:22:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
>> 13i72gb...@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 11:57 AM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>>
>>> You are a liar.
>>
>> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are
>> some more, just from today:
>>
>> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy" "
>> passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
>
> You are ll of those things.
That does not even resemble the apology you owe me for calling me a liar
because I merely noted you were "name calling and otherwise trolling." Oh
well.
>> Many of those were repeated - and I am sure I missed some of your
>> "finer" moments. It also does not include your ignorant accusations
>> where you deny I know things I have already explained to you.
>>
>> In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out
>> things about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have shown
>> I can talk about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where
>> you are completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are
>> common enough to be representative of what people use; the number of
>> choices just paralyzes you.
>>
>
> aha HAh ahA hahah HAha HHA hah HAHaha hA...
>
> Oh, you were serious ?
>
> AH ah HAhaH AHA hHA hH HAAH ahAH aha HAh ahha
Had you included some evidence I was wrong - say the *very* easy thing to do
of just picking the reference systems you would be willing to compare -
maybe your little fit would have had some teeth.
As it is, well, I just feel a bit of pity for you. You clearly are trying
so hard to get a "dig" in... and you just keep failing to get one that has
any bite. Sad.
>>> This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt you even know
>>> what the definitions of troll and trolling are.
>>
>> I do not care how you defend your trolling, lying, and name calling.
>> The fact you are engaging in such activities is very clear.
>
> Liar.
Wow... what powerful commentary you add to the discussion. Just wow. I am
impressed! LOL!
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
> 13i7sul...@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 7:28 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:22:56 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
>>> 13i72gb...@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 11:57 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>>>
>>>> You are a liar.
>>>
>>> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are
>>> some more, just from today:
>>>
>>> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy" "
>>> passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
>>
>> You are ll of those things.
>
> That does not even resemble the apology you owe me for calling me a liar
> because I merely noted you were "name calling and otherwise trolling."
> Oh well.
I do not owe you an apology. You have each time I have Labeled you as a
liar, it has been the direct result of you lying.
You continue your passive-aggressive tactics, which I have clearly
labeled. For that, I consider you a jerk.
>
>>> Many of those were repeated - and I am sure I missed some of your
>>> "finer" moments. It also does not include your ignorant accusations
>>> where you deny I know things I have already explained to you.
>>>
>>> In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out
>>> things about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have
>>> shown I can talk about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems
>>> where you are completely unable to even figure out what systems you
>>> think are common enough to be representative of what people use; the
>>> number of choices just paralyzes you.
>>>
>>>
>> aha HAh ahA hahah HAha HHA hah HAHaha hA...
>>
>> Oh, you were serious ?
>>
>> AH ah HAhaH AHA hHA hH HAAH ahAH aha HAh ahha
>
> Had you included some evidence I was wrong - say the *very* easy thing
> to do of just picking the reference systems you would be willing to
> compare - maybe your little fit would have had some teeth.
I didn't have a fit. I was laughing at you.
>
> As it is, well, I just feel a bit of pity for you. You clearly are
> trying so hard to get a "dig" in... and you just keep failing to get one
> that has any bite. Sad.
Again, I was laughing at you.
>
>>>> This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt you even know
>>>> what the definitions of troll and trolling are.
>>>
>>> I do not care how you defend your trolling, lying, and name calling.
>>> The fact you are engaging in such activities is very clear.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> Wow... what powerful commentary you add to the discussion. Just wow. I
> am impressed! LOL!
.. and it you continuing LOL that gets you labeled a braying ass.
Your continued calling me a troll is one of the things that gets you
labeled as a liar.
Here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll>
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line
community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of
baiting users into an argumentative response.
I have not been trying to bait you into argumentative responses, there
for I am not a troll. You have been given this decision before. You
refuse to comprehend it.
--
Rick
Snit
on 10/28/07 3:42 AM:
>>>>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are
>>>> some more, just from today:
>>>>
>>>> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy" "
>>>> passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
>>>
>>> You are ll of those things.
>>
>> That does not even resemble the apology you owe me for calling me a liar
>> because I merely noted you were "name calling and otherwise trolling."
>> Oh well.
>
> I do not owe you an apology.
Well, this is Usenet and I do not really care much if you apologize for your
poor behavior. Sure, I would prefer if you did, but not a big deal. I will
not lose sleep over your name calling, absurd accusations, etc. You are the
one who has to live with making such a public spectacle of yourself.
In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out things
about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have shown I can talk
about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where you are
completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are common
enough to be representative of what people use; the number of choices just
paralyzes you.
...
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll>
> An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
> intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line
> community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of
> baiting users into an argumentative response.
You do that a lot... such as when you make accusations and weird claims and
then refuse to support them. OK, now we both know you are a troll.
> I have not been trying to bait you into argumentative responses, there
> for I am not a troll. You have been given this decision before. You
> refuse to comprehend it.
So you lie and call me names for some reason other than to get a response?
LOL! I simply do not believe you.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
> 13i8prq...@news.supernews.com on 10/28/07 3:42 AM:
>
>
>>>>>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here
>>>>> are some more, just from today:
>>>>>
>>>>> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy"
>>>>> " passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
>>>>
>>>> You are ll of those things.
>>>
>>> That does not even resemble the apology you owe me for calling me a
>>> liar because I merely noted you were "name calling and otherwise
>>> trolling." Oh well.
>>
>> I do not owe you an apology.
>
> Well, this is Usenet and I do not really care much if you apologize for
> your poor behavior. Sure, I would prefer if you did, but not a big
> deal. I will not lose sleep over your name calling, absurd accusations,
> etc. You are the one who has to live with making such a public
> spectacle of yourself.
You haven't' apologized for you inflammatory passive aggressive behavior.
>
> In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out
> things about Virtual desktops that you disagree with
That doesn't bother me at all. You keep making blanket statements as if
they are indisputable facts when they are really just your opinion.
> *and* I have shown
> I can talk about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where
> you are completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are
> common enough to be representative of what people use;
That's a lie.
> the number of choices just paralyzes you.
That's a lie.
>
> ...
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll> An Internet troll, or
>> simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts
>> controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an
>> on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an
>> argumentative response.
>
> You do that a lot... such as when you make accusations and weird claims
> and then refuse to support them. OK, now we both know you are a troll.
That's a lie.
>
>> I have not been trying to bait you into argumentative responses, there
>> for I am not a troll. You have been given this decision before. You
>> refuse to comprehend it.
>
> So you lie and call me names for some reason other than to get a
> response? LOL! I simply do not believe you.
I don't care if you believe me or not.
--
Rick
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
> 13i8prq...@news.supernews.com on 10/28/07 3:42 AM:
>
>
>>>>>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here
>>>>> are some more, just from today:
>>>>>
>>>>> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy"
>>>>> " passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
>>>>
>>>> You are ll of those things.
>>>
>>> That does not even resemble the apology you owe me for calling me a
>>> liar because I merely noted you were "name calling and otherwise
>>> trolling." Oh well.
>>
>> I do not owe you an apology.
>
> Well, this is Usenet and I do not really care much if you apologize for
> your poor behavior.
Goodbye.
--
Rick
Snit
on 10/28/07 2:09 PM:
Please post again when you can understand this and not be offended:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/switch.gif>
Thanks!
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
on 10/28/07 1:56 PM:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:04:27 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> stated in post
>> 13i8prq...@news.supernews.com on 10/28/07 3:42 AM:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here
>>>>>> are some more, just from today:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy"
>>>>>> " passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"
>>>>>
>>>>> You are ll of those things.
>>>>
>>>> That does not even resemble the apology you owe me for calling me a
>>>> liar because I merely noted you were "name calling and otherwise
>>>> trolling." Oh well.
>>>
>>> I do not owe you an apology.
>>
>> Well, this is Usenet and I do not really care much if you apologize for
>> your poor behavior. Sure, I would prefer if you did, but not a big
>> deal. I will not lose sleep over your name calling, absurd accusations,
>> etc. You are the one who has to live with making such a public
>> spectacle of yourself.
>
> You haven't' apologized for you inflammatory passive aggressive behavior.
Do you have an example?
>> In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out
>> things about Virtual desktops that you disagree with
>
> That doesn't bother me at all.
Yet you get "pissed" and call me names. LOL!
> You keep making blanket statements as if they are indisputable facts when they
> are really just your opinion.
I made a chart of some pretty solid facts:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/switch.gif>. I put it together pretty
quickly, so if there are errors please let me know... or additions.
>> *and* I have shown I can talk about reasoned comparisons between comparable
>> systems where you are completely unable to even figure out what systems you
>> think are common enough to be representative of what people use; the number
>> of choices just paralyzes you.
>
> That's a lie.
Well, then, by all means show the systems you picked.
Oops. LOL!
>> ...
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll> An Internet troll, or
>>> simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts
>>> controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an
>>> on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an
>>> argumentative response.
>>
>> You do that a lot... such as when you make accusations and weird claims
>> and then refuse to support them. OK, now we both know you are a troll.
>
> That's a lie.
Ah, you show a definition of troll that fits you well but then you say it is
a "lie". Weird.
>
>>
>>> I have not been trying to bait you into argumentative responses, there
>>> for I am not a troll. You have been given this decision before. You
>>> refuse to comprehend it.
>>
>> So you lie and call me names for some reason other than to get a
>> response? LOL! I simply do not believe you.
>
> I don't care if you believe me or not.
I do not believe that.
Tee hee. :)
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Edmund Burke
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Your matrix is wrong. At least WRT to GNOME, maybe OSX's implementations
of Virtual desktops is not as well developed. But with GNOME, I can hide
a single window, and can group windows by application, as well as by
task.
Further, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of grouping and
tabbing windows. It's a plugin to comp-fusion, it's not installed by
default in Ubuntu, but it's easy to add, and it allows (among other
things) to group windows in whatever collection you want. Want a
browser, a text editor, a shell and a debug window grouped? easy. Then
they can be hidden, maximised, moved, etc, all as a group. You can group
the windows, or add them to one windowframe, as tabs. Or mix and match.
It's fairly recent, I don't think it was available for Feisty, at least
not in the Ubuntu repos. It's also something I haven't seen anywhere
else, although I have no experience with OSX leopard, and little with
Vista, so maybe there's an equivilent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHJQztd90bcYOAWPYRAp/xAKCJyrNOqlmjDwpeaMa7PIJoBLyAAgCg2LR7
Vj5M+gKxdmoaOFEbPQ7fHPw=
=BYIy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The United States of America: Screwing with the
English Language for over 200 years.
--Mike Sphar
Snit
d0ffv4-...@dragon.myth on 10/28/07 3:27 PM:
>> Please post again when you can understand this and not be offended:
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/switch.gif>
>
> Your matrix is wrong. At least WRT to GNOME, maybe OSX's implementations
> of Virtual desktops is not as well developed. But with GNOME, I can hide
> a single window, and can group windows by application, as well as by
> task.
I am in reference to OS X's implementation - being that there are multiple
ways... but please educate me: how do you use VD to hide a single window
(other than moving it to its own desktop).
>
> Further, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of grouping and
> tabbing windows. It's a plugin to comp-fusion, it's not installed by
> default in Ubuntu, but it's easy to add, and it allows (among other
> things) to group windows in whatever collection you want. Want a
> browser, a text editor, a shell and a debug window grouped? easy. Then
> they can be hidden, maximised, moved, etc, all as a group. You can group
> the windows, or add them to one windowframe, as tabs. Or mix and match.
Excellent idea... I have not seen it in practice. I did recently write:
I have noted an alternative I would like to have a chance
to play with: to have tabs in all applications that work sort
of like they do in Safari where you can drag tabs from one
window to another - that would allow for grouping but keep
all things visually more present. Might add confusion to
have single windows have multiple apps though... so that,
too, would confuse many users.
> It's fairly recent, I don't think it was available for Feisty, at least
> not in the Ubuntu repos. It's also something I haven't seen anywhere
> else, although I have no experience with OSX leopard, and little with
> Vista, so maybe there's an equivilent.
Not in OS X...
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:13:07 -0700,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> stated in post
> d0ffv4-...@dragon.myth on 10/28/07 3:27 PM:
>
>>> Please post again when you can understand this and not be offended:
>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/switch.gif>
>>
>> Your matrix is wrong. At least WRT to GNOME, maybe OSX's implementations
>> of Virtual desktops is not as well developed. But with GNOME, I can hide
>> a single window, and can group windows by application, as well as by
>> task.
>
> I am in reference to OS X's implementation - being that there are multiple
> ways... but please educate me: how do you use VD to hide a single window
> (other than moving it to its own desktop).
With GNOME, click the minimize widget, or rt click on menu bar and
select minimize. KDE is similar if not identical.
>>
>> Further, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of grouping and
>> tabbing windows. It's a plugin to comp-fusion, it's not installed by
>> default in Ubuntu, but it's easy to add, and it allows (among other
>> things) to group windows in whatever collection you want. Want a
>> browser, a text editor, a shell and a debug window grouped? easy. Then
>> they can be hidden, maximised, moved, etc, all as a group. You can group
>> the windows, or add them to one windowframe, as tabs. Or mix and match.
>
> Excellent idea... I have not seen it in practice. I did recently write:
>
> I have noted an alternative I would like to have a chance
> to play with: to have tabs in all applications that work sort
> of like they do in Safari where you can drag tabs from one
> window to another - that would allow for grouping but keep
> all things visually more present. Might add confusion to
> have single windows have multiple apps though... so that,
> too, would confuse many users.
>
>> It's fairly recent, I don't think it was available for Feisty, at least
>> not in the Ubuntu repos. It's also something I haven't seen anywhere
>> else, although I have no experience with OSX leopard, and little with
>> Vista, so maybe there's an equivilent.
>
> Not in OS X...
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHJU0jd90bcYOAWPYRAsPoAKCTmG2J3LKomquB3OFvLbBRCJ4ZiwCgpl1U
M/cyEfkvIAP8y2YQh2vRQcw=
=v3dF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here
Snit
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:13:07 -0700,
> Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Jim Richardson" <war...@eskimo.com> stated in post
>> d0ffv4-...@dragon.myth on 10/28/07 3:27 PM:
>>
>>>> Please post again when you can understand this and not be offended:
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/switch.gif>
I have updated this, for what it is worth.
>>> Your matrix is wrong. At least WRT to GNOME, maybe OSX's implementations
>>> of Virtual desktops is not as well developed. But with GNOME, I can hide
>>> a single window, and can group windows by application, as well as by
>>> task.
>>
>> I am in reference to OS X's implementation - being that there are multiple
>> ways... but please educate me: how do you use VD to hide a single window
>> (other than moving it to its own desktop).
>
> With GNOME, click the minimize widget, or rt click on menu bar and
> select minimize. KDE is similar if not identical.
Oh, of course you can minimize! I thought you meant that there as a way to
hide one window with VD specifically. I did doubt you could minimize. And,
of course, you can on OS X as well.
Hey, I wonder on OS X if you hide an app if it hides it from all "Spaces".
>>> Further, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of grouping and
>>> tabbing windows. It's a plugin to comp-fusion, it's not installed by
>>> default in Ubuntu, but it's easy to add, and it allows (among other
>>> things) to group windows in whatever collection you want. Want a
>>> browser, a text editor, a shell and a debug window grouped? easy. Then
>>> they can be hidden, maximised, moved, etc, all as a group. You can group
>>> the windows, or add them to one windowframe, as tabs. Or mix and match.
>>
>> Excellent idea... I have not seen it in practice. I did recently write:
>>
>> I have noted an alternative I would like to have a chance
>> to play with: to have tabs in all applications that work sort
>> of like they do in Safari where you can drag tabs from one
>> window to another - that would allow for grouping but keep
>> all things visually more present. Might add confusion to
>> have single windows have multiple apps though... so that,
>> too, would confuse many users.
>>
>>> It's fairly recent, I don't think it was available for Feisty, at least
>>> not in the Ubuntu repos. It's also something I haven't seen anywhere
>>> else, although I have no experience with OSX leopard, and little with
>>> Vista, so maybe there's an equivilent.
>>
>> Not in OS X...
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mark Kent
> ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 27 October 2007 09:59 : \____
>
>> Sophie McDowell <sop...@nospam.com> espoused:
>>>
>>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2007.10.25....@tiscali.co.uk...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:52:07 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>>>>> their P.45s?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the
>>>>> crooks
>>>>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's
>>>>> all
>>>>> too real.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> 'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?
>>>
>>>
>>> Roy's failure to answer this simple question noted.
>
> My previous message explains just why.
>
>> Gary, even my little sister only changed her name once when she was 12
>> or 13. You seem to do it several times a week. Get help, please?
>
> He already did. He's seeing a professional, but progress is evidently too slow.
>
Is he? Good for him. I sincerely hope it helps; his current state of
mind is clearly not good.
I imagine that it could take some time to achieve a recovery, though.
Perhaps we could at least encourage him to post under his own name?
Maybe even some on-topic, non-anti-charter material?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Mark Kent
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:00:20 +0100,
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>>>
>>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
>>> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
>>> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>>
>> Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
>>
>
> Words to live by, you should try it sometime.
>
Now, what did I do to deserve this random troll attempt?
Peter Köhlmann
> Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:00:20 +0100,
>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> espoused:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
>>>> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in
>>>> that case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
>>>
>>> Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
>>>
>>
>> Words to live by, you should try it sometime.
>>
>
> Now, what did I do to deserve this random troll attempt?
>
It wasn't a "random troll attempt"
You are abusing people regularly. And then complain about "abuse" directed
at you
Has it occured to you that by now I really think of you as an "imbecile"?
That this would not be abuse then, but telling you my opinion about you?
--
I say you need to visit Clues 'R' Us. They are having a special on
slightly used clues.
Roy Schestowitz
He'd better not actually. If he stopped posting from open relays (zombies), it
would be easier for people to sue him for libel, having gone through it all
these years. As for him name, it's already known and there's too much proof
for him to deny it.
Good luck with the shrink, Gary Stewart. I heard it's a female, so there's no
danger of you having lust for her.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Rid your machine from malware. Install GNU/Linux.
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 116 total, 1 running, 115 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine