[News] NASDAQ Delising - Poor Indication of Problems
Roy Schestowitz
numbers of companies that are currently under delising threat.
Wind River misses NASDAQ reporting deadline
,----[ Quote ]
| Wind River failed to meet a deadline for reporting its second-quarter
| earnings, and could be dropped from the NASDAQ stock exchange, according
| to an Associated Press (AP) report. However, the company will likely be
| able to state its results in time to avoid expulsion, the wire service
| noted.
`----
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS5178209814.html
Also in the same article from yesterday.
,----[ Quote ]
| Chip giant Nvidia also failed to meet its reporting deadline, and faces
| similar possible consequences, the AP story said.
`----
Just in:
Dell Receives NASDAQ Delisting Notice
,----[ Quote ]
| As a result of investigations from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
| Commission into possible inappropriate accounting among major
| corporations, many -- including Apple and nVidia -- have received
| notices from the NASDAQ stock exchange threatening possible de-listing
| if they don't file their quarterly 10-Q public status reports on time.
| Add Dell to that list this morning.
`----
http://www.betanews.com/article/Dell_Receives_NASDAQ_Delisting_Notice/1158853421
This seems quite repeatable.
Apple:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2311942,00.html
Meanwhile, Novell and Linux are doing great.
Novell CFO says focus on Linux, ID products paying off
,----[ Quote ]
| Novell Inc.'s new chief financial officer said the decline in the
| company's legacy software sales (Windows-related) in the third quarter
| was disappointing, but that its focus on Linux products is paying off
| in higher sales.
`----
Novell Profit Gets Linux Lift
,----[ Quote ]
| Business software maker cites 30 percent boost in Linux revenue for
| third quarter.
`----
Larry Qualig
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> In retaliation to trolls who discredit Novell.
So your posts are now "retaliation" ??? As Thad wrote in another
thread:
<quote>
Anyone who becomes that wound up over crap going on in usenet
seriously needs to turn the computer off and re-engage with the
real world.
</quote>
> Meanwhile, Novell and Linux are doing great.
> Novell CFO says focus on Linux, ID products paying off
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Novell Inc.'s new chief financial officer said the decline in the
> | company's legacy software sales (Windows-related) in the third quarter
> | was disappointing, but that its focus on Linux products is paying off
> | in higher sales.
> `----
For starters this is not a "quote" because you edited this text and you
inserted (Windows-related) into the sentence. Anybody who has worked in
this industry for any length of time (which automatically excluded you)
knows that Novell's legacy products are not Windows but rather NETWARE
related.
Good to see that truth, honesty and basic industry knowledge don't get
in the way of your FUD.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> In retaliation to trolls who discredit Novell.
>
> So your posts are now "retaliation" ??? As Thad wrote in another
> thread:
>
> <quote>
> Anyone who becomes that wound up over crap going on in usenet
> seriously needs to turn the computer off and re-engage with the
> real world.
> </quote>
Well, in fairness to Roy, his 'retaliation' could better be classified
as a 'response' or 'counter-argument'. If he was tracking these
people down and leaving dead fish in their mailbox... then I would
worry about him. ;)
Thad
Larry Qualig
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >
> >> In retaliation to trolls who discredit Novell.
> >
> > So your posts are now "retaliation" ??? As Thad wrote in another
> > thread:
> >
> > <quote>
> > Anyone who becomes that wound up over crap going on in usenet
> > seriously needs to turn the computer off and re-engage with the
> > real world.
> > </quote>
>
> Well, in fairness to Roy, his 'retaliation' could better be classified
> as a 'response' or 'counter-argument'.
Most normal people would classify it as a response or counter-argument.
I think the trouble with Roy is that in his mind he does view this as a
"retaliation."
> If he was tracking these
> people down and leaving dead fish in their mailbox... then I would
> worry about him. ;)
Look at what's going on now, connect the dots and extrapolate the
future. Perhaps one day he will be doing this sort of thing.
Today he's making several *thousand* posts each month to this newsgroup
during all hours of the day and night. Hey... free speech, I know but
it certainly is a bit strange. This doesn't include the time and effort
spent his own web-site.
Today he's degenerated to the point where he's thinking and posting
things like "Microsoft has degraded to the point where it's akin to a
80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " I'm
sure posts like that will surely 'impress' any potential employers who
may read it.
At what point does it become excessive and unhealthy?? When he starts
leaving dead fish in mailboxes or when he starts sending letter-bombs
to Microsoft Offices? Or maybe we've already crossed that threshold?
Kier
>
> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >
>> >> In retaliation to trolls who discredit Novell.
>> >
>> > So your posts are now "retaliation" ??? As Thad wrote in another
>> > thread:
>> >
>> > <quote>
>> > Anyone who becomes that wound up over crap going on in usenet
>> > seriously needs to turn the computer off and re-engage with the
>> > real world.
>> > </quote>
>>
>> Well, in fairness to Roy, his 'retaliation' could better be classified
>> as a 'response' or 'counter-argument'.
>
> Most normal people would classify it as a response or counter-argument.
> I think the trouble with Roy is that in his mind he does view this as a
> "retaliation."
Perhaps he takes things more personally than he should. So some people are
like that. None of us here are perfect.
>
>
>> If he was tracking these
>> people down and leaving dead fish in their mailbox... then I would
>> worry about him. ;)
>
> Look at what's going on now, connect the dots and extrapolate the
> future. Perhaps one day he will be doing this sort of thing.
And perhaps he won't. What Roy is doing is far less obsessive and
offensive than the years and years flatfisgh has spent in trolling COLA,
and some of the vile things he's said about posters here.
>
> Today he's making several *thousand* posts each month to this newsgroup
> during all hours of the day and night. Hey... free speech, I know but
> it certainly is a bit strange. This doesn't include the time and effort
> spent his own web-site.
You think this is strange? Come on, man, there are far weirder pursuits
and much worse obsessions in this world. So he posts a lot to Usenet and
keeps up a website. Big deal.
>
> Today he's degenerated to the point where he's thinking and posting
> things like "Microsoft has degraded to the point where it's akin to a
> 80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " I'm
> sure posts like that will surely 'impress' any potential employers who
> may read it.
Most likely not, and the words are ill-chosen, but scarcely worse
than much of what is written of Linux and Linux advocates at times.
>
> At what point does it become excessive and unhealthy?? When he starts
> leaving dead fish in mailboxes or when he starts sending letter-bombs
> to Microsoft Offices? Or maybe we've already crossed that threshold?
Please. Do you honestly believe this? All you're doing is giving obvious
credence to flatfish's obsessive dislike of Roy. By all means point out
flaws in Roy's arguments, but don't stoop to this type of nonsense.
--
Kier
Larry Qualig
Kier wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:24:46 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> >
> > tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
> >> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In retaliation to trolls who discredit Novell.
> >> >
> >> > So your posts are now "retaliation" ??? As Thad wrote in another
> >> > thread:
> >> >
> >> > <quote>
> >> > Anyone who becomes that wound up over crap going on in usenet
> >> > seriously needs to turn the computer off and re-engage with the
> >> > real world.
> >> > </quote>
> >>
> >> Well, in fairness to Roy, his 'retaliation' could better be classified
> >> as a 'response' or 'counter-argument'.
> >
> > Most normal people would classify it as a response or counter-argument.
> > I think the trouble with Roy is that in his mind he does view this as a
> > "retaliation."
>
> Perhaps he takes things more personally than he should. So some people are
> like that. None of us here are perfect.
There are billions of people on this planet and not one of them is
perfect. Seeking perfection isn't the issue I was raising. The issue I
raised is how he is so serious about his posts that he (by his own
admission) considers this thread to be some sort of "retaliation."
> >
> >> If he was tracking these
> >> people down and leaving dead fish in their mailbox... then I would
> >> worry about him. ;)
> >
> > Look at what's going on now, connect the dots and extrapolate the
> > future. Perhaps one day he will be doing this sort of thing.
>
> And perhaps he won't. What Roy is doing is far less obsessive and
> offensive than the years and years flatfisgh has spent in trolling COLA,
> and some of the vile things he's said about posters here.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but if someone else behaves
in offensive behavior then perhaps Roy should "take the high road", try
and set an example and not drop to that level. Posting lies and
distortions of the truth isn't excusable because someobody else
did/does it.
> > Today he's making several *thousand* posts each month to this newsgroup
> > during all hours of the day and night. Hey... free speech, I know but
> > it certainly is a bit strange. This doesn't include the time and effort
> > spent his own web-site.
>
> You think this is strange? Come on, man, there are far weirder pursuits
> and much worse obsessions in this world. So he posts a lot to Usenet and
> keeps up a website. Big deal.
Of course there are weirder pursuits and worse obsessions in this
world. In theory everyone and anyone with an obsession can claim "big
deal... there's worse than that" - except for the one person who is the
weirdest and strangest. But just because there is some guy out there
with a bunch of heads in his freezer doesn't mean that there are other
people out there who act strangely. (Hell... I also have plenty of
quirks. But minor quirks are not the same as being overly obsessed with
something.)
> > Today he's degenerated to the point where he's thinking and posting
> > things like "Microsoft has degraded to the point where it's akin to a
> > 80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " I'm
> > sure posts like that will surely 'impress' any potential employers who
> > may read it.
>
> Most likely not, and the words are ill-chosen, but scarcely worse
> than much of what is written of Linux and Linux advocates at times.
I'll go back to the point I made earlier. Because some people decide to
be vile and disgusting this somehow gives Roy carte blanche to do the
same? Wouldn't this basically mean that he's (very close to) just as
disgusting as those people that you're referring to? After all, what he
said is only "scarcely worse" than what they said?
(PS - I know that's not what you meant. But exactly what is the
difference between lies and vile statements made against Linux vs.
equally distasteful statements made against Microsoft? There isn't a
difference and I don't see how anyone can justify that somehow one is
acceptable but the other isn't.)
> > At what point does it become excessive and unhealthy?? When he starts
> > leaving dead fish in mailboxes or when he starts sending letter-bombs
> > to Microsoft Offices? Or maybe we've already crossed that threshold?
>
> Please. Do you honestly believe this? All you're doing is giving obvious
> credence to flatfish's obsessive dislike of Roy. By all means point out
> flaws in Roy's arguments, but don't stoop to this type of nonsense.
Re-read what I wrote. I didn't state this as a matter of fact. Roy did
make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
believes.
What I did was ask a question. The question being "At what point does
it (Roy's behaviour) become excessive and unhealthy? Different people
will have different answers and I was asking for his (or yours now)
idea of where "that line" is where it goes from a hobby/obsession to
something unhealthy.
Where is that threshold? Is it okay to send threatening mail to
Microsoft? How about threatening posts/blog entries? Dead fish in
mailboxes? Note that I didn't say he ever did or will ever do this but
I'm using these as examples of where that boundary between healthy and
unhealthy behaviour lies.
My own opinion... Making literally thousands of posts each month is a
bit strange but in of itself, no big deal. Spending each day and
weekend twisting every bit of news into some anti-MS propoganda is also
a bit strange but all by itself, not a real big deal. When your mind
warps to the point where the purpose of your posts is "retaliation" and
you honestly believe that ""Microsoft has degraded to the point where
it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with
teenagers" then that is definitely beyond what I would call a healthy
state of mind.
But combine all of the above and you're now looking at something that
most people would consider unhealthy behaviour.
Example -> Fred tells a small lie. It's no big deal. Fred then tells
another lie or two. Again, no big deal. Each one of the individual lies
might not be a big deal all by themselves but at some point you need to
stop looking at each lie individually and and come to the conclusion
that Fred is a liar.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Well, in fairness to Roy, his 'retaliation' could better be classified
>> as a 'response' or 'counter-argument'.
>
> Most normal people would classify it as a response or counter-argument.
> I think the trouble with Roy is that in his mind he does view this as a
> "retaliation."
Yes, Roy seems to see Linux Advocacy as war, and as such "All's fair",
including lying, FUD, deception, misdirection, altering quotes, violationg
laws, etc...
If it paints Linux in a good light, who cares if it's the truth?
What's truly sick is that so many Linux advocates seem to support him in
this "The ends justify the means" campaign. I'd say he's as bad as Rex,
but in many ways he's far worse. At least Rex doesn't appear to understand
that he's spreading misinformation. Roy is doing it deliberately.
I'd like to see a roll call of people that agree with Roy's tactics. I
know Mark Kent does, and a number of other's that have already verbally
said they support him. But how many of the silent majority do?
Kier
There have been a number of personal attacks made on him, so maybe he has
the right to feel a bit sensitive to criticism. Using the word
'retaliation' is hardly enough reason to assume he has some sort of
problem.
>
>> >
>> >> If he was tracking these
>> >> people down and leaving dead fish in their mailbox... then I would
>> >> worry about him. ;)
>> >
>> > Look at what's going on now, connect the dots and extrapolate the
>> > future. Perhaps one day he will be doing this sort of thing.
>>
>> And perhaps he won't. What Roy is doing is far less obsessive and
>> offensive than the years and years flatfisgh has spent in trolling COLA,
>> and some of the vile things he's said about posters here.
>
> I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but if someone else behaves
> in offensive behavior then perhaps Roy should "take the high road", try
> and set an example and not drop to that level. Posting lies and
> distortions of the truth isn't excusable because someobody else
> did/does it.
Maybe not, but where is your criticism of flatfish, who is IMO far more
obsessed with attacking Roy? Perhaps Roy has decided to beat the trolls at
their own game. I don't know. Maybe you should try asking him?
>
>> > Today he's making several *thousand* posts each month to this newsgroup
>> > during all hours of the day and night. Hey... free speech, I know but
>> > it certainly is a bit strange. This doesn't include the time and effort
>> > spent his own web-site.
>>
>> You think this is strange? Come on, man, there are far weirder pursuits
>> and much worse obsessions in this world. So he posts a lot to Usenet and
>> keeps up a website. Big deal.
>
> Of course there are weirder pursuits and worse obsessions in this
> world. In theory everyone and anyone with an obsession can claim "big
> deal... there's worse than that" - except for the one person who is the
> weirdest and strangest. But just because there is some guy out there
> with a bunch of heads in his freezer doesn't mean that there are other
> people out there who act strangely. (Hell... I also have plenty of
> quirks. But minor quirks are not the same as being overly obsessed with
> something.)
First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
>
>> > Today he's degenerated to the point where he's thinking and posting
>> > things like "Microsoft has degraded to the point where it's akin to a
>> > 80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " I'm
>> > sure posts like that will surely 'impress' any potential employers who
>> > may read it.
>>
>> Most likely not, and the words are ill-chosen, but scarcely worse
>> than much of what is written of Linux and Linux advocates at times.
>
> I'll go back to the point I made earlier. Because some people decide to
> be vile and disgusting this somehow gives Roy carte blanche to do the
> same? Wouldn't this basically mean that he's (very close to) just as
> disgusting as those people that you're referring to? After all, what he
> said is only "scarcely worse" than what they said?
>
> (PS - I know that's not what you meant. But exactly what is the
> difference between lies and vile statements made against Linux vs.
> equally distasteful statements made against Microsoft? There isn't a
> difference and I don't see how anyone can justify that somehow one is
> acceptable but the other isn't.)
While I couldn't give a monkey's about the hurt feelings of a monopolistic
company like MS, I don't believe that untrue or distasteful statements
against it are a good thing, nor that lying about it does much good.
However, if you actually look at what people say here, nine tenths of it
is really opinion and not 'fact', even when stated as fact. The varying
levels of knowledge and experience here make it impossible, IMO, to
really, truly 'prove' anything unless absolutely verified. And even then,
half of the people reading will probably not accept it.
We're all a bit entrenched in our beliefs here, IMO, even those of us who
try to be open-minded. That inevitably leads to some stretching of the
truth at times. Unless they're superhuman, advocates ion boths sides will
tend to exaggerate the virtues and suppress the deficiencies of their
chosen OS/religion/football team/fandom/whatever. And not always
consciously.
>
>
>> > At what point does it become excessive and unhealthy?? When he starts
>> > leaving dead fish in mailboxes or when he starts sending letter-bombs
>> > to Microsoft Offices? Or maybe we've already crossed that threshold?
>>
>> Please. Do you honestly believe this? All you're doing is giving obvious
>> credence to flatfish's obsessive dislike of Roy. By all means point out
>> flaws in Roy's arguments, but don't stoop to this type of nonsense.
>
> Re-read what I wrote. I didn't state this as a matter of fact. Roy did
> make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
> degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
> his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
> believes.
Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
common or garden bullshit, which is shovelled by the ton on both
sindes in this group on a daily basis?
While you didn't state it as fact, you did seem to imply by what you said
that Roy might well be capable of doing such things as sending
letter-bombs to MS, merely because he dislikes MS and its business
practices.
If everyone posting a lot to Usenet without always checking his facts
properly was a nutter, the jails would be overflowing. Words and actions
are not the same thing.
>
> What I did was ask a question. The question being "At what point does
> it (Roy's behaviour) become excessive and unhealthy? Different people
> will have different answers and I was asking for his (or yours now)
> idea of where "that line" is where it goes from a hobby/obsession to
> something unhealthy.
When it does actual damage.
>
> Where is that threshold? Is it okay to send threatening mail to
> Microsoft? How about threatening posts/blog entries? Dead fish in
> mailboxes? Note that I didn't say he ever did or will ever do this but
> I'm using these as examples of where that boundary between healthy and
> unhealthy behaviour lies.
Threatening mail? Not okay. Nor dead fish. But he's done none of this,
unless you can point to where.
>
> My own opinion... Making literally thousands of posts each month is a
> bit strange but in of itself, no big deal. Spending each day and
> weekend twisting every bit of news into some anti-MS propoganda is also
Is that in fact what he does? Have you checked everything he's posted?
Merely because you disagree with his interpretation of the items of news
he's posted doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
right.
And is he actually spending 'each day and weekend' producing anti-MS
propaganda, or knocking the stuff out here and there in a few idle minutes
from time to time, without thinking much about it? He's hardly some
criminal mastermind FUD-producing machine dedicated to the destruction of
Microsoft and its minions, far more likely an overzealous youngster with a
burning conviction that MS is a Bad ThingTM.
> a bit strange but all by itself, not a real big deal. When your mind
> warps to the point where the purpose of your posts is "retaliation" and
> you honestly believe that ""Microsoft has degraded to the point where
> it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses his wallet to sleep with
> teenagers" then that is definitely beyond what I would call a healthy
> state of mind.
Can you prove that it is not merely a rather tasteless turn of phrase?
Personally I think Roy, and a few others here go a little too far in their
condemnation of MS, but that doesn't mean I think they are some sort of
obsessed crazies because of it. MS is a public entity, not an individual.
Why not simply chanllenge his statement and ask him what he means by it?
>
> But combine all of the above and you're now looking at something that
> most people would consider unhealthy behaviour.
Isn't flatfish's behaviour unhealthy, then?
>
> Example -> Fred tells a small lie. It's no big deal. Fred then tells
> another lie or two. Again, no big deal. Each one of the individual lies
> might not be a big deal all by themselves but at some point you need to
> stop looking at each lie individually and and come to the conclusion
> that Fred is a liar.
Then refute what you consider to be Roy's 'lies', but don't go around
making attacks of this kind on him. Show us where he lies. But his biases,
whatever they may be, and the reasons for them, are his own affair.
Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
--
Kier
Sinister Midget
> Yes, Roy seems to see Linux Advocacy as war, and as such "All's fair",
> including lying, FUD, deception, misdirection, altering quotes, violationg
> laws, etc...
Ehm. More like:
Yes, Erik seems to see Linux Advocacy as war, and as such "All's
fair", including lying, FUD, deception, misdirection, violationg
laws, etc...
You saw that coming, right? If not, shame on you.
--
Bustoy: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
chrisv
>I'd like to see a roll call of people that agree with Roy's tactics. I
>know Mark Kent does, and a number of other's that have already verbally
>said they support him. But how many of the silent majority do?
I don't read most of Roy's stuff. There's just too much of it. So
I'm neutral.
Mark Kent
Sinister Midget <phydeaux@manly_mail.net> espoused:
> On 2006-09-22, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>
>> Yes, Roy seems to see Linux Advocacy as war, and as such "All's fair",
>> including lying, FUD, deception, misdirection, altering quotes, violationg
>> laws, etc...
>
> Ehm. More like:
>
> Yes, Erik seems to see Linux Advocacy as war, and as such "All's
> fair", including lying, FUD, deception, misdirection, violationg
> laws, etc...
>
> You saw that coming, right? If not, shame on you.
>
Isn't it amazing to see the levels to which the astroturfers will fall
in order to discredit something as insigificant as just a few news
postings...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2
Dave Barry
> Isn't it amazing to see the levels to which the astroturfers will fall
> in order to discredit something as insigificant as just a few news
> postings...
*LMAO*
75 posts/day !?!
You're a sad, sad joke, Mark.
Go create some filter rules.
Mark Kent
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
Erik posts off-topic here. I'd like to see him go to the right group;
the charter for this group is clear, although I can see that Roy's
postings will be hurting Erik's paymasters.
Mark Kent
Dave Barry <da...@127.0.0.1> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Isn't it amazing to see the levels to which the astroturfers will fall
>> in order to discredit something as insigificant as just a few news
>> postings...
>
>
>
<snip>
>
> Go create some filter rules.
>
Why?
Dave Barry
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Dave Barry espoused:
>> Mark Kunt wrote:
>>> Isn't it amazing to see the levels to which the astroturfers will
>>> fall in order to discredit something as insigificant as just a few
>>> news postings...
>>
>>
> <snip>
>>
> <snip>
"astroturfers" *LOL*
You paranoid sycophant fuck.
Results 1 - 100 of about 13,800 from Mar 23, 2006 to Sep 23, 2006 for
author:Roy author:Schestowitz
75 posts/day !?!
In 36 years shysterwitz will have made *one million* posts.
Dave Barry
> Erik posts off-topic here. I'd like to see him go to the right group;
> the charter for this group is clear, although I can see that Roy's
> postings will be hurting Erik's paymasters.
*LMAO*
Mark forgot to take his Seroquel today.
Small or medium, Mark ?
chrisv
Keep your shit in cola, troll.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Erik posts off-topic here. I'd like to see him go to the right group;
> the charter for this group is clear, although I can see that Roy's
> postings will be hurting Erik's paymasters.
You post off-topic more than he does, so why don't you go to the right
group? (You'll have to create it first, though, as I can't find a group
for people to discuss how proud they are of their shiny killfiles).
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron Quark
If the topics here were shilling Roy's posts and wedging oneself between Roy's
arse cheeks then Mark'n'Roy Kent would be the most on topic poster
here. As it is, they're not and he isn't.
All he ever posts are killfile warnings and sickening "Yes Roy" posts to
bump Roy's perceived read count. I believe him to be Kier's mentor.
Not surprisingly he is also wrong, in true Roy style, about the charter
which is concise and clear:
,----
| comp.os.linux.advocacy is a unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for
| creation by 1337:167 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 13 Dec 1994.
|
| For your newsgroups file:
| comp.os.linux.advocacy Benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems.
|
| The charter, culled from the call for votes:
|
| For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems.
`----
Note the word "compared" : this means that the other OS's need to be
discussed too. Otherwise its just a "me too" group. Oh. I see. It
is. Doh.
--
Not valid with other offers or specials.
Mark Kent
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
Better still, don't open orifices in the first place, then it won't come
out.
Larry Qualig
Kier wrote:
(Lots of snippage....)
> Using the word 'retaliation' is hardly enough reason
> to assume he has some sort of problem.
I prefer to look at the sum of the parts instead of trying to
rationalize each individual item.
> First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
This is Usenet.... hardly anything can be "proved" but one can still
apply common sense and come to a reasonable conclusion.
> > Roy did
> > make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
> > degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
> > his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
> > believes.
> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
> common or garden bullshit, which is shovelled by the ton on both
> sindes in this group on a daily basis?
So which is it? In another post you made an hour or so before this one
you excuse Roy twisting the truth as: (I'll quote you directly)
<quote>
Roy is perhaps overly-enthusiastic in making his negative
interpretations
of much of the MS news, but is he lying? That would depend on whether
or
not he really believes what he writes, and I think he most probably
does.
</quote>
But now when his posts become really bizzare you excuse it because you
don't really think he believes it: (I'll quote you directly again)
<quote>
Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
common or garden bullshit...
</quote>
You can't have it both ways. He either believes the tripe he posts or
he doesn't.
> Is that in fact what he does? Have you checked everything he's posted?
> Merely because you disagree with his interpretation of the items of news
> he's posted doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
When he intentionally modified "quotes" or intentionally modifies the
headlines of what is supposedly "News" then it's not a matter of
disagreeing with his interpretation. It's a matter of taking a factual
quote/news-story and intentionally changing it to falsely mislead
people as to what the quote/article really says.
No disagreement or "interpretation" is required. The quote and title of
the news story say one thing. Roy modifies/edits it to say something
completely different. In my book that makes him a liar. What would you
call this type of behaviour?
> Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
> right.
Again. His opinions are his own and I'll respect anyones opinions if
they are willing to back them reasonably. But I'm not talking about his
"opinions." I'm talking about the several instances where he
intentionally modifies a "quote" from an article or the "title" of a
news-story to something that was never written or said. This isn't his
opinion. This is lying.
> Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
> to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
That's fine, I'll gladly drop this discussion. Our opinions on some of
the points are different but that's fine. I respect your opinion and
understand what you're trying to say even if I don't happen to agree
with all of your points.
Regarding discussing this "behind his back" - this is clearly out in
the open and not behind Roy's back at all. Don't kid yourself... anyone
who spends this much time and effort on this newsgroup reads each and
every post made here.
Have yourself a good weekend.
- Larry
Kier
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> In article <od1gu3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Erik posts off-topic here. I'd like to see him go to the right group;
>>> the charter for this group is clear, although I can see that Roy's
>>> postings will be hurting Erik's paymasters.
>>
>> You post off-topic more than he does, so why don't you go to the right
>> group? (You'll have to create it first, though, as I can't find a group
>> for people to discuss how proud they are of their shiny killfiles).
>
> If the topics here were shilling Roy's posts and wedging oneself between Roy's
> arse cheeks then Mark'n'Roy Kent would be the most on topic poster
> here. As it is, they're not and he isn't.
>
> All he ever posts are killfile warnings and sickening "Yes Roy" posts to
> bump Roy's perceived read count. I believe him to be Kier's mentor.
Your beliefs are wrong, insulting, and utterly stupid. I'll say it again:
*don't fucking drag me into your discussions when I have not become
involved*. That's the last time I will say it.
Now fuck off.
--
Kier
Hadron Quark
> Kier wrote:
>
> (Lots of snippage....)
>
>
>> Using the word 'retaliation' is hardly enough reason
>> to assume he has some sort of problem.
Oh god. Kier jumping to his masters defense again. Kier, did you not see
Roy suggest violence? Did you not see him throw his toys out of the cot
and accuse people of "ad hominem" attacks. And yet its ok for him to do
that very same thing? Come off it.
>
> I prefer to look at the sum of the parts instead of trying to
> rationalize each individual item.
>
>
>> First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
>
The usual COLA defence : "prove it" - we could say "1+1=2" and someone
would say "prove it".
> This is Usenet.... hardly anything can be "proved" but one can still
> apply common sense and come to a reasonable conclusion.
>
And that, in this case, is even easier than usual.
>
>> > Roy did
>> > make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
>> > degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
>> > his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
>> > believes.
Because he's an obsessed nutcase.
Just because someone thinks that, say, having sex with an underage child
is "OK", it doesn't excuse them anything - it means they are the most
dangerous offenders . They are unable to distinguish from right & wrong.
>
>> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
>> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
>> common or garden bullshit, which is shovelled by the ton on both
>> sindes in this group on a daily basis?
>
> So which is it? In another post you made an hour or so before this one
> you excuse Roy twisting the truth as: (I'll quote you directly)
>
> <quote>
> Roy is perhaps overly-enthusiastic in making his negative
> interpretations
> of much of the MS news, but is he lying? That would depend on whether
> or
> not he really believes what he writes, and I think he most probably
> does.
> </quote>
He also tells lots of lies. Unknown to himself. But they are still lies
: if Roy say "Red is green" and he *believes* that, he is *STILL* lying.
>
> But now when his posts become really bizzare you excuse it because you
> don't really think he believes it: (I'll quote you directly again)
>
> <quote>
> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
> common or garden bullshit...
> </quote>
>
> You can't have it both ways. He either believes the tripe he posts or
> he doesn't.
>
>
>> Is that in fact what he does? Have you checked everything he's
>> posted?
God forbid.
>> Merely because you disagree with his interpretation of the items of news
>> he's posted doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
Roy is as often wrong as right : it really isnt subjective to any but
the mopst airy fairy hippy. All "right & wrong" insociety is open to
some debate.
>
> When he intentionally modified "quotes" or intentionally modifies the
> headlines of what is supposedly "News" then it's not a matter of
> disagreeing with his interpretation. It's a matter of taking a factual
> quote/news-story and intentionally changing it to falsely mislead
> people as to what the quote/article really says.
Which is why so many people have killfiled his nonsense.
>
> No disagreement or "interpretation" is required. The quote and title of
> the news story say one thing. Roy modifies/edits it to say something
> completely different. In my book that makes him a liar. What would you
> call this type of behaviour?
Kier will go to extreme lengths to defend his master Roy.
>
>
>> Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
>> right.
>
> Again. His opinions are his own and I'll respect anyones opinions if
> they are willing to back them reasonably. But I'm not talking about his
> "opinions." I'm talking about the several instances where he
> intentionally modifies a "quote" from an article or the "title" of a
> news-story to something that was never written or said. This isn't his
> opinion. This is lying.
Yes. Absolutely.
>
>
>> Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
>> to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
eh? This is usenet. Roy frequently savages people who he (mistakenly)
labels "wintrolls".
>
> That's fine, I'll gladly drop this discussion. Our opinions on some of
> the points are different but that's fine. I respect your opinion and
> understand what you're trying to say even if I don't happen to agree
> with all of your points.
>
> Regarding discussing this "behind his back" - this is clearly out in
> the open and not behind Roy's back at all. Don't kid yourself... anyone
> who spends this much time and effort on this newsgroup reads each and
> every post made here.
>
> Have yourself a good weekend.
>
> - Larry
>
--
<rm_-rf_> The real value of KDE is that they inspired and push the
development of GNOME :-)
-- #Debian
Kier
> "Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>> (Lots of snippage....)
>>
>>
>>> Using the word 'retaliation' is hardly enough reason
>>> to assume he has some sort of problem.
>
> Oh god. Kier jumping to his masters defense again. Kier, did you not see
I'm doing nothing of the kind, you fucking liar. I'm sick and tired of
your lying crap about me.
> Roy suggest violence? Did you not see him throw his toys out of the cot
> and accuse people of "ad hominem" attacks. And yet its ok for him to do
> that very same thing? Come off it.
Did I say it was okay? No.
> >
>> I prefer to look at the sum of the parts instead of trying to
>> rationalize each individual item.
>>
>>
>>> First you need to prove he *is* overly obsessed.
>>
>
> The usual COLA defence : "prove it" - we could say "1+1=2" and someone
> would say "prove it".
You still haven't proved he is obsessed. Saying it is not proving it.
>
>> This is Usenet.... hardly anything can be "proved" but one can still
>> apply common sense and come to a reasonable conclusion.
>>
>
> And that, in this case, is even easier than usual.
>
>>
>>> > Roy did
>>> > make a statement which illustrated his belief that "Microsoft has
>>> > degraded to the point where it's akin to a 80-year-old pervert who uses
>>> > his wallet to sleep with teenagers. " This is what he thinks and
>>> > believes.
>
> Because he's an obsessed nutcase.
Again, prove that or shut it. A foolish or ill-expressed analogy
or statement is not proof of obsession.
>
> Just because someone thinks that, say, having sex with an underage child
> is "OK", it doesn't excuse them anything - it means they are the most
> dangerous offenders . They are unable to distinguish from right & wrong.
WTF? Where is this bullshit coming from?
>
>>
>>> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
>>> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
>>> common or garden bullshit, which is shovelled by the ton on both
>>> sindes in this group on a daily basis?
>>
>> So which is it? In another post you made an hour or so before this one
>> you excuse Roy twisting the truth as: (I'll quote you directly)
>>
>> <quote>
>> Roy is perhaps overly-enthusiastic in making his negative
>> interpretations
>> of much of the MS news, but is he lying? That would depend on whether
>> or
>> not he really believes what he writes, and I think he most probably
>> does.
>> </quote>
>
> He also tells lots of lies. Unknown to himself. But they are still lies
> : if Roy say "Red is green" and he *believes* that, he is *STILL* lying.
No, he is deluded or mistaken. Lying is telling a deliberate untruth,
knowing it to be an untruth.
>
>>
>> But now when his posts become really bizzare you excuse it because you
>> don't really think he believes it: (I'll quote you directly again)
>>
>> <quote>
>> Is it? Or is it simply meant to provoke? Can you state for certain he
>> means it literally? Or is it just a bit of overblown rhetoric? Or just
>> common or garden bullshit...
>> </quote>
>>
>> You can't have it both ways. He either believes the tripe he posts or
>> he doesn't.
>>
>>
>>> Is that in fact what he does? Have you checked everything he's
>>> posted?
>
> God forbid.
Then how can you say you know all about it?
>
>>> Merely because you disagree with his interpretation of the items of news
>>> he's posted doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
>
> Roy is as often wrong as right : it really isnt subjective to any but
> the mopst airy fairy hippy. All "right & wrong" insociety is open to
> some debate.
Fine. Challenge his lies as you see them, then. I have no objection
whatsoever to you doing so, if you see what you believe is a lie.
>
>>
>> When he intentionally modified "quotes" or intentionally modifies the
>> headlines of what is supposedly "News" then it's not a matter of
>> disagreeing with his interpretation. It's a matter of taking a factual
>> quote/news-story and intentionally changing it to falsely mislead
>> people as to what the quote/article really says.
>
> Which is why so many people have killfiled his nonsense.
Again, how do you know that?
>
>>
>> No disagreement or "interpretation" is required. The quote and title of
>> the news story say one thing. Roy modifies/edits it to say something
>> completely different. In my book that makes him a liar. What would you
>> call this type of behaviour?
>
> Kier will go to extreme lengths to defend his master Roy.
You are a fucking liar, *again*.
>
>>
>>
>>> Roy may indeed be biased. Or simply misinformed, lazy, or ignorant. Or
>>> right.
>>
>> Again. His opinions are his own and I'll respect anyones opinions if
>> they are willing to back them reasonably. But I'm not talking about his
>> "opinions." I'm talking about the several instances where he
>> intentionally modifies a "quote" from an article or the "title" of a
>> news-story to something that was never written or said. This isn't his
>> opinion. This is lying.
>
> Yes. Absolutely.
>
>>
>>
>>> Anyhow, I'd prefer we dropped this line of discussion, as I'd prefer not
>>> to discuss Roy 'behind his back', so to speak.
>
> eh? This is usenet. Roy frequently savages people who he (mistakenly)
> labels "wintrolls".
So what? I'm not Roy.
--
Kier
flatfish+++
> "Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>> (Lots of snippage....)
>>
>>
>>> Using the word 'retaliation' is hardly enough reason
>>> to assume he has some sort of problem.
>
> Oh god. Kier jumping to his masters defense again. Kier, did you not see
> Roy suggest violence? Did you not see him throw his toys out of the cot
> and accuse people of "ad hominem" attacks. And yet its ok for him to do
> that very same thing? Come off it.
Last time ol RoiBoi got in the middle of a squabble it was in a gay bar
and he got his head, (not sure which one) , handed to him.
Then he complained that the police didn't do enough to catch the perps.
Evidently Roy Schestowich has the type of personality that pisses people
off. The police figured it out.
And it didn't take them long!
Kier
More lying character assassination from you, flatty. Typicla of someone
who can't find anything decent to say.
--
Kier
chrisv
>Keep your shit in cola, troll.
Ignore the forger.