On 7/20/12 10:00 AM, in article S8gOr.66085$LY3....@fx22.am4, "Goblin"
He is right on this point.
>> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
>> lambasted you behind your back.
I disagree with him on this: I do not know of any place where you spoke
poorly about me behind my back (say on a later show or on your or his site
or in the IRC channels). You did say some derogatory things in COLA about
me but did not comment on the basic facts in terms of Roy's mistakes and -
as it turned out - dishonesty.
> So, where's the call out of Foster? I didn't "lambast" you at all did I?
You did blame me to some extent for Roy's refusal to answer for his own
actions... but I think the term "lambast" is strong.
> It would be nice (as you've often asked of other people) to correct
> Foster on that small point directly.
See above... I have noted where I disagree.
> As for my opinion of you and a "herd" - I'd say to put you in the same group
> as Foster would be highly offensive and whilst your labouring of a point may
> come over as completely OTT to me, I would not seek to suggest that you have
> anything in common with something like Gary Stewart/Foster/Flatfish. - The
> point does stand though that if you wish to imply "herd" over people with a
> Linux/OSS choice, then its only fair when issues like the above happen that
> the same "herd" remark is labeled towards you.
It is not in any way reasonable to label me as being in any form of herd.
You point to one item (the lack of calling out of others) as a key component
of what makes the false COLA "advocates" a herd. Ok, I know this is going
to be long and one of the things you chastise me for, but I want to be clear
as to why I think it is rather silly to say that I am acting in a herd-like
way by not always calling out Foster on things I disagree with (though
sometimes I do).
But calling people out on such things is only one tiny part of it - and I
have noted many times that this, alone, is not enough to deem any group as
"herd-like". Also note where I am clear, above, as to where I disagree
with Foster. But of the herd, as I have noted:
* They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll"
is (essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd. If
an outsider comes in and sucks up to the herd they might be
able to escape being called this for a short time... but it
is rare. More often than not that are attacked or accused of
being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy
the irrational worldview of the herd.
I do not attack outsiders of any group... or insiders of any group, really.
Even when COLA "advocates" speak in a reasoned way I respond to them in
kind. When they act in a way that shows herd-like thinking or behavior I do
note that... but that is merely noting their behavior, it is not an attack.
And when I do so I do so in response to a specific example, at least the
vast majority of the time (I am not denying their might be exceptions).
* They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often
the herd speaks of who they are kill filtering and encourage
each other to also kill filter those outside of their group.
They even post lists of "members" who have broken this rule
and spoken to outsiders... and track the outsiders (as they
pretend to ignore them)
I seek out outside information and do not kill filter people for holding
different ideas. I have set my Usenet reader to mark most of my stalker's
posts as read, but that is a special case and is only one person. I do have
other posts auto-marked as read but I have never publicly discussed my
system or encouraged others to "KF" the same posts I do. Heck, I do not
discourage you or others from speaking with my stalker.
* They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one
simple (and mostly incorrect) explanation - the boogieman
(generally MS though sometimes others are included in this
made up conspiracy).
I do not blame the problems on desktop Linux on any one thing: I speak in
terms of historic trends, problems with the ecosystem, weaknesses of the
systems, and in terms of applications (and am certainly open to other
ideas). Even with my "favored" OK, I speak in terms of its weaknesses and
am open to hearing of ones I did not know of, with a recent example of Peter
K�hlmann speaking about some wifi areas on OS X supporting only WEP, which
is a weakness. I also recently talked about how it is a weakness for OS X
to handle NTFS drives differently in its GUI and command line (I sort of get
why there is a difference [though as I think about it maybe not], but there
should be a warning). TomB is the one who pointed this out to me and I
tested and accepted this. So this shows I do not treat my "favored" OS in
the same way as the "advocates" nor do I shun information from "unfriendly"
* They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each
other - no matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call
each other out. For example, not a single herd member has
called TomB out on his outrageous behavior of contacting my
Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman and noted
how repulsive his comments are. Same thing with K�hlmann's
seeding of Google with my personal information tied to his
I do not seen Google with lies of any sort, and certainly do not use names
of people when they have made it clear they do not want their names used,
even if they are known. The only exceptions to this I can think of are a
couple which were done in reaction to people doing this to me, and even that
* They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their
irrational denial of Stallman's comments, even though they
come directly from his own site, the aforementioned obsession
with the boogieman, the attacks against those who are not of
the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack
those who do not chose as they do... all irrational. All
I do not hold anyone on that type of pedestal. A recent example of this is
where I spoke of my *disagreement* with Jobs on the level of copying Android
has done from iOS. To be fair, I did at first take his word more seriously
than I perhaps should have, but even then I made it clear I wanted to see
more evidence. I have also talked about how Job's behavior towards Woz and
others is something I found to be unacceptable... from what I know of him he
was a brilliant visionary in many ways but also could be quite a selfish and
even delusional jerk. So there is no equivalent cult-like leader who I
follow or defend. I *certainly* would not defend Jobs if he had made the
types of comments about public school students and sexuality that Stallman
These are just some examples of what makes the false COLA "advocates"
herd-like... and why I am not in any way like them.
Side note prediction: my stalker will pull quotes out of context from the
time period between 2004-2006 and claim that if I do not respond to them
that this is somehow representative of how I do act in ways I do not... and
will claim that if I do not *again* prove him wrong it is a sign I think
there is an expiration date on whatever wrongs he is accusing me of.