Linus Torvalds doesn't share the ideals of some cola nuts
dfs
problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-10/112088328142440.xml
Kier
"Developed initially by a ragtag collection of loosely organized software
developers, Linux is now backed by major corporations such as IBM and
Intel. Roughly one in 10 high-end computer servers -- used to network
computers -- comes loaded with Linux, and sales of Linux servers are
growing three times faster than those of Windows in the $50 billion market.
To some, open source represents an almost spiritual cause, bringing free
software to the masses and sticking a finger in the eye of multinational
corporations. While Torvalds thinks Linux will eventually replace
proprietary systems such as Windows, he sees the battle in practical, not
ideological, terms.
"A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
problems, and I don't," he said, laughing."
And your point is? Slagging Linus, no doubt. Except you can't produce
anything to do it with. Dickhead.
--
Kier
dfs
The point is in the thread title, dimwit, and is supported by a quote from
Torvalds. You're quite a dullard these days, Kier.
John Bailo
He's already contributed more to humanity than anyone ever associated with
Microsoft.
He couldn't do more in helping everyone, if he were to just continue doing
his job, as he is doing.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
7
> "A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
> problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
It appears dfs writes poison pen letters on behalf of microshaft
against OSS leaders. This clue is evidence of morons at
microshat are sinking to new depths and could result
in fatal lawsuits for microshat and its staff.
dfs
LOL! 7, you're living in a fantasy world.
If any lawsuits should arise, they will be filed by MS (and several other
firms) against Rex Ballard for his constant lies. That is, if MS or these
other firms, like Sun Microsystems and Novell and FedEx, cared about his
fantasy-land claims. Apparently they don't, or they haven't seen them.
If MS really wanted to discredit OSS or its "leaders," they could engage
private investigators to uncover and publicize embarrassing personal or
professional histories. Like yours.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <ZsKdnZz5oN4...@speakeasy.net>):
> dfs wrote:
>
>> "A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
>> problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
>>
>>
>
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-
10/112088328142440.xml
>
> He's already contributed more to humanity than anyone ever associated with
> Microsoft.
Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
than an operating system.
BTW, stop putting that stupid Mail-Copies-To: header in your
posts. Trying to collect spam addresses?
Lefty Bigfoot
the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
John Bailo wrote
(in article <ZsKdnZz5oN4...@speakeasy.net>):
> dfs wrote:
>
>> "A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
>> problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
>>
>>
>
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-
10/112088328142440.xml
>
> He's already contributed more to humanity than anyone ever associated with
> Microsoft.
Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
Sinister Midget
On 2005-07-10, quoth Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info>:
> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
> than an operating system.
I'm impressed. Now if he'd start donating more to charity than he
spends trying to keep the world enslved to his monopoly I'd quit lying
about being impressed and be *really* impressed. Mildly.
Like his donations to India for AIDS, when he gave around a quarter of
the amount to AIDS that he turned right around at the same time and
spent on deceit^H^H^H^H^H^Hadvertising.
--
"Until we had this concept of Web services, software on the
Internet couldn't talk to other software on the Internet."
-- Bill Gates. Chairman, Microsoft. 10/29/2003
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <slrndd3e97....@laptop.harry.net>):
> begin KillFileMe.vbs
>
> On 2005-07-10, quoth Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info>:
>
>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>> than an operating system.
>
> I'm impressed. Now if he'd start donating more to charity than he
> spends trying to keep the world enslved to his monopoly I'd quit lying
> about being impressed and be *really* impressed. Mildly.
You really need to learn to distinguish between the concepts of
"his money" and "other people's money". Think publicly held
corporation finances versus personal bank accounts.
Do try and look past the "everything is evil if it is associated
with Microsoft" mantra for a few minutes. On his own, 'off the
clock', Gates is far more useful to third world countries then
all the efforts of the UN (misguided as they are) combined.
Sinister Midget
You almost have a point. If not for the fact that the Gatu$ Foundation
is nothing more than a PR branch/free advertising arm of MICROS~1
Monopoly, Inc, that is.
Really generous people work to avoid having their names attached to
their good works. Phonies and those with ulterior motives work to
ensure their names are attached to all they touch. Criminals ensure
their names are not only attached, but they make it their business to
put an indisputable connection between their benevolence and that which
they expect as a return on the investment.
--
Ever noticed how fast Windows runs? Me neither.
Longfellow
new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and end of
story.
Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in order to
ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various countries. He
does so in order to entice them into being locked in to whatever *deal*
he offers, the end result of which is marketing M$.
If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
you'd never hear about it. Most people understand this; that you don't,
or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and credulity.
It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of your
damned business!
Longfellow
dfs
> On 2005-07-11, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
>> the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
>>
>> John Bailo wrote
>> (in article <ZsKdnZz5oN4...@speakeasy.net>):
>>
>>> dfs wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
>>>> problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-
>> 10/112088328142440.xml
>>>
>>> He's already contributed more to humanity than anyone ever associated
>>> with Microsoft.
>>
>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>> than an operating system.
>>
> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and the
> new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and end of
> story.
You're a fool. Period and end of story.
> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in order to
> ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various countries. He
> does so in order to entice them into being locked in to whatever *deal*
> he offers, the end result of which is marketing M$.
>
> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
> you'd never hear about it.
How stupid are you?
> Most people understand this; that you don't,
> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and credulity.
As if you know anything about the charities Bill Gates personally supports
(neither do I)
> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of your
> damned business!
I think the quote was an unfortunate choice of words on Torvalds' part. I'm
sure he has concerns for humanitarian issues, but not as they relate to how
Linux the OS can help or solve them.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <11d3hk0...@corp.supernews.com>):
> On 2005-07-11, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
>> the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
>>
>> John Bailo wrote
>> (in article <ZsKdnZz5oN4...@speakeasy.net>):
>>
>>> dfs wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
>>>> problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-
>> 10/112088328142440.xml
>>>
>>> He's already contributed more to humanity than anyone ever associated with
>>> Microsoft.
>>
>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>> than an operating system.
>>
> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and the
> new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and end of
> story.
Wrong. The motives don't matter, as they say, 'follow the
money'. Whether he does it for glory, cheap advertising, or it
makes his pecker hard, doesn't matter. The *fact* is, he gives
millions to charity, he puts his money where his mouth is. I
despise his business practices, but am willing to admit right
when I see it.
> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in order to
> ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various countries.
You suspect that, and you may be right. Nevertheless, he does
it. He could just stuff cash into the pockets of the
politicians in those countries (which may be happening) and
leave it at that.
> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
> you'd never hear about it. Most people understand this; that you don't,
> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and credulity.
The fact that you can't look past motives to realize the actual
benefit resulting from it does not speak well of your ability to
separate opinion from fact.
> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of your
> damned business!
It doesn't matter whether he does, doesn't, or not. He couldn't
possibly give as much as Gates does, even if he wanted to.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <cQjAe.18553$x82....@fe03.lga>):
>> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
>> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
>> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of your
>> damned business!
>
> I think the quote was an unfortunate choice of words on Torvalds' part. I'm
> sure he has concerns for humanitarian issues, but not as they relate to how
> Linux the OS can help or solve them.
Why? Why does every person on the planet need to have angst
over some humanitarian cause? Why is it impossible to believe
that some people have enough things to worry about and don't
need to go around wearing colored ribbons on their clothing to
impress others?
lqu...@uku.co.uk
Then look at independent reports at what he does. Virtually every
magazine and newspaper reports that Gates and his wife are the number
one philanthropists in the world. Go to web sites that monitor
charities and donations and the results are the same. Giving is giving
and despite how he got his money, he does give generously.
As a matter of record. In the past year Gates has given away more money
than the entire Walton family (WalMart) has ever given away. Warren
Buffet - incredibly cheap. He gives away nothing.
If you don't like his business practices that's one thing. But if Linus
or anyone else other than Gates gave away this sort of money you'd be
praising him in every post.
DFS
> dfs wrote
> (in article <cQjAe.18553$x82....@fe03.lga>):
>
>
>>> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
>>> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
>>> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of
>>> your damned business!
>>
>> I think the quote was an unfortunate choice of words on Torvalds'
>> part. I'm sure he has concerns for humanitarian issues, but not as
>> they relate to how Linux the OS can help or solve them.
>
> Why? Why does every person on the planet need to have angst
> over some humanitarian cause?
Because that's just how it is. At least I think so. It's the exceedingly
rare person (in Western societies) that doesn't ever contribute in some way
to a cause or charity.
DFS
> Longfellow wrote:
>> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
>> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
>> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of
>> your damned business!
>>
>
> Then look at independent reports at what he does. Virtually every
> magazine and newspaper reports that Gates and his wife are the number
> one philanthropists in the world. Go to web sites that monitor
> charities and donations and the results are the same. Giving is giving
> and despite how he got his money, he does give generously.
>
> As a matter of record. In the past year Gates has given away more
> money than the entire Walton family (WalMart) has ever given away.
> Warren Buffet - incredibly cheap. He gives away nothing.
>
> If you don't like his business practices that's one thing. But if
> Linus or anyone else other than Gates gave away this sort of money
> you'd be praising him in every post.
You have to be careful when pointing out cola hypocrisy. They'll turn on
you, and call you an MS employee and an "astroturfer" (I still don't know
what that one is).
DFS
> You almost have a point. If not for the fact that the Gatu$ Foundation
> is nothing more than a PR branch/free advertising arm of MICROS~1
> Monopoly, Inc, that is.
>
> Really generous people work to avoid having their names attached to
> their good works. Phonies and those with ulterior motives work to
> ensure their names are attached to all they touch. Criminals ensure
> their names are not only attached, but they make it their business to
> put an indisputable connection between their benevolence and that
> which they expect as a return on the investment.
You're a real lowlife, Gidget.
Tim Smith
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Wrong. The motives don't matter, as they say, 'follow the
> money'. Whether he does it for glory, cheap advertising, or it
> makes his pecker hard, doesn't matter. The *fact* is, he gives
> millions to charity, he puts his money where his mouth is. I
> despise his business practices, but am willing to admit right
> when I see it.
Billions, actually.
--
--Tim Smith
Jesse F. Hughes
> BTW, stop putting that stupid Mail-Copies-To: header in your
> posts. Trying to collect spam addresses?
What a stupid way to collect spam addresses. He could get the same
addresses (and many, many more) just by slurping the newsgroup[1].
Mail-Copies-To is not an insidious header. It's simply a useful alert
that someone has replied in-group to your posting.
Of course, no one is obliged to honor it, but I see no reason to order
someone to stop using an RFC-compliant and non-malicious header.
Footnotes:
[1] I have never heard of a news client that uses different "From"
headers in the compliant copy to sender and newsgroup posting. So, if
Lefty honored the Mail-Copies-To request, Bailo would receive an email
from nu...@busyness.info. But that address is already publicly
accessible on the group.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Eventually, I guess, I'll overcome my reticence and fear of failure and
check my own work. But not today."
--James S. Harris, in a moment of honesty
Linønut
This is news? Anyway, this juxtaposition was pretty funny:
While Torvalds thinks Linux will eventually replace proprietary
systems such as Windows, he sees the battle in practical, not
ideological, terms.
"A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these
humanitarian problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
So getting rid of Windows is a humanitarian project. <grin>
--
Tux rox!
geletine
richard stallman who iniated fsf does not just support free software he
support other left causes whatever they are at the time, he website is
not dedicated to just free software but to other political subjects,
because after all fsf was started for political reasons, rms lives a
moderate life from what i have read, so he does not preach one thing
and do another.
Linus does not preach either, there is not much about his life online.
So i won't and cannot comment. He has worked in the past for a company
providing propriety software drivers. (i read that on wikipedia) I
don't think he lives a moderate life, he wants to improve software
basically and through freely available source he has done that, after
all IBM use "open source " which is a buisness friendly term for free
software and sligtly diffrent licence from free software.
linux and richard are politicaly diffrent people ,as programmers they
are almost identical.
Rick
There is no hypocrisy, dork. Yes, Gates does give to charity, and large
amounts when measure in dollars, but not when measured in % of wealth.
> They'll turn on you,
They can't 'turn on you' if they weren't 'with you' in the first place.
> and call you an MS employee and an "astroturfer" (I still don't know
> what that one is).
... and you're too stupid and/or lazy to look it up.
Rick
Kier
Nope. You reprodiced a quote in the hope of showing some imagined fault in
Linus. Quite pathetic.
--
Kier
DFS
That wasn't my intention, nanny. That's your paranoia and prejudice
bursting out.
Kier
>
> You have to be careful when pointing out cola hypocrisy. They'll turn on
> you, and call you an MS employee and an "astroturfer" (I still don't know
> what that one is).
Come on, you surely must know what that is. Think 'fake grass roots'.
--
Kier
Ralph
> "A lot of people kind of expect me to care about all these humanitarian
> problems, and I don't," he said, laughing.
>
>
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-10/112088328142440.xml
No two people share all the same ideas, so what?
--
Sinister Midget & Roy Culley == Trolls for trying to silence with insults
rather than prove a point or admit to a lie.
DFS==Closet homo, why else does he give so many makeup tips to gay guys.
Kier
Sorry, what was that? You calling *me* prejudiced, you little racist twat?
--
Kier
DFS
Ah. Got it.
Thanks.
DFS
Yes, you discriminatory dullard.
Unless I'm very specific, you often try to twist what I say into something
that fits your prejudiced expectations of what my post will say.
Kier
Given your pewvious trolling behaviour in almost all instances, what other
interpretation can there be? You're not interested in debating, you just
want to sneer.
--
Kier
Kier
You're welcome.
--
Kier
Longfellow
> Longfellow wrote:
>
>> On 2005-07-11, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
<snip>
>>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>>> than an operating system.
>>>
>> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and the
>> new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and end of
>> story.
>
> You're a fool. Period and end of story.
>
LOL!!! In the absence of a valid response, an ad hominem attack. Can't
refute the truth, so he strikes out at the messenger. Fools do that.
>
>> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in order to
>> ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various countries. He
>> does so in order to entice them into being locked in to whatever *deal*
>> he offers, the end result of which is marketing M$.
>>
>> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
>> you'd never hear about it.
>
> How stupid are you?
>
And here he goes again. I'd be embarrassed if this was the only
response I could make, but then again, his values are different.
>
>> Most people understand this; that you don't,
>> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and credulity.
>
> As if you know anything about the charities Bill Gates personally supports
> (neither do I)
>
Non sequitor. Let's see, I was commenting on your gullibility, and you
comment on Gates' charities. No apparent connection here.
>
>> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
>> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
>> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of your
>> damned business!
>
> I think the quote was an unfortunate choice of words on Torvalds' part. I'm
> sure he has concerns for humanitarian issues, but not as they relate to how
> Linux the OS can help or solve them.
>
Perhaps. Torvalds, however, does not appear to me to be one who is
unable to express himself succinctly.
One reasonable response out of four attempts. Hmmm...
Longfellow
Longfellow
> Longfellow wrote
> (in article <11d3hk0...@corp.supernews.com>):
<snip>
>> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and the
>> new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and end of
>> story.
>
> Wrong. The motives don't matter, as they say, 'follow the
> money'. Whether he does it for glory, cheap advertising, or it
> makes his pecker hard, doesn't matter. The *fact* is, he gives
> millions to charity, he puts his money where his mouth is. I
> despise his business practices, but am willing to admit right
> when I see it.
What does matter is where the money goes, and what happens as a result.
In most cases, it is the intent that dictates this.
>> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in order to
>> ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various countries.
>
> You suspect that, and you may be right. Nevertheless, he does
> it. He could just stuff cash into the pockets of the
> politicians in those countries (which may be happening) and
> leave it at that.
I was speaking of his global "charities". And the stuffing is probably
part of what happens. The whole buys Microsoft a market.
>> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
>> you'd never hear about it. Most people understand this; that you don't,
>> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and credulity.
>
> The fact that you can't look past motives to realize the actual
> benefit resulting from it does not speak well of your ability to
> separate opinion from fact.
You assume that I can't look past motives to observe results. The
results are the reality check, and in this case, confirm the motives.
That is how I vet opinions, so your "fact" is false.
>> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
>> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
>> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of your
>> damned business!
>
> It doesn't matter whether he does, doesn't, or not. He couldn't
> possibly give as much as Gates does, even if he wanted to.
>
Gates does not "give" anything away; he purchases respectability in the
eyes of those who, for whatever reason, choose to be impressed by his
expenditures. Torvalds does not engage in that sort of thing. He
doesn't need to; Gates does, or so he appears to believe.
Apparently, you are one of those who have chosen to be impressed by
Gates' "largess". Thus do you define yourself.
Longfellow
DFS
> On 2005-07-11, dfs <d...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Longfellow wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-07-11, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>>>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>>>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>>>> than an operating system.
>>>>
>>> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and
>>> the new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and
>>> end of story.
>>
>> You're a fool. Period and end of story.
>>
> LOL!!! In the absence of a valid response, an ad hominem attack.
> Can't refute the truth, so he strikes out at the messenger. Fools do
> that.
Which is why you're a fool that makes ad hominem attacks on Bill Gates when
you have no evidence.
>>> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in
>>> order to ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various
>>> countries. He does so in order to entice them into being locked in
>>> to whatever *deal* he offers, the end result of which is marketing
>>> M$.
>>>
>>> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
>>> you'd never hear about it.
>>
>> How stupid are you?
>>
> And here he goes again. I'd be embarrassed if this was the only
> response I could make, but then again, his values are different.
I'd be embarrassed for myself if I was stupid enough to actually believe
only anonymous contributors are "real" supporters of charities..
>>> Most people understand this; that you don't,
>>> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and
>>> credulity.
>>
>> As if you know anything about the charities Bill Gates personally
>> supports (neither do I)
>>
> Non sequitor. Let's see, I was commenting on your gullibility, and
> you comment on Gates' charities. No apparent connection here.
1. You weren't commenting on my gullibility - you were replying to Lefty
Bigfoot.
2. I was commenting on your lack of knowledge about what you were
commenting about.
>>> It may just be that Linus really does support charities of his own
>>> choosing, really does care a great deal about the larger issues now
>>> attached to Linux. His denial tells you one thing: It's none of
>>> your damned business!
>>
>> I think the quote was an unfortunate choice of words on Torvalds'
>> part. I'm sure he has concerns for humanitarian issues, but not as
>> they relate to how Linux the OS can help or solve them.
>>
>
> Perhaps. Torvalds, however, does not appear to me to be one who is
> unable to express himself succinctly.
>
> One reasonable response out of four attempts. Hmmm...
Which is much better than your record of 6 unreasonable statements out of 6.
They are:
1. Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and the
new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing.
2. Period and end of story.
3. Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in order to
ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various countries.
4. He does so in order to entice them into being locked in to whatever deal
he offers, the end result of which is marketing M$.
5. If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
you'd never hear about it.
6. Most people understand this; that you don't, or think others don't, says
much about your gullibility and credulity.
You have no proof or evidence or support of any kind to make any of these 6
statements. They're just your stupid opinions, and they're based solely on
your hatred of MS and Bill Gates.
> Longfellow
DFS
Longfellow
> Then look at independent reports at what he does. Virtually every
> magazine and newspaper reports that Gates and his wife are the number
> one philanthropists in the world. Go to web sites that monitor
> charities and donations and the results are the same. Giving is giving
> and despite how he got his money, he does give generously.
>
> As a matter of record. In the past year Gates has given away more money
> than the entire Walton family (WalMart) has ever given away. Warren
> Buffet - incredibly cheap. He gives away nothing.
>
> If you don't like his business practices that's one thing. But if Linus
> or anyone else other than Gates gave away this sort of money you'd be
> praising him in every post.
It is exactly this sort of publicity that Gates buys with his "donated"
money. Everywhere you look, you're not far from seeing that publicity.
Buffet doesn't need to buy what Gates seeks.
I am not impressed by any display of charity, and if I know about such
things without seeking to learn, they are intended as advertizement. I
don't care, and it's none of my business, what others do or don't do
with their money, unless what they do is intentionally harmful. Gates
plays at the game of global domination, with the information
infrastructure as the target. That is who Gates is, a gamesman, and he
will do anything he conceives will not ultimately thwart him in order to
win. His play is harmful to others, and he doesn't care.
Longfellow
William Poaster
Bigfoot wrote:
Funny how the racist wintroll dfs/doS suddenly mentions humanitarian
concerns.....
--
Jumping into Windows is like giving yourself
a self-inflicted gunshot wound."
-- Dustin Sauter, enterprise
systems engineer at Wells Fargo.
Linønut
> Buffet doesn't need to buy what Gates seeks.
>
> I am not impressed by any display of charity, and if I know about such
> things without seeking to learn, they are intended as advertizement. I
> don't care, and it's none of my business, what others do or don't do
> with their money, unless what they do is intentionally harmful. Gates
> plays at the game of global domination, with the information
> infrastructure as the target. That is who Gates is, a gamesman, and he
> will do anything he conceives will not ultimately thwart him in order to
> win. His play is harmful to others, and he doesn't care.
Exactly.
--
Tux rox!
Segovia
> Gates does not "give" anything away; he purchases respectability in the
> eyes of those who, for whatever reason, choose to be impressed by his
> expenditures. Torvalds does not engage in that sort of thing. He
> doesn't need to; Gates does, or so he appears to believe.
What are you? A fucking mind reader? How do you know Bill Gates' motives,
OR Linus Torvalds'.
--
Segovia - 11/07/2005 6:58:57 PM
Sinister Midget
> Funny how the racist wintroll dfs/doS suddenly mentions humanitarian
> concerns.....
He's always had a humanitarian streak. He just doesn't believe anybody
is human except white rednecks. But it's OK if some rich criminal
spreads a few pennies around to non-humans to keep them alive for
awhile. Somebody's gotta make the clothing and keep the cost of new
cars down through cheap wages.
--
Mytob: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Longfellow
> Longfellow wrote:
>> On 2005-07-11, dfs <d...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Longfellow wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2005-07-11, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>>>>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>>>>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>>>>> than an operating system.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and
>>>> the new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and
>>>> end of story.
>>>
>>> You're a fool. Period and end of story.
>>>
>> LOL!!! In the absence of a valid response, an ad hominem attack.
>> Can't refute the truth, so he strikes out at the messenger. Fools do
>> that.
>
> Which is why you're a fool that makes ad hominem attacks on Bill Gates when
> you have no evidence.
>
job of insulating yourself from these issues. It's my hunch that you do
know of the evidence. Your reactions to it are your problem.
As my sole purpose here is to provide myself with some entertainment, I
won't put forth the effort to provide citations.
>
>>>> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in
>>>> order to ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various
>>>> countries. He does so in order to entice them into being locked in
>>>> to whatever *deal* he offers, the end result of which is marketing
>>>> M$.
>>>>
>>>> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
>>>> you'd never hear about it.
>>>
>>> How stupid are you?
>>>
>> And here he goes again. I'd be embarrassed if this was the only
>> response I could make, but then again, his values are different.
>
> I'd be embarrassed for myself if I was stupid enough to actually believe
> only anonymous contributors are "real" supporters of charities..
>
There are those who donate in memoriam, of course. There are those who
donate as a charitable foundation. And of course there are other
protocols. But in general, those who make certain their donations are
publicized, do so for the publicity. Gates may indeed give privately
such that we never hear about it, but there's far too much that he gives
that he does so in public.
The charitable are so as a matter of course. Gates, whatever else he
may be, is not inherently charitable.
But of course you know all this: far too much is known of the man and
from the most reliable of sources for the illusion of his financial
decency to be credible.
>
>>>> Most people understand this; that you don't,
>>>> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and
>>>> credulity.
>>>
>>> As if you know anything about the charities Bill Gates personally
>>> supports (neither do I)
>>>
>> Non sequitor. Let's see, I was commenting on your gullibility, and
>> you comment on Gates' charities. No apparent connection here.
>
> 1. You weren't commenting on my gullibility - you were replying to Lefty
> Bigfoot.
> 2. I was commenting on your lack of knowledge about what you were
> commenting about.
Okay, I won't argue 1), but the above thread demonstrates 2).
I don't hate the man. I consider him a clear and present danger to
society, however. One might say that I rather dislike his character,
but that is a consequence of my consideration of him (see previous
sentence).
As far as proof is concerned, there is none that you would accept, I
think. So I won't even try to provide any for you. Other readers of
this who are knowledgeable of these issues will draw their own
conclusions.
No, I think you are not poorly informed, nor are you stupid. You have
an agenda of your own that includes a lot of bottom feeding in one of
Africa's major rivers. That's your business. But be aware that you
fool few here, as many other posts have demonstrated.
This subthread ceases to be entertaining.
Longfellow
>
>> Longfellow
>
> DFS
>
>
>
Longfellow
Gates' motives are transparent and well documented. I do not, and have
not, invented them. His actions define him. I am very far from the
only person to think thus, and those who are ahead of me have more cause
to think as they do than do I.
Gates' actions define him, and the same goes for Torvalds. The rest of
us merely observe what they provide for us.
Your response has little merit, and is also boring.
Longfellow
Longfellow
Indeed!
(I responded to the others, and it would be churlish of me to ignore
this one ;))
Longfellow
Tim Smith
Longfellow <n...@this.address> wrote:
> >> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable do,
> >> you'd never hear about it. Most people understand this; that you don't,
> >> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and credulity.
> >
> > The fact that you can't look past motives to realize the actual
> > benefit resulting from it does not speak well of your ability to
> > separate opinion from fact.
>
> You assume that I can't look past motives to observe results. The
> results are the reality check, and in this case, confirm the motives.
> That is how I vet opinions, so your "fact" is false.
So what were the motives for these?
<http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Grants/default.htm?showYear=
2005>
--
--Tim Smith
Larry Qualig
"Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:11d5r0a...@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2005-07-11, lqu...@uku.co.uk <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you don't like his business practices that's one thing. But if Linus
>> or anyone else other than Gates gave away this sort of money you'd be
>> praising him in every post.
>
> It is exactly this sort of publicity that Gates buys with his "donated"
> money. Everywhere you look, you're not far from seeing that publicity.
>
He doesn't need publicity. If anything he (Gates) needs more privacy.
If he's trying to "buy" publicity for Microsoft as you are ridiculously
implying then:
#1) He wouldn't do it with his personal money
#2) A cheap $2 million SuperBowl commercial would reach his target
audience
more effectively than donating $5 Billion to African natives with
aids.
> Buffet doesn't need to buy what Gates seeks.
Again... if anything Gates desires less publicity and more privacy. He's not
trying to "buy" anything. Buffet is simply a cheap bastard who has never
given away a dime despite being the 2nd richest man. Somehow your envy of
Buffet tells me that you are also cheap. Have you ever made a charitable
donation? Probably not and that's why you hate those who do give.
> I am not impressed by any display of charity, and if I know about such
> things without seeking to learn, they are intended as advertizement.
In your opinion which means nothing and is easily proven to be wrong. Show
me one reputable publication or web-site (aka NOT cola) that shares your
opinion. Oh, that's right. You can't. I guess Gates bought them off too. But
when I look at these real publications and charitable foundations I see his
name at the top of every list. Where's your name?
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/philanthropy/2002/11/21/cx_aw_1121give.html
http://www.kirschfoundation.org/why/major.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-11-21-big-gates-charity-total_x.htm
> His play is harmful to others, and he doesn't care.
Yawn. It's really sad how your hatred has distorted your perception of
reality.
Linønut
Gate's motives are well documented, including in many of his own
e-mails.
--
Tux rox!
Larry Qualig
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:Xpidne0HJ7w...@comcast.com...
If you have any of the emails or documentation that spell out the motives
behind his charitable donations then please do share them with us.
DFS
> On 2005-07-11, William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> posted
> something concerning:
>
>> Funny how the racist wintroll dfs/doS suddenly mentions humanitarian
>> concerns.....
What's funny about it?
When I was young and dumb I used to give money to one of those Sally
Struther-type African child-relief organizations. Can you say the same?
20 years later they're still begging, and I'm not giving. 20 years from now
they'll be begging, and I won't be giving.
> He's always had a humanitarian streak. He just doesn't believe anybody
> is human except white rednecks.
Oh, we're all human. We're all part of the glorious diversity that is the
human race. Our diversity is our strength. Every culture is as valuable as
every other. Integration should be the goal: of every society, of every
business, of every neighborhood, of every family. Bulworth is a great
movie. Everyone has an equivalent IQ.
Since it's clear you're a racist hypocrite, I expect you're getting as sick
as I am right now.
> But it's OK if some rich criminal
> spreads a few pennies around to non-humans to keep them alive for
> awhile.
A "few pennies"? It figures you'd reveal yourself to be as ignorant about
the real world as you are about Linux.
> Somebody's gotta make the clothing and keep the cost of new
> cars down through cheap wages.
Sounds like the Linux "development model."
DFS
> On 2005-07-11, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Longfellow wrote:
>>> On 2005-07-11, dfs <d...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> Longfellow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2005-07-11, Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Much as I know you don't want to hear this, Bill Gates has given
>>>>>> more to charity than all the COLA subscribers, PLUS Linus
>>>>>> combined, which is demonstrably of greater value to humanity
>>>>>> than an operating system.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, Gates uses charities the same way the old robber barons and
>>>>> the new corporate barons do: It's cheap advertizing. Period and
>>>>> end of story.
>>>>
>>>> You're a fool. Period and end of story.
>>>>
>>> LOL!!! In the absence of a valid response, an ad hominem attack.
>>> Can't refute the truth, so he strikes out at the messenger. Fools
>>> do that.
>>
>> Which is why you're a fool that makes ad hominem attacks on Bill
>> Gates when you have no evidence.
>>
> Evidence abounds.
Then it should be no problem whatsoever for you to find evidence that "Gates
uses charities .....[as] cheap advertizing."
Don't make me wait too long, or I might think you're an uninformed,
knee-jerk Gates hater with no knee to stand on.
> And if you don't know that, you've done a
> remarkable job of insulating yourself from these issues. It's my
> hunch that you do know of the evidence. Your reactions to it are
> your problem.
If I had seen any such evidence I would never have responded to your "post."
> As my sole purpose here is to provide myself with some entertainment,
> I won't put forth the effort to provide citations.
Well I'll be! Another envious Linux wacko besmirching everything Bill Gates
does. I had heard about you guys, but I didn't realize you had your own
newsgroup.
And it's not that you won't put forth the effort, it's that the effort will
be fruitless - like your post.
>>>>> Gates spends some amount of money in a high profile fashion in
>>>>> order to ingratiate himself with the powers that be in various
>>>>> countries. He does so in order to entice them into being locked
>>>>> in to whatever *deal* he offers, the end result of which is
>>>>> marketing M$.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he was actually really supporting a charity as the charitable
>>>>> do, you'd never hear about it.
>>>>
>>>> How stupid are you?
>>>>
>>> And here he goes again. I'd be embarrassed if this was the only
>>> response I could make, but then again, his values are different.
>>
>> I'd be embarrassed for myself if I was stupid enough to actually
>> believe only anonymous contributors are "real" supporters of
>> charities..
>>
> There are those who donate in memoriam, of course. There are those
> who donate as a charitable foundation. And of course there are other
> protocols. But in general, those who make certain their donations are
> publicized, do so for the publicity. Gates may indeed give privately
> such that we never hear about it, but there's far too much that he
> gives that he does so in public.
How quickly the backpedaling begins.
> The charitable are so as a matter of course. Gates, whatever else he
> may be, is not inherently charitable.
And you have the slightest shred of evidence of this claim?
Since his mother was a United Way Int'l. chairperson, it's fair to say Gates
grew up in a household where charitable endeavors were promoted. But don't
let that fact keep you from embracing ignorance.
> But of course you know all this: far too much is known of the man and
> from the most reliable of sources for the illusion of his financial
> decency to be credible.
Where are these reliable sources? You're certainly not one.
>>>>> Most people understand this; that you don't,
>>>>> or think others don't, says much about your gullibility and
>>>>> credulity.
>>>>
>>>> As if you know anything about the charities Bill Gates personally
>>>> supports (neither do I)
>>>>
>>> Non sequitor. Let's see, I was commenting on your gullibility, and
>>> you comment on Gates' charities. No apparent connection here.
>>
>> 1. You weren't commenting on my gullibility - you were replying to
>> Lefty Bigfoot.
>> 2. I was commenting on your lack of knowledge about what you were
>> commenting about.
>
> Okay, I won't argue 1), but the above thread demonstrates 2).
So far you've demonstrated Null (ie amounting to nothing)
Since you're a member of society he must present a danger to you as well.
How do you feel threatened?
> One might say that I rather dislike his character,
> but that is a consequence of my consideration of him (see previous
> sentence).
It's also a consequence of your paranoia.
> As far as proof is concerned, there is none that you would accept, I
> think. So I won't even try to provide any for you.
I've read enough to know he's not a saint. Are you? I'm quite sure the
standards by which you judge yourself are far less harsh than the standards
by which you judge him.
> Other readers of this who are knowledgeable of
> these issues will draw their own conclusions.
Gates appears to be a tough businessman.
He also is an extremely generous giver. Over $1 billion last year. Let's
say he has a personal net worth of $30 to $40 billion (this page
http://bgnw.marcus5.net/bgnw.html says $28 billion currently) So he donated
at least 2% to 3% of his net worth last year.
> No, I think you are not poorly informed, nor are you stupid. You have
> an agenda of your own that includes a lot of bottom feeding in one of
> Africa's major rivers. That's your business. But be aware that you
> fool few here, as many other posts have demonstrated.
>
> This subthread ceases to be entertaining.
Of course. Your first post steered it into a dead end.
> Longfellow
>
>>
>>> Longfellow
>>
>> DFS
Segovia
> On 2005-07-11, Segovia <inco...@malformed.invalid> wrote:
>> Longfellow focused his mind to the topic at hand and opined:
>>
>>> Gates does not "give" anything away; he purchases respectability in the
>>> eyes of those who, for whatever reason, choose to be impressed by his
>>> expenditures. Torvalds does not engage in that sort of thing. He
>>> doesn't need to; Gates does, or so he appears to believe.
>>
>> What are you? A fucking mind reader? How do you know Bill Gates' motives,
>> OR Linus Torvalds'.
>
> Gates' motives are transparent and well documented. I do not, and have
> not, invented them. His actions define him. I am very far from the
> only person to think thus, and those who are ahead of me have more cause
> to think as they do than do I.
As has been pointed out several times - he's given more money to charity
than another other person on the planet for several years now. And as you
say, actions speak for themselves, regardless of what some college kid,
conspiracy theorist, jump-on-the-bandwagon MS hater thinks.
> Gates' actions define him, and the same goes for Torvalds. The rest of
> us merely observe what they provide for us.
>
> Your response has little merit, and is also boring.
And your anti-MS drivel is so cliché and 90's. Just another frustrated
loser who's jealous of anyone who's got a fat bank account... yawn.
--
Segovia - 12/07/2005 12:02:34 AM
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:Xpidne0HJ7w...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Gate's motives are well documented, including in many of his own
>> e-mails.
>
> If you have any of the emails or documentation that spell out the motives
> behind his charitable donations then please do share them with us.
I wasn't referring to his motive for charitable donations, but his
motives for many other things.
If you want a good starting point for documentation about Gates, try here:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
Microsoft Litigation
They may have done a lot of the work for us.
--
Tux rox!
Kier
> Sinister Midget wrote:
>> On 2005-07-11, William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> posted
>> something concerning:
>>
>>> Funny how the racist wintroll dfs/doS suddenly mentions humanitarian
>>> concerns.....
>
> What's funny about it?
>
> When I was young and dumb I used to give money to one of those Sally
> Struther-type African child-relief organizations. Can you say the same?
>
> 20 years later they're still begging, and I'm not giving. 20 years from now
> they'll be begging, and I won't be giving.
Ever wondered why they're still begging? Because the problems are still
there. Problems that in many cases, white men caused. If you think the
consequences of three-hundred years of slavery, resulting in the deaths of
millions and millions of blacks, can be solved in a minute, you're a fool.
Progress is being made in some countries. South Africa is one case. At
least now blamc and white children can go to school together, and enrich
each other's lives
>> He's always had a humanitarian streak. He just doesn't believe anybody
>> is human except white rednecks.
>
> Oh, we're all human. We're all part of the glorious diversity that is
> the human race. Our diversity is our strength. Every culture is as
> valuable as every other. Integration should be the goal: of every
> society, of every business, of every neighborhood, of every family.
In the end, yes. If we were, there would be far fewer wars and atrocities.
Every person on this earth is descended from a very small group of
humanity, originating, AFAIK, from what is now Africa.
White people are not white through any superiority, they are white because
they have lived in Northern climes for thousands of years and their skins
have become adapted to that.
There is much to celebrate in eevery culture. There are also things in
every culture to be ashamed of. We are not exempt from that through being
white.
> Bulworth is a great movie. Everyone has an equivalent IQ.
No, they don't. But, like skin colou, no one gets to chose how much brain
power they have. Are you going to discriminate against a mentally disabled
person simply though an accident of birth? I have a young workmate whose
six-yearold brother has Down's Syndrome and is fairly profoundly retarded.
I'm sure she would love to hear your views on his worth to society
<sarcasm>
>
> Since it's clear you're a racist hypocrite, I expect you're getting as
> sick as I am right now.
Not everyone is a fool like you. Not everyone is a racist like you.
Has it ever occurred to your tiny mind that some of the posters on this
newsgroup may well *be* black Africans, or of African descent? I'm sure
they find your comments as disgusting as I do.
If we all becamse brown overnight, who would you despise then?
<Snip>
--
Kier
--
Kier
lqu...@uku.co.uk
fortunate enough to be a healthy white man of reasonable intelligence
is because of pure chance. I (whatever "I" or "me" really is) had
nothing to do in determining this. My being could just as easily been
born in a poor black village somewhere in Africa.
My daughter was born a couple of weeks after a nephew on my wife's side
of the family who happens to have autism. Seeing the two of them now
reminds us how lucky we were to have a healthy child. Things could just
as easily have turned out the other way.
Kier
> Good post Kier. I sometimes remind myself that the only reason that I'm
> fortunate enough to be a healthy white man of reasonable intelligence
> is because of pure chance. I (whatever "I" or "me" really is) had
> nothing to do in determining this. My being could just as easily been
> born in a poor black village somewhere in Africa.
Exactly. Which is why, when you get right down to it, racism is stupid. Of
course, there are always goiing to be cultural problems, and frictions
between peoples. But the more we try to accept one another's diversity and
become more integrated as communities, thes things will lessen. And
perhaps, one day, we'll celebrate being *hu*man not white man or black man.
>
> My daughter was born a couple of weeks after a nephew on my wife's side
> of the family who happens to have autism. Seeing the two of them now
> reminds us how lucky we were to have a healthy child. Things could just
> as easily have turned out the other way.
Indeed they could. Glad to know that in your case, they didn't.
--
Kier
Liam Slider
> Ever wondered why they're still begging? Because the problems are still
> there. Problems that in many cases, white men caused. If you think the
> consequences of three-hundred years of slavery, resulting in the deaths of
> millions and millions of blacks, can be solved in a minute, you're a fool.
I wouldn't put the problems in Africa as being caused by slavery, after
all, Africans were enslaving each other for countless generations before
any European showed up. No, it's a result of having the continent divided
up by the major powers in a piecemeal fashion, along completely arbitrary
boundries, dividing entire nations of people, and forcing others together
when they never got along to begin with, or had little to do with each
other at least. Then pushing European "education" and government on
them....with European interests and European overlords. Then....suddenly
the already unstable and perverted society built up collapses on itself
as the Europeans suddenly abandon everyone to fend for themselves. Chaos.
It's no wonder Africa is fucked up. But slavery was certainly not the
primary cause.
Kier
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:09:15 +0100, Kier wrote:
>
>> Ever wondered why they're still begging? Because the problems are still
>> there. Problems that in many cases, white men caused. If you think the
>> consequences of three-hundred years of slavery, resulting in the deaths of
>> millions and millions of blacks, can be solved in a minute, you're a fool.
>
> I wouldn't put the problems in Africa as being caused by slavery, after
> all, Africans were enslaving each other for countless generations before
> any European showed up.
True.
> No, it's a result of having the continent divided
> up by the major powers in a piecemeal fashion, along completely arbitrary
> boundries, dividing entire nations of people, and forcing others together
> when they never got along to begin with, or had little to do with each
> other at least. Then pushing European "education" and government on
> them....with European interests and European overlords. Then....suddenly
> the already unstable and perverted society built up collapses on itself
> as the Europeans suddenly abandon everyone to fend for themselves. Chaos.
Yes. The normal and natural evolution of African society was totally
disrupted, first by slavery, then by occupation and exploitation. IMO, not
*everything* done there was bad, but the consequences were certainly
mostly bad, and are still reverberating to this day.
>
>
> It's no wonder Africa is fucked up. But slavery was certainly not the
> primary cause.
I agree, not a *primary* cause, but certainly a large part of the problem.
Not just those who lived to become slaves, but all the untold millions who
died in the slave ships - it's estimated at least two thirds of them
didn't survive the trip, so bad were the conditions.
--
Kier
Somebody
the world for 25 years, and have used every known dirty tricks plus a
few new inventions (innovations!) to cash in. Business methods used have
been ruled illegal in I don't know how many courts, and at present they
are having a hard time here in the EU.
Another very rich man is quoted for saying that "When we give to charity
or donate otherwise we do it in silence. Otherwise the money we use
should be put in the marketing budget".
Microsoft is a real danger to the world, billions of hours are spent
every day fixing problems arising from buggy and unsecure SW which
should have spent 2-3 years more in development before let loos at the
unsuspecting public.
The dancing clown Balmer they have as a CEO is just a pity to see - and
worse to listen to. I have never, because I am not old enough to have
heard Goebbels,Stalin or Hitler, heard anyone spew out blatant lies so easy.
Longfellow
>
> "Longfellow" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
> news:11d5r0a...@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2005-07-11, lqu...@uku.co.uk <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you don't like his business practices that's one thing. But if Linus
>>> or anyone else other than Gates gave away this sort of money you'd be
>>> praising him in every post.
>>
>> It is exactly this sort of publicity that Gates buys with his "donated"
>> money. Everywhere you look, you're not far from seeing that publicity.
>>
>
> He doesn't need publicity. If anything he (Gates) needs more privacy.
> If he's trying to "buy" publicity for Microsoft as you are ridiculously
> implying then:
> #1) He wouldn't do it with his personal money
> #2) A cheap $2 million SuperBowl commercial would reach his target
> audience
> more effectively than donating $5 Billion to African natives with
> aids.
>
You miss the entire point. He's buying publicity for himself so that it
will benefit Microsoft. In many parts of the world, the owner/founder
is identified with his firm/company/corporation. Publicity for one is
publicity for the other.
That you do not understand this defines you.
>
>> Buffet doesn't need to buy what Gates seeks.
>
> Again... if anything Gates desires less publicity and more privacy. He's not
> trying to "buy" anything. Buffet is simply a cheap bastard who has never
> given away a dime despite being the 2nd richest man. Somehow your envy of
> Buffet tells me that you are also cheap. Have you ever made a charitable
> donation? Probably not and that's why you hate those who do give.
>
What Gates himself wants he simply buys, as do most people. His
purchases are larger in scale and so are notable/notorious. As for what
he desires, his actions are the best indicator of what he wants. Your
assessment of Buffet is irrelevant to this issue, as is your assessment
of myself.
All the invective in the world is powerless against demonstrated fact.
As are your opinions.
>
>> I am not impressed by any display of charity, and if I know about such
>> things without seeking to learn, they are intended as advertizement.
>
> In your opinion which means nothing and is easily proven to be wrong. Show
> me one reputable publication or web-site (aka NOT cola) that shares your
> opinion. Oh, that's right. You can't. I guess Gates bought them off too. But
> when I look at these real publications and charitable foundations I see his
> name at the top of every list. Where's your name?
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
> http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/philanthropy/2002/11/21/cx_aw_1121give.html
> http://www.kirschfoundation.org/why/major.html
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-11-21-big-gates-charity-total_x.htm
Gates/Microsoft buys what he/it wants, including the U.S. government.
Your citations are easily available to G/M$, but that they report his
"charity" at all means that they contribute to his purpose.
My own practices are not at issue here and are none of your business in
any case.
>
>> His play is harmful to others, and he doesn't care.
>
> Yawn. It's really sad how your hatred has distorted your perception of
> reality.
Amazing. You infer hatred where there is none; distaste and/or dislike
perhaps, but nothing so intense as you presume.
I have stated a widely shared observation about Gates et al. That you
wax hysterical about same displays your own problems. Those problems
are your own, though you manifestly share them with others. I wish you
well in dealing with them.
This thread grows boring.
Longfellow
Longfellow
Indeed!
Longfellow
geletine
give charity, sometimes an escape from high tax.
He charges the end-user then gives it to charity, i don't think so, a
small proportion of the profits does,
Ms could be of better charity if they did not charge licence fees and a
lot of countrys and indviduals would not strugger to pay them , and
even better idea , use a already highly proven free unix-type system ..
Ralph
Whatever.
--
Sinister Midget & Roy Culley == Trolls for trying to silence with insults
rather than prove a point or admit to a lie.
DFS==Closet homo, why else does he give so many makeup tips to gay guys.
Buford
> Do try and look past the "everything is evil if it is associated
> with Microsoft" mantra for a few minutes. On his own, 'off the
> clock', Gates is far more useful to third world countries then
> all the efforts of the UN (misguided as they are) combined.
Because of all those thousands of used Windows computers he "donates"
(all of which gets translated to "millions of dollars" when reported in
the press)? I remember reading that somewhere. A significant portion of
Gates' reported "donation" to charities come in the form of computers
loaded with his company's OS and software, and sometimes just the
software.
So if one copy of MS Office gets "donated," do they use the highest retail
price they can find to translate it into dollars? The lowest? The volume
discount price? The educational discount price? I'm just curious.
And if that counts as a "donation," then wouldn't it be only fair to count
all the copies of Linux in the world as "donations" from Linus?
Sinister Midget
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:24:27 +0000, Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
>
>> Do try and look past the "everything is evil if it is associated
>> with Microsoft" mantra for a few minutes. On his own, 'off the
>> clock', Gates is far more useful to third world countries then
>> all the efforts of the UN (misguided as they are) combined.
>
> Because of all those thousands of used Windows computers he "donates"
> (all of which gets translated to "millions of dollars" when reported in
> the press)? I remember reading that somewhere. A significant portion of
> Gates' reported "donation" to charities come in the form of computers
> loaded with his company's OS and software, and sometimes just the
> software.
>
> So if one copy of MS Office gets "donated," do they use the highest retail
> price they can find to translate it into dollars? The lowest? The volume
> discount price? The educational discount price? I'm just curious.
Since it's written off as "charitabe" donations, you can bet they'll
count it at the highest rate they can.
> And if that counts as a "donation," then wouldn't it be only fair to count
> all the copies of Linux in the world as "donations" from Linus?
Not only that, but since it's far and away more valuable than the M$
crapware, it's should be seen as billions and billions in annual
donations.
Linus: The world's greatest philanthropist.
--
Zafi: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.