A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Simon Cook » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:03:05



Let's put it to the vote.

Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

YES or NO.

Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
is being provoked?

YES or NO.

Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

YES or NO.

Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
telling them to "* off and die"?

YES or NO.

Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity to
attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

YES or NO.

Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is fair
game?

YES or NO.

Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you have --
even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste -- is
acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously provoking
you for over a year?

YES or NO.

Come on. Let's see how you weigh in on this. Simple yes or no questions.
If you need to, reply in depth. But don't bother replying if you're not
going to answer the questions, or are going to divert the conversation.

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by cybea » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:45:47



> Let's put it to the vote.

> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

> YES or NO.

Yes, you do do this simon.

Quote:

> Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
> is being provoked?

> YES or NO.

Yes, as you have done similar things to me.

Quote:

> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

> YES or NO.

Just as much as I think it is wrong to call someone a liar when they are
not. Then try to justify the accusation by falsely claiming the the person
person accused you of being a liar first.

Quote:

> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
> telling them to "* off and die"?

> YES or NO.

No. I think what you have called people is just as bad as what you have
recieved.

Quote:

> Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
> pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity to
> attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

> YES or NO.

I guess falsely calling people liars is OK as long as it is a windows
supporter making the false claim?

Quote:

> Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is fair
> game?

> YES or NO.

Nore do I think it is OK for a windows supporter to make false claims of
liar.

Quote:

> Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you have --
> even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste -- is
> acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously provoking
> you for over a year?

> YES or NO.

You mean like you did when you called me a liar?

Quote:

> Come on. Let's see how you weigh in on this. Simple yes or no questions.
> If you need to, reply in depth. But don't bother replying if you're not
> going to answer the questions, or are going to divert the conversation.

You are as bad or worse than the people you are *ing about. But while
you ask US to look at ourselves, I know that you are unwilling to do the
same.

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by d2003x » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 08:56:34


**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****


> Let's put it to the vote.

> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

> YES or NO.

YES.

Quote:

> Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
> is being provoked?

> YES or NO.

NO.

Quote:

> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

> YES or NO.

YES.

Quote:

> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
> telling them to "* off and die"?

> YES or NO.

NO.

Quote:

> Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
> pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity
> to attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

> YES or NO.

YES.

Quote:

> Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is
> fair game?

> YES or NO.

YES.

Quote:

> Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you
> have -- even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste
> -- is acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously
> provoking you for over a year?

> YES or NO.

YES.

Quote:

> Come on. Let's see how you weigh in on this. Simple yes or no
> questions.  If you need to, reply in depth. But don't bother
> replying if you're not going to answer the questions, or are going
> to divert the conversation.

OK.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.veryComputer.com/
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Peter K?hlman » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:11:39


< snip >

Idiot. And *
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Donn Mille » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:35:54



> Let's put it to the vote.

> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

> YES or NO.

NO

Quote:> Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
> is being provoked?

> YES or NO.

YES

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

> YES or NO.

NO

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
> telling them to "* off and die"?

> YES or NO.

It would require probably about the same caliber of intelligence and
class for either, i.e., none at all.

Quote:> Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
> pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity to
> attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

> YES or NO.

NO

Quote:> Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is fair
> game?

> YES or NO.

NO

Quote:> Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you have --
> even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste -- is
> acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously provoking
> you for over a year?

> YES or NO.

NO, it isn't, but it could reasonably be expected, due to the golden rule.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.veryComputer.com/ - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by mathew » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:47:58



> Let's put it to the vote.

> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

> YES or NO.

YES

Quote:> Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
> is being provoked?

> YES or NO.

NO, in the case of any sane person.

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

> YES or NO.

YES

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
> telling them to "* off and die"?

> YES or NO.

NO

Quote:> Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
> pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity to
> attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

> YES or NO.

It would depend on what grounds they wish to attack other people.

Quote:> Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is fair
> game?

> YES or NO.

NO

Quote:> Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you have --
> even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste -- is
> acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously provoking
> you for over a year?

> YES or NO.

Depends how you define "good taste".
Quote:> Come on. Let's see how you weigh in on this. Simple yes or no questions.
> If you need to, reply in depth. But don't bother replying if you're not
> going to answer the questions, or are going to divert the conversation.

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Simon Cook » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:55:35



> You mean like you did when you called me a liar?

I take it you didn't read this when I posted it the first time. So I'll
post it again:

"6. Cybear
=========

I am sorry for calling you a liar. I read your first response to my
claim
re: Mozilla in such a way as to indicate that you were calling me a
liar.
As such, I retaliated and called you one. In further posts which I made
to
see if you would react in the same way, I ended my post with an oblique
reference to linux advocates lying. You took it to mean that I was
referring to you in those posts, and as such it would appear that my
mistake wasn't a particularly extraordinary one.

For the record:

a) The post I made re: Mozilla was a genuine mistake.

I did indeed believe that it was a flaw in Mozilla's parsing logic. The
mistake in the CSS file was made because I was using FrontPage to build
the prototype for the site, and at the time I was using file references
for the image files. When I copied the text from the IMG SRC="" tag to
the
CSS file I was building, I had not at that point saved the file to the
test web I was building. As such, the references were not translated
into
http:// urls, and were still in the form of file:// urls. In this form,
the slashes are the wrong way round -- something I didn't spot.

b) I misread the CSS spec regarding escaped characters.

c) There are no logging options available to Earthlink customers for
their
free websites which would show the problem with the CSS file I built.

You are quite as able to launch into a flame war as I am. I hope this
ends
here and now.
"
--
Coming Soon: UNSEALED (see IMDB)

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Robert Foste » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:55:20


Quote:> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

   YES

Quote:> Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
> is being provoked?

   YES

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

   YES

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
> telling them to "* off and die"?

    NO.

Quote:> Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
> pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity to
> attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

   YES

Quote:> Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is fair
> game?

   YES

Quote:> Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you have --
> even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste -- is
> acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously provoking
> you for over a year?

   YES

--

   Robert Foster.

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Lin?nu » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:44:37


While watching the eternal hourglass, Simon Cooke assayed this pronouncement:

Quote:> Let's put it to the vote.

> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

Who gives a rat's ass?
 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Jazz » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:56:50


11000110011000111000 Simon Cooke 11111001011110 Tuesday 22 April 2003
08:03 11000101000001100 comp.os.linux.advocacy :

[snip whining of troll laft without ammo]
Boo fsckin' hoo.
You know, for someone who stated he was going to be an out-and-out troll
in this group, you certainly cave in quickly.

Here's a few tips:
- Trolls don't threaten to killfile other posters; it kinda negates the
entire trollness thingie;
- trolls don't start whining about how they get treated injustly; it
comes with the job, Simon.

Quote:> Come on. Let's see how you weigh in on this. Simple yes or no
> questions. If you need to, reply in depth. But don't bother replying
> if you're not going to answer the questions, or are going to divert
> the conversation.

You're not the group moderator, so you don't get to say how people reply
to your posts.
--
Jazz.

"This life is a test. It is only a test. In a real life you will be
given instructions on where to go and what to do." (unknown)

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Greg » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:00:08


Anything that gets people to stop using OE is a good thing for everyone.
begin  OE Filter                                                          



> < snip >

> Idiot. And *

Pretty much my vote too.
--
end
This message has been deliberately blocked from most OE
user's eyes using a simple exploit of an old flaw in
that POS software.
 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Spam Me » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:32:15



> Do you think it is acceptable to reply to someone's posts for a year
> with the sole aim of provoking them and getting a rise from them?

YES. BTW you are regularly doing the same too!

Quote:> Do you think that this would hurt or otherwise antagonize the person who
> is being provoked?

NO. Otherwise this NG would be full of antagonized posters - many hurt by you.

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is a valid response?

YES. There are cases, when such action would do a lot of good to the
whole of humanity. Telling someone to commit suicide is very far from
*ing the person. The later is not acceptable but the former is.

Quote:> Do you think that telling someone to commit suicide is worse than
> telling them to "* off and die"?

NO. It is essentially the same meaning, but the "suicide" version is
a bit more civilized way of expressing it.

Quote:> Do you think that regardless of a person's behavior, if they are
> pro-Linux, they should be tolerated and afforded every opportunity to
> attack other people if they are anti-Linux, or pro-Windows?

YES. As much as anti-Linux, or pro-Windows people are also tolerated
and afforded every opportunity to attack pro-Linux people. Both is
happening here because this NG is not moderated. In a moderated NG
both would be banned, including yourself.

Quote:> Do you think that if a person is pro-Windows, any attack on them is fair
> game?

YES. If they come into the linux ADVOCACY NG, then they are asking for it.

Quote:> Do you think that attacking someone with whatever ammunition you have --
> even if that ammunition is beyond the bounds of good taste -- is
> acceptable if a person has been deliberately and maliciously provoking
> you for over a year?

NO. Personal attacks that have nothing to do with Linux are simply off-topic
and that mixed with bad taste is not acceptable.

--
Freedom: In a world without fences there is NO NEED for Gates!

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by rapska » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:18:54


Error log for Tue, 22 Apr 2003 06:03:05 +0000: segfault in module Simon
Cooke - dump details are as follows...

Quote:> But don't bother replying if you're not going to answer the questions,
> or are going to divert the conversation.

Divert this,  you cowardly *:

You have insulted the deceased and handicapped family members of persons
in this group.

You have insulted advocates in this group by likening them with
terrorists.

You have not claimed any responsibility for these statements, but merely
defend them and justify them using whatever lowlife tactics you can.

You are just a sociopathic pedant with serious psychological issues, a
scumbag and a coward with no scruples, morals or ethical values.  You
respect noone or nothing but yourself.

How you can live with yourself is unknown to me.

--
rapskat -  09:12:05 up 10:55,  2 users,  load average: 0.57, 0.27, 0.23
Gentoo Base System version 1.4.3.5 kernel 2.5.68 on a Pentium III (Coppermine)
I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
                -- Butch Cassidy

 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by chris » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:28:51




Quote:>You are just a sociopathic pedant with serious psychological issues, a
>scumbag and a coward with no scruples, morals or ethical values.

Well, that's not very nice...
 
 
 

A Question for COLA - Put it to the vote.

Post by Rex Ballar » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:44:39



> Let's put it to the vote.

Let's not.

The fact is that there are abusive posters in newsgroups.  Some
of them use foul language, they make rude remarks, and they
engage in ad-homonim (sic) attacks.

It says more about the person making the post, than the person
being responded to.

If I write a 5 page essay, and someone quotes 1/2 of one
paragraph and starts calling me an idiot and a liar and makes
suggestions of illegal or impossible * acts, and suggests
that I end my life, I really don't put much stock in that response.

If I did in fact make an error, or there was additional
explanation required, I try to provide that an move on.

In fact, I'm often grateful to such people as Erik Funkenbush
for pointing out the errors and giving me the opportunity to
make corrections.  Very often, I'm posting from memory, and Erik
makes me go back to personal notes and archives to recheck my
facts.  It's a nice trip down memory lane, and often reminds me
of other interesting bits of history.

To Linux advocates, I would suggest that it better serves our
purpose to make our case in a dignified and respectful way.  One
never knows when one of our hate-letters will show up in the
hands of a coworker who will pass it on to the boss, or an
executive who might have otherwise considered Linux.

To Wintrolls, it's much more interesting to get a posting from
Flatfish, who actually brings new and fresh topics for
discussion into the group, than to have a bunch of name calling
nested 20 levels deep - which often have NOTHING to do with the
original topic.

Another reccomendation to Linux advocates.  Don't be afraid to
change the subject line.  Very often we reply to a posting with
a subject line like "Linux sucks", and never bother to change
the subject line to something more "pro Linux".  Of course, a
pro-linux thread seems to get less attention, but that might be
the point.

The main thing to remember is that newsgroups are just words,
written words.  It's not even possible to stir a crowd to
* action.  About the best you can hope for is giving Linux
advocates some new tools to help introduce Linux to friends,
family, and coworkers.

--
Rex Ballard
Leading Open Source Advocate
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

1. Vote: Dose COLA need a Mad Fly Thug?

It has come to my attention that I may not be wanted here although I
have recieved lots of posotive emails. Some agree with me but dont
want to risk being labeled a outcast. I think there are more people
here who see the truth than you know but if I am really not wanted I
dont see the point in sticking around. I will let the public decided
if I am voted out I will leave forever I will cast my vote now post
yours here

    [X] Mad Fly is dope keep on Thuggin
    [ ] Get lost yo
    [ ] Keep the Fly and get rid of Porter

2. The Win/userbase!

3. Hullo voted most boring COLA Wintroll 2001

4. free partitioning program

5. VOTE:>call for votes comp.unix.wizards

6. Memory upgrade problems on Compaq Presario

7. VOTE: voting continues on comp.unix.wizards

8. Help!

9. #COLA for COLA

10. RIP: COLA FAQ and Primer for COLA

11. It`s IMPORTANT!!!

12. Please Help....it′s a very small thing!!!!.PLEASE

13. Help me !!!!!! I have no Idea it′s crucial