Re: [News] Linux: If You Can't Use It, You Troll It
- Subject: Re: [News] Linux: If You Can't Use It, You Troll It
- From: "Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:59:03 GMT
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
- Organization: GlobeTrotter
- References: <1567562.Whv3flbud1@schestowitz.com> <qQKyg.6236$Q31.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <pX2Ag.181429$771.90238@edtnps89> <1491454.D6gfnpdOIU@schestowitz.com>
- Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1136007
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 02 August 2006 15:48 \__
"Kier" <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:07:06 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 08:03:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Letters: Linux, Love It Or Hate It
,----[ Quote ]
| Frank Ohlhorst's recent column, "A Linux OS For All," asked readers
| what needed to be done for Linux to gain more traction. And, boy,
| they have a lot to say about Linux: the key players, where the
| open-source platform is now and where it should be headed.
I notice how you had to stick your 2 cents in and also how your letter
totally out of character with the rest of the letters.
IOW you're the only one whose letter is overly hostile, negative,
paranoid and way over the top.
Oh, please, don't be so pathetic. That described *you*.
Actually, I have to concur that the tone of Roy's letter is different
from all the others. I didn't actually bother to read the names signed at
the bottom any of the other letters, but when I read that one, I wondered
who wrote it, and I saw Roy's name. I didn't read the original article
though, so maybe Roy has a point when he accuses the author of spreading
FUD. I don't know.
The E-mail I sent him was longer. He only quoted the very heart of the
argument while neglecting to mention compliments and praises. This seems
like the rational thing to do, in order for the article to contain just
'meat'. Since flatfish hates me, he choose to interpret the tone of the
as accusive, rather than a friendly tone (I always have this low tone in
real life). These ambiguities are among the dangers of E-mail
correspondence. This led me to several serious entanglement in the past
a face-to-face encounter can often rectify that.
Thanks for the clarification. It hadn't occured to me that the letters
might have been edited like that, though I suppose as you said, it's
probably the norm for most publications.