Re: [News] Linux: If You Can't Use It, You Troll It

["Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1491454.D6gfnpdOIU@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 02 August 2006 15:48 \__
>
> > "Kier" <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2006.07.29.16.10.22.2484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 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, 
> > > > > did
> > > > > | they have a lot to say about Linux: the key players, where the
> > > > > | open-source platform is now and where it should be headed.
> > > > > `----
> http://www.channelweb.com/sections/allnews/article.jhtml?articleId=191600067&cid=ChannelWebNews
> > [...]
> > > > I notice how you had to stick your 2 cents in and also how your letter 
> > > > is
> > > > totally out of character with the rest of the letters.
> > >
> > > Bullcrap.
> > >
> > > > 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 
> the
> 'meat'. Since flatfish hates me, he choose to interpret the tone of the 
> text
> 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 
> and
> 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.

   - Oliver