Kier wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:32:33 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> >
> > Kier wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:52:41 -0700, Larry Qualig wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> >> >> __/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Thursday 21 September 2006 15:57 \__
> >> >>
> >> >> > Novell (NASDAQ: NOVL - News) is not keeping up with its paperwork, and
> >> >> > it is causing headaches. Novell said Wednesday afternoon, it has now
> >> >> > received a staff determination from Nasdaq that the company is subject
> >> >> > to delisting.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/060921/17309_id.html?.v=1
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More proof that the company is both collapsing and imploding
> >> >> > simultaneously. It's not surprising that former VP's (like Joseph
> >> >> > Forgione) and the company CEO (Jack Messner) and many others have fled
> >> >> > the sinking ship.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Is this comp.os.linux.advocacy or is it microsoft.shameless.fud?
> >> >
> >> > I did not mention Microsoft one single time. My post was strictly NEWS
> >> > (it appears in several financial publications and web-sites) and was
> >> > strictly about Novell.
> >> >
> >> > If anyone here talks about Microsoft it is you. If you spent half as
> >> > much time talking about Linux as you do about Microsoft, Vista, Zune
> >> > and the XBox you could actually advocate something.
> >> >
> >> > Why is it okay for you to post twisted news stories and f-a-r stretches
> >> > of half-truths when it comes to anything even remotely related to MS
> >> > but if someone posts a less-than-flattering REAL NEWS STORY about
> >> > Novell it is somehow FUD?
> >> >
> >> > Fact is that Fud-is-Fud and it's blatantly obvious that you have no
> >> > issues with FUD as long as it's -->you<-- who is spreading it.
> >>
> >> You used to be a decent type, Larry. Now you're behaving like a troll. Why?
> >
> > Hi Kier,
> >
> > Sorry you feel this way but I don't beleive that I'm trolling. Facts
> > can be unpopular at times but I really do try to be factually correct
> > with my posts. I do enjoy a good intellectually honest
> > discussion/debate but I hate liars. Don't answer here if you don't want
> > but ask yourself this question. Would you say that Roy's posts here are
> > fair, truthful and intellectually honest? Or are they severely slanted
> > and intentionally distorted in order to make Microsoft look bad at
> > every possible opportunity?
>
> I wouldn't necessarily say slanted or distorted deliberately. It's a
> matter of interpretation, IMO, how different people view events.
Read my response in the "NASDAQ Delising - Poor Indication of Problems
" thread for a perfect example of what I mean.
> If you're
> pro or anti something, it will tend to colour your thinking, and not
> everyone actually recognises their own biases.
>
> There are also many here who think MS deserve everything they get.
>
> >
> > So let's examine my "trolling post"... it's a new day and I'm curious
> > what I was thinking yesterday when I wrote this.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > I did not mention Microsoft one single time. My post was strictly NEWS
> >> > (it appears in several financial publications and web-sites) and was
> >> > strictly about Novell.
> >
> > Still correct. I didn't mention MS at all in my post. How much would
> > you like to bet that if it was MSFT that received a Nasdaq Delisting
> > Notice that Roy would have jumped on that news story immediately and
> > posted one or more links here? I'm sure comments would include how
> > it's now over for the company.
> >
> > But NOVL getting a delisting notice is much more relevant to Linux than
> > if MSFT were to get one. Yet the NOVL story never got posted but you
> > can be sure that the MSFT story would be posted here if that were ever
> > the case.
> >
> >
> >> > If anyone here talks about Microsoft it is you. If you spent half as
> >> > much time talking about Linux as you do about Microsoft, Vista, Zune
> >> > and the XBox you could actually advocate something.
> >
> > I just did a Google search and looked at the last 20 or so posts that
> > Roy made. He mentions/references/talks-about Microsoft is mentioned
> > more often than Linux. Surely you've seen the dozens of posts about
> > Zune (iPod-like) player, XBox360 and basically everything and anything
> > else to do with MSFT posted here by Roy.
>
> That's true, and I've said several times I'd sooner see mre postive Linux
> stories than MS bashing stories.
>
> >
> > So yes... I do think he would be a more effective advocate for Linux if
> > he actually stayed on-topic and actually talked about the OS that he is
> > supposedly advocating instead of whining about MSFT all of the time.
>
> All of us would. But there's always going to be anti-MS feeling here, more
> so as long as anti-Linux posters stir up trouble. (I'm not citing you
> particularly here, you understand, there are many far worse than you).
> Personally, I would like to see MS mentioned far less, but it can't really
> be ignored entirely, I suppose
>
> >
> >
> >> > Why is it okay for you to post twisted news stories and f-a-r stretches
> >> > of half-truths when it comes to anything even remotely related to MS
> >> > but if someone posts a less-than-flattering REAL NEWS STORY about
> >> > Novell it is somehow FUD?
> >
> > This is pretty much self-explanatory.
> >
> >
> >> > Fact is that Fud-is-Fud and it's blatantly obvious that you have no
> >> > issues with FUD as long as it's -->you<-- who is spreading it.
> >
> > This goes back to my original point. Can anyone here honestly say that
> > Roy's posts are fair, truthful and accurate or are they worded (and
> > thread titles intentionally altered) in order to portray MSFT in the
> > worst possible way? IMO Fud is Fud and lies are lies no matter who
> > tells them.
>
> Roy is perhaps overly-enthusiastic in making his negative interpretations
> of much of the MS news, but is he lying? That would depend on whether or
> not he really believes what he writes, and I think he most probably does.
> If others think he's incorrect, then of course they should call him on it,
> that's what discussion is all about. But there have been too many personal
> attacks on him, and it seemed to me you were joining in. If that's not the
> case, I apologise. I always found you to be a decent poster in the past,
> despite a few rows.
>
> I don't know whether Roy is lying or not. What I am defending is his right
> to post the News, which any other poster may then call him on for
> accuracy, without his being attacked and slandered (libelled, I suppose I
> should say) by the likes of flatfish, who claim that Roy's posts here are
> serving some 'secret agenda' that we're all supposed to be too dumb to see.
>
> --
> Kier
|
|
