Mark Kent wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:53:51 +0100,
>>>>>>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ____/ Jim Richardson on Sunday 30 September 2007 05:47 : \____
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When OOrg on the distro you use can support ooxml, does that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are locked it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it does, and as I keep pointing out, you are always
>>>>>>>>>>> locked-in to a point, the question being the height of the exit
>>>>>>>>>>> barrier, ie., how much will it cost.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jim seems unable to process this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if *all* distros *all* lock you in, no matter what, then the term
>>>>>>>>>> is meanigless, and Roy, singling out Linspire for that, is
>>>>>>>>>> equally meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not meaningless, but you're still failing to process the
>>>>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>>>> The issue is about the cost of exit. The cost can be minimised,
>>>>>>>>> or it
>>>>>>>>> can be maximised. When maximised, it can (as has happened to me
>>>>>>>>> in my day job) amount to millions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Surely you can see that some situations will be less expensive to
>>>>>>>>> exit from than others?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By now I actually think that you are completely nuts and an
>>>>>>>> imbecile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet you still reply - perhaps this is more of a clue about thee
>>>>>>> than me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are simply babbling incoherent idiocy with your "exit barriers"
>>>>>>>> with regards to an "import filter" which actually enables to bypass
>>>>>>>> those very "barriers"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you are finding the concepts confusing; let me try
>>>>>>> to explain it a different way:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What part of "import filter" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>>>>> You are as dishonest as Snot in your attempts to bypass the questions
>>>>>
>>>>> I understood it perfectly well, and explained the issues - presumably
>>>>> you do not understand the situation or the explanation?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You explained shit. Your "explanations" are simply utterly balderdash.
>>>> Gobshite. Unadultered garbage
>>>
>>> So you do not understand the situation, or the explanation?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MArk, you really are an imbecile. And even more an asshole than DFS
>>>>>> in your dishonesty. That guy is just born stupid and got worse. You
>>>>>> don't have that explanation for your cretinous acts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>< snip lunatic rant >
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't understand why you behave this way, Peter. I put a lot
>>>>> of effort into explaining precisely the issue, but you merely delete
>>>>> it
>>>>> and respond with a load of insults. Why bother? It just doesn't seem
>>>>> worth the effort to me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You put a lot of effort in mis-explaining the issue.
>>>>
>>>> Come on, tell us: How is an import-filter going to "lock you in".
>>>> Be precise. And stop this lunatic rubbish of the "exit costs".
>>>> It has nothing to do with a filter which allows you to do *more* than
>>>> without it
>>>
>>> I've already done that, Peter, and clearly, you realised that I had,
>>> which is why you deleted it.
>>>
>>
>> Idiot
>>
>> And i mean it. You *are* an idiot. Not a tiny little bit better than
>> linux-sux or DFS
>
> As I said above, perhaps you should look in the mirror when hurling some
> of these insults.
>
> If you want to discuss my explanation, I'll be happy to, but deleting it
> and then claiming it to be wrong without any justification is precisely
> what I'd expect from linux-sux or DFS.
>
> If not, why are you wasting bandwidth?
>
If you /had/ explained how an additional filter is going to lock-in people,
I would have noticed. Instead you blather about "exist costs" even when
none exist. Extremely dishonest way to argue. Snot tought you well
You have chosen the Snot evasion: Claim that you have explained it, even if
you have done nothing of that sort, and then continue your idiotic rant
which has nothing to do with the question asked
You *are* a dishonest twit, Mark. Very much so
And unfortunately, Roy is doing bad as well. He also makes completely nutty
claims and then fails to support them in whichever way.
You both (and especially you, Mark) are not a tiny little shred better than
this wintroll scum infesting the group. You are actually doing linux a
disserve with your dishonesty
If you don't like being called that dishonest asshole you really are, tough
luck for you.
Once I thought of you as a real asset for linux advocacy. Meanwhile I am
convinced that you are no better than Erik Funkenbusch or Hadron Quark
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.
|
|
