Re: Tony "Do nothing".

tony_at_aplawrence.com
Date: 10/29/03 

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:46:10 +0000 (UTC)

Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:10:19 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com
><tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

>>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:49:09 +0000, FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Meanwhile, since you've degenerated into attacking people instead of
>>>ideas, may I again suggest that you refrain from engaging in personal
>>>attacks and kindly deal with issues, opinions, and facts. If you
>>>expect the entire newsgroup to instantly abandon SCO products and
>>>follow the yellow brick road toward enlightenment and Linux, kindly
>>>act in a manner that would not put you on par with Daryl McBride and
>>>cease with the labels and character assassinations.
>>
>>
>>Oh, let him get it off his chest. I don't mind being called names.
>>He's very angry, and that is certainly understandable. What he can't
>>understand is that just because someone pisses you off doesn't
>>mean they don't have a right to do whatever it is they are doing.
>>
>>Joe is angry. I'm angry. Joe thinks his anger rules the world, that
>>HIS opinions are what everyone else should follow. I know better. The
>>world will think what it likes.

>Tony,

>Try reading, would you? This thread was started by FyRE. Look at the
>attributions in the postings. None of the parents of this post were
>written by me. I have no idea who FyRE is, except that he and I are not
>the same person.

You sound like the same person. Bull-headed, constantly harping
at the same thing over and over again.

>Oh, and I do recognise everyone's rights to have dissenting opinions.
>What I dislike is those who want to discuss a topic, and to defend the
>actions of others, yet shelter behind equivocation.

Um, Joe: just what do you consider equivocation? Once more:

If IBM released SCO that SCO controls, SCO has a right to pursue
damages.

I don't know whether the alleged code really is in violation or
not. I've never seen it (nor have you) and I'm not qualified
to comment on its ancestry anyway.

I doubt that the wild conspiracy theories are true, but admit that
they are certainly not impossible. I think it's quite possible
that SCO is confused and has incorrectly identified the source of
the alleged code, but it's also possible that they have a real
case.

No matter which of these is actually true, I think SCO has done
a very foolish and dangerous act by this suit, and has now
compounded it by attacking the GPL. I think they will regret
this deeply. I fear that this can do real damage to everyone
but Microsoft, who only stands to gain from it.

What's equivocal about that, Joe?

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Before I Go
    ... Polaski and Joe really not realize that they come across as ... self-centered and more than a little angry and dumb? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Hey Anton Berlin....
    ... Joe Big wrote: ... How can atheists be angry and bitter at someone ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Password History
    ... Joe Chasan wrote: ... SCO OpenServer ... not be reflected in the tcb file reports that users get from scoadmin menu. ... he should be able to modify npasswd to update the TCB files. ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: Wish
    ... Joe Dunning wrote: ... I still work at SCO in a technical capacity, ... SCOSource makes a lot of noise in the news, ... if you really think there is a future at SCO then I think ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)