Something like FixNews for Outlook Express?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OOORAH!
  • Start date Start date
»Q« said:
You are not merely an non-MS basher, Alan. You insistence that
Blinky is the cause of anti-MS sentiment is absurd, as is your
continued insistence that you merely provide facts about MS products.

Insistence? Well I wrote it once anyway. It was intended to have a
tongue-in-cheek flavour, similar to Blinkered's incessant little digs
and jibes did. Perhaps I should have added a smiley at the end the way
Blinkered often did, in an attempt to take the curse off it. If so,
consider it Blinkeredly smileyed. Me providing facts is in the context
of countering the spin and hype peddled by the MS bashers - I didn't
mean to suggest that it was my only input on the issue though, because
it's not. What's also "not" is me ever recommending that someone
*obtain* a MS product to do any sort of task mentioned here... let alone
ever worshipping one, or whatever such nonsense I'm accused of by the
likes of JF (never being able to cite a case of it though, despite the
footer I now apply as a standard to his pathetic posts).
You label people MS bashers far too readily, tarring with a very
broad brush, and you attack them with ad hominem repeatedly.

Again, some of this is done to show the genuine bashers just how
annoying and ridiculous such ad hom behaviour can be. Clearly it shows
it to be just that - maybe they'll take the hint one day. But as for
"tarring with a very broad brush", I'd have to disagree. Have a look at
this thread. Someone asks about some freeware availability and they get
a reply that's of no help at all, telling them not to use a piece of
software they have, with no qualification, and a sig that clearly
indicates their POV. Add this to their track record of trying to pass
off the ability to open Windows Notepad as a major security hole (to
mention just one example) and I'd say they've managed to tar themselves
with their own brush, and they make no secret of it; proud of it in
fact. That's fair enough - they can be whatever they wish to be, but
they'll also reap what they sow. If they choose to peddle hype & spin
then they'll be shot down accordingly and labelled appropriately.
One reason people object to the use of OE to post to Usenet is the
horrible way it misformats quoted text. This bug causes OE to send a
lot of posts which are very annoying to read, and by itself this bug
is enough to justify the recommendation not to use OE for Usenet
posting. Recommending third-party add-ons to correct the extremely
poor formatting of OE sometimes helps, but frequently just leads to
OE users finding further ways to misformat their posts.

Now, if instead, someone had replied with some legitimate information
such as you have supplied above (which I agree with as factual) then
that would have been a different story. And just to make my own POV
clearer, you clearly don't view any MS product with any degree of
affection (to put it mildly :)) but when you level a critisism it's
always accompanied with something factual. Even though I might not agree
with the conclusions you draw from it, I wouldn't put you in the class
of a basher, any more than I would class myself as a worshipper.
That's pretty lousy advice. Usenet posts are carried to readers
around the world, and users should try to choose software that
generates readable messages.

I'd agree that OE has many shortcomings when it comes to NG posting**,
but I'm of the opinion that there are far greater contributors to poor
readability of NG threads, mainly the results of the posters themselves.
It's all very well to focus on the imperfections of the tools, but in
the case of NGs, this is grossly overshadowed by the ineptitude of the
posters. I've seen plently of complete messes posted using XNews or
Agent. So I think the more important advice would be to learn *how* to
post/ write in many cases. (Just an opinion)

** I'll say 3 Hail Bills for that later... not.
 
John said:
< snip >

Aren't you the one who made the dopey "He's a MS basher troll" comment
? Sounds like you are saying that one can use anything BUT not be
critical of MS.

Why does it matter if he is an MS basher ? Why do you need to defend
Microsoft products ?

Your level of clarity has dropped to that of your credibility.

But you may answer my question that you always ignore/selectively snip
first:

__ Standard footer for John Fitzsimons __
(quoted from numerous replies to his posts) ...

-------------DO NOT SNIP--------------
I think this is about the fifth or sixth time I've asked you to supply
any reference to any post I've made, which would serve to back up your
allegations of "worship". Or if that's too hard, any thread at all I've
started off by actually recommending using a MS product (worshipping not
even required). Each time you have conveniently snipped the request from
your reply. Let's see if you can manage to do it again, or whether you
can actually put your money where your mouth is.
-------------DO NOT SNIP--------------
 
»Q« said:
You are not merely an non-MS basher, Alan. <snip>

I didn't pick up on the the expression here. If you mean I'm not an MS
basher I'd agree. But if, as I suspect, that you mean that I "bash"
software that is not MS, then please cite an example. Again by "bash" I
don't mean some factual critisism such as you made of OE - I mean of the
unqualified variety that something "sux" or shouldn't be used because I
don't like who makes it or similar. I'd hope that you'll realize that
the idea of me being a basher is just a figment of your imagination, in
the same way as me being a worshipper is a figment of JF's and a
knowingly untrue attempted dig by Blinkered the Sharleton. And that goes
for software of any flavour - I don't belong in that "if you're not with
us then you must be against us" camp.
 
I didn't pick up on the the expression here. If you mean I'm not
an MS basher I'd agree.

I was referring text of yours, in which you claimed that all non-MS
bashers (by which I took you to mean simply people who do not bash
MS) are regarded by some as being MS worshippers.
But if, as I suspect, that you mean that I
"bash" software that is not MS, then please cite an example.

No, that's not what I meant. By "not merely a non-MS basher," I
meant that you engage in pro-MS spin and invective which equals or
exceeds the spin and invective of any of those you label as
MS-bashers. And I meant to imply that /this/, not your
unwillingness to bash MS, is why you are regarded by some posters as
an MS worshipper.

--
»Q« It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you
mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers.
It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and
likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
 
John said:
< snip >

Refused to answer the question eh ?

Not at all. You asked three questions (in the loosest grammatical sense
of the word) and I don't know to which of these you refer. If you didn't
go into such a frenzy, snipping at everything that's too hard for you to
deal with and/ or exposes you as a coward, without the courage of you
own convictions, you'd have seen that I certainly didn't refuse to
answer any of the question(s).

I even *TOLD YOU* the condition under which I *WOULD* answer. Since it
appears that your comprehension level has dropped to those of your
clarity and credibility (you'll have to start on the D-words next week)
I'll repeat it here for you:

"But you may answer my question that you always ignore/selectively snip
first:

__ Standard footer for John Fitzsimons __
(quoted from numerous replies to his posts) ...

-------------DO NOT SNIP--------------
I think this is about the fifth or sixth time I've asked you to supply
any reference to any post I've made, which would serve to back up your
allegations of "worship". Or if that's too hard, any thread at all I've
started off by actually recommending using a MS product (worshipping not
even required). Each time you have conveniently snipped the request from
your reply. Let's see if you can manage to do it again, or whether you
can actually put your money where your mouth is.
-------------DO NOT SNIP-------------- "

The above offer still stands, so you know what you need to do in order
to get the answers to *your* questions.
HTH
Guess MS worship is probably the
only reasonable explanation to your obsessive behaviour.

??? Clarity problems again I'd guess. BTW, whence does *your* obsessive
behaviour originate?
 
»Q« said:
I was referring text of yours, in which you claimed that all non-MS
bashers (by which I took you to mean simply people who do not bash
MS) are regarded by some as being MS worshippers.

No, this is not what I meant. The non-MS basher term was intended to
describe somebody who simply refers to something MS, with neither praise
nor disapproval. This is what the "some" you mention apply the George
Bush criterion to - if you're not with us then you must be against us.
Such is the mentallity of the "some". They see only an "us & them"
situation and can't see that there might be people who are interested
only in the objective facts*; without the need to gravitate to the bash
or worship extremes. They simply can't conceive of somebody who can
discuss facts without having a complex like they do. Understandably,
they then conclude that if that person doesn't "go the bash" then they
must be some sort of worshipper. It's just a part of their complex. HTH.

*That's my position BTW
No, that's not what I meant. By "not merely a non-MS basher," I
meant that you engage in pro-MS spin and invective which equals or
exceeds the spin and invective of any of those you label as
MS-bashers. And I meant to imply that /this/, not your
unwillingness to bash MS, is why you are regarded by some posters as
an MS worshipper.

Ah, in that case I retract that "suspicion" and would inform you that
you are simply wrong. I'd extend to you the same invitation I provide to
John Fitzimons as a standard footer, to provide an instance of me
providing any "pro-MS spin". I suspect you have a little more gumption
than the craven JF in this regard and are willing to provide at least
something concrete to support your claim. Better still would be to
demonstrate that what I've said could sensibly be viewed as equalling or
exceeding the sorts of anti-MS hype & spin that the bashers infect this
group with.
 
Ah, in that case I retract that "suspicion" and would inform you
that you are simply wrong. I'd extend to you the same invitation I
provide to John Fitzimons as a standard footer, to provide an
instance of me providing any "pro-MS spin". I suspect you have a
little more gumption than the craven JF in this regard and are
willing to provide at least something concrete to support your
claim. Better still would be to demonstrate that what I've said
could sensibly be viewed as equalling or exceeding the sorts of
anti-MS hype & spin that the bashers infect this group with.

Your record of posting about Microsoft is clear (and you are welcome to
google yourself ;), but I don't hope to convince you that what you do
is spin or to convince you to stop. I note you didn't say I was wrong
about the invective part; maybe you would consider stopping that?

--
»Q« It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you
mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers.
It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and
likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
 
Your record of posting about Microsoft is clear (and you are welcome to
google yourself ;),

Last time that was done there were so many "hits" that he decided to
change his phraseology in order to make future Google searches harder.
but I don't hope to convince you that what you do
is spin or to convince you to stop.

He hasn't responded to reason in the past so I doubt that he will in
the future.
I note you didn't say I was wrong
about the invective part; maybe you would consider stopping that?

Unlikely, his "thing" is to search out and attack anyone who dares,
however indirectly, say something anti MS. Attacking people is what he
does best.

Regards, John.
 
»Q« said:
Your record of posting about Microsoft is clear (and you are welcome
to google yourself ;), but I don't hope to convince you that what you
do is spin or to convince you to stop.

A quick look at Google using MS or Microsoft keywords reveals 256 posts
by me. This compares, for example, with 262 from DC and 1440 from
Blinky. I can't be bothered perusing them, but I know that most of mine
will be refuting the hype & spin, which will be the content of most of
those of the other two batches cited. Since I'm not sure of what such a
search is supposed to prove though, I'll leave you to draw your own
conclusions from your own "criterion". But at least *you* had the
decency to try to back up your claims.
I note you didn't say I was
wrong about the invective part; maybe you would consider stopping
that?

I couldn't understand the "invective" reference, simply because I
thought you'd attached it to the "pro-MS" in the same way as you'd
attached the "spin"... which I found a little strange. ;) Now I see how
you intended it, no - I wouldn't deny my use of invective because I tend
to reply in the same tone as the post/ poster. Without splitting hairs,
I'd say I use the same invective level as the bashers. And you're right
on that. I have dropped to the level of the bashers on more than one
occassion by *initiating* the invective, as is their standard practice.
I will refrain from such usage in the future.
 
Back
Top