Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Steve Firth on 6 Jun 2010 10:46 Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Shouting at Rowland doesn't stop him being a crazy delusional paranoid, > it doesn't make anyone (except Steve Firth) That's a statement that you can't support. You are stating as fact something that is your opinion, and not a particularly well founded opinion at that. Unless of course you can show me the in-depth research you did to determine attitudes to James' posts. Once again you prove to me at least that any type of put-down of James is acceptable but that one can turn a blind eye to the behaviour of Rowland and his support group.
From: James Jolley on 6 Jun 2010 11:02 On 2010-06-06 15:26:30 +0100, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) said: > >> I just find it interesting that the internet is full of people who think >> they can get away with whatever they like that's all. > > For the most part, they can. Anyone can say whatever they like in an > unmoderated newsgroup, and for the most part there are almost no > consequences. It reflects well on human nature that there are at least > some newsgroups where most of the discussion is sane, civilized and > interesting. So the discussion earlier regarding prosicuting people for being nasty to rowland is fair? How is it then, that he acts how he does, but if I were to do the same thing in a bar or on the street, i'd expect to have my throat slit? Funny, don't suppose there's an answer to that.
From: Jim on 6 Jun 2010 11:06 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why, because you say so? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Because unlike you, I'm not nasty. > > > > > > > > > > Untrue, you're nasty but you don't realise when you are being so. > > > > > You're happy to beat on a blind man for example. > > > > > > > > An example of which would be..? > > > > > > The long-running attacks on James by the PolitBuro. > > > > And that's Peter's fault because..? > > Because he takes part in those attacks. An example of which would be..? Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Pd on 6 Jun 2010 11:23 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-06 15:26:30 +0100, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) said: > > > >> I just find it interesting that the internet is full of people who think > >> they can get away with whatever they like that's all. > > > > For the most part, they can. Anyone can say whatever they like in an > > unmoderated newsgroup, and for the most part there are almost no > > consequences. It reflects well on human nature that there are at least > > some newsgroups where most of the discussion is sane, civilized and > > interesting. > > So the discussion earlier regarding prosicuting people for being nasty > to rowland is fair? How is it then, that he acts how he does, but if I > were to do the same thing in a bar or on the street, i'd expect to have > my throat slit? So would he. Anyone acting like that in the physical world would be likely to encounter the same lack of understanding, and be met with the same aggression that some display here. The difference is that in here, you don't have to be aware of Rowland's ravings apart from the people you haven't killfiled responding to him. -- Pd
From: Pd on 6 Jun 2010 11:30
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > > Shouting at Rowland doesn't stop him being a crazy delusional paranoid, > > it doesn't make anyone (except Steve Firth) > > That's a statement that you can't support. You are stating as fact > something that is your opinion, and not a particularly well founded > opinion at that. Unless of course you can show me the in-depth research > you did to determine attitudes to James' posts. Journal of NGPsych (2010) pp297-302 Kocurban S.E. & Neumayer P.F. Ox.U.P. > Once again you prove to me at least that any type of put-down of James > is acceptable but that one can turn a blind eye to the behaviour of > Rowland and his support group. I think you're starting to understand. Turning a blind eye (to use your phrase) is the best reaction to Rowland's ravings. I haven't put down James - I'm just pointing out how ineffective, and in fact counter-productive his bilious responses to Rowland are. And there's no reason to pussyfoot around James because he's blind. I don't pussyfoot around you just cos you're a grumpy old fart. -- Pd |