Prev: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES FOR BOLLYWOOD FANS
Next: Software able to turn off laptop at set time?
From: B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson on 31 Jul 2010 17:55
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:29:33 +0200, rotfl wrote:

> Be aware that I have no intention of trawling back in the archives to
> 1999.

You'll never understand the relation between the PL creation and the
usage of the websites as mere tools, then. You'll never understand the
purpose of PL as FAQ as well as thank-you project to freeware authors,
either. And you'll never understand the relations between several
people (involved or not involved with Pricelessware), like sentiments
between Genna Reeney and Susan Bugher, that developed over the time.

You won't see the effort many people (first and for all Susan for a
couple of years) invested into the PL project. And you will never see,
which people participated in acf at any given time during the periods
that can be associated with Pricelessware and what opinions those people
voiced wrt PL. Fine. - But then you should refrain yourself commenting
on these subjects!

> The era I have posted about is since Bugher took control of PW
> and got rid of Genna(sp?). This was about 2004.

Genna had neither time nor energy to continue the remarkable work she
had done for the Pricelessware project back then. For some time,
Genna and Susan shared most of this burden, later on Genna just held
the main key to the domain pricelessware.org, which she had registered.

The arguments between those two (and supporters for both), that were
exchanged in 2004, had IMHO pros and cons on both sides. I still
refrain from judging about them, because only part is known in public
and what's known is colored by subjective perspective. But I'm sure
that both women - if they had known, that their argument would be
dragged into discussions for years to come as "proof" *against* the
Pricelessware project - would have kept outmost silence, back then!
People *do* get carried away with their emotions, sometimes. And
*that's* what happened. *Not* Armageddon or Doomsday...

> My point is that there was a lot of angry debate at the time, clearly
> indicating that *many people* were not happy with what was happening.
> *Many people* = a lot more than a couple of k00ks who only appeared
> later on ACF c2006.

You take disagreements between *supporters* of Pricelessware as an
argument /against/ it?? - Again, if (at least) you had really read
the threads of this time, you'd have noticed, that the disagreements
always pertained the matter of *how* to do things, and not *if*. If
somebody had suggested to abandon PL, back then, this would have
caused a *united* uproar.

> It's also relevant to mention that many good posters left ACF long
> before the so-called "couple of k00ks" arrived, so the k00ks can't be
> blamed for that. But PWH advocates try to bury that history.

Just read through the archives, pick those who were active at some
time and aren't posting any more. Then look for their last postings
with regard to Pricelessware. And *then* decide, whether they left
acf *because* of the PL project in general or specific issues they
had with certain aspects of the PL process. You'll find fluctuation
and other normal reasons. (Or no reason at all.) But you won't find
the alleged relation between "issues with PL" and "leaving acf".
Even Genna and Garret, whose names are often dragged into discussions
on these matters, left because of lack of time and waning interest. They
practically disappeared months before any argument (you and others keep
citing) started. And only reappeared shortly during that discussion.

> I'm not sure if WB mentioned it but altruism cannot explain the PWH
> gang-hate campaigns which are waged against dissenters, so there has to
> be something bigger at stake. That is invariably $$$. Such could also
> explain why �Q� hosts the unlawful CD.ISOs on his server...

*Every* program on these CD's has either some general permission
for CD distribution associated with it or the author gave specific
permission to include it on the PL ISO's. You either know this. Or
you did neither read the pertinent postings of the time of the
creation of those CD's (as you wrote you allegedly already did) nor
read the information I provided in my previous two postings here
in this thread. (I linked *twice* to the 2009 license checking
summary posting.) Since you publicly show so much "interest" in the
matter, your behavior clearly marks you as liar with agenda to
destroy the Pricelessware project. - Whatever the reasons are...
:-(

It fits to see my handle twisted /twice/ in a follow-up you wrote
to �Q� in this thread. /Once/ may have been a typo, /twice/ is an
open attempt at mocking and denigration. :-(

Therefore, I only addressed the matters you brought up in your posting,
to avoid reading in a couple of years, how I avoided your "legitimate
concerns". (Or whatever some twisted mind will make up from this.)
You - as person linked to your pseudonym - have completely lost my
respect. (Something, I'm willing to show *anybody*, until proven
otherwise...)

> You are free to disagree with my views but you will not change them
> short of producing material evidence that rocks the world. My trawling
> of the archives has not revealed any.

Fits. :-(

BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===
From: rotfl on 31 Jul 2010 20:10
Pricelessware's new up and coming jackboot, �Q� , wrote:

>I've snipped most of it, but that was an excellent reply to one of the
>"new" posters who come along a couple of times a year and after taking
>a "crash course" in a.c.f history quickly "see" that
>Bottoms/hummingbird/Me.Here are right about everything. (Funny how the
>person who "sees" that is using a remailer -- I think the last time it
>got hold of a relatively legit server, the posts came from "Legit
>Anon".)

======================================================================
Here's the translation of �Q�'s comments:
-----------------------------------------
"Whenever a "new" poster appears on ACF who disagrees with
$Pricelessware$ abuse of ACF for privately owned website business,
we will accuse him of being a sockpuppet of Bear Bottoms, Hummingbird,
Me.Here or Legit Anon and claim he's a k00k, safe to ignore and block,
especially if he posts thru a remailer. We must always block remailers
because such newsservers don't respond to our scores of LARTS.

OTOH, if said "new" poster is supportive of $Pricelessware$, we will
encourage his participation and ignore anybody who claims that he's a
$Pricelessware$ sockpuppet."

Signed,
�Q�,
-Pricelessware Jackboot Enforcement Dept-
======================================================================


-rotfl

From: B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson on 1 Aug 2010 02:02
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:52:49 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:

> "B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson" <br.ederson(a)expires-2010-07-31.arcornews.de> wrote
> in news:1xx9z6kuggtjx$.dlg(a)br.ederson.news.arcor.de:
>
>> You'll never understand the relation between the PL creation and the
>> usage of the websites as mere tools, then. You'll never understand the
>> purpose of PL as FAQ as well as thank-you project to freeware authors,
>> either. And you'll never understand the relations between several
>> people (involved or not involved with Pricelessware), like sentiments
>> between Genna Reeney and Susan Bugher, that developed over the time.
>
> Good intentions at the beginning evolved to a very nasty today. Don't try
> to whitewash it. Get out of denial. There are serious problems with the
> PWH system and participants today and have been for many years.

You apply (in fact, you did so from the beginning) kin liability for
individual peoples reaction to a loose group of persons. After attacking
the group as a whole, you're always "wondering", that all people from
that group respond to *those* attacks.

When you appeared in acf, you encountered typical reactions of /regulars/
to a newcomer. The same happened to you in alt.comp.virus and maybe in
other groups I don't frequent. It just so happened, that acv had no
special project, whose participants you could blame as a surrogate.
In acf, OTOH, most active regulars around 2004 *also* embraced (and
participated in) the Pricelessware project.

Attacking the wrong group for all the wrong reasons has led to the mess
we (acf) are in now.

> I recommend the PWH crowd fixing that first, rather than beat everyone up
> who addresses the problems, denying the problems, and continue on status
> quo.

Of course, there are problems. I tried to fix some of them, when I
moderated the 2008 PW election, for instance requesting consequent
tagging for easy filtering.

But for modernizing the PW process, we need a quite atmosphere, where
we can concentrate on discussing and improving the relevant issues.
Constantly attacking Pricelessware as a concept and participants as
a grey mass (instead of addressing individual postings individually)
will do only harm.

BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===
From: rotfl on 1 Aug 2010 08:31
BeAr wrote:
>You'll never understand... [snip]

ROTFL. IYO. The comments you make this time round haven't been voiced
before afaik, so it looks like you're making it up as you go along
under pressure. And I doubt other PWH groupies share your "new" views
(though I expect a few "me-too" puppies to jump up and bawl agreement),
otherwise you would not abuse ACF for producing a PWH/PL and produce
CD.ISOs without the authors' permission for inclusion, in some cases.

Thus, do I believe/accept your "new" arguments? Not one bit.
Sorry, it's pure bullshit.

AFAICS this debate was never about producing a PL (although I note
suggestions for improvement were put forward but completely ignored),
but *where* you choose to do it. You and other Pricelessware groupies
claim to have a God-given right to conduct PWH private website business
on ACF and every comment you make starts from that premise. But I know
it is a false premise and is shot thru by Usenet etiquette, simple
logic/commonsense and the standard practice of ALL other websites. The
simple truth is that it is done on ACF only because it has always been
done on ACF. Neanderthals come to mind.

Your false premise has led you all to dig yourselves deeper and deeper
into a prehistoric hole which you cannot get out of for ego/face-saving
reasons. It will likely cause the final destruction of Pricelessware.
But given the shoddy quality of the last PL that would be no loss.
I should care.

Pricelessware needs a proper webmaster committed to conduct its
business over on ACP OR a forum attached to its crappy website.
That might give it a new lease of life if the claimed "high number"
of enthusiastic PWH supporters participate. LOL.

OAO.

-rotfl

From: B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson on 1 Aug 2010 09:08
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:05:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote:

>> You apply (in fact, you did so from the beginning) kin liability for
>> individual peoples reaction to a loose group of persons. After attacking
>> the group as a whole, you're always "wondering", that all people from
>> that group respond to *those* attacks.
>
> It was Susan Bugher and her closest followers BeAr...get real.

You had arguments with *regulars* of acf (Susan among them, yes). Most
of them *also* took/take part in the Pricelessware process. You'd have
had arguments with these regulars, /regardless/ a Pricelessware process
existed or not. Pricelessware has *nothing* to do with this.

You confronted *additional* people posting to acf, when you invented
the imaginary "cult" and started to "wage war" (as you called it)
against the Pricelessware process and its participants. I.e.: You
took ~70 people (PL 2006 participants) in kin liability because you
had issues with (before you started talking about "cults") about 5
people. - That's a really "fine" ratio... :-(

BeAr
--
===========================================================================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
===============================================================--(Oops!)===
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES FOR BOLLYWOOD FANS
Next: Software able to turn off laptop at set time?