| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
In Defense and Attack of Proprietary Software | |
|
||
| Time: 08:49 EST/13:49 GMT | News Source: OS News | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
The International Telecommunications Union's World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was last week. Of particular interest was a moderated debate on the issue of preferential treatment for open-source products in government procurement. John Carroll editorializes for proprietary software and RMS on the other side, against it. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 333 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:54:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2459 (24.175.137.164) at 12/17/2003 9:26:11 AM |
|
In summary, the problem GPL code has with licensing is self-imposed, and should not be a trump card which overrules use of IP which isn't automatically sublicensed or charges a fee for use. There are plenty of alternatives to the GPL that do not create an artificial conflict with proprietary software.
Spot on as usual. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/17/2003 11:44:32 AM |
| Do I completely miss the point, or is Stallman an outrageously poor student of history--and an even worse student of economics? I'm not an "invisible hand" proponent, but the idea that the software industry will be better off without a strong financial incentive is absolutely ludicrous. It will be a very, very sad affair when programmers--like all but the most successful artists, musicians, writers, poets, et al--require grants and gifts of goodwill to keep their passion afloat. What's amazing is the number of programmers that actually buy into his delirium, and are willingly bringing about exactly that. The whole economy will suffer tremendously, not to speak of the industry. |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 3:04:28 PM |
|
"Why does free software need to be "promoted"? Can't it compete on its own merits? Does it really need to be forced down everyone's throats to be used?"
How is "promoted" equivalent to "forced down throat"? The equivalent is Brazil promoting generic or off-patent pharmaceuticals over exported drugs from multinational megacorporations. Why does it need to be promoted? Because "Free" trade actually means we get to flood and enter your markets at artificially created pricing to preserve our own domestic markets against foreign, developing markets that can produce the same or equivalent product at lower or zero cost. But of course, you aren't afraid to use the word "free" with the word trade... Even if by that, our country means establishing tariffs to protect an antiquated steel industry, controlling the worlds banana production, exploiting coffee crops around the world, subsidizing agricultural industry, padding the pockets of fat cat pharma companies, assisting Microsoft worldwide, and the like. |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/17/2003 4:40:04 PM |
| Don't confuse this issue as the US vs. the 3rd world or Microsoft vs. Free Software, sodajerk. Stallman claims: "If we take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment." This is a fight between people that naively think software developers do what they do solely for the art and craft of it and don't really desire monetary compensation for their work, and those that realize that ideas like these, while appealing on many levels, don't work out in reality, as only a small fraction of those that go into software development hold these ideals. More simply, it's between those that think that a strong financial incentive for software development is healthy in many ways, and those that think it is unhealthy and see no place for it. That is something that is not particular to any company, country, or economic status. I think Carroll is quite correct that there is room for and benefit in both, while Stallman is totally unreasonable and unrealistic in that regard, holding onto ideas that are proven in history to be infeasible. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 5:28:34 PM |
|
Actually, dkg, you are completely wrong. Most of them haven't mandated anything.
Brazil has "encouraged" open source. Their president and chief technology official have made many statements they have no interest in mandating the use of it. In, fact, what is central to Brazil's open source strategy? A great big contract with IBM. Microsoft is simply pissed the business isn't going to them. Australia has "promoted" open source. They have set a "preference" for open source. I see nothing wrong with saying that the ability to employ local developers to use expand on the code, to be able to audit and see all code, to know that the code will never be controlled or eliminated by one entity, and many other reasons ahead of proprietary software is wrong. Nor do I see it as harmful to commercial enterprises: you can still sell OS to Australia. MS could get into OS if it wants; they have no reason to bitch about not providing something they refuse to make. Only Peru has considered an outright ban. And even still, Peru only bans proprietary software; it does not mandate "free" (as in beer) software. IBM, HP, Red Hat, anyone who produces commercial software under an OSI approved license can engage contracts with Peru. Again, there is nothing preventing MS from producing their own OS software, is there? bluvg, when have I ever said Stallman is right. That only GPL software is good. I advocate all forms of open source (including the GPL) and proprietary software. And you can shove your bualoney, dude. You can't quite claim in one breath that both models are sustainable but then claim that Stallman's "ideas ... are proven in history to be infeasible." For that matter, please tell me what events in history show that open source is infeasible. Of course, "Free" trade is relevent. You want to pretend that capitalism and "free" world trade is really controlled by "free" markets rather than government subsidies, tariffs, World Bank deals, etc... Your formulation of what you think the difference in the two camps is simply that, your own. ...Maybe Stallman's, but your conception is very limited and trite. (Even Stallman concedes the need to allow for commercial implementations of GPL code; the issue for Stallman is one company possessing and hoarding the value of the code, restricting code to a model of single providers rather than disparate but homogeneous and interoperable systems.) And most people do not agree with Stallman, but that doesn't make them anti-open source. But more importantly, you pretend as if everyone working for Red Flag Linux, IBM, HP OS projects, and Red Hat are working for free. This is not the case, buddy. Plenty of people are making plenty of money developing open source code. Most people see it as empowering the code and future generations to add and develop using common building blocks to create better software rather than one entity controlling code which can be used in better ways, by other people, for different uses not soley directed at maximixing profit. (See the recent NSF press releases.) Exactly like the pharmaceutical patent issue. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 at 17:57. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/17/2003 5:57:34 PM |
|
sodajerk, don't distort my statements. There is nothing contradictory about saying that the combination of both models is healthy, while a world in which no proprietary software exists is not. And, I never stated that Open Source is infeasible. However, historically an economy based on Stallman's ideals (without financial incentive) is. Do you really think that the software boom of the past couple decades was led by companies with no interest in a financial incentive?
I also said that I don't buy the idea of an economy based wholly on the "invisible hand" theory, so don't bother with your "free trade" lecture. |
| #7 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 6:18:37 PM |
|
dkg, you said ban. "PREFER" is equivalent to "BAN" now? You make me laugh.
"Once again, it's all just the big bad Microsoft doing bad thing XYZ. But I'm a believer that actions speak louder than words." Isn't this your pathetic focus? I don't see them specifically mentioning Microsoft and the law applies to all proprietary code. There is a lot more proprietary code besides Microsoft's. And doesn't this fly in the face of your belief that they are trying to keep people from making money. From your own link: "Although Amadeu insists the government has no plans to mandate open-source software use, Microsoft is worried and is lobbying to prevent the policy from becoming law." Sounds like MS is the one that's paranoid. Sounds like you are paranoid. "Well then I guess you can't say I'm "completely wrong", can you?" "Mandating the consideration"? Yeah, I can call you completely wrong. THe NFL has mandated the consideration of black coaches when a spot becomes available--have they all been filled by blacks? 1. Completely wrong in your logic. You said "promoted" IS equivalent to "forced down throat" because of your examples. However, 2/3s of your argument don't support that. And the 3rd example is an outright ban; of course, I would agree "banning" is equivalent to "banning", but I don't see how that means "promoting" equals "mandating." In my post, I acknowledge you were correct about Peru. So what the fck is your point? Oooh, oh no, great big bad Peru would like to have more than 5% of their population to use computers and because of that they are going to destroy Microsoft, proprietary software, and capitalism!" Whatever. It is a small impoverished country doing the best it can for its domestic markets and its population rather than lining MS's pockets which controls 95% of the world software market. Big deal. 2. Yes, I have. Again, I am saying your logic is completely wrong. You have one inkling of evidence... that doesn't support your point... and is of little consequence to say the least to the world's economic systems. How does that prove the destruction of capitalism and innovation? 3. You've cited articles that state exactly what I said. They have made minor nods to "prefer" or "encourage" or whatever... No freakin big deal. It has not banned commercial software--IBM and others are loving it. It has not restricted MS specifically. It has restricted a general category of product that does not have the qualities of another. Are we to end every tariff and trade restriction we have because we want to favor our domestic markets? Are we going to eliminate all tariffs, taxes, and subsidies decided to promote a particular product because of related values over another? Do you really think this is different from many "free trade" policies? No, they are not forcing them down their throats. Did you read your links? The Brazil article concedes only two small depts. have switched. That they are trying to encourage the adoption, but that it is infeasible and that they have no interest in mandating it. Don't link if you aren't going to read. The Australia one says they are mandating the consideration... Oooh... As I said above, according to you, the NFL is now forcing black coaches down the throat of every team. Think again. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 6:32:42 PM |
|
bluvg, if you don't want me to think that you are saying Open Source is infeasible when you say "ideas that are proven in history to be infeasible" then don't try to equate Stallman's views with all of open source, nor should you act as if Stallman does not recognize the need for commercial gain from work--he clearly does, he did write the GPL to allow for commercial products--Stallman's concern is primary incentive to produce, that doesn't mean that producing product cannot result in financial gain...
"However, historically an economy based on Stallman's ideals (without financial incentive) is." And Stallman is a political, forward thinking, revolutionary spokesperson. He ahs to speak in black and white. That doesn't mean he or anyone else sees that as the necessary condition. After all, his ideas are towards pure "free" but his license does allow for commercial implementations, yes? So why would you presume economies would be based on his ideas in the future rather than his license which business models are in fact based on today. "Do you really think that the software boom of the past couple decades was led by companies with no interest in a financial incentive?" That's a meaningless and retarded question. The GPL and many OS license didn't exist 20 years ago. Does that mean that innovation cannot happen without a financial incentive? No. Does that mean pursuing open source cannot be done with a financial incentive? No. So what's your point? I do know that Unix and now Linux remain a fairly considerable option primary because of development that actually lead to the OS model and which still continues today. I know that I'd prefer governements and educational institutions to perform research, study, and development on code which could be made available to and useful for everyone. My point about free trade is to raise the issue: do you really think that we and other gov'ts/economies do not actively prefer certain products over another? That this preference is perfectly natural and unavoidable? That it is meant to benefit domestic markets or the values of the country or the will of the people? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 at 19:24. |
| #9 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 6:49:32 PM |
|
please, dkg, I am using synonyms (I like variety), but this is exactly what I began by asking you: how is "preference" equivalent to "force down throat?" Please explain. I interpret "force down throat " closer to ban--i.e. there is no option. "Prefer" I interpret as provide consideration. You claim there is no other option; however, this is not the case at all. Prefer does not mean no option at all. Yet, according to you, I am arguing against a position that you do not hold... so your position is that these countries are not forcing their governments to use OS, are not forcing it down their throats, are not banning proprietary software? I think you need to get something starightened out. What is your position? If I am making a straw man argument, it is only because you are moving away from what you have stated. If you are saying that your position is that these countries are not forcing their governments to be OS only, are not forcing it down their throats, are not banning proprietary software, than I agree with you.
Even you stated: "No, the equivalent is Brazil creating generic or off-patent pharmaceuticals, and then saying, "You have to use these. Any use of the non-generic drug is prohibited."" However, you have not provided any proof that Brazil has said "any use of non OS software is prohibited." In fact, you provided evidence to the contrary. So rather than claiming that I'm putting words in your mouth, why don't you stick to one definition, interpretation of forced, and please explain to me how these government are forcing (themselves by the way) to do something. Again, the NFL mandates the consideration of black coaches for consideration of open positions. Has the NFL "forced down the throat" of every team that they must have a black coach? So why don't you tell me what you think is being forced. And as I have raised, do you really think that all "preferences" in every respect should be removed or only when they concern Microsoft? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 at 19:35. |
| #10 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 7:49:47 PM |
|
dkg, "preference" is miles from "force down throat." Did you read the Brazil link? The President and other fellow recognize that even under the legislation little will change because even after first providing preferential consideration to OS, proprietary software will still win out.
When both Australia and Brazil recognize that the decision making process will still lean towards proprietary even with preference, preference more or less means consideration. And as we have already stated, Australia doesn't "prefer" OS; they "mandate the consideration." Your claim that they are giving preference to something they don't need or don't want is ludicrous. This is the process: we want software to do this, this software does this and so does that software, this software is proprietary, that software is OS. Select OS. No one is downloading source or binaries just for the heck of it without any want or reason or ability to perform the necessary task simply to comply with a gov't "preference" or "mandate to consider." Why do you fail to answer my question about the NFL? Is it because you recognize that black coaches are not being "forced down the throats" of the teams? dkg, you are wrong on this (preference to none and my views) on a number of levels. You claim you are against preference in every respect, but you also said you are against the "invisible hand"--are you aware that those are utterly contradictory statements?--I don't think you are aware of the many controls and preferences built into our's and every economy... Are you suggesting that MS has no preferential treatment (because of political and financial (Wall Street) influence), are you claiming that our entire agricultural industry is a sham and actively arguing against it because it is not sustainable without subsidies, are you against the WTO and IMF, were you against our (recently repealed and definitely illegal) steel tariffs, are you against the US restricting and preventing Canada, Germany, and others from contracts in Iraq, imposing taxes on liquor and cigarettes because there is a value argument being posed (make it harder for the companies because there is a health and vice risk)? These are just a simple list of the most apparent and timely preferences our country engages in. Personally, I bet you are perfectly happy to allow many preferences to occur in the world. This one just manages to piss you off because it pisses MS off, despite the fact that almost every other major software company is not restricted because most other major software companies have adapted to OS. Also, you are supposing that I should be against all preferences or for all preferences (this is simply bad logic). I am not. I understand that there are reasons to promote certain markets over others. I understand that beyond cost and price, there can be other values and residual/hidden costs in products which can be affected by preferential treatment. I understand that every economist now acknowledges costs which do not appear in any economic bookkeeping (sociological, moral, and historical costs). Yes, I would be against preference being given to MS, but not because of who they are, but because of the rationale behind such a move. Yes, I am for preferences at times and against preferences at other times. I am making numerous judgements about values, markets, and many other factors. You on the other hand will at one time claim you are not of a complete laissez-faire disposition (against the "invisible hand" concept), but that there should be zero preference provided in respect to all things (huh?), but then you only have your cackles raised when its something that Microsoft opposes. Why is that? Do you see your own inconsistency? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 at 20:19. |
| #11 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 8:12:56 PM |
|
"Giving "preference" to something, when done through legislation, does force things down people's throats. If I have to give preference to something that I don't like, that doesn't meet my needs, etc, how is it anything OTHER than having it forced down my throat? Why should I have to give preference to something?"
Also, let's broach this subject: if a government (representative at that... presumably of its people) chooses to enact legislation which affects itself, it is "FORCING" something IT DOESN'T WANT down "it's OWN throat." Is that possible? YOU do not have to give preference to anything. It has nothing to do with YOUR needs. It is not your throat. It has nothing to do with MS's wants or needs. It has everything to do with the GOVERNMENTS WANTS and NEEDS--it is their throat, their decision to make, their choice... Hence the decision to propose and PASS (Jesus Christ, these laws are being passed, right, not dropped out of the sky?) these laws. These laws only affect the GOVERNMENT. They do not affect individual, private, or commercial use, yes? I love the idea that these governments are forcing themselves to do something they don't want. Or are you suggesting that in representational governments, when a majority passes a law constitutionally, it is not truly what the government wants, and rather what should be done is pass a law that one of the wealthiest corporations in the world, from a foreign country no less, thinks could maximize its profits whether or not it benefits the government, people, economy of the country... whether or not few, if any, other companies are opposed to the decision? This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 at 21:11. |
| #12 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/17/2003 9:00:06 PM |
| parker is a fckin' moron |
| #13 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/17/2003 11:28:02 PM |
|
Fascinating. I read both articles and John Carroll's was by far the most balanced. It was clear from reading that he actually listened to the points argued in the debate, pro, con and otherwise. He then addressed those points.
Stallman on the other hand sounds like a raving lunatic. n4cer got it right, John got it right. The problem with the GPL is all self-imposed and by design. |
| #14 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/17/2003 11:32:53 PM |
|
BTW, I agree with parker on this. The whole point of this government legislation is to force countries to buy software that has not competed well in the free market.
cba-3.14 - "the lucrative nature of software is over." Actually this is only true in the open-source world. You work in a world where people are willing to take advantage of you. Think Free as in Working for IBM without a salary. |
| #15 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/18/2003 12:14:16 AM |
| Guys, please stop pushing the limits of our TOS. And yes, quoting a quasi-offensive remark is double-worse than originally saying it. |
| #16 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/18/2003 10:31:44 AM |
|
sodajerk: "don't try to equate Stallman's views with all of open source." Please tell me when I did. I think I made it pretty explicit that I did not.
"nor should you act as if Stallman does not recognize the need for commercial gain from work--he clearly does, he did write the GPL to allow for commercial products..." First, he DOES advocate taking away strong financial incentive: "take away the possibility of great wealth." Secondly, just because the GPL allows for commercial products doesn't mean it's conducive to financial gain. "Does that mean that innovation cannot happen without a financial incentive? No." Again, I never said that. I did say that it is not healthy for the industry nor the economy. On the other hand, the software innovations today are led by the commercial companies, and the Open Source community copies the innovations. There is a big difference between theory and reality, or what is possible and what actually happens. Everyone works for a benefit... but Stallman wants everyone to work for the same benefit--"the joy of accomplishment." In his ideal world (populated with Stallman clones?), perhaps this would work. In the real world, this is a misguided attempt and reactionary to super-success. You cannot force all people to work for the "joy" of it. As for free trade, I already said I do not buy into the "invisible hand" theory, so your points are non-arguments. The issue is not specific to any country. |
| #17 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/18/2003 1:18:56 PM |
|
But it's okay to quote a quote of a quasi-offensive remark, right, Chad?
"parker is a fckin' moron And you just proved to everyone how intelligent you are with that...yessirree...we all know now..." Whatever, dkg, apparently Chad fully agrees as he even sees it as pseudo-offensive, i.e. offensive but true. That is what you mean by "quasi-offensive," right, Chad? |
| #18 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/18/2003 1:51:30 PM |
|
dkg, please get a freakin sense of humor. Yes, I used "pseudo" for variety's sake. Yes, there is a difference of meaning. But, yes, quasi means "having some reference" or even "applicable in legal reference but with no regard for the intent or content" which remains just as applicable to my point, if not more so, than pseudo--which means Chad doesn't find it offensive enough to mod ... because it is true.
"He didn't say they were "pseudo-offensive", he said they were "quasi-offensive, and the definition of quasi is "to some degree; in some manner," or, "having some resemblance". What he's saying is that it's quasi-offensive because, while the word you're using in and of itself isn't an offensive word, it comes from an offensive word, and the meaning is obvious, and thus the word you used is quasi-offensive. Get it?" I can't speak for him, but judging by the words he used he meant "quasi-offensive", and not "pseudo-offensive", despite the definitions you want to give his words. Ummm, dude, You just did. You in fact just spoke for Chad and ME ... to ME ... and then said you couldn't!! I know I was putting words into Chad's mouth, but I also know what a joke is. Do you really think that I think Chad agrees with me (that parker is a fckn moron) and that he didn't edit it because of this? Come on. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 15:01. |
| #19 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/18/2003 5:50:20 PM |
|
dkg, this last post just proves you have no sense of humor.
Personally, if someone started off: "But it's okay to quote a quote of a quasi-offensive remark, right, Chad?" it's pretty freakin OBVIOUS that it's a joke. And I'm sure it was obvious to many even if it wasn't to you. As for Chad, he has another id and one which represents him as an admin of AW. If he wants to present himself as "daz", then I could give a fck. |
| #20 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/18/2003 7:13:11 PM |
|
"Umm, he referred to the TOS as "our TOS" in his post...it would seem that whether or not he has another ID, that doesn't exclude his daz ID from making statements about Activewin policy, and requesting that people not use quasi-offensive remarks."
Yet again, you are speaking for Chad. Look, dkg, you've spent 2 relatively long posts trying to explain how you didn't understand the joke and/or how I wasn't really making a joke but am trying to get out of some hole... Guess what? I could give a fck what you think! But, yes, these lines explaining... absolutely show you have no sense of fckn humor. And, yes, I could give a fck what "daz" wants, I couldn't care less if he says "ours", and certainlt your pathetic little opinion doesn't matter. If Chad wants some respect, he can ask for it and/or earn it. I have been calling him an idiot for over a year already, haven't I? Take care of your own sh1t. |
| #21 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/18/2003 7:53:30 PM |
|
"Yet again, you need to learn how to read. Notice how I use the phrase "It would seem"? What that little phrase means is that what follows is how it seems to me. Thus the phrase, "it would seem". "
Why should I care what you think Chad might be thinking? I don't. What makes you think "It would seem" is any less supposing than me just saying what Chad is thinking? I could give 2 sh!ts whether or not I say "I think" or "It appears to me" or "It seems". You are still speaking for him when the man can speak for himself. "For someone who doesn't care, you sure are spending a lot of time replying..." I absolutely do not care... That has nothing to do with the fact that I am entertaining myself by screwing with you. "Just admit it, jerkyboy. You have no respect for anyone. Hell, even your ID is an example of that. To be honest, it's just sad...seeing someone trying so hard to show that he doesn't respect anyone..." Oooh, my user name. Big fckin deal. Whoopty-f'in-doo. Only complete f'in pussies get offended and feel disrepected by a word, and sodajerk... where's the massive display of disrepect? Jerk wasn't even censored when TV was first invented. Soda is a favorite American invention. The sodajerk was everyone's favorite guy for decades. God, you are a soft little softie, aren't you? Do you cry when the wind blows? I don't know what you want me to admit: I've shown you no respect except for earlier when you weren't avoiding my points. I think it's perfectly f'in clear I don't respect you. If you want me to state it for you, I will: I do not respect you. Happy? No one? There are plenty of people I respect. It is actually rather easy to win my respect. That's pathetic, and ... yet, again, you know my own mind better than I do. Silly fool. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 19:55. |
| #22 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/18/2003 8:22:07 PM |
|
"Because you aren't saying it as supposition--you're saying it as fact. Get the difference? No, I suppose not... " Ahhh, never studied semantics or linguistics have you? As a functioning human being (are you?) you should understand that I do not know what Chad is thinking (it clearly has to be what I THINK he is thinking). It is called the "speech act": the source, posture, and other aspects of the uterrance certainly affects the meaning of what I am saying.
You are too slow to follow that. You think it's better to provide pointers to a fact that is perfectly obvious, when in fact, you are jsut pointing out how obvious it is that you are interpreting and restating what you presume to be Chad's opinion without his agreement or approval. Fck off, I'm not a troll. I've been a member longer than you. I've posted more than you. I'm a key member of this community. I receive support from other members and other admins from this site. Don't tell me what to do. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 333 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:54:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
