Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

From: Sinister Midget (sm_at_kcsmartNOSPAM.org)
Date: 09/15/03 

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:21:15 GMT

As Mike Byrns so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 21:26 GMT:

> It's amazing to watch you two jerk each other off like this.

We were wainting for a pivot man.

Now that you're here......

As an aside, I was going to snip everything below that last bit. But I
looked at what it did to the wrapping and formatting, and decided you'd
get a kick out of looking at it and knowing you *paid* for the right to
get that behavior!

Only the professional Outhouse-family of products give that signature
"3-paragraphs-from-one" effect.

Enjoy!

> "Sinister Midget" <sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org> wrote in message
> news:1g01kb.dcr.ln@host.newsservicer.org...
>> As Alan Connor so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 04:13 GMT:
>>
>> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 03:52:12 GMT, Sinister Midget <sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org>
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As Alan Connor so eloquently gibbered on Sun, 14 Sep 2003 at 01:25 GMT:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:37:59 -0500, Sinister Midget
><sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Got 'em good. But they'll pretend the blood is just ketchup.
>> >>
>> >> I don't suffer any illusions. There are those who are open to fact.
>> >> There are those who are not. I can usually discern the difference, and
>> >> I base my expectations on experiences with those similar to the ones
>> >> currently being addressed.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Use Microsoft Products: It's not like you needed that money or those
>> >> rights anyway.
>> >
>> >
>> > It was just a compliment with a tag....
>>
>> Sorry. I realized that'swhat it was about.
>>
>> > You obviously know what you are about.
>>
>> Well, I don't know all, but I know what I know. And I know none (or
>> mostly none) of the Windozers has any idea. They read MICROS~1-bought
>> reports, and MICROS~1-bought studies, and MICROS~1-bought media. Then
>> they read some folderol spewed by some MICROS~1-bought shill and think
>> they're knowledgeable. Then along comes someone who shows them how to
>> distinguish between *** and Shinola and they think they're dealing
>> with someone who has never heard of WinDoze or Micro-Soft before.
>>
>> They can't seem to grasp that nearly everyone that has moved away from
>> WinDOS did exactly that: moved away.
>>
>> I use linux because I've used Windows.
>>
>> > It amazes me, most of all, to hear them call the *[Nn]*[Xx] Os hard to
> learn.
>>
>> Again, mostly based on either experience with really old stuff, or
>> taking the word of someone who has reason to be less than honest (or
>> incredibly inept). Or, someone who views everything through the prism
>> of Winders, and can't grasp that One MICROS~1 Way shouldn't be viewed as
>> a way of life.
>>
>> > Windoze is so convoluted and complex that people don't even TRY to learn
> how
>> > it actually works.
>>
>> Point, click, drool. If it can be done, that's how it should be done
>> (in their world). Unfortunately, what gets lost to them is that it's
>> all based on lowest common denominator (which, up to now, is what it
>> took to keep expanding the market).
>>
>> > And I swear they deliberately make it seem even more complex than it
> actually
>> > is.
>> >
>> > Give me LDP and the man pages and /usr/share/doc any day.
>> >
>> > I tried to use the so-called MicroSoft-Knowledge-Base during my brief
>> > experience with Windoze, as well as XP Inside/Out and found them both
>> > to be almost useless.
>>
>> I had an XP machine that would boot, flash a quick glimpse of blue,
>> then reboot. This went on endlessly. Not only did none of the items in
>> the "Knowledgebase" work, none of the cut'n'paste suggestions of the
>> MVPs and other gurus did anything either. Even trying to rescue things
>> by booting from the CD did nothing. In the end, after several days of
>> several people trying to salvage anything from it, after searching all
>> over $MONOPOLY's website, after aksing in all sorts of places for any
>> ideas, a wiped disk and reinstall fixed the problem.
>>
>> Just lucky it was on a network and nothing irreplaceable was lost. Just
>> a lot of time trying to rescue what was a royal pain to set up all over
>> again.
>>
>> *ALL* of the XP machines at work exhibit an odd behavior. At times,
>> they get into a mode where the entire screen, or large patches of it,
>> turns totally white. This is absolutely reproducible, and I can even
>> set up the conditions to make it happen. Obviously, this shouldn't be.
>> What does the "Knowledgebase" say? Nothing. What did the MVP geniuses
>> and other gurus say? That I was lying. I can't take a screenshot of it
>> because the machine is locked up tight during those times. When I
>> finally get a digital camera (which I need for other purposes), I'm
>> going to put a picture of it on a website to show it. I suspect they'll
>> still toss some names about. Such is the state of denial.
>>
>> But, still no answers about how to fix it. Just claims that it's all
>> imaginary. And nothing official on the "Knowledgebase" to explain it.
>>
>> > Then there's that crippled DOS commandline, as if DOS isn't limited
> enough
>> > to begin with.....
>>
>> Shame, shame , shame!! DO$ isn't called DO$ any more. Now its official
>> name is "CMD" and you won't have any credibility whatsoever if you
>> can't call it by the right three-letter name (even though they'll prove
>> they know what you're talking about when they correct your
>> terminology).
>>
>> --
>> MS could solve all their problems tomorrow regarding security and
>> stability and I wouldn't use them more than I have to now because for
> years
>> they fed me cow *** and told me it was cake.
>
> 

-- 
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous!