On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:35:21 -0700, traci.manicotti wrote:
> It appears that the hypocrites in comp.os.linux.advocacy are hard at
> work behind the scenes attempting to have people who disagree with
> them silenced.
Really? Hmm.
> I received a notice from my ISP that several complaints had been
> logged against me for posting off topic posts in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Ah. Well, were your posts topical?
As a general rule of thumb, two sorts of posts are topical in the group:
those promoting (i.e. advocating) Linux, and those discussing whether a
particular post or subject is, in fact, topical.
If your posts fall into neither category, then you _were_ in fact posting
off-topic, which apparently was the complaint lodged.
If you _weren't_ posting off-topic, then certainly, those complaining
should be spanked.
> I know that Mark Kent and Roy Schestowitz are behind this but the
> irony is that much of their postings are far off topic and putting
> {rival} or {other} as a prefix does not alter the fact that this crap
> clogs the group, especially for those using web based browsers like
> Google.
Well, I don't know. I read some of Roy's stuff and a lot of it, IMO, is
stuff which is more a question of "keeping an eye on the competition" -
i.e. if you're tyring to promote X, it makes sense to see how your
competitor Y is doing. Which might make it vaguely topical.
That said, Roy has, on the whole, earned himself "brownie points" because
whatever he might post which is not strictly topical, he rarely, if ever,
posts stuff which is directly contra-topical, such as pro-Windows, pro-OSX
or simply anti-Linux stuff - meaning he's earned himself a little leeway,
a little tolerance.
Hell, we've still got the likes of DuFuS around who are almost entirely
anti-Linux and only rarely remotely topical. If there's any significant
hypocrisy involved as suggested, why do these folks survive?
> Conclusion, Linux users, at least in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Actually, you seem to have pointed out two, out of perhaps a hundred
regulars, meaning you haven't even begun to establish a general trend.
> more than hypocrites who like to claim 'freedom' but who in reality are
> only interested in their particular version of freedom.
Correct - and our kind of freedom is choice. For everybody. If you have
another sort you'd like to promote, feel free - I'm sure there's a
newsgroup somewhere for it, but I rather suspect it won't be topical here.
|
|
