Microsoft re-invents flip-flop?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| AnonymousCoward May 30, 2005 3:55 PM EDT |
Ballmer's on-again off-again support for gay rights is making Microsoft look totally mercenary: "We supported it, then it stopped looking worthwhile, so we pulled the plug, but then there was this big karma-melting outcry so we're supporting it again. We don't have a clue what the actual issues are." Personally, when I hire, I don't give an airborne copulation about people's private lives, as long as it doesn't impact their performance on the job. I'm not going to hire a paedophile even if they're completely reformed, nor am I going to hire an AIDS victim (bent or not) because they're carrying a liability which would likely hurt the company. I'm not going to hire or avoid hiring someone just because they're bent, but if they're the kind of drama queen who waves their choice in everyone's face I'm going to not hire (or un-hire) them for being obnoxious. Just as I would un-hire a 100% straight bloke who spent his time chatting up female customers or got up a customer's nose because the customer was bent. Yes, I have customers who are bent, and customers who can't stand gays. It's an interesting world. Legislation such as that abandoned by Microsoft would simply get in the way of me running my company. Asswipes whom I wouldn't hire in a pink fit would wield it against me, but it wouldn't help good conscientious workers facing an unreasonably hostile employer: they'd just be fired for some other perfectly good reason. I'm glad Microsoft abandoned it, but their "affirmative hiring" practices are at least as likely to discriminate against people who aren't in any of the selected minorities as they are to help genuinely disadvantaged minorities. They should toss the whole mess over their shoulders and start by firing everyone in HR who is dumb enough to need a policy like that. Whatever happened to common sense as a touchstone? |
| sbergman27 May 30, 2005 6:15 PM EDT |
AnonymousCoward, You are exactly the sort of "bigot who doesn't think he's a bigot" that the legislation is intended to protect against. It's been a long time since I have read anything quite so, well... parochial, on a Linux related board. You are worried that you might have to add "Asswipes whom you [sic] wouldn't hire in a pink fit" like HIV positive people to your list of worries? (Admittedly, whether they are "bent" or not. Mighty white of you.) That is sad. Very sad. And not good business, at that. You've no doubt missed out on some very good employees. Sincerely, Steve Bergman |
| Tsela May 30, 2005 11:23 PM EDT |
AnonymousCoward: your post reeks of homophobia, and as much as you're trying to hide it it shows through your rhetoric and your use of words. You're exactly like those people who say they don't mind gay people as long as they're not in your neighbourhood. Homophobia is not just active hating of gay people, it's also the incapability to treat everyone as equals that you show clearly here. And please stop using the word "bent". You might find it a funny pun on "straight", but it's actually extremely insulting when repeated like that (like most puns, it works only once). And saying that employing a HIV-positive person would be a "liability" for your company is the last straw. What's next? People suffering from hepatitis? from diabetes? firing someone because they got a bad flu? There's no difference of nature between all those cases. Homophobics in denial are usually people with a very low level of self-confidence, who need more help than blame. So I'll stop here and wish you all the best. |
| tadelste May 31, 2005 7:12 AM EDT |
I posted this article because it demonstrated the weirdness of Microsoft. I 'm at a loss as to why we continue to attack people who post comments. The AC in this article express an opinion, whether we agree with it or not, he has a right to speak. We have a right to speak back, but do we have to vote on everything? I guess I consider personal attacks - comments that call people something or give them a label - things that make us less of who we really are. It reduces us spiritually. I'm as guilty of that as the next person. Back to the article, I've actually researched and found PAC payments and lists of Lobbyists working for Microsoft. It's amazing how they tripple up. They also don't discriminate with regard to party, political leaning, etc. They pay anyone who will help them continue their chock hold on the market. |
| AnonymousCoward May 31, 2005 7:09 PM EDT |
sbergman27: after carefully reading your comment, I think I'm required to simplify my debating approach for this one stream. I think you're wrong. I think you're the one seeing what you're expecting to see, and not what is actually there; reacting with prejudice rather than thought, stuck on the "just another homophobe" track rather than truly thinking about what was written. That might strike you as an offensive thing to say, particularly if you're not quite certain about the foundations of your worldview, or the merits of your arguments, but it's beyond my ability to explain gently enough to not risk offence, yet directly enough to avoid misunderstanding or dilution to uselessness. Please be patient with my shortcomings. I'd like you to consider what I'm not saying. I'm not calling you stupid (flashback to Otto in A Fish Called Wanda). I'm not calling you mean-spirited. I'm not calling you thoughtless. I'm not calling you an "ignorant heathen" or anything like that. But from what you wrote you have fallen prey here to your own form of bigotry. To truly understand what I've just said, you should probably do some detailed research on the origin of the word "bigot" before replying. I wouldn't hire someone with hepatitis, either, but I would hire an aboriginal, indian (either brand), latino or whatever and have hired an asian and a negro. It's not like I have a checklist or anything, I simply don't care. I actively don't care whether there's an imbalance in the assorted minorities or otherwise that I employ - unless it has an impact on their work or my business. We fostered a half-african half-chinese-indonesian boy for a year, the father being a pentecostal from a jehovah's witness family and the mother being catholic, unmarried. This might be labouring the point, but I really want it clear in your mind that the person themselves who is important to me, not how people want to classify them. I've had gay and womaniser employers (one was occasionally both!) and they have all had long-term problems. The bentness and looseness weren't problems for me directly, but in 100% of the work situations involving them so far they have become problems indirectly (e.g. boss has unexpected days off, throwing a spanner in the works, chasing his latest beau - or has to hide in the back office and pretend to be away while an irate husband/boyfriend abuses the staff; other boss goes off-air for two weeks because he had a sudden and violent attack of resentment about a year after his mum died, because she used to dress him up in girls' clothing - or comes to work plastered because he got news that yet another of his friends has flipped from AIDS to full-blown HIV - or has to spend a couple of hours dumping his woes on me every so often because nobody else understands). I'm not about to dance around stupid, petty differences and pretend that they don't exist or have no effect, I'm not going to look down on them (biologically speaking, many africans have a healthier set of chromosomes than I do, but I'm no more going to look up to them for that either, we're each born the way we are), and really don't give an airborne copulation what the political correctness brigades think of all this - except when they do things like jump down my throat on-line for not using all of the approved words in the approved order. </rant> I guess. |
| AnonymousCoward May 31, 2005 7:42 PM EDT |
Tsela: argh, "homophobia"! One day, I'm going to make a big bonfire of certain abused words, and that's going to be one of them, along with "minorities" and "equality". Words like that permit other people to be tagged and written off far too easily, and they allow real problems to be glossed over because they've been "identified". Bollocks! People are most definitely not all equal, and treating them so, forcing them to be so, is destructive idiocy. Dealing with people by classes makes a great deal of social sense, but requiring people to fit nicely into any classification is about as self-defeating as it gets. As to the word "bent", where do you think the word "straight", as applied to heterosexuals, came from? What you appear to be saying is that if an employee loses both legs in a car accident, and all my company does is race bicycles, I should keep them on the payroll as lead rider until they reach 65. Or worse: would you require me to hire someone who rode a motorcycle like a maniac but in other respects was the best candidate, knowing that sooner or later they will become a tragedy (35 times as often as a sedan driver)? If not, why would you expect me to employ someone else with a life expectancy of roughly 30 years less than average (male homosexuals and bisexuals) or even 10 years less (smokers - draw your own conclusions for gay smokers), with all of the trauma, medical, continuity and other issues that's likely going to cause me? |
| AnonymousCoward May 31, 2005 7:46 PM EDT |
tadelste: I'm not "an" Anonymous Coward, I'm the Anonymous Coward - LXer doesn't allow anonymous posts. (-: In Australia, we are required to vote on everything. It's illegal to not be registered to vote, and you can get fined for that, just as you can be fined for not voting. The closest you can legally get to not voting is to vote "informal" (e.g. write "I hate and despise you all" across the voting form instead of filling in the squares). I think the ability to vote informally will be a requirement if machine voting ever becomes popular in Oz. Back to the original post, yes, Microsoft are karma whores. |
| tuxchick May 31, 2005 10:25 PM EDT |
Yo AC. Do you also consider other lifestyle factors that affect longevity and health, like diet, exercise or the lack thereof, the relative safety of the neighborhood a person lives in, whether they engage in risky sports? do you examine family trees for possible hereditary illnesses? Do you look at the health of their personal relationships, because having a crazy spouse or significant other or wild teenager calling an employee at work a lot is disruptive, and they might be upset from problems at home. I think "bigot" and "homophobe" are perfectly accurate. It's everyone's privilege to hold whatever prejudices they choose. Being honest about it is harder. |
| Tsela May 31, 2005 11:28 PM EDT |
AnonymousCoward: You've done it. Using uncouth comparisons (your handicapped employee example. I'm sorry, but there is NO job that suffers from someone being gay, expect maybe doing heterosexual porn - and even that I'm not so sure -. Believing otherwise, despite the tons of studies proving it, is bigotry), pseudo-science (your life-expectancy numbers are crap. They are just like the figures proving that left-handed people have a lower life expentancy than right-handed people, and forgetting to look for the causes - those have since then been studied: this came from systematic discrimination against left-handed people, who received less good care than right-handed people, especially during childhood. In countries where there's no such discrimination, the life expectancy of left-handed people is the same as the one of right-handed people), constantly trying to tie AIDS to gay people (sorry, but AIDS isn't a gay disease. The AIDS epidemy is more pervasive among heterosexuals than homosexuals), you're just proving sbergman27 and mine points. Also, when you're trying to look intelligent, don't make stupid first grade mistakes like mistaking AIDS and HIV. HIV is the name of the virus, and being HIV-positive is the first stage, where one has the virus detected in one's blood but doesn't show any symptom. AIDS is the name of the full-fledged disease in its last stage. Mixing them like you are is anything but smart. And please don't even try to compare gay people to people who *chose* a dangerous behaviour (like smokers and maniac drivers), that's getting old, and is still not valid. And people *are* equal. They're just all different. Treating them like clones doesn't make any sense, but making value judgements doesn't either. Because two people are different doesn't mean that one is necessarily inferior to the other. And condemning a whole community because of the behaviour of a few is exactly the kind of thing we call FUD when it applies to the FOSS community. Why use it with any other one then. How do you know that it's not *your* behaviour that caused others to behave as they did? You seem to think that you have to be right and anybody else just doesn't get it. that's also being a bigot you know... As for the word "straight", it came from a book from GW Henry written in 1941 describing conversations with gay people. It was used in the phrase "gone straight" used to describe people who under pressure began to have heterosexual relationships, although they were gay (in that it shared a kinship with the phrase "gone straight" to refer to former drug addicts. All in all very stupid, but then at that time a majority of people still thought being gay was a disease). It was later watered down and began to refer to any heterosexual. In any case, there's no "bentness" involved here ("bent" has never been used to refer to drug addicts). So don't try to justify your use of the word "bent" when it has no justification. In fact, please stop trying to deny your bigotry at all. It just makes you look hypocritical. I prefer someone who admits he is prejudiced against some minority rather than someone who tries to justify his position using all kinds of arguments, and fails because those arguments are uncouth and he only shows his ignorance. I'm all in for Freedom of Speech, but with freedom comes responsibility, and it is irresponsible to spread untruths like that. Look, how can I make it clear for you? Maybe a small (and valid) comparison will do: when talking about gay people, you're like Enderle or O'Gara when they talk about the FOSS community. The same pseudo-logical pseudo-scientific arguments, the same "I have a personal bad experience with a few of them so they're all like that", the same uncouth comparisons, in other words the same FUD. And since I consider the term "bigot" to be fitting of the likes of Enderle & Co, it's just fair that it should fit you. But since I don't expect you to change your opinion on those issues, I won't bother with this thread anymore. I have other things to do than try to reason with people who think reason is just a way to justify their prejudice. |
| SFN Jun 01, 2005 9:54 AM EDT |
"half-african half-chinese-indonesian" I hate math. |
| AnonymousCoward Jun 01, 2005 5:44 PM EDT |
tuxchick: yes, when they're available. I'd think twice before hiring me, because I'm overweight, which puts me at risk from heart disease - the single biggest killer in Western society (but in fact smoking contributes a lot to heart disease as well - the factors are not anything like as simple as one might wish - and I don't smoke). Just driving a motorcycle on everyday business, I consider to be a risky sport. In the city, there are too many bigger, harder objects about and in the country you're generally going too fast to safely avoid things like kangaroos. |
| AnonymousCoward Jun 01, 2005 6:04 PM EDT |
Tsela: there are as many AIDS sufferers amongst straights as amongst gays for several reasons: there are more straights, some of them do gay things like anal intercourse, and some of them are exposed to AIDS through bi's, some of them are undeclared bi's or gays and similar stuff. Yes, there is an inescapable connection between regularly getting mud on your dipstick and dying from immune deficiency problems. As to choosing to be gay, that's unquestionably valid. Perhaps the most telling point is that even studies done by gay scientists with a carefully selected experimental population, an agenda, and a fairly unsubtle thumb on the scales can't completely erase the connection. The last great white hope of sexual irresponsibility - the "gay gene" - has also been convincingly exposed as a furphy by its opponents, and no causal connection has ever been demonstrated by proponents. You don't have to be part of a minority to suffer prejudice. That position is a long way past "old" and well into the domain of "just plain stupid". I'd be quite happy to admit prejudice against homosexuality but for the oft-demonstrated fact that the word "prejudice" carries a silent rider: "unthinking". I'm prejudiced against market majority Microsoft, their products, announcements etcetera, but this prejudice has been carefully constructed from much painful experience - and it doesn't stop me from being on good terms with Michael Kleef, the local Microsoft interface. Likewise, my automatic distrust of the claims of homosexuality advocates is based on a long history of tedious exposure and research. It's prejudice, Jim, but not as we know it. The rest of it, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on. |
| AnonymousCoward Jun 01, 2005 6:16 PM EDT |
SFN: Daddy is a full-blood African, with a Zambian surname but some Zimbabwian roots. Mummy is an Indonesian of pretty much pure Chinese descent, rather than southern-asian or islander. In Indonesia, the Chinese bloodlines used to be the merchant class, all moderately wealthy and all Catholic, and all resented by the poorer classes, who are almost all either Animist or Islamic. Dad's number one surprise going-away present (he found out he was going to be a Dad about 4 hours before stepping on a 'plane to leave Oz, and actually became a dad about two weeks later, a month earlier than expected) has dark coffee skin and semi-frizzy hair. The native Africans generally look down on Asians and vice versa, so some of the social fallout at the time was fairly intense. |
| Tsela Jun 01, 2005 11:49 PM EDT |
AC: you're a bigot and an *ignorant*. Stop talking about what you don't know, and stop trying to argue that research proves your point when all research for the last 20 years proves you wrong (and I mean unbiased research. What you point out is the equivalent of the "Get the Facts" surveys from Microsoft). I'm gay and didn't choose to be gay. I'm born that way, and the only choice I ever had was to accept my nature and try to find happiness or to deny it and be unhappy forever. Who are YOU to decide that I could choose who I can fall in love with? And no, AIDS is *not* a gay disease. You can try to deny it, but it doesn't change that fact. Even the so-called Patient Zero (the gay man who would have brought AIDS to the US) was proven to be an invention: we know of cases of American heterosexual men and women who were already infected before that person was, and who were never in contact with him nor any person he's ever been in contact with. So don't treat me like an idiot and give me that crap! You're prejudiced, so be it. But don't insult my intelligence and my person by pretending to be informed. You've chosen to believe biased information that have been proven wrong over and over again. That's not being informed, that's being obnoxious. All the names I called you are deserved, and more. You're just as bad as Enderle, and therefore deserve nothing else but contempt. And if I'm being insulting, so be it. But I'm only defending myself and others against this disgusting display of homophobia. Agree to disagree? That works only when both parties have valid arguments. You still haven't showed any. |
| tuxtom Jun 02, 2005 8:11 AM EDT |
This thread REALLY needs to move to a different forum... |
| Tsela Jun 02, 2005 10:34 AM EDT |
tuxtom: You're completely right. Unfortunately it's AC who brought his bigotry here, and bigotry has to be fought everywhere it appears, even when it's on LXer. But for me this thread is over and I won't look at it again. |
| AnonymousCoward Jun 02, 2005 8:09 PM EDT |
tuxtom: Agree. Particularly because no new information is being contributed. I find it frustrating that none of the replies to my original post addressed the main theme of that post at all, just exploded into political correctness hissy-fits over the details. It's like a self-enforcing variant of Godwin's Law. Many things in our society can be openly criticised, but there's a handful that one can't so much as touch on without inviting an avalanche of protest - unless the viewpoint expressed happens to coincide with that of the would-be protesters. Which sucks. At its heart, the reaction is a form of censorship. If anyone would care to make a reply with an opinion as to whether Microsoft's hot-and-cold approach looks mercenary, I would most gratefully continue the thread along those lines. |
| tuxchick Jun 02, 2005 9:17 PM EDT |
Here we go with more of the same old hogwash, crying "political correctness" and "censorship" when someone challenges your statements. Nobody told you to shush, so quitcher whining. If you don't care to have your bigoted homophobic statements challenged, don't make them. |
| sbergman27 Jun 02, 2005 9:37 PM EDT |
I don't think there is anything particularly interesting about MS looking mercenary. Of course they are mercenary. So is IBM. So is HP/Compaq. Large publicly traded corporations are simply that way, almost by design, whether they are Linux-friendly or not. Some are better than others at disguising the fact. Now, a large, publicly traded corporation that truly was *not* mercenary would be news. I dislike MS as much as anyone. But this thread is really no more than a gratuitous invitation to throw rocks at them. It's not surprising that there has not been discussion of this "news" because it's not really news. (Tuxchick: There really should be a corollary to Godwin's Law dealing with posters who play the "Censorship" card. :-) |
| Tsela Jun 02, 2005 11:05 PM EDT |
AC: I don't call someone who discriminates an entire community and uses to justify his views arguments that were already disproven two decennia ago a "detail". It *is* a main theme, more than MS behaving like MS has always behaved. And shouting "censorship" or "political correctness" or "Godwin's Law" won't cut it here. You've not been censored, just challenged, and our replies are anything but politically correct. And there is a corollary of Godwin's Law that talks about those who misuse it by shouting "Godwin's Law" to try to shut a thread up (Quirk's exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#Other_laws_and_cor...). tuxchick: way to go! Your comments are concise and perfect! I wish I could give this kind of answers myself. sbergman: How about Bergman's Corollary: "As someone's arguments get challenged, the probability that this person will cry 'censorship' or 'first amendment rights' will approach one." You could also add: "If that person tries to justify a form of discrimination towards some minority, the probability that the person will cry 'political correctness' will also approach one." :) Mmm... I'm not good at writing those things... |
| AnonymousCoward Jun 03, 2005 6:42 AM EDT |
*: I don't mind someone challenging my statements, as long as they're prepared to back it up. But simply asserting "not true, not true!" and accusing me of bigotry isn't challenging my statements, it's only being childish. It's "arguing" at the same level as my 7-9yo nephews. Tsela and sbergman27 are welcome to publish references to back up what they said. The closest I see to that is Tsela's reference to author GW Henry. When I see some backup to the screaming, I promise to do two things: publish references to back up what I say, and publish references to show that their references are without merit. Specifically, I expect Tsela to publish references to (or derived from or dependant upon) LeVay, Bailey/Pillard or Hamer to shore up his claims. I don't Tsela's quite naive enough to quote Kinsey, but you never know. The George W Henry book (I note that Tsela didn't bother looking up a title) is Sexual Variants, and you might want to consider George's history and that of his assistants Alfred Gross and Jan Gay before relying upon it as an unbiassed source (cuts both ways). You're almost certainly quoting Henry Minton's book Departing from Deviance: A History of Homosexual Rights and Emancipatory Science in America or a derivative of it rather than the original text, in which case you've got to think about Henry's selectivity and bias as well. tuxchick: The censorship arises in jumping up and down and screaming (often, the words in the screaming amount to "I am not being childish!") until onlookers (with authority or not) threaten to close down the conversation. In a household which confiscates fought-over items, getting an item denied to a sibling can be a reasonable second prize to obtaining control over the item. Godwin's Law for children. sbergman27: Thank you for a genuine reply. It isn't a very exciting one, but it is exactly what I asked for, and a very effective olive branch. Tsela: the corollary doesn't work, since each reply started with "bigot" (== thoughtless persecutor) or "homophobic" (== thoughtless persecutor). And I though you said you were ignoring this thread? |
| sbergman27 Jun 03, 2005 7:41 AM EDT |
> sbergman27: Thank you for a genuine reply. It isn't a very exciting one, but it is exactly what I asked for, and a very effective olive branch. Well, I was not really planning to respond further, but here goes. My response was not very exciting because I don't believe the topic is exactly scintillating, which explains the general lack of interest all around. That's not a bad thing. But it's not surprising. Some topics attract more interest than others. As to the rest of the thread. I think we are all beating a dead horse. It is very unlikely, at this point, that any of the participants are going to change their minds. Everything that needs to be said has been said more than once. Interested third party observers have had ample opportunity to evaluate all viewpoints. And I'm sure that some are growing weary of the reruns. In my view, we've all had our say, and the most constructive thing to do is to agree to disagree, at least with regards to this thread. In my view, the important thing is to speak out against practices which I consider to be unethical. Publicly "proving" myself right is not a requirement. And in this case, we've been discussing a question which has no absolute, black and white answer, and can't really be intellectualized because it is a matter of one's sense of ethics, fairness, and decency. And that is my final statement. Really. I mean it! ;-) |
| PaulFerris Jun 03, 2005 9:55 AM EDT |
I'll chime in here and offer my $.02 -- the discussion of bias is always a rough spot. We're all biased in some way shape or form and it doesn't do any good to hide from it. The best you can hope for is some sort of self-evaluation every once and a while. Gay rights/gay bias and Linux are not intersecting topics in my book, but maybe I'm missing something. I doubt it, though. When it comes to the open source / free software movement, one of the shining things we have going for us is that we are one of the first real, tangible "virtual societies". Dean, Dave and Myself have all met in real life (on rare occasion) -- but the rest of you guys I only know from something I would call "intellectual presence" -- the imprint that your thoughts and emotions have left upon my mind are how I percieve you. AC: Your biggest mistake (if it can be called that, even) was not knowing your audience. Don't feel bad about this, but do, if you can find the room, try to open your mind to the fact that in the virtual world, things may be far different from the physical world that you have come to experience. Possibly things that you would never call "normal" are in fact just fine as a way to live. I don't want this to come off as preachy (it is, and I have a hard time avoiding it), so I'll end with a somewhat funny story that I hope all of you laugh at. It illustrates a similar assumption and my moronic misperception of my audience at the time. A long time ago, I used to support Linux via Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and had come to know quite a few really cool people -- but only from the command line of an IRC channnel. It was an awesome time, and words cannot begin to describe the friendships I made there -- people I would meet later and I know for a fact if I could relocate where they all hang out (if they still do) -- I could jump on the channel and still spend a few hours catching up. I had written an SVGAlib game for my brother Dan (who is a hacker) appropriately named "hacdan" -- it was, you can guess, a pacman clone. I wrote all of the features, I was teaching myself animation, and was having a good time. One of the features was born out of the fact that I didn't have a good sound library -- but I knew what I wanted the sounds to "sound like" in my head. So, for the interim, until I could figure out how to get the sounds to work, I added the feature of spelling out the sounds in vibrating text at the bottom of the screen. I made menu options to turn this feature on and off. It was a hit with everyone on the channel that I showed it to. The first person to ever see this game besides me, however, had issues with what I called the feature. He pulled me into a private chat room. We had been friends for over two years at this point, and he was extremely excited but disapointed at the same time. You see, I had jokingly referred to this feature as "Closed captioned for the SoundCard impaired". The buddy was a chap who in the real world goes by the name of Scott -- on the channel, I had known him as LinuxGold (LG). LG had issues. He said "It should be called 'Closed Captioned for the Deaf'." I said "You don't get it, it's supposed to be funny" He said "No, you don't get it, I think it's a cool feature that you've made a game that deaf people can play." I repeated myself, and at that point, LG shared with me something that I had never known about him, which was, of course, that in real life, he was deaf. I renamed the feature, of course. I don't know what the odds of this happening are, but they have to be miniscule. I had made a classic mistake -- I didn't know my audience -- I made assumptions about everyone on the channel (even about gender, which is interesting enough). Being deaf isn't like being gay, however -- but it illustrates that what we think someone is like in the real world and the facts as they are percieved when we're virtually connected can be extremely divergent. The reason it hurts a lot when stuff like this rolls to the surface is that *this* forum is the reality, and people on it percieve this (in their own way) as some warts on that reality. And, reading some of these things, they look that way to me as well. But we have to get over it -- we're not always going to get along. We can, however, simply agree to disagree, and move on. Life can be like that. Marriage is like that at times (I have a strong marriage -- stuff like this rolling off myself and my wife's back is one of the positive signs). In other words, what hurts about the exchange above is that sometimes we can't all agree. I hope we can be a community, regardless. Please forgive my intrusion into this discussion. PS: the only thing that remains of hacdan, at this point, are some screen shots: http://www.voidville.com/hacdan/ |
| SFN Jun 03, 2005 11:58 AM EDT |
Freakishly off-topic here but maybe a bit of threadjacking would do some good here. "A long time ago, I used to support Linux via Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and had come to know quite a few really cool people -- but only from the command line of an IRC channnel. It was an awesome time, and words cannot begin to describe the friendships I made there -- people I would meet later and I know for a fact if I could relocate where they all hang out (if they still do) -- I could jump on the channel and still spend a few hours catching up." I too used to be fairly active on IRC (and old-school BBSs) (and CU-SeeMe). My wife and I met on IRC in '96. We miss a lot of the friendships we had formed there and often wonder what has become of our old friends. We've often said that it would be great to get the old board/channel/ref back again with all the "old-timers". How cool would it be to have access to a Classmates.com style (but free) board where one could get in contact with old BBS/IRC/Cu-SeeMe friends? |
| AnonymousCoward Jun 03, 2005 3:58 PM EDT |
SFN: one of the dudes who used to regularly get booted from FidoNet boards for TEA (Too Easily Annoyed) has come back top haunt us on a local Linux (and other) list. It works both ways. (-: Incidentally, pitting him against either of my naysayers here would result in an explosion. The chap I have in mind is very firm in his ideas, not prone to listening well, would would disagree pretty much across the board. |
| PaulFerris Jun 04, 2005 4:22 AM EDT |
SFN: that would be really cool. I miss those people a lot -- I know Linpeople and the supporting network died a slow death due to lack of funds and some other troubles. Some of the people actually ended up at a Linux support start-up during the dot-com years. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!