Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company! - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company! - Linux ; On 2007-11-30, High Plains Thumper wrote: > flatfish wrote: >> Ask Roy Schestowitz about using graphics without an author's >> permission and then continuing to use said graphics even after >> being notified. >> >> It took a cease and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

  1. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On 2007-11-30, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > flatfish wrote:
    >> Ask Roy Schestowitz about using graphics without an author's
    >> permission and then continuing to use said graphics even after
    >> being notified.
    >>
    >> It took a cease and desist order to get Roy Schestowitz to
    >> remove the copyrighted graphics from his web page.
    >>
    >> It's all in google.

    >
    > Correct, it is all in Google, another trumped up charge that has
    > little to do with advocacy.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fb6d75517c9f7?


    [Usual gob of irrelevancy HPT always posts deleted]

    Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish is talking about,
    and you know that. Flatfish is talking about the incident where Roy
    took the work of a commercial artist, who sells licenses for the use of
    that work on the net, and decided that if he (Roy) gave credit to the
    artist, he didn't need to get a license, even though Roy was using it in
    a way not covered by fair use, and in a way to diminish the market for
    the work. The incident where, when informed that what he was doing was
    wrong, Roy did not do the right thing (which 99% of us here would have
    done) and immediately take down the image until he could contact the
    artist and work something out--instead he kept the image up for weeks,
    before finally obeying the law and the artists requests, and took it
    down.

    Oh, but Roy uses Linux, so you HAVE to support him, even when he is
    ripping off an artist, don't you? That's what you think Linux advocacy
    means.

  2. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:32:08 -0000, Tim Smith
    wrote:

    >On 2007-11-30, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> flatfish wrote:
    >>> Ask Roy Schestowitz about using graphics without an author's
    >>> permission and then continuing to use said graphics even after
    >>> being notified.
    >>>
    >>> It took a cease and desist order to get Roy Schestowitz to
    >>> remove the copyrighted graphics from his web page.
    >>>
    >>> It's all in google.

    >>
    >> Correct, it is all in Google, another trumped up charge that has
    >> little to do with advocacy.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fb6d75517c9f7?

    >
    >[Usual gob of irrelevancy HPT always posts deleted]
    >
    >Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish is talking about,
    >and you know that. Flatfish is talking about the incident where Roy
    >took the work of a commercial artist, who sells licenses for the use of
    >that work on the net, and decided that if he (Roy) gave credit to the
    >artist, he didn't need to get a license, even though Roy was using it in
    >a way not covered by fair use, and in a way to diminish the market for
    >the work. The incident where, when informed that what he was doing was
    >wrong, Roy did not do the right thing (which 99% of us here would have
    >done) and immediately take down the image until he could contact the
    >artist and work something out--instead he kept the image up for weeks,
    >before finally obeying the law and the artists requests, and took it
    >down.
    >
    >Oh, but Roy uses Linux, so you HAVE to support him, even when he is
    >ripping off an artist, don't you? That's what you think Linux advocacy
    >means.



    Exactly!
    Thank you Tim.

    I'm convinced that people like HPT will lie tooth and nail just to
    back up Linux and the so called Linux supporters, like Roy and Mark.

    All of these people make all kinds of accusations yet they never seem
    to provide any proof and when a person asks for proof they even make
    fun of that request by brushing it off.

    I've asked a simple question.
    Prove I am Gary Stewart.
    I've offered to contribute to a charity of the person's choice.
    People keep making the accusation, stating it like it is fact yet they
    can't seem to prove it.
    And if they can't even prove I am one person, how on earth can they
    prove I am all the people in that ridiculous list?

    I am a couple of them BTW, only because I've changed ISP's several
    times over the years.
    And they can't even prove those ones without help from me.

    Frankly this group has become a total fraud.
    A maniac spammer who is a liar and thief as well who has a couple of
    wannabes hanging around him.
    That's about the size of it.

  3. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:58:39 -0500, flatfish wrote:

    > Frankly this group has become a total fraud.
    > A maniac spammer who is a liar and thief as well who has a couple of


    Copyright violation is not theft, flatty, and you are the biggest liar and
    fraud in this group. If you don't like it here, you know where the door
    is.

    --
    Kier



  4. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    flatfish wrote:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> flatfish wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Ask Roy Schestowitz about using graphics without an
    >>>> author's permission and then continuing to use said
    >>>> graphics even after being notified.
    >>>>
    >>>> It took a cease and desist order to get Roy Schestowitz
    >>>> to remove the copyrighted graphics from his web page.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's all in google.
    >>>
    >>> Correct, it is all in Google, another trumped up charge
    >>> that has little to do with advocacy.
    >>>
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fb6d75517c9f7?

    >>
    >> [Usual gob of irrelevancy HPT always posts deleted]


    [Tim Smith's usual selective troll snippage reinstated]

    >>> Correct, it is all in Google, another trumped up charge
    >>> that has little to do with advocacy.
    >>>
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....fb6d75517c9f7?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> A casual browse of his website shows mostly text with very
    >>> little graphics. What limited graphics exist appear
    >>> generic and iconish.



    >>> IMHO, Fare Use clause in British copyright law allows the
    >>> use of an image downloaded from the internet for personal
    >>> use and research, provided credit is given to the
    >>> owner/author. Being a graduate student, Mr. Schestowitz
    >>> is a researcher.
    >>>
    >>> Did Mr. Schestowitz defame the author? I think not.
    >>>
    >>> Did he stretch the Fare Use clause in British copyright
    >>> law by posting this only image on the net? Perhaps.
    >>>
    >>> However, would the American author consider it worthwhile
    >>> to go after a college student, seeking compensation on
    >>> British soil for a personal non-profit blog site with
    >>> limited content and low volume hits? That would be
    >>> ridiculous.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish is
    >> talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is talking about
    >> the incident where Roy took the work of a commercial
    >> artist, who sells licenses for the use of that work on the
    >> net, and decided that if he (Roy) gave credit to the artist,
    >> he didn't need to get a license, even though Roy was using
    >> it in a way not covered by fair use, and in a way to
    >> diminish the market for the work. The incident where, when
    >> informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not do
    >> the right thing (which 99% of us here would have done) and
    >> immediately take down the image until he could contact the
    >> artist and work something out--instead he kept the image up
    >> for weeks, before finally obeying the law and the artists
    >> requests, and took it down.


    Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux advocacy
    stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months later. You have
    a way of making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you, Timmy?

    >> Oh, but Roy uses Linux, so you HAVE to support him, even
    >> when he is ripping off an artist, don't you? That's what
    >> you think Linux advocacy means.

    >
    > Exactly! Thank you Tim.
    >
    > I'm convinced that people like HPT will lie tooth and nail
    > just to back up Linux and the so called Linux supporters, like
    > Roy and Mark.


    Hmmm, interesting anti-Linux advocacy agenda. The same
    accusations. Calling those that post unfavourably liars. Very
    rude, very inappropriate. I found this quote of great interest
    made July 23, 2006, still appropriate:

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....63927eb89dbed?

    My approach to this has changed a lot over the years. I used to
    offer the benefit of the doubt to posters who looked new or I
    didn't know, but over time, I've seen so many troll posts, that I
    just tend to plonk on sight, sometimes with a short (1 liner)
    warning to the rest of the group. I think I just lack the
    patience...

    The whole experience of being in cola has been very interesting,
    as it has 100% confirmed that there is a class or group of
    people, like Erik F, Tim Smith, Flatty/Gary, Grug, k-man and so
    on who will take a great and deliberate delight from off-topic
    posting, and will follow any possible argument they can to
    support what they do. There is nothing anyone can say to them
    which is going to move them from their positions - they are only
    here to disrupt, and that is what they will do. I've
    speculated many times on the kind of personality it must take to
    do that; and the impact on the person over a long period. I
    suspect it's quite nasty. I wonder if they'll ever recover?

    > All of these people make all kinds of accusations yet they
    > never seem to provide any proof and when a person asks for
    > proof they even make fun of that request by brushing it off.
    >
    > I've asked a simple question. Prove I am Gary Stewart. I've
    > offered to contribute to a charity of the person's choice.
    > People keep making the accusation, stating it like it is fact
    > yet they can't seem to prove it. And if they can't even prove
    > I am one person, how on earth can they prove I am all the
    > people in that ridiculous list?
    >
    > I am a couple of them BTW, only because I've changed ISP's
    > several times over the years. And they can't even prove those
    > ones without help from me.
    >
    > Frankly this group has become a total fraud. A maniac spammer
    > who is a liar and thief as well who has a couple of wannabes
    > hanging around him. That's about the size of it.


    Your rant has nothing to do with Linux advocacy. Reference:

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy

    The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:

    For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
    operating systems.

    That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
    newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter is for
    the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to gather to
    discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux community and the
    promotion and development of Linux. It supports this as a place
    for those who would like to learn more about Linux to come to
    learn from those who know Linux. It does not call for it to be a
    place where the anti-Linux propagandists to gather in order to
    discredit Linux.
    Please take your off-charter rants to another forum, to which
    they belong.

    --
    HPT

  5. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On 2007-12-01, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish is
    >>> talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is talking about
    >>> the incident where Roy took the work of a commercial
    >>> artist, who sells licenses for the use of that work on the
    >>> net, and decided that if he (Roy) gave credit to the artist,
    >>> he didn't need to get a license, even though Roy was using
    >>> it in a way not covered by fair use, and in a way to
    >>> diminish the market for the work. The incident where, when
    >>> informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not do
    >>> the right thing (which 99% of us here would have done) and
    >>> immediately take down the image until he could contact the
    >>> artist and work something out--instead he kept the image up
    >>> for weeks, before finally obeying the law and the artists
    >>> requests, and took it down.

    >
    > Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux advocacy
    > stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months later. You have
    > a way of making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you, Timmy?


    If it is such a mole hill, why did you feel the need to pretend you
    didn't know what Flatfish was talking about, and instead talk about the
    images that come with Roy's CMS software? Why couldn't you address
    Flatfish's point directly?

    And next time some company is accused of violating GPL, can we expect to
    see you saying that we should ignore it? After all, your position is
    that taking and using a work without permission is OK (at least if it is
    Roy doing it...). Or is code different--we should not rip of
    programmers, but artists are fair game?

  6. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:14:07 -0000, Tim Smith
    wrote:

    >On 2007-12-01, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>> Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish is
    >>>> talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is talking about
    >>>> the incident where Roy took the work of a commercial
    >>>> artist, who sells licenses for the use of that work on the
    >>>> net, and decided that if he (Roy) gave credit to the artist,
    >>>> he didn't need to get a license, even though Roy was using
    >>>> it in a way not covered by fair use, and in a way to
    >>>> diminish the market for the work. The incident where, when
    >>>> informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not do
    >>>> the right thing (which 99% of us here would have done) and
    >>>> immediately take down the image until he could contact the
    >>>> artist and work something out--instead he kept the image up
    >>>> for weeks, before finally obeying the law and the artists
    >>>> requests, and took it down.

    >>
    >> Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux advocacy
    >> stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months later. You have
    >> a way of making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you, Timmy?

    >
    >If it is such a mole hill, why did you feel the need to pretend you
    >didn't know what Flatfish was talking about, and instead talk about the
    >images that come with Roy's CMS software? Why couldn't you address
    >Flatfish's point directly?
    >
    >And next time some company is accused of violating GPL, can we expect to
    >see you saying that we should ignore it? After all, your position is
    >that taking and using a work without permission is OK (at least if it is
    >Roy doing it...). Or is code different--we should not rip of
    >programmers, but artists are fair game?



    Exactly.
    And THAT is one reason why I, and some of the others are here in COLA.
    While it's certainly entertaining observing some of the more unstable
    Linux advocates, the real reason is to expose the hypocrites for what
    they are.

    That thread revealed much about the attitude of Roy Schestowitz and
    his narcissistic behavior because it was obvious that in his own mind
    he had the right to use those images and who had the right to tell him
    he couldn't. Not even the owner, at least according to the way Roy
    reacted.

    The interesting part is that if he just said, oops I goofed and took
    them down it would have been over. But he didn't and THAT is the key
    to the way Roy and other Linux advocates think.
    It's a double standard and pure hypocrisy.


  7. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    flatfish writes:

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:14:07 -0000, Tim Smith
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On 2007-12-01, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>>> Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish is
    >>>>> talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is talking about
    >>>>> the incident where Roy took the work of a commercial
    >>>>> artist, who sells licenses for the use of that work on the
    >>>>> net, and decided that if he (Roy) gave credit to the artist,
    >>>>> he didn't need to get a license, even though Roy was using
    >>>>> it in a way not covered by fair use, and in a way to
    >>>>> diminish the market for the work. The incident where, when
    >>>>> informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not do
    >>>>> the right thing (which 99% of us here would have done) and
    >>>>> immediately take down the image until he could contact the
    >>>>> artist and work something out--instead he kept the image up
    >>>>> for weeks, before finally obeying the law and the artists
    >>>>> requests, and took it down.
    >>>
    >>> Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux advocacy
    >>> stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months later. You have
    >>> a way of making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you, Timmy?

    >>
    >>If it is such a mole hill, why did you feel the need to pretend you
    >>didn't know what Flatfish was talking about, and instead talk about the
    >>images that come with Roy's CMS software? Why couldn't you address
    >>Flatfish's point directly?
    >>
    >>And next time some company is accused of violating GPL, can we expect to
    >>see you saying that we should ignore it? After all, your position is
    >>that taking and using a work without permission is OK (at least if it is
    >>Roy doing it...). Or is code different--we should not rip of
    >>programmers, but artists are fair game?

    >
    >
    > Exactly.
    > And THAT is one reason why I, and some of the others are here in COLA.
    > While it's certainly entertaining observing some of the more unstable
    > Linux advocates, the real reason is to expose the hypocrites for what
    > they are.
    >
    > That thread revealed much about the attitude of Roy Schestowitz and
    > his narcissistic behavior because it was obvious that in his own mind
    > he had the right to use those images and who had the right to tell him
    > he couldn't. Not even the owner, at least according to the way Roy
    > reacted.
    >
    > The interesting part is that if he just said, oops I goofed and took
    > them down it would have been over. But he didn't and THAT is the key
    > to the way Roy and other Linux advocates think.
    > It's a double standard and pure hypocrisy.
    >


    Not too dissimilar to Peter hounding people with accusations of nym
    shifting. Peter would have made a great witch hunter. Burn the poor cow
    at the stake after refusing to listen to her defence because , as a
    witch, she isn't entitled to prove her innocence. The other similar case
    was the "one rule for me and another for the rest" case of Roy
    Culley/Robert Parsonage/ Roy Spamowitz /Homo to open up the COLA stats
    program. Of course the natural assumption was that Roy had stolen the
    code. As OSS advocates it did seem that they don't practice what they
    preach - all fire and brimstone and abstinence for others but hands up
    the Nun's habit for them. Hypocrites.

    --
    Plagio di Steele della Filosofia di Qualcuno:
    Chiunque dovrebbe credere in qualcosa -- io credo che prendero' un
    altro drink.

  8. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:48:19 +0100, Hadron
    wrote:


    >Not too dissimilar to Peter hounding people with accusations of nym
    >shifting. Peter would have made a great witch hunter. Burn the poor cow
    >at the stake after refusing to listen to her defence because , as a
    >witch, she isn't entitled to prove her innocence. The other similar case
    >was the "one rule for me and another for the rest" case of Roy
    >Culley/Robert Parsonage/ Roy Spamowitz /Homo to open up the COLA stats
    >program. Of course the natural assumption was that Roy had stolen the
    >code. As OSS advocates it did seem that they don't practice what they
    >preach - all fire and brimstone and abstinence for others but hands up
    >the Nun's habit for them. Hypocrites.


    That's exactly what the problem is.
    They don't practice what they preach.
    They are not even smart enough to re-write the code for those bogus
    COLA stats script and then post it saying "see, it's not stolen".

    The truth is, the script has code in it that is more than likely being
    used without permission.
    This is why they vehemently object when people ask to see the source
    code.
    What other reason could there be?

    Yet these same people harp on day after day about how Nvidia should
    release it's source code.

    Hypocrites, that's what they are.

  9. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    flatfish wrote:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> flatfish wrote:
    >>>> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>>> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Did Mr. Schestowitz defame the author? I think not.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Did he stretch the Fare Use clause in British
    >>>>>> copyright law by posting this only image on the net?
    >>>>>> Perhaps.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> However, would the American author consider it
    >>>>>> worthwhile to go after a college student, seeking
    >>>>>> compensation on British soil for a personal
    >>>>>> non-profit blog site with limited content and low
    >>>>>> volume hits? That would be ridiculous. [/quote]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish
    >>>>> is talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is
    >>>>> talking about the incident where Roy took the work of
    >>>>> a commercial artist, who sells licenses for the use of
    >>>>> that work on the net, and decided that if he (Roy)
    >>>>> gave credit to the artist, he didn't need to get a
    >>>>> license, even though Roy was using it in a way not
    >>>>> covered by fair use, and in a way to diminish the
    >>>>> market for the work. The incident where, when
    >>>>> informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not
    >>>>> do the right thing (which 99% of us here would have
    >>>>> done) and immediately take down the image until he
    >>>>> could contact the artist and work something
    >>>>> out--instead he kept the image up for weeks, before
    >>>>> finally obeying the law and the artists requests, and
    >>>>> took it down.
    >>>
    >>> Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux
    >>> advocacy stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months
    >>> later. You have a way of making a mountain out of a mole
    >>> hill, don't you, Timmy?

    >>
    >> If it is such a mole hill, why did you feel the need to
    >> pretend you didn't know what Flatfish was talking about, and
    >> instead talk about the images that come with Roy's CMS
    >> software? Why couldn't you address Flatfish's point
    >> directly?


    I have you killfiled and would have not seen your comment.
    Fortunately, flatfish responded and it came through.

    Very simply put, you have a reading comprehension problem. You
    have demonstrated deviance. You deliberately ignored my reply,
    which addressed your question. You do your selective snippage,
    in a failed attempt to alter opinion of those who have not read
    the previous portion of thread. There is only one thing you care
    to do. That is argue your senseless non-advocacy point into
    oblivion. Thus by doing so, you indicate your only intent in
    COLA is to troll.

    >> And next time some company is accused of violating GPL, can
    >> we expect to see you saying that we should ignore it? After
    >> all, your position is that taking and using a work without
    >> permission is OK (at least if it is Roy doing it...). Or is
    >> code different--we should not rip of programmers, but
    >> artists are fair game?


    Your arguments are really tired, same aged nature, boring. You
    are attacking the poster, not commenting on the content the
    poster has posted. Let us review the charter of COLA again:

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy

    The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:

    For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
    operating systems.

    That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
    newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter is for
    the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to gather to
    discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux community and the
    promotion and development of Linux. It supports this as a place
    for those who would like to learn more about Linux to come to
    learn from those who know Linux. It does not call for it to be a
    place where the anti-Linux propagandists to gather in order to
    discredit Linux.

    > Exactly. And THAT is one reason why I, and some of the others
    > are here in COLA. While it's certainly entertaining observing
    > some of the more unstable Linux advocates, the real reason is
    > to expose the hypocrites for what they are.
    >
    > That thread revealed much about the attitude of Roy
    > Schestowitz and his narcissistic behavior because it was
    > obvious that in his own mind he had the right to use those
    > images and who had the right to tell him he couldn't. Not even
    > the owner, at least according to the way Roy reacted.
    >
    > The interesting part is that if he just said, oops I goofed
    > and took them down it would have been over. But he didn't and
    > THAT is the key to the way Roy and other Linux advocates
    > think. It's a double standard and pure hypocrisy.


    Same accusations, demonstrating a bonafide hatred toward those
    who advocate. Attacking the messenger instead of the message.
    Inferring mental health problems and restating a 2 year old issue
    that is a non-issue, because it has nothing to do with COLA's
    charter. Calling the failed argument a double standard and
    hypocrisy, because it does not meet flatfish's definition of what
    he/she thinks the charter ought to be, not what it states.

    --
    HPT

  10. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    flatfish wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Not too dissimilar to Peter hounding people with accusations
    >> of nym shifting. Peter would have made a great witch hunter.
    >> Burn the poor cow at the stake after refusing to listen to
    >> her defence because , as a witch, she isn't entitled to
    >> prove her innocence. The other similar case was the "one
    >> rule for me and another for the rest" case of Roy
    >> Culley/Robert Parsonage/ Roy Spamowitz /Homo to open up the
    >> COLA stats program. Of course the natural assumption was
    >> that Roy had stolen the code. As OSS advocates it did seem
    >> that they don't practice what they preach - all fire and
    >> brimstone and abstinence for others but hands up the Nun's
    >> habit for them. Hypocrites.


    I would have not seen your comment, seeing I have plonked you.
    Fortunately, flatfish came to the rescue by replying.

    Peter hit the nail on the head. Quoting him, this is another
    fine "true linux advocacy post" from the "true linux advocate",
    "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X specialist",
    "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger professional",
    "newsreader magician", "hardware maven" and "time coordinator"
    Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary.

    > That's exactly what the problem is. They don't practice what
    > they preach. They are not even smart enough to re-write the
    > code for those bogus COLA stats script and then post it saying
    > "see, it's not stolen".
    >
    > The truth is, the script has code in it that is more than
    > likely being used without permission. This is why they
    > vehemently object when people ask to see the source code. What
    > other reason could there be?
    >
    > Yet these same people harp on day after day about how Nvidia
    > should release it's source code.
    >
    > Hypocrites, that's what they are.


    Same old tired arguments, stereotyping the Linux advocate,
    attacking the poster instead of the poster's arguments.

    Let us review the charter of COLA again:

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

    1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy

    The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:

    For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
    operating systems.

    That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
    newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter is for
    the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to gather to
    discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux community and the
    promotion and development of Linux. It supports this as a place
    for those who would like to learn more about Linux to come to
    learn from those who know Linux. It does not call for it to be a
    place where the anti-Linux propagandists to gather in order to
    discredit Linux.
    --
    HPT

  11. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    On 2007-12-02, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    [115 lines of failing to address the thread deleted]

    Can you ever actually address a point?

  12. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    High Plains Thumper wrote:

    >flatfish wrote:
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> (snip)

    >
    >I would have not seen your comment, seeing I have plonked you.
    >Fortunately, flatfish came to the rescue by replying.



    The solution to that would be to _____ flat**** (you fill in the
    blanks).

    8)


  13. Re: [BREAKING NEWS] OLPC sued by US based Nigerian company!

    Tim Smith writes:

    > On 2007-12-02, High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > [115 lines of failing to address the thread deleted]
    >
    > Can you ever actually address a point?


    I think he is. Just not the ones in the article to which he
    responds. Jesus, he could bore a coat of paint to death.

+ Reply to Thread