[News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam - Linux ; Roy Schestowitz espoused: > ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 17 January 2008 18:11 : \____ > >> Jim Richardson espoused: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000, >>> Mark Kent ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

  1. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 17 January 2008 18:11 : \____
    >
    >> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
    >>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
    >>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has zero to
    >>>>>> do with the BBC or MS.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Mark has issues.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
    >>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
    >>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
    >>>>
    >>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
    >>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
    >>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
    >>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you reply
    >>> to ?
    >>>

    >>
    >> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
    >> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
    >> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
    >> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
    >>
    >> I don't expect you to be able to explain why he was abusive - I know the
    >> answer, he's trolling for a response. He is a troll, plain and simple,
    >> as is proven above.

    >
    > No, he is not a troll.


    Kier says:
    >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?


    in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    trolling, Roy!

    > His doubt makes an opportunity for debate that
    > encourages exposing and putting forward further evidence. Whether it convinces
    > him or not remains irrelevant to other people who witness the same evidence.


    I don't have a particular problem with skepticism, but I don't have much
    time for it when it's mixed with trolling. When skeptics are ignoring
    presented evidence, though, I would also say that such behaviour is
    trolling (ie., trying to provide an irrational response).

    > Whether you should bury the hatchet (kf) or not is up to you. If you don't
    > like troll-feeding, then you can set the kf to suit your reading preferences,
    > but what doesn't suit your scope doesn't make the divide between "troll"
    > and "not troll" for everyone else.


    The term Troll has a very specific definition - essentially, it means
    someone who works to cause responses from others, mainly by writing
    or claiming unlikely or unbelievable things repeatedly, over and over,
    for the simple purpose of getting responses and keeping threads going.
    Trolling can range from merely responding with abuse (as he does above)
    to making silly claims (like "you *have* to have evidence" whilst ignoring
    the presented evidence).

    > The word troll is very offensive because
    > it's usually ascribed to the Earth's scum (people like Gary Stewart, Scott
    > Douglas, Ray Lopez, Bill Weisgerber and others).
    >


    Trolling is a part of what they do, but it does not describe the fullness
    of their actions, which go far deeper. The term "troll" is relatively
    mild...

    Interestingly, having just done some research into troll definitions, it
    could be that I'm showing my age somewhat, as here is a quote from the
    anti-troll faq:

    http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

    "Subject: 3.1 The old definition

    The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate the
    maximum number of follow ups. These are a very minor irritation,
    and can be considered to be advantageous to newsgroups."

    To me, this is incomplete, though, as most trolls try to generation
    irrational discussions rather than reasoned debate. Wikipaedia has a
    similar description here, which I think is rather better:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone
    who posts controversial messages in an online community, such
    as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting
    other users into an emotional response. [1]"


    No, to my mind, Kier is very much trying to do exactly this when he
    posts:

    >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?


    There is no value to this remark, it adds nothing to the debate at all,
    however, it is most definitely designed to provoke an emotional response,
    as the Wiki entry defines (in part) trolling.

    Hence my viewpoint, and my use of the word troll, against the generally
    accepted meaning. There are, naturally, a huge number of very offensive
    troll types which are well defined, but I don't know how many of them,
    if any, would apply to Kier's interesting, very consistent, and unusual
    (at least for cola) behaviour.

    So, that's my case. I'm not trying to suggest that Kier is a mad axe
    murderer, however, he is a troll by all definitions I can find, simply
    because he does troll. I don't have any particularly strong feelings
    about him beyond that.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  2. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:11:36 +0000,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
    >>>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
    >>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has
    >>>>>>> zero to do with the BBC or MS.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mark has issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
    >>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
    >>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
    >>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
    >>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
    >>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you
    >>>> reply to ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
    >>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
    >>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
    >>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You *quoted* Kier's reply, stating that he didn't work for the BBC, and
    >> yet, in that same message, you claimed he hadn't answered the question
    >> of whether he worked for the BBC! your excuse? that he answered the
    >> question after you asked it!

    >
    > I'm getting a bit concerned about you, Jim. This is the second time in
    > a month you've made almost the same error. If you look, you will see,
    > directly above, that I ask the question, and then he replies with a
    > bunch of abuse. I didn't say that he hadn't answered the question (read
    > what I say very carefully, please), rather, I quite specifically say
    > that the proper response to my question is either Yes or No, not a load
    > of trolling abuse.


    The proper response to your "questions" is "go suck donkey dicks"

    Since when is it up to you to define how people have to answer? Penalty
    being a "troll", naturally, because they did not answer to your "standards"

    You are an idiot, Mark Kent. And a dishonest twit
    --
    Tact, n.:
    The unsaid part of what you're thinking.


  3. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 17 January 2008 18:11 : \____
    >>
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
    >>>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
    >>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has
    >>>>>>> zero to do with the BBC or MS.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mark has issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
    >>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
    >>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
    >>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
    >>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
    >>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you
    >>>> reply to ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
    >>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
    >>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
    >>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
    >>>
    >>> I don't expect you to be able to explain why he was abusive - I know the
    >>> answer, he's trolling for a response. He is a troll, plain and simple,
    >>> as is proven above.

    >>
    >> No, he is not a troll.

    >
    > Kier says:
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >
    > in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    > trolling, Roy!


    Nope.
    You could as well have asked "does he still beat his wife"
    It is equally pointless.
    His answer was very appropriate to your "question". And yes: You are an
    idiot. And not just "round the bend"


    < snip more pure lunacy >
    --
    If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.


  4. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:14:51 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

    > Jim Richardson espoused:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:11:36 +0000,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
    >>>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
    >>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has zero to
    >>>>>>> do with the BBC or MS.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mark has issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
    >>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
    >>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
    >>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
    >>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
    >>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you reply
    >>>> to ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
    >>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
    >>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
    >>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You *quoted* Kier's reply, stating that he didn't work for the BBC, and
    >> yet, in that same message, you claimed he hadn't answered the question
    >> of whether he worked for the BBC! your excuse? that he answered the
    >> question after you asked it!

    >
    > I'm getting a bit concerned about you, Jim. This is the second time in
    > a month you've made almost the same error. If you look, you will see,
    > directly above, that I ask the question, and then he replies with a
    > bunch of abuse. I didn't say that he hadn't answered the question (read
    > what I say very carefully, please), rather, I quite specifically say
    > that the proper response to my question is either Yes or No, not a load
    > of trolling abuse.


    To which *I* answered, I called you names because you deserved them,
    asking me a loaded question to which I'm quite sure you knew the answer,
    since I have made no secret whatever of being a manual worker who has no
    professional connection with IT.

    >
    > This trolling by Kier is why I say he's a troll. His response is
    > specifically designed to troll a response, and a none-too pleasant one
    > at that, from a perfectly reasonably question. This is why he's in my
    > killfile.


    I'm in your killfile yet you ask questions of me, call me troll, and
    insist I have some 'agenda', then wonder why I get annoyed? My response
    was designed only to express my annoyance at *you*, posting about *me* in
    a manner which could certainly be called trolling. Asking whether I work
    for the BBC implies that I have other reasons than the obvious one for
    speaking out against all this ridiculous 'MSBBC' nonsense. You are quite
    happy to call me names when it suits you, but I have not called you a
    troll, ever.

    >
    >>
    >>
    >> well duh!
    >>

    >
    > Please re-read and rethink your words, Jim. You seem to be seeing
    > ghosts or reds under the bed or fairies in the garden or something. To
    > put it another way, you appear to have issues...


    You are the one who should think again.

    --
    Kier


  5. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:05 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 17 January 2008 18:11 : \____
    >>
    >>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
    >>>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
    >>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has zero to
    >>>>>>> do with the BBC or MS.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mark has issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
    >>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
    >>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
    >>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
    >>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
    >>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you reply
    >>>> to ?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
    >>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
    >>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
    >>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
    >>>
    >>> I don't expect you to be able to explain why he was abusive - I know the
    >>> answer, he's trolling for a response. He is a troll, plain and simple,
    >>> as is proven above.

    >>
    >> No, he is not a troll.

    >
    > Kier says:
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >
    > in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    > trolling, Roy!
    >
    >> His doubt makes an opportunity for debate that
    >> encourages exposing and putting forward further evidence. Whether it convinces
    >> him or not remains irrelevant to other people who witness the same evidence.

    >
    > I don't have a particular problem with skepticism, but I don't have much
    > time for it when it's mixed with trolling. When skeptics are ignoring
    > presented evidence, though, I would also say that such behaviour is
    > trolling (ie., trying to provide an irrational response).
    >
    >> Whether you should bury the hatchet (kf) or not is up to you. If you don't
    >> like troll-feeding, then you can set the kf to suit your reading preferences,
    >> but what doesn't suit your scope doesn't make the divide between "troll"
    >> and "not troll" for everyone else.

    >
    > The term Troll has a very specific definition - essentially, it means
    > someone who works to cause responses from others, mainly by writing
    > or claiming unlikely or unbelievable things repeatedly, over and over,
    > for the simple purpose of getting responses and keeping threads going.
    > Trolling can range from merely responding with abuse (as he does above)
    > to making silly claims (like "you *have* to have evidence" whilst ignoring
    > the presented evidence).
    >
    >> The word troll is very offensive because
    >> it's usually ascribed to the Earth's scum (people like Gary Stewart, Scott
    >> Douglas, Ray Lopez, Bill Weisgerber and others).
    >>

    >
    > Trolling is a part of what they do, but it does not describe the fullness
    > of their actions, which go far deeper. The term "troll" is relatively
    > mild...
    >
    > Interestingly, having just done some research into troll definitions, it
    > could be that I'm showing my age somewhat, as here is a quote from the
    > anti-troll faq:
    >
    > http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm
    >
    > "Subject: 3.1 The old definition
    >
    > The old definition of a Troll is one who posts to generate the
    > maximum number of follow ups. These are a very minor irritation,
    > and can be considered to be advantageous to newsgroups."
    >
    > To me, this is incomplete, though, as most trolls try to generation
    > irrational discussions rather than reasoned debate. Wikipaedia has a
    > similar description here, which I think is rather better:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
    >
    > "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone
    > who posts controversial messages in an online community, such
    > as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting
    > other users into an emotional response. [1]"
    >
    >
    > No, to my mind, Kier is very much trying to do exactly this when he
    > posts:
    >
    >>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >
    > There is no value to this remark, it adds nothing to the debate at all,
    > however, it is most definitely designed to provoke an emotional response,
    > as the Wiki entry defines (in part) trolling.


    I'll tell you what it adds - my strong dislike of being accused of having
    an 'agenda', which I do not, of trolling, which I do not, and of being
    asked silly questions like do I work for the BBC, when it is plainly
    obvious *I do not*.

    >
    > Hence my viewpoint, and my use of the word troll, against the generally
    > accepted meaning. There are, naturally, a huge number of very offensive
    > troll types which are well defined, but I don't know how many of them,
    > if any, would apply to Kier's interesting, very consistent, and unusual
    > (at least for cola) behaviour.


    Unusual in what way? I am an advocate. That doesn't mean I have to swallow
    all the nonsense that sometimes gets posted here just because it is
    anti-MS.

    >
    > So, that's my case. I'm not trying to suggest that Kier is a mad axe
    > murderer, however, he is a troll by all definitions I can find, simply
    > because he does troll. I don't have any particularly strong feelings
    > about him beyond that.


    I do not troll.

    --
    Kier


  6. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    In article ,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Kier says:
    > >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >
    > in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    > trolling, Roy!


    You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. You asked
    in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
    he is likely astroturfing for them.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:07:23 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Kier says:
    >> >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >>
    >> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    >> trolling, Roy!

    >
    > You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. You asked
    > in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
    > he is likely astroturfing for them.


    And given what I do for a living, I find that most *un*likely :-)

    He did not even have a courtesy to ask me directly the first time. Did he
    really not expect me to respond?

    --
    Kier


  8. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Tim Smith espoused:
    > In article ,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Kier says:
    >> >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >>
    >> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    >> trolling, Roy!

    >
    > You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. You asked
    > in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
    > he is likely astroturfing for them.
    >


    Implication? Only in your head, Timmy.

    I wanted to know if he had any real basis for his claims, or if they were
    just unsupported opinion. The question is a perfectly reasonable one,
    and is deserving of a reasonable answer.

    Of course I didn't just "ask out of the blue". Why would I? I don't
    ask people their parent's names, their kids' shoe sizes, the colour of
    their cars or their preferences in romantic novel authors, shakespeare,
    classical music, opera, ink versus biro pens, favourite beer, whether
    they make bread themselves or even whether they know what "face-centered
    cubic" means.

    Conversations, Mr Troll, go on in context. If you choose to put your
    own spin on the context (... the implication was that...) then you are
    invention your *own* interpretation. If you want to know what the real
    reason for the question was, you can ask, except, in your case, probably
    not, as you're in my kfile for this very reason.

    Why don't you go to a group appropriate for the material you post? Oh,
    and are you still stalking Roy in Digg?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  9. Re: [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Jan 18, 5:25*am, Kier wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:07:23 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > *Mark Kent wrote:
    > >> Kier says:
    > >> >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >
    > >> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? *This *is*
    > >> trolling, Roy!

    >
    > > You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. *You asked
    > > in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
    > > he is likely astroturfing for them.

    >
    > And given what I do for a living, I find that most *un*likely :-)
    >
    > He did not even have a courtesy to ask me directly the first time. Did he
    > really not expect me to respond?
    >


    It would be best not to question the Almighty. He has a very specific
    definition of troll: You can't respond with any kind of emotion, but
    he can respond with any kind of emotion, including asking a loaded
    question implying you are shilling for the BBC. It doesn't have to
    make sense to you or me. He's the King of COLA and rules with an iron
    fist. Is calling it the "MSBBC" intended to evoke an emotional
    response? Sure it is, but as one of Mark's favored children, Roy gets
    a pass. Mark created this group so he could have a place to talk to
    Roy (and for William Poaster to pop in and mention how big his
    killfile is), the rest of us just need to accept that.

  10. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:32:31 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:

    > Tim Smith espoused:
    >> In article ,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Kier says:
    >>> >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>
    >>> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? This *is*
    >>> trolling, Roy!

    >>
    >> You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. You asked
    >> in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
    >> he is likely astroturfing for them.
    >>

    >
    > Implication? Only in your head, Timmy.
    >
    > I wanted to know if he had any real basis for his claims, or if they were
    > just unsupported opinion. The question is a perfectly reasonable one,
    > and is deserving of a reasonable answer.


    Oh come off it.

    >
    > Of course I didn't just "ask out of the blue". Why would I? I don't
    > ask people their parent's names, their kids' shoe sizes, the colour of
    > their cars or their preferences in romantic novel authors, shakespeare,
    > classical music, opera, ink versus biro pens, favourite beer, whether
    > they make bread themselves or even whether they know what "face-centered
    > cubic" means.
    >
    > Conversations, Mr Troll, go on in context. If you choose to put your
    > own spin on the context (... the implication was that...) then you are


    That *was* the implication.

    > invention your *own* interpretation. If you want to know what the real
    > reason for the question was, you can ask, except, in your case, probably
    > not, as you're in my kfile for this very reason.


    No, the reason he's killfiled is so you don't have to see the truth - and
    if he's in your killfile, what are you doing responding to his post?

    >
    > Why don't you go to a group appropriate for the material you post? Oh,
    > and are you still stalking Roy in Digg?


    You have a funny definition of stalking.

    --
    Kier


  11. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Kier writes:

    > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:05 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>
    >>> Whether you should bury the hatchet (kf) or not is up to you. If you
    >>> don't


    Burying the hatchet would be shaking hands and trolling together in harmony

    >>> like troll-feeding, then you can set the kf to suit your reading preferences,
    >>> but what doesn't suit your scope doesn't make the divide between "troll"
    >>> and "not troll" for everyone else.

    >>
    >> The term Troll has a very specific definition - essentially, it means
    >> someone who works to cause responses from others, mainly by writing
    >> or claiming unlikely or unbelievable things repeatedly, over and over,
    >> for the simple purpose of getting responses and keeping threads going.
    >> Trolling can range from merely responding with abuse (as he does above)
    >> to making silly claims (like "you *have* to have evidence" whilst ignoring
    >> the presented evidence).
    >>
    >>> The word troll is very offensive because
    >>> it's usually ascribed to the Earth's scum (people like Gary Stewart, Scott
    >>> Douglas, Ray Lopez, Bill Weisgerber and others).


    LOL


  12. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Kier writes:

    > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:05 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >> There is no value to this remark, it adds nothing to the debate at all,
    >> however, it is most definitely designed to provoke an emotional response,
    >> as the Wiki entry defines (in part) trolling.

    >
    > I'll tell you what it adds - my strong dislike of being accused of having
    > an 'agenda', which I do not, of trolling, which I do not, and of being
    > asked silly questions like do I work for the BBC, when it is plainly
    > obvious *I do not*.


    Kier, do not feed the troll. It's clear that Mark Kent can not be for
    real. A very good pisstake though.

    >
    >>
    >> Hence my viewpoint, and my use of the word troll, against the generally
    >> accepted meaning. There are, naturally, a huge number of very offensive
    >> troll types which are well defined, but I don't know how many of them,
    >> if any, would apply to Kier's interesting, very consistent, and unusual
    >> (at least for cola) behaviour.

    >
    > Unusual in what way? I am an advocate. That doesn't mean I have to swallow
    > all the nonsense that sometimes gets posted here just because it is
    > anti-MS.


    The Mark Kent troll is fishing. Ignore him.

  13. Re: [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    cc writes:

    > On Jan 18, 5:25¬*am, Kier wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:07:23 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
    >> > In article ,
    >> > ¬*Mark Kent wrote:
    >> >> Kier says:
    >> >> >>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?

    >>
    >> >> in response to (paraphrasing) does he work for the BBC? ¬*This *is*
    >> >> trolling, Roy!

    >>
    >> > You didn't just ask out of the blue if he worked for the BBC. ¬*You asked
    >> > in the middle of the thread, in a place where the implication was that
    >> > he is likely astroturfing for them.

    >>
    >> And given what I do for a living, I find that most *un*likely :-)
    >>
    >> He did not even have a courtesy to ask me directly the first time. Did he
    >> really not expect me to respond?
    >>

    >
    > It would be best not to question the Almighty. He has a very specific
    > definition of troll: You can't respond with any kind of emotion, but
    > he can respond with any kind of emotion, including asking a loaded
    > question implying you are shilling for the BBC. It doesn't have to
    > make sense to you or me. He's the King of COLA and rules with an iron
    > fist. Is calling it the "MSBBC" intended to evoke an emotional
    > response? Sure it is, but as one of Mark's favored children, Roy gets
    > a pass. Mark created this group so he could have a place to talk to
    > Roy (and for William Poaster to pop in and mention how big his
    > killfile is), the rest of us just need to accept that.


    I am glad I had Mark Kent pegged for what he is a long time ago. An
    egotistical wind bag who thinks that this group is HIS cot and every
    thread his toy.

    He surely can not be for real. NOONE would be stupid enough to think
    anyone is interested in his smelly kids, or how long his stereo "for his
    parents" work. He's a classic example of a Harry Enfield "It's only me"
    nosey neighbour that knows everything and is there to tell everyone at
    every opportunity. A wanker of the first order and very much to be
    ignored.

  14. Re: [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:54:01 +0100, Hadron wrote:


    > I am glad I had Mark Kent pegged for what he is a long time ago. An
    > egotistical wind bag who thinks that this group is HIS cot and every
    > thread his toy.
    >
    > He surely can not be for real. NOONE would be stupid enough to think
    > anyone is interested in his smelly kids, or how long his stereo "for his
    > parents" work. He's a classic example of a Harry Enfield "It's only me"
    > nosey neighbour that knows everything and is there to tell everyone at
    > every opportunity. A wanker of the first order and very much to be
    > ignored.


    And why do his cars keep getting stolen?
    He must live on the bad side of townn.
    Typical Linux user. If they are not living in their dorm room or their
    mother's basement, they are living in poor town.

  15. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:58:36 +0000, Kier wrote:


    > Unusual in what way? I am an advocate. That doesn't mean I have to swallow
    > all the nonsense that sometimes gets posted here just because it is
    > anti-MS.


    You mean like the rest of this pathetic group?
    Well at least you have some redeeming qualities.

  16. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:49:36 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Kier writes:
    >
    >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:05 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>
    >>>> Whether you should bury the hatchet (kf) or not is up to you. If you
    >>>> don't

    >
    > Burying the hatchet would be shaking hands and trolling together in harmony
    >
    >>>> like troll-feeding, then you can set the kf to suit your reading preferences,
    >>>> but what doesn't suit your scope doesn't make the divide between "troll"
    >>>> and "not troll" for everyone else.
    >>>
    >>> The term Troll has a very specific definition - essentially, it means
    >>> someone who works to cause responses from others, mainly by writing
    >>> or claiming unlikely or unbelievable things repeatedly, over and over,
    >>> for the simple purpose of getting responses and keeping threads going.
    >>> Trolling can range from merely responding with abuse (as he does above)
    >>> to making silly claims (like "you *have* to have evidence" whilst ignoring
    >>> the presented evidence).
    >>>
    >>>> The word troll is very offensive because
    >>>> it's usually ascribed to the Earth's scum (people like Gary Stewart, Scott
    >>>> Douglas, Ray Lopez, Bill Weisgerber and others).

    >
    > LOL


    I wonder what Roy Schestowitz's definition of the term SPAMMER is?

  17. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:32:31 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:


    > Implication? Only in your head, Timmy.
    >
    > I wanted to know if he had any real basis for his claims, or if they were
    > just unsupported opinion. The question is a perfectly reasonable one,
    > and is deserving of a reasonable answer.


    Interesting how you don't apply the same criteria to Roy Schestowitz, or
    [Homer]'s posts.

    > Why don't you go to a group appropriate for the material you post? Oh,
    > and are you still stalking Roy in Digg?


    Why don't you?

    alt.destroy.microsoft is that way -------------- >>>>>>>>>>>

    IOW you guys aren't Linux advocates, not by the wildest stretch of the
    imagination.

  18. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:57:10 +0000, Kier wrote:


    >> Why don't you go to a group appropriate for the material you post? Oh,
    >> and are you still stalking Roy in Digg?

    >
    > You have a funny definition of stalking.


    Yea, everyone who disagrees with Roy Schestowitz is stalking him on digg.

    http://digg.com/apple/Newly_leaked_A...ng_ClarisWorks

    Schestowitz hates the fact that people on digg have spoken and unlike over
    at Propeller where he is a hall monitor and has some power, on digg he
    can't control what people think and say about him.

    He better get used to it because it's the truth and if he thinks he can go
    through life with a bunch of lap dogs following him around like he is some
    kind of leader (COLA) he is wrong.

  19. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:36:12 +0100, Peter KŲhlmann wrote:


    > The proper response to your "questions" is "go suck donkey dicks"
    >
    > Since when is it up to you to define how people have to answer? Penalty
    > being a "troll", naturally, because they did not answer to your "standards"
    >
    > You are an idiot, Mark Kent. And a dishonest twit


    Don't encourage Mark Kent. The donkeys have finally gotten up enough nerve
    to come out of the barn.

  20. Re: [News] [Rival] MSBBC Busted by Parliament for the MS iPlayer Scam

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:11:36 +0000,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:12:23 +0000,
    >>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>> Jim Richardson espoused:
    >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:06:18 +0000,
    >>>>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:08:33 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Does Kier work for the BBC?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Is Mark an idiot or just round the bend?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Of course I don't work for the BBC, you loon! I have in fact stated
    >>>>>>>> several times on various posts what I do for a living, and is has
    >>>>>>>> zero to do with the BBC or MS.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Mark has issues.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Can't see what was wrong with that question, myself. It is perfectly
    >>>>>> reasonable. For kier, and yourself, to react in that way indicates
    >>>>>> where the issues are - they are obviously not with me.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Clearly, the answer to this question is either "yes" or "no". Neither
    >>>>>> you, nor Kier, seem able to achieve this. Instead, you are trolling,
    >>>>>> Jim. Now, why would you be trolling me?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Kier clearly stated that he *doesn't* work for the BBC, you even quoted
    >>>>> him saying so in the above section. Do you even read the posts you
    >>>>> reply to ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> He stated that after I asked it, but not before a stack of abuse, as you
    >>>> can see. If you can explain to me how asking Kier if he works for the
    >>>> BBC shows that I "have issues", then I'll consider your explanation. It
    >>>> still looks a lot like trolling to me.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> You *quoted* Kier's reply, stating that he didn't work for the BBC, and
    >>> yet, in that same message, you claimed he hadn't answered the question
    >>> of whether he worked for the BBC! your excuse? that he answered the
    >>> question after you asked it!

    >>
    >> I'm getting a bit concerned about you, Jim. This is the second time in
    >> a month you've made almost the same error. If you look, you will see,
    >> directly above, that I ask the question, and then he replies with a
    >> bunch of abuse. I didn't say that he hadn't answered the question (read
    >> what I say very carefully, please), rather, I quite specifically say
    >> that the proper response to my question is either Yes or No, not a load
    >> of trolling abuse.

    >
    > The proper response to your "questions" is "go suck donkey dicks"
    >
    > Since when is it up to you to define how people have to answer? Penalty
    > being a "troll", naturally, because they did not answer to your "standards"
    >
    > You are an idiot, Mark Kent. And a dishonest twit


    No, he is *much* worse than that. He is an opinionated twat who has
    never written a line of code in his life. He is an egotistical wind bag
    and a bull****ter. Nobody except for Roy pays a single bit of attention
    to *anything* he says.

    cc has his number and I applaud him for it. Mark Kent is "Owned" by cc.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast