More MS slopware - Linux

This is a discussion on More MS slopware - Linux ; On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:56:47 -0700, Tim Smith wrote: > In article , Homer > wrote: >>> So, what was the point you were trying to make? >> >> I think his point was Error: Straw-man on fire. > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: More MS slopware

  1. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:56:47 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article , Homer
    > wrote:
    >>> So, what was the point you were trying to make?

    >>
    >> I think his point was Error: Straw-man on fire.

    >
    > How is the fact that OpenOffice gives the exact same result as Excel a
    > straw man, Homer?


    These Linux Loons aren't even smart enough to turn that one around
    something along the lines of:

    "See how compatible OpenOffice is with Microsoft Office?"
    "It even gives the same *incorrect* results".

    They are not too bright around here.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  2. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:12:45 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Linonut" stated in post
    > RFqbk.17177$NQ5.8958@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/4/08 7:43 AM:
    >
    >> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >>>> brain of his.
    >>>
    >>> Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    >>> does not mean that I "panick"

    >>
    >> We are /all/ losers. That is, if we try to use spreadsheets for very
    >> large calculations. They can't even get double-floating-point right.
    >>
    >> How about this test? Enter 12345678901234567890 into a cell and set the
    >> format to "general". Just tried that in oocalc (64-bit).
    >>
    >> Here's what I entered: 12345678901234567890
    >> And here's what I see: 12345678901234600000
    >> *-------------------------------------^
    >>
    >> Rounding to 15 digits.
    >>
    >> Anyway, I wonder how much crap was spewed into the world by using large
    >> numbers calculated from the more accurately-named "spread****s"?

    >
    > Peter mocked MS Excel for a weakness it has.
    >
    > I noted that the same weakness exists in OO.o.
    >
    > Peter claimed my comments were "worthless, dishonest drivel" and - much
    > worse - freaked out and started tying his BS to my personal and business
    > name in order to try to pull searches for my info to *his* dishonest and
    > desperate post.
    >
    > Such a fine and honorable man that Peter is!


    Peter Kohlmann has gone down in flames once again which is usually what
    happens when he tries to post some technical diatribe.

    He should stick to positing "idiot" to everything written here.

    Also notice he had the follow ups set to alt.test to bury his idiocy.
    I corrected that of course.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  3. Re: More MS slopware

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    1imgaz6wlmw6a.kxo48hgvt087.dlg@40tude.net on 7/4/08 1:42 PM:

    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:12:45 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Linonut" stated in post
    >> RFqbk.17177$NQ5.8958@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/4/08 7:43 AM:
    >>
    >>> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >>>>> brain of his.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    >>>> does not mean that I "panick"
    >>>
    >>> We are /all/ losers. That is, if we try to use spreadsheets for very
    >>> large calculations. They can't even get double-floating-point right.
    >>>
    >>> How about this test? Enter 12345678901234567890 into a cell and set the
    >>> format to "general". Just tried that in oocalc (64-bit).
    >>>
    >>> Here's what I entered: 12345678901234567890
    >>> And here's what I see: 12345678901234600000
    >>> *-------------------------------------^
    >>>
    >>> Rounding to 15 digits.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway, I wonder how much crap was spewed into the world by using large
    >>> numbers calculated from the more accurately-named "spread****s"?

    >>
    >> Peter mocked MS Excel for a weakness it has.
    >>
    >> I noted that the same weakness exists in OO.o.
    >>
    >> Peter claimed my comments were "worthless, dishonest drivel" and - much
    >> worse - freaked out and started tying his BS to my personal and business
    >> name in order to try to pull searches for my info to *his* dishonest and
    >> desperate post.
    >>
    >> Such a fine and honorable man that Peter is!

    >
    > Peter Kohlmann has gone down in flames once again which is usually what
    > happens when he tries to post some technical diatribe.
    >
    > He should stick to positing "idiot" to everything written here.
    >
    > Also notice he had the follow ups set to alt.test to bury his idiocy.
    > I corrected that of course.


    I was caught with that at least once... he clearly is ashamed of what he has
    written and does not want to see replies posted to COLA. Also notice how he
    has changed his Usenet provider - he and his co-trolls claim that there is
    nothing wrong with his actions but *clearly* his Usenet provider disagrees.
    I have direct emails from them talking about how he will no longer use their
    service to post his attacks against my business... funny how he denies they
    ever contacted him.



    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




  4. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:54:46 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > 1imgaz6wlmw6a.kxo48hgvt087.dlg@40tude.net on 7/4/08 1:42 PM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:12:45 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Linonut" stated in post
    >>> RFqbk.17177$NQ5.8958@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/4/08 7:43 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>>> Right? Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>> Gnumeric 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry little
    >>>>>> brain of his.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest drivel
    >>>>> does not mean that I "panick"
    >>>>
    >>>> We are /all/ losers. That is, if we try to use spreadsheets for very
    >>>> large calculations. They can't even get double-floating-point right.
    >>>>
    >>>> How about this test? Enter 12345678901234567890 into a cell and set the
    >>>> format to "general". Just tried that in oocalc (64-bit).
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's what I entered: 12345678901234567890
    >>>> And here's what I see: 12345678901234600000
    >>>> *-------------------------------------^
    >>>>
    >>>> Rounding to 15 digits.
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyway, I wonder how much crap was spewed into the world by using large
    >>>> numbers calculated from the more accurately-named "spread****s"?
    >>>
    >>> Peter mocked MS Excel for a weakness it has.
    >>>
    >>> I noted that the same weakness exists in OO.o.
    >>>
    >>> Peter claimed my comments were "worthless, dishonest drivel" and - much
    >>> worse - freaked out and started tying his BS to my personal and business
    >>> name in order to try to pull searches for my info to *his* dishonest and
    >>> desperate post.
    >>>
    >>> Such a fine and honorable man that Peter is!

    >>
    >> Peter Kohlmann has gone down in flames once again which is usually what
    >> happens when he tries to post some technical diatribe.
    >>
    >> He should stick to positing "idiot" to everything written here.
    >>
    >> Also notice he had the follow ups set to alt.test to bury his idiocy.
    >> I corrected that of course.

    >
    > I was caught with that at least once... he clearly is ashamed of what he has
    > written and does not want to see replies posted to COLA. Also notice how he
    > has changed his Usenet provider - he and his co-trolls claim that there is
    > nothing wrong with his actions but *clearly* his Usenet provider disagrees.
    > I have direct emails from them talking about how he will no longer use their
    > service to post his attacks against my business... funny how he denies they
    > ever contacted him.


    Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    violations of TOS.

    Mark Kent will be the next one.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:24:02 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:54:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    >> 1imgaz6wlmw6a.kxo48hgvt087.dlg@40tude.net on 7/4/08 1:42 PM:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:12:45 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Linonut" stated in post
    >>>> RFqbk.17177$NQ5.8958@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 7/4/08 7:43 AM:
    >>>>
    >>>>> * Peter Köhlmann peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Multiplying 29513736 by 92842033 = 2740115251665290 Right?
    >>>>>>>>> Riiiiight? (Correct would be 2740115251665288)
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Excel 2000 gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>>> OpenOffice 2.3 Calc (on Windows) gives me 2740115251665290
    >>>>>>>> OpenOffice 2.0 Calc (on Linux) gives me 2740115251665290 Gnumeric
    >>>>>>>> 1.6.3 gives me 2740115251665280 (note - that ends in 80)
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You're a loser, Kohlmann.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yeah, in other words he panicked and blew a gasket in that angry
    >>>>>>> little brain of his.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Just because I decide to ignore most of your worthless, dishonest
    >>>>>> drivel does not mean that I "panick"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> We are /all/ losers. That is, if we try to use spreadsheets for
    >>>>> very large calculations. They can't even get double-floating-point
    >>>>> right.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How about this test? Enter 12345678901234567890 into a cell and set
    >>>>> the format to "general". Just tried that in oocalc (64-bit).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here's what I entered: 12345678901234567890 And here's what I see:
    >>>>> 12345678901234600000 *-------------------------------------^
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rounding to 15 digits.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Anyway, I wonder how much crap was spewed into the world by using
    >>>>> large numbers calculated from the more accurately-named
    >>>>> "spread****s"?
    >>>>
    >>>> Peter mocked MS Excel for a weakness it has.
    >>>>
    >>>> I noted that the same weakness exists in OO.o.
    >>>>
    >>>> Peter claimed my comments were "worthless, dishonest drivel" and -
    >>>> much worse - freaked out and started tying his BS to my personal and
    >>>> business name in order to try to pull searches for my info to *his*
    >>>> dishonest and desperate post.
    >>>>
    >>>> Such a fine and honorable man that Peter is!
    >>>
    >>> Peter Kohlmann has gone down in flames once again which is usually
    >>> what happens when he tries to post some technical diatribe.
    >>>
    >>> He should stick to positing "idiot" to everything written here.
    >>>
    >>> Also notice he had the follow ups set to alt.test to bury his idiocy.
    >>> I corrected that of course.

    >>
    >> I was caught with that at least once... he clearly is ashamed of what
    >> he has written and does not want to see replies posted to COLA. Also
    >> notice how he has changed his Usenet provider - he and his co-trolls
    >> claim that there is nothing wrong with his actions but *clearly* his
    >> Usenet provider disagrees. I have direct emails from them talking about
    >> how he will no longer use their service to post his attacks against my
    >> business... funny how he denies they ever contacted him.

    >
    > Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    > violations of TOS.


    And how do you know that?

    >
    > Mark Kent will be the next one.


    More threats?



    --
    Rick

  6. Re: More MS slopware

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    fg70x28ymux$.hw1aqxgt9qh6.dlg@40tude.net on 7/4/08 7:24 PM:

    ....
    >>> Peter Kohlmann has gone down in flames once again which is usually what
    >>> happens when he tries to post some technical diatribe.
    >>>
    >>> He should stick to positing "idiot" to everything written here.
    >>>
    >>> Also notice he had the follow ups set to alt.test to bury his idiocy.
    >>> I corrected that of course.

    >>
    >> I was caught with that at least once... he clearly is ashamed of what he has
    >> written and does not want to see replies posted to COLA. Also notice how he
    >> has changed his Usenet provider - he and his co-trolls claim that there is
    >> nothing wrong with his actions but *clearly* his Usenet provider disagrees.
    >> I have direct emails from them talking about how he will no longer use their
    >> service to post his attacks against my business... funny how he denies they
    >> ever contacted him.

    >
    > Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    > violations of TOS.


    I would like to see support for this... as I forward his over-the-top
    offensive posts to his ISP I would like to be able to include info about
    that.

    Of course right now he is not using his ISPs Usenet services, but I know he
    has the same IP based on his digging through my websites.

    > Mark Kent will be the next one.


    Or William Poaster.


    --
    I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.





  7. Re: More MS slopware

    "Rick" stated in post
    2-idnVrY8LXme_PVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on 7/4/08 8:11 PM:

    >>> I was caught with that at least once... he clearly is ashamed of what
    >>> he has written and does not want to see replies posted to COLA. Also
    >>> notice how he has changed his Usenet provider - he and his co-trolls
    >>> claim that there is nothing wrong with his actions but *clearly* his
    >>> Usenet provider disagrees. I have direct emails from them talking about
    >>> how he will no longer use their service to post his attacks against my
    >>> business... funny how he denies they ever contacted him.

    >>
    >> Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    >> violations of TOS.

    >
    > And how do you know that?
    >
    >>
    >> Mark Kent will be the next one.

    >
    > More threats?


    Poor Rick... the others that try to tie *their* words to *my* information
    are at risk of having their Usenet providers boot them. Boo hoo.


    You have already shown, Rick, that you will not tie *your* words with *your*
    information but you will tie them to *mine*. That says a lot about you and
    how despicable of a person you are.

    You know your words reflect poorly on the people they are associated with -
    hence the reason you try to associate your words with me. This is something
    your Usenet provider should be made aware of.


    --
    "For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
    I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
    interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
    company..." Linus Torvalds


  8. Re: More MS slopware

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:
    > > Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    > > violations of TOS.

    >
    > I would like to see support for this... as I forward his over-the-top
    > offensive posts to his ISP I would like to be able to include info about
    > that.


    Why? *If* he is doing something that is violating his current ISP's
    TOS, and you want to try to get them to slap him down, bringing those
    violations to their attention should be sufficient.

    Alerting them to behavior at prior ISPs is unlikely to help your case
    with them, and might even hurt it.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: More MS slopware

    "Tim Smith" stated in post
    reply_in_group-115B83.21192604072008@news.supernews.com on 7/4/08 9:19 PM:

    > In article ,
    > Snit wrote:
    >>> Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    >>> violations of TOS.

    >>
    >> I would like to see support for this... as I forward his over-the-top
    >> offensive posts to his ISP I would like to be able to include info about
    >> that.

    >
    > Why?


    Peter has made it clear he is willing to tie his BS to my personal and
    business name but will not, as far as I know, tie his BS to his own
    professional life nor, likely, to his real name.

    This is reprehensible on his part and his ISP and Usenet provider should be
    made aware of it. If he has a history of doing other similar reprehensible
    things that have ended up with him being placed on any type of probation
    they should know that as well - though if it is the same provider they
    likely do. Still, a reminder of the pattern of his behavior might get them
    to react more strongly and quickly to do the right thing.

    > *If* he is doing something that is violating his current ISP's
    > TOS, and you want to try to get them to slap him down, bringing those
    > violations to their attention should be sufficient.


    It was - hence the reason he changed Usenet providers. Nothing wrong with
    letting his current provider should be made aware of his history as they
    look into his current actions... again, this may prompt them to do the right
    thing more quickly.

    > Alerting them to behavior at prior ISPs is unlikely to help your case
    > with them, and might even hurt it.


    How would tastefully letting them know some of the history of Peter's
    reprehensible behaviors hurt my case in asking them to do what they can to
    stop his current reprehensible behaviors?

    --
    BU__SH__




  10. Re: More MS slopware

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> Hey, Tim. I don't get wny you used "float" instead of "double".

    >
    > I did do double. The results were included in the table farther down in
    > my post. I just didn't give source code for that (or most of the
    > others).


    My layout was much more concise.

    You weren't the one who did the toyotafinancial web site, were you?

    --
    Mind! I don't mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is
    particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself,
    to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade.
    But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands
    shall not disturb it, or the Country's done for. You will therefore permit
    me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
    -- Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

  11. Re: More MS slopware

    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:23:24 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > fg70x28ymux$.hw1aqxgt9qh6.dlg@40tude.net on 7/4/08 7:24 PM:
    >
    > ...
    >>>> Peter Kohlmann has gone down in flames once again which is usually what
    >>>> happens when he tries to post some technical diatribe.
    >>>>
    >>>> He should stick to positing "idiot" to everything written here.
    >>>>
    >>>> Also notice he had the follow ups set to alt.test to bury his idiocy.
    >>>> I corrected that of course.
    >>>
    >>> I was caught with that at least once... he clearly is ashamed of what he has
    >>> written and does not want to see replies posted to COLA. Also notice how he
    >>> has changed his Usenet provider - he and his co-trolls claim that there is
    >>> nothing wrong with his actions but *clearly* his Usenet provider disagrees.
    >>> I have direct emails from them talking about how he will no longer use their
    >>> service to post his attacks against my business... funny how he denies they
    >>> ever contacted him.

    >>
    >> Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    >> violations of TOS.

    >
    > I would like to see support for this... as I forward his over-the-top
    > offensive posts to his ISP I would like to be able to include info about
    > that.
    >
    > Of course right now he is not using his ISPs Usenet services, but I know he
    > has the same IP based on his digging through my websites.
    >
    >> Mark Kent will be the next one.

    >
    > Or William Poaster.


    I have to disagree on this one although I admit I don't pretend to know the
    entire story.

    If he is calling your employer or harming your business then I would warn
    him first and then contact his ISP.

    However if your website and information is public record and all he does is
    make fun of what you do or don't do, he's really not doing anything wrong
    other than being a bastard about it.

    He would have to post stuff, say as a *former student* claiming you ripped
    him off, your classes suck, etc for you to take appropriate action.

    Last time he got in trouble for posting and re-posting that flatfish nym
    list all over the place and ironically it was someone in a Suse group who
    took offense to it. At least that is what I was told. I had nothing to do
    with it and could care less what he does.
    AFAI am concerned COLA has only one dangerous person, seriously mentally
    dangerous, and we all know who that is. His last name rhymes with
    mental....

    As I stated before, I think you two should just kool it for a while.

    As for Mark Kent, he is in clear violation of his ISP TOS and although i
    could care less, it's his dime, others may not feel that way.

    Willy Poaster hasn't done anything wrong as far as I can see?
    Other than being an idiot and he can't help that

    Why not just post a public notice to Peter and ask him to back off and
    agree to do the same and avoid each other for a while.

    Unless, like I said above he has/is causing real harm to you or your
    business.
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: More MS slopware

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    9wrfghsi6eth.p1e5dj4haycm$.dlg@40tude.net on 7/5/08 8:25 AM:

    >>> Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    >>> violations of TOS.

    >>
    >> I would like to see support for this... as I forward his over-the-top
    >> offensive posts to his ISP I would like to be able to include info about
    >> that.
    >>
    >> Of course right now he is not using his ISPs Usenet services, but I know he
    >> has the same IP based on his digging through my websites.
    >>
    >>> Mark Kent will be the next one.

    >>
    >> Or William Poaster.

    >
    > I have to disagree on this one although I admit I don't pretend to know the
    > entire story.
    >
    > If he is calling your employer or harming your business then I would warn
    > him first and then contact his ISP.


    I have warned him repeatedly about tying his BS claims and posts to *my*
    personal name and business.

    > However if your website and information is public record and all he does is
    > make fun of what you do or don't do, he's really not doing anything wrong
    > other than being a bastard about it.


    He, and others in COLA, are working to corrupt searches for me and my
    business to find their posts. If they were disgruntled customers that would
    be one thing - but they are not. They are simply people who cannot hold
    their own in discussions of computers so they lash out and strive to take
    things out of COLA. This is completely unacceptable... and Peter's ISP
    agreed, as have others.

    > He would have to post stuff, say as a *former student* claiming you ripped
    > him off, your classes suck, etc for you to take appropriate action.
    >
    > Last time he got in trouble for posting and re-posting that flatfish nym
    > list all over the place and ironically it was someone in a Suse group who
    > took offense to it. At least that is what I was told. I had nothing to do
    > with it and could care less what he does.
    > AFAI am concerned COLA has only one dangerous person, seriously mentally
    > dangerous, and we all know who that is. His last name rhymes with
    > mental....
    >
    > As I stated before, I think you two should just kool it for a while.
    >
    > As for Mark Kent, he is in clear violation of his ISP TOS and although i
    > could care less, it's his dime, others may not feel that way.
    >
    > Willy Poaster hasn't done anything wrong as far as I can see?
    > Other than being an idiot and he can't help that
    >
    > Why not just post a public notice to Peter and ask him to back off and
    > agree to do the same and avoid each other for a while.


    I having nothing to "back off" of. It is not as though I am doing anything
    wrong to him.

    > Unless, like I said above he has/is causing real harm to you or your
    > business.


    He may be...

    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  13. Re: More MS slopware

    On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:50:19 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    > 9wrfghsi6eth.p1e5dj4haycm$.dlg@40tude.net on 7/5/08 8:25 AM:
    >
    >>>> Peter Kohlmann had been put on probation by his ISP in the past due to
    >>>> violations of TOS.
    >>>
    >>> I would like to see support for this... as I forward his over-the-top
    >>> offensive posts to his ISP I would like to be able to include info about
    >>> that.
    >>>
    >>> Of course right now he is not using his ISPs Usenet services, but I know he
    >>> has the same IP based on his digging through my websites.
    >>>
    >>>> Mark Kent will be the next one.
    >>>
    >>> Or William Poaster.

    >>
    >> I have to disagree on this one although I admit I don't pretend to know the
    >> entire story.
    >>
    >> If he is calling your employer or harming your business then I would warn
    >> him first and then contact his ISP.

    >
    > I have warned him repeatedly about tying his BS claims and posts to *my*
    > personal name and business.


    Fair enough, like I said I have not been following this too closely.


    >> However if your website and information is public record and all he does is
    >> make fun of what you do or don't do, he's really not doing anything wrong
    >> other than being a bastard about it.

    >
    > He, and others in COLA, are working to corrupt searches for me and my
    > business to find their posts. If they were disgruntled customers that would
    > be one thing - but they are not. They are simply people who cannot hold
    > their own in discussions of computers so they lash out and strive to take
    > things out of COLA. This is completely unacceptable... and Peter's ISP
    > agreed, as have others.


    This group is mainly about seeding Google with misleading positive Linux
    information and misleading negative Windows/Microsoft information.

    Homer even admitted it.

    This is what Roy Schestowitz's mission in life is.

    >> He would have to post stuff, say as a *former student* claiming you ripped
    >> him off, your classes suck, etc for you to take appropriate action.
    >>
    >> Last time he got in trouble for posting and re-posting that flatfish nym
    >> list all over the place and ironically it was someone in a Suse group who
    >> took offense to it. At least that is what I was told. I had nothing to do
    >> with it and could care less what he does.
    >> AFAI am concerned COLA has only one dangerous person, seriously mentally
    >> dangerous, and we all know who that is. His last name rhymes with
    >> mental....
    >>
    >> As I stated before, I think you two should just kool it for a while.
    >>
    >> As for Mark Kent, he is in clear violation of his ISP TOS and although i
    >> could care less, it's his dime, others may not feel that way.
    >>
    >> Willy Poaster hasn't done anything wrong as far as I can see?
    >> Other than being an idiot and he can't help that
    >>
    >> Why not just post a public notice to Peter and ask him to back off and
    >> agree to do the same and avoid each other for a while.

    >
    > I having nothing to "back off" of. It is not as though I am doing anything
    > wrong to him.


    Fair enough.


    >> Unless, like I said above he has/is causing real harm to you or your
    >> business.

    >
    > He may be...


    If he is on a mission to associate your business and real name with idiocy
    then I suppose he is.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  14. Re: More MS slopware

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    11fl4lerk7zec.gz10njvgo0co$.dlg@40tude.net on 7/5/08 10:03 AM:

    ....
    >>> I have to disagree on this one although I admit I don't pretend to know the
    >>> entire story.
    >>>
    >>> If he is calling your employer or harming your business then I would warn
    >>> him first and then contact his ISP.

    >>
    >> I have warned him repeatedly about tying his BS claims and posts to *my*
    >> personal name and business.

    >
    > Fair enough, like I said I have not been following this too closely.


    Sadly such requests and warnings are seen by too many as a challenge to see
    what they can get away with. If I had simply gone to people's ISPs without
    noting it in COLA and CSMA there would not have been so many copy cats.
    Once again my kindness is used against me - but I prefer to be kind and
    taken advantage of then to sink to the level of others.

    >>> However if your website and information is public record and all he does is
    >>> make fun of what you do or don't do, he's really not doing anything wrong
    >>> other than being a bastard about it.

    >>
    >> He, and others in COLA, are working to corrupt searches for me and my
    >> business to find their posts. If they were disgruntled customers that would
    >> be one thing - but they are not. They are simply people who cannot hold
    >> their own in discussions of computers so they lash out and strive to take
    >> things out of COLA. This is completely unacceptable... and Peter's ISP
    >> agreed, as have others.

    >
    > This group is mainly about seeding Google with misleading positive Linux
    > information and misleading negative Windows/Microsoft information.
    >
    > Homer even admitted it.
    >
    > This is what Roy Schestowitz's mission in life is.


    I know when I note things about Linux in comparison to other OSs that the
    "advocates" in COLA refuse to acknowledge clear facts.

    ....
    >>> Why not just post a public notice to Peter and ask him to back off and
    >>> agree to do the same and avoid each other for a while.

    >>
    >> I having nothing to "back off" of. It is not as though I am doing anything
    >> wrong to him.

    >
    > Fair enough.


    Peter is one of the ones who freaked out when I kindly asked him to stop.
    Frankly if he wants to make a fool of himself and just spout of ignorant
    insults that is fine - it is the culture of COLA and if I cannot handle that
    then I should not post here. But when he takes things out of COLA and
    targets my personal and business life that is too much.

    >>> Unless, like I said above he has/is causing real harm to you or your
    >>> business.

    >>
    >> He may be...

    >
    > If he is on a mission to associate your business and real name with idiocy
    > then I suppose he is.


    Sadly it is hard to measure how much financial harm has been done - making
    any legal action much harder... not that I am looking into such actions
    closely now, but it is something I would consider if needed.

    --
    I know how a jam jar feels...
    .... full of jam!


  15. Re: More MS slopware

    In article ,
    Snit wrote:
    > > Alerting them to behavior at prior ISPs is unlikely to help your case
    > > with them, and might even hurt it.

    >
    > How would tastefully letting them know some of the history of Peter's
    > reprehensible behaviors hurt my case in asking them to do what they can to
    > stop his current reprehensible behaviors?


    The vast majority of times that someone complains about a customer, and
    cites past history at another ISP, that complainer is someone who is, or
    is close to being, an internet stalker--someone who became obsessed over
    a minor disagreement long ago and won't let go.

    Like most businesses, the ISP is going to give the benefit of the doubt
    to the customer, who represents a steady stream of income to them. They
    will look at the *current* things you claim Peter is doing to violate
    their TOS. Besides the normal benefit of the doubt he will get for
    being the one of you two that is paying them, they will have in their
    mind that it is likely that you are an obsessed stalker, which will
    further make then unconsciously interpret everything in the way most
    favorable to Peter and his income stream.

    Hence, you are usually better off just complaining about the current
    behavior. If that does not rise to the level of a punishable TOS
    violation, they aren't going to kick him off no matter how much past
    trouble at other ISPs you can document.

    (And *can* you actually document it? They will want more than just
    something like you publicly said you were going to complain to his
    previous ISP, then shortly after he switched ISPs. They will want some
    kind of statement from the former ISP saying that they terminated
    Peter's account and why. I find it extremely unlikely that such a
    statement would be forthcoming, as I'd expect that to run afoul of EU
    privacy laws).

    The only exception that comes to mind to this is when you are trying to
    get someone kicked for email spam. Pointing out that the customer has
    gotten prior ISPs onto blacklists might be of interest to the current
    ISP. ISPs care about that, because letting a spammer in might get them
    on blacklists.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: More MS slopware

    "Tim Smith" stated in post
    reply_in_group-9DE7A2.15100905072008@news.supernews.com on 7/5/08 3:10 PM:

    > In article ,
    > Snit wrote:
    >>> Alerting them to behavior at prior ISPs is unlikely to help your case
    >>> with them, and might even hurt it.

    >>
    >> How would tastefully letting them know some of the history of Peter's
    >> reprehensible behaviors hurt my case in asking them to do what they can to
    >> stop his current reprehensible behaviors?

    >
    > The vast majority of times that someone complains about a customer, and
    > cites past history at another ISP, that complainer is someone who is, or
    > is close to being, an internet stalker--someone who became obsessed over
    > a minor disagreement long ago and won't let go.


    His current infractions are enough to show where this is not the case.

    > Like most businesses, the ISP is going to give the benefit of the doubt
    > to the customer, who represents a steady stream of income to them. They
    > will look at the *current* things you claim Peter is doing to violate
    > their TOS. Besides the normal benefit of the doubt he will get for
    > being the one of you two that is paying them, they will have in their
    > mind that it is likely that you are an obsessed stalker, which will
    > further make then unconsciously interpret everything in the way most
    > favorable to Peter and his income stream.
    >
    > Hence, you are usually better off just complaining about the current
    > behavior. If that does not rise to the level of a punishable TOS
    > violation, they aren't going to kick him off no matter how much past
    > trouble at other ISPs you can document.
    >
    > (And *can* you actually document it? They will want more than just
    > something like you publicly said you were going to complain to his
    > previous ISP, then shortly after he switched ISPs. They will want some
    > kind of statement from the former ISP saying that they terminated
    > Peter's account and why. I find it extremely unlikely that such a
    > statement would be forthcoming, as I'd expect that to run afoul of EU
    > privacy laws).


    I have an email from his ISP stating that they will make sure his behavior
    does not continue from their services. I will not go into any more detail
    than that.

    > The only exception that comes to mind to this is when you are trying to
    > get someone kicked for email spam. Pointing out that the customer has
    > gotten prior ISPs onto blacklists might be of interest to the current
    > ISP. ISPs care about that, because letting a spammer in might get them
    > on blacklists.


    I know of one ISP that lost their ability to let *any* customer post to
    certain Usenet groups because of continual abuse by one or two customers.

    --
    "And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It¹s
    never a reason." - Bill Gates


  17. Re: More MS slopware

    On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:39:13 -0700, Snit wrote:


    > Peter is one of the ones who freaked out when I kindly asked him to stop.
    > Frankly if he wants to make a fool of himself and just spout of ignorant
    > insults that is fine - it is the culture of COLA and if I cannot handle that
    > then I should not post here. But when he takes things out of COLA and
    > targets my personal and business life that is too much.


    Peter Kohlmann is pretty much considered a laughing stock by most of the
    people in the groups he posts in. He rarely contributes anything other than
    name calling and nastiness.

    I always assumed it was a joke and that he wasn't really a bad person.

    If what you say is true, I suppose I was wrong....

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  18. Re: More MS slopware

    "Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
    1aizg9zk8hyt8$.1kiz2ky5mh5a9$.dlg@40tude.net on 7/5/08 6:26 PM:

    > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:39:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Peter is one of the ones who freaked out when I kindly asked him to stop.
    >> Frankly if he wants to make a fool of himself and just spout of ignorant
    >> insults that is fine - it is the culture of COLA and if I cannot handle that
    >> then I should not post here. But when he takes things out of COLA and
    >> targets my personal and business life that is too much.

    >
    > Peter Kohlmann is pretty much considered a laughing stock by most of the
    > people in the groups he posts in. He rarely contributes anything other than
    > name calling and nastiness.


    If he would leave it at that his ISP would never be informed - at least not
    by me. Sure, he is an angry offensive troll... but that is not a *harmful*
    thing... that is pretty much where I draw the line: you take things out of
    COLA to harm (or attempt to harm) someone's business or personal life and
    you have taken things too far.

    Also if you target other "serious" groups simply to further your trolling.
    Sure, he is a moron when he targets CSMA, but that is hardly a serious
    group. I do not know of Peter doing this... I mention it because others
    have.
    >
    > I always assumed it was a joke and that he wasn't really a bad person.
    >
    > If what you say is true, I suppose I was wrong....


    His goal is to make it so when people do searches on my small business they
    will find *his* posts... and his posts, of course, are filled with
    derogatory things one would not want associated with any business.

    That is where he crossed the line. And his ISP agreed.

    --
    God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?




  19. Re: More MS slopware

    Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:39:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Peter is one of the ones who freaked out when I kindly asked him to stop.
    >> Frankly if he wants to make a fool of himself and just spout of ignorant
    >> insults that is fine - it is the culture of COLA and if I cannot handle
    >> that
    >> then I should not post here. But when he takes things out of COLA and
    >> targets my personal and business life that is too much.

    >
    > Peter Kohlmann is pretty much considered a laughing stock by most of the
    > people in the groups he posts in. He rarely contributes anything other
    > than name calling and nastiness.
    >
    > I always assumed it was a joke and that he wasn't really a bad person.
    >
    > If what you say is true, I suppose I was wrong....


    Talk about your "idiot dialogue." (In more ways then one.)

    "Well, Moshe, I've always believed that Peter was a bit odd."

    "Yes, Snit, I thought that also."

    "Me, too, Moshe."

    "Isn't it strange how those who disagree with us are always the idiots,
    Snit?"

    "Yes, I thought that was odd, too, Moshe.

    Frankly, my dear Moshnit, I really could care less what two trolls think.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  20. Re: More MS slopware

    "RonB" stated in post dlXbk.108$iu1.8@newsfe07.lga
    on 7/5/08 8:54 PM:

    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:39:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Peter is one of the ones who freaked out when I kindly asked him to stop.
    >>> Frankly if he wants to make a fool of himself and just spout of ignorant
    >>> insults that is fine - it is the culture of COLA and if I cannot handle that
    >>> then I should not post here. But when he takes things out of COLA and
    >>> targets my personal and business life that is too much.
    >>>

    >> Peter Kohlmann is pretty much considered a laughing stock by most of the
    >> people in the groups he posts in. He rarely contributes anything other than
    >> name calling and nastiness.
    >>
    >> I always assumed it was a joke and that he wasn't really a bad person.
    >>
    >> If what you say is true, I suppose I was wrong....
    >>

    > Talk about your "idiot dialogue." (In more ways then one.)
    >
    > "Well, Moshe, I've always believed that Peter was a bit odd."
    >
    > "Yes, Snit, I thought that also."
    >
    > "Me, too, Moshe."
    >
    > "Isn't it strange how those who disagree with us are always the idiots, Snit?"
    >
    > "Yes, I thought that was odd, too, Moshe.
    >
    > Frankly, my dear Moshnit, I really could care less what two trolls think.
    >

    You are dishonestly misrepresenting my comments. Why? I have made it clear
    that Peter being a "bit odd" and even a rude and angry troll is not
    something that I am particularly troubled by. My concern is his freaking
    out and attaching his lies, accusations, and potty mouth to *my* personal
    and business information. When he does that his Usenet provider should be
    informed and they shall be... as may any other authority I believe has the
    ability to stop his completely outrageous actions.

    The fact that he is doing as I say is a given - the Google record proves it
    (unless someone is forging his name and there is no reason to believe that).

    --
    Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!


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