And we over @ rcty think you're ALL a bunch of idiots... why are you
crossposting to US?
Jagg Offs!

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:31:54 -0400, Anonymous wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:37:19 -0400, PJ wrote:
>
>
>> Well Bill,
>> It is amazing that you have not fallen off of your high and mighty horse
>> yet. You seem to want to bash good folks from your position of God" of
>> the internet. Grow up.!!!
>>
>>
> Whoa buckaroo ... what did you put in your coffee?
>
>> Another thought for you to munch on.. Microsoft produces fine products
>> that the MAJORITY of computer users find good, useful and functional
>> every day. You - along with a MINOR faction of computer users - feel
>> that it is necessary to call users of Microsoft products stupid.. Didja
>> ever look in a mirror?
>
> Malarky.
>
> Microsoft is in the hands of a majority of computer users
> primarily because the Microsoft Corporation uses monopolistic business
> practices and not because of some technical merit. That was the finding of
> the US Supreme Court. Do you dispute them?
>
> On the whole, those users have ZERO experience with any other operating
> system because every new (pre-assembled) computer they COULD buy had a
> copy of some MS operating system or other on it.
>
> I do have experience on both sides of the aisle. I use Linux now but
> taught MS products for three years as lead instructor for a pilot program
> for Detroit area public schools. I still have a copy of Win 98 running to
> use with some Bible search software I favor. My router will not allow that
> machine any sort of access to the internet. It just isn't safe to do so.
>
> Did I call Microsoft users stupid? Read again. Based on the number of
> times viruses succeed, I do think they are uninformed and all too often
> careless. But not generally stupid.
>
> This time read exactly what I wrote, not what you choose to read between
> the lines and, since I was responding to an earlier posting, read it too.
> The observations about Microsoft vulnerabilities were both physically and
> logically separate from the agreement with the earlier poster that there
> are a lot of stupid people in the world. The previous poster was of the
> opinion that someone would have to be stupid to open a virus from a
> newsgroup or email. I agreed with her. But there are enough stupid people
> on the planet that such things propagate with amazing speed. Most likely
> the person whose machine posted that virus to this newsgroup isn't even
> aware that (s)he is the source of it. And it is a lead pipe cinch that
> they aren't using Linux.
>
> The general media are so slow reporting viruses as to be useless for that
> purpose ... they do not provide warning of imminent attack but only
> describe the damage after the fact. MSIE is so vulnerable in so many
> directions at once that a good sized portion of Windows 98/CE/ME/NT/XP etc
> users use Mozilla instead. This is precisely what CERT recommended they
> do. Why not take the advise of the security experts? You have internet
> access. Rather than take potshots at me, look up CERT and read for
> yourself.
>
>> I _now_ know why you have never fallen off of your high and mighty
>> horse. You are the horses ASS..!!!
>>
>> Last word for you.. P L O N K...!!!
>>
>> PJ
>
> Make up your mind. Either I am the God of the Internet (unlikely) or a
> horses butt (since I am dignifying your assault with a response I suppose
> this is possible).
>
> You are entitled to your opinion only until you acquire the
> facts. Then your are obligated to act on the facts. Many companies and
> even governments are changing over to Linux. They have acquired the facts
> and are acting on them.
>
> It is relevant to note that the numbers regarding Microsoft market
> penetration originate with Microsoft and include licenses that have been
> sold but not yet installed and, in the case of prior versions, never
> will be.
>
> Whether you plonk me or not is of no concern to me. I will not debate you
> further.
>
> Bill
>
>
> --
> http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
> http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
> Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
> 15:33:00 up 30 days, 17:11, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.08, 0.08
> 15:22:00 up 81 days, 23:23, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00