DDT-Lots of ratings 1 or 2 stars

Message ID: 393531
Posted By: drichards1953
Posted On: 2006-08-01 09:54:14
Subject: DDT-Lots of ratings 1 or 2 stars

DDT,

First of all the Yahoo! ignore feature failed so that is the only reason I saw your latest post.

DDT it is true you get a number of folks providing ratings for you. You got 59 ratings for a post on July 31, you still only have two stars on that message, which is a poor rating. In nearly all cases your posts are one or two stars.

You at one point had some interesting things to say, but you have become nothing but another cheesy, shrill, stock pumper shill. It is increasingly obvious that you are paid to post because your posts no longer make sense they are just shrill ramblings of nonsense that generally do not make sense or are just flat out wrong. You have done nothing but fall into the paid pumper shill routine of posting nonsense, making wild unsupported statements, and name calling.

While I most often do not agree with BIFF his posts tend to be more thought out and logical, and he clearly demonstrates a sense of humor much of the time. Unlike you, BIFF is not on "ignore" here on Yahoo or on I.V. I do not have to agree to learn something and I on occasion do learn from BIFF's posts. That does not mean I agree with them.

So DDT you are back on ignore here at Yahoo! and the ignore feature at I.V. works very well. You get the ratings you deserve.

Message ID: 393591
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-08-01 16:35:14
Subject: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

Both strange cases, similar in some ways, but very different in others.

ddt is comprehensible, but inflamatory. He is clearly here to troll. I used to think he was just some punk kid who liked to get attention. But, the way his posts are rec'd makes me wonder. I now think that ddt is either so determined that he has created multiple nyms to rec his posts; or ddt has other people behind him. Maybe somebody has an interest in just disrupting the board?

biff is not really trolling, he is not looking for some angry reaction, his posts don't really seem inflamatory. But, to me, biff is often so incomprehensible that I rarely even look at his posts. Biff almost reminds of a upset child who just lashes out without really thinking about what he is saying. Even when I understand biff's posts, I'm often left with a "WTF?" feeling, as in: "why is he posting that?"

Message ID: 393608
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2006-08-01 17:55:17
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

< ddt is comprehensible, but inflamatory. >

You guys seem to be moderately intelligent, but completely intolerant of opposing opinion. You label everything you don't like as 'inflammatory' or 'trolling' or some such nonsense, and think that that gives you a license to do whatever you like. I have seen my posts get 1-star ratings consistently until my silent supporters kicked in.

And, as for the cheapskate loser, my posts can get 3 quick 1-star ratings at ungodly hours and that excites no comment from this genius. Loons play every trick in the book to 'defeat their enemy', but still want to hold onto that righteous indignation. That ain't going to work. Linux supporters are rightly treated as thugs by the outside world.

Message ID: 393609
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2006-08-01 18:02:08
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

< ddt is comprehensible, but inflamatory. >

You guys are moderately intelligent, but completely intolerant. If you don't like something, it is 'inflammatory' or 'trolling' or some such nonsense and you have the license to do whatever you like.

As for that cheapskate loser, my posts can get 3 1-star ratings in a very short time at ungodly hours, and that excites no comment from this genius. If you play every trick in the book to 'defeat the enemy', righteous indignation doesn't work for you. The outside world rightly lables the Linux supporters as thugs.

And, for all the other idiots that don't know how ratings are calculated, it is a simple average, you frigging morons! I haven't seen so many adults not being capable of simple arithmetic. No wonder they need Indians for all the tech jobs here.

Message ID: 393611
Posted By: freechaostech
Posted On: 2006-08-01 18:26:10
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

"You guys seem to be moderately intelligent, but completely intolerant of opposing opinion. You label everything you don't like as 'inflammatory' or 'trolling' or some such nonsense"

Claiming chocolate tastes better than vanilla is expressing an opinion, its completely subjective and open to debate, critique, and interpretation.

Claiming TSCOG owns Unix is not an opinion, its either a statement based on ignorance or stupidity intent on stirring ire.

While ignorance can be resolved simply by researching the facts...

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=8v8erq.2.210

<<< Owner (REGISTRANT) AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY CORPORATION NEW YORK 550 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022
(LAST LISTED OWNER) X/OPEN COMPANY LIMITED CORPORATION UNITED KINGDOM THAMES TOWER 37-45 STATION ROAD READING, BERKSHIRE RG1 1LX UNITED KINGDOM>>>

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html

<<< As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations.>>>

<<< The Open Group is committed to working with the community to further the development of standards conformant systems by evolving and maintaining the Single UNIX Specification and participation in other related standards efforts. Recent examples of this are making the standard freely available on the web, permitting reuse of the standard in open source documentation projects>>>

... there is no fix for stupidity.

Message ID: 393613
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2006-08-01 20:15:08
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

< Claiming TSCOG owns Unix is not an opinion, its either a statement based on ignorance or stupidity intent on stirring ire.>

That is your *opinion*. The facts haven't been established yet in the Unix ownership question. The thing will be settled in court in due time. Whatever you read anywhere before then is an opinion.

< While ignorance can be resolved simply by researching the facts... >

Well, if one were to believe the Loon version of facts, SCO is already guilty of a scam, McBride is already guilty of posting here, Yarro is already guilty of knowingly participating in a scam, etc etc. There is the little matter of a court case still to be settled. You want to paint your prejudice as fact, and you're pissed I'm interfering with your propaganda.

Go troll elsewhere!

Message ID: 393635
Posted By: freechaostech
Posted On: 2006-08-02 02:27:30
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

"That is your *opinion*. The facts haven't been established yet in the Unix ownership question. The thing will be settled in court in due time. Whatever you read anywhere before then is an opinion."

Wrong, and you know it which is why you fit in the category of stupidity rather than ignorant. The United States Patent Office will tell you who owns "Unix", and its not TSCOG. That is a fact. You posting rubbish on this board is not an opinion, its an outright lie. The stupidity in it is that anyone can easily look up the facts online to see what an ass you are.

Furthermore, there are no active court actions to decide if TSCOG owns Unix. TSCOG may be attempting to assert ownership of the copyrights for a Unix implementation, but there is not a single court action which is trying to work out who owns Unix as the ownership is not in question. As with Darl, you can spout idiotic claims all you want and all you accomplish is to show what a dolt you are.

"Go troll elsewhere! "

troll: a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post

Pot meet kettle.

Message ID: 393654
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2006-08-02 08:00:00
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

< The United States Patent Office will tell you who owns "Unix", and its not TSCOG. That is a fact. >

Again, it is your *opinion* that patent ownership is what constitutes ownership of the Unix code. Consider for a moment that SCO's lawsuit against IBM alleges contract violations, and has nothing to do with copyright / patent ownership. Still, Linux fans say SCO doesn't own Unix, only because it looks good, and has a chance of misleading people. You guys are the worst liars in the world.

The other myth that is promulgated as if it is fact is that Novell can step in and waive IBM's violations and make it all well. For some reason, either IBM has never mentioned this tidbit to the judge, or the judge has felt it fit not to take this into consideration (probably because it is under dispute). You present the Loon side of the case as if there is no dispute, and it is all settled fact. You're deliberately misleading people.

Linux supporters are scared shitless about SCO's case. They are worried sick there may be some validity in SCO's claims. That's why they are here (and at other places on internet) telling carefully constructed lies. Linux supporters have long been recognized as the worst liars on the planet. (And you, it seems to me, are doing double duty. Aren't you the SJVN of desktoplinux.com? It ain't enough to post your positive, uplifting shit on that site, or what?)

Message ID: 393680
Posted By: freechaostech
Posted On: 2006-08-02 11:18:09
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

"it is your *opinion* that patent ownership is what constitutes ownership of the Unix code"

You make this too easy, if you truly had any interest in this case, in Unix, or in the truth you would actually read and analyze the relevant public information which makes you look like such an idiot. Avoiding the simple facts surrounding this case may be why you are an insignificant troll.

The link to the United States Patent Office was for their Trademark department. Unix is covered by trademark because it is a definition, a standard which is owned, maintained, and administered by the Open Group. Statements by you and representatives of TSCOG claiming ownership of Unix when in court you are claiming ownership of copyrights to a Unix implementation are intentional misnomers intended to beguile the unknowing into believing that somehow TSCOG owns every implementation of Unix. The obviousness of your misnomers makes you look like a Bagdad Bob.

Contrary to TSCOG and your statements, TSCOG does not own Unix. Interestingly the various implementations of the Unix standard are covered by the copyrights and the patents of the companies who develop and market their own versions of Unix. I'm sure TSCOG is fully aware of the copyright notices in all the AIX, Dynix, and linux code they have been perusing, and anyone can search the uspto.gov site and find the patents which IBM, Squent, SGI, etc. hold on the methods and concepts they have developed and implemented in their versions of Unix.

Presently TSCOG has some serious issues because, first, they own no patents on anything that is implemented in any Unix including the version they claim ownership of or the versions they definitely hold ownership of (Unixware, OpenServer), and second, the copyrights to the version of Unix they claim ownership of are in question and in a similar dispute as to copyright ownership(see USL vs BSDI) it was concluded that ownership of that code by a single entity is far from absolute.

So it is quite obvious that yours and TSCOG's public statements about owning Unix are obvious lies, and it is even more telling that there are no court disputes concerning the ownership of Unix but instead there is only a dispute over the ownership of copyrights to an old implementation of Unix.

Message ID: 393693
Posted By: deepdistrust
Posted On: 2006-08-02 13:25:17
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

"You make this too easy, if you truly had any interest in this case, in Unix, or in the truth you would actually read and analyze the relevant public information which makes you look like such an idiot. Avoiding the simple facts surrounding this case may be why you are an insignificant troll."

Public information is to be complemented by what is being revealed in various courts. No judge looked at the public information and tell SCO "OK, you don't own Unix. Get out of here". The cases are in courts because the disputes are not settled yet. You want to jump to conclusions that help your side before the official judgments are in, and you want to paint that as fact for everybody. That makes you the worst troll this board has ever seen.

You make a pathetic attempt to confuse the issue with some junk about trademark and standards, but you fail miserably. SCO owns the original Unix source code from which all other Unixes (like Aix, Solaris etc) are derived. Copyright ownership question is before a judge, but SCO will get those copyrights as per its contract with Novell. Meanwhile, Novell can't license Unix to you.

You avoid talking about the IBM contract violations like the little weasel you are. It has nothing to do with 'ownership'. Linux Loons started talking about 'ownership' to mislead public. I have exposed your despicable deception. Linux Loons are the lowest scum on the face of the earth.

Message ID: 393696
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-08-02 13:55:23
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

>> Public information is to be complemented by what is being revealed in various courts<<

Nothing has been revealed in any court yet. Until scox can prove otherwise: scox does not own UNIX.

There is no evidence that scox owns UNIX. There is tons of evidence that scxo does not own UNIX.

If I claimed that I personally owned everything on earth, would you consider it true until proven otherwise?

Message ID: 393701
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2006-08-02 14:08:25
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

<< If I claimed that I personally owned everything on earth, would you consider it true until proven otherwise? >>

Of course. Or until you start saying that you have a proper license to use it from UnitedLinux.
Or something.

-----------------

Legally owning everything on earth would mean that I have every proper license, copyright, patent, deed, certificate of ownership, contract, etc.

It would mean that I exclusively own all of UNIX, Linux, scox, ibm, msft, and everything else.

If you consider me the legal owner of everything on earth, then I guess you have no reason to be here.

Therefore, I claim legal ownership of everything on earth, as of this minute.

Bye.

Message ID: 393734
Posted By: wallyebass
Posted On: 2006-08-02 21:11:09
Subject: Re: deepdistrust vs backinfullforce

> biff is not really trolling, he is not looking for some angry reaction, his posts don't really seem inflamatory.<

I thought some more about biff. I think that whether he is "trolling" depends on your definition of trolling. If "trolling" means "attempting to wasted other peoples time," then I think he is really the worst of the trollers (e.g., the best at trolling).

Biff posts, it seem to me, go like this.

Poster A:
Cars are good.
Global warming is happening.
Bush sucks.

Biff:
Your view is incorrect. h++p://whatever

It's great technique. First, he makes you guess which point that A made that he's challenging. Then, without being specific, he sends you somewhere, to a seventeen page article, to try and figure out what point he was challenging.

You think maybe he's trying to make a point, but in reality, he's doing nothing but deliberately trying to waste your time - as an explicit goal (IMO) - trying to guess what his point was, which as likely as not, wasn't there to begin with.

Of course, it isn't quite as bad as I've indicated - if it were *that* bad, he wouldn't get away with for so long. But I think that the above reflects the general stategy that is in place.

DDT is a delight in comparison. His non-point is clear almost immediately, and you can generally easily dispense with most DDT posts in 5 seconds or less, without any degree of uncertainty as to whether you missed his non-point.

I looked at a few more DDT posts, and, especially for those that are imbedded *within* a discussion, I find them with much less humor or other redeeming value than I indicated earlier.

Wally Bass

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "drichards1953", "walterbyrd", "deepdistrust", "freechaostech", "wallyebass" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.