Demon license?

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Jul 19, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Josh Ockert wrote:

> On 7/19/05, Bart Silverstrim <bsilver at chrononomicon.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote:
>>
>>>> Go ahead.  Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to
>>>> consider any position different than your own.  I am at least
>>>> willing to continue to discuss it.
>>>
>>> No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your
>>> complete lack of disrespect.
>>
>> I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you
>> punk!  (ha ha..touche'!)
>
> Oops.

I was just joshin' you there.  It was an honest typo that induces some 
giggles. :-)

>>> You are a troll. You go on and on,
>>> misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just
>>> generally adding nothing to the discussion.
>>
>> That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a
>> number of times.  Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered
>> down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out
>> to do nothing but cause trouble.  This is no longer how the word is
>> used now apparently.  It is a generic term used towards anyone with
>> whom one has a disagreement with online.
>
> No. I disagree with your apparent position. But I think you were
> respectful. I wouldn't call you a troll.

...that's kind of ambiguous.  My apparent position is that Ted's not a 
troll, or that the term "troll" has become watered down?

If the latter, I'm basing it on general observations across a number of 
lists and Usenet forums...
If the former...well...unless we define what specifically a troll is, 
it couldn't really be solved.  From my understanding of the definition 
in my time on this here In-tar-net, methinks Ted does not fit the bill. 
  Not that I really know the guy...just based on posts I've read of his 
in the past.

>>>> Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when
>>>> people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked
>>>> a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that
>>>> his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word.
>>>
>>> Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said
>>> in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts.
>>
>> Technically, votes != facts.
>
> When talking about the opinions of the majority of users, votes are 
> facts.

You can make a statement that can be a fact regarding the position of 
the voters (ie, the majority according to this poll believe Elvis was 
an alien, and if the majority did indeed believe this according to the 
poll then it is a fact about the outcome of the poll) yet it does not 
make the actual position a fact (if the majority of people believe the 
sky is made of vanilla pudding, it does not make the sky actually made 
of vanilla pudding; the majority of people believe in some form of 
higher power deity, but the fact that everyone and their neighbor 
believe this doesn't make it true...hence the term "faith").

> Seeing as how Ted has never helped me, my impressions of him come
> entirely from within the context of this thread.

Well, you might want to do a quick google on him to see what other 
posts have turned up from him in the past.  I won't attest to his 
character, but I do know that his name is constantly flowing into my 
freebsd-questions folder.

Maybe it'll give you a little more understanding of his position.  Or 
you'll want to spit on him when you're done.  I don't honestly know.

> If you'll refer to
> his original posting it was very inflammatory. Unless I'm mistaken,
> intentionally trying to get a rise out of people is trolling. I kinda
> thought this came out of a fishing metaphor.

Kinda.  It depends on motive.

I can send a message to the list that is very inflammatory making all 
sorts of statements about FreeBSD users' mothers.  If that's *all* I 
do, and people on the list equate my name with a mental "Oh $DEITY not 
again...*  or "plonk list", then I'm a troll.

If I'm purely doing this just to piss people off, it's a troll.

If I had a bad day but at least 75% of the time my posts are on topic 
and/or helpful and/or generally at least non-harmful, I'd say it's not 
trolling.

You said it yourself that you don't really know anything about Ted's 
previous posts.  Cut some slack...this topic has been hashed so many 
times over that if it were food it would now be suitable for serving at 
a home for the elderly.  Beastie and the logowars are a touchy topic.

> Ted is the one who made the assertion, that those who don't have a
> problem with the new logo are in the minority. That is his assertion.
> And the burden of proof *is* on him to prove it.

True enough...but to tell the truth, I think most people either don't 
give a damn or would much rather NOT change the logo, either because A) 
Beastie has sentimental value, or B) the *reason* behind 
changing/hiding/downplaying him is asinine (religious hatred, big 
businesses won't suck up to BSD, clueless PHBs and users don't "get" 
it).

> My guess is that it may seem that way because the majority of people
> who are indifferent or even happy about the new logo steer clear of
> these heated threads on the subject.

Well, unless you took a poll straight off FreeBSD's website, I doubt 
there will be any evidence strongly indicated one way or the 
other...except that the project people would probably have the final 
say ANYWAY, so it doesn't really matter what the users want unless they 
fork it.  I mean, people can make parallels to businesses and their 
logos...but think about it.  If we all rose up and told McD's to get 
rid of Ronald, they'd do it because of bad publicity and lost sales.  
That's why they exist.  FreeBSD got to where it is without marketing, 
without "sales", without the public loving or hating it...it simply is. 
  FreeBSD doesn't have shareholders to answer to, and if you don't like 
it, you don't use it.  Other businesses actually have things like 
payroll and profits to worry about.