OFF: Virus alert (genuine)

[Kevin Sommers]

Hello Paul and John---
The respective e-mail addresses you need are JOHN.GRAY at PRODIGY.NET and
paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU.  And NOT BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU.
To put it another way: Please take this diatribe offline.

Kevin Sommers

primiti too taa, nnz kkr muu

http://members.home.net/novadrive/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU]On
> Behalf Of JOHN M GRAY
> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 8:29 PM
> To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU
> Subject: Re: OFF: Virus alert (genuine)
>
>
> Another rant?  Get a life! And I was not trying to impress
> anyone, just show
> I was not a casual user with no basis for my opinion.  I have
> used numerous
> OS's in my job.  MS applications happen to work.  All I was
> trying to say at
> the beginning of this was that just because a virus is successful
> against a
> particular program, doesn't mean that the program or every product the
> company makes "blow chunks" as you say.  A virus can be directed at any
> system or program, MS is just a large target, much like
> terrorists attacking
> the US or Americans, it gets press.  And I don't recall MS ever claiming
> their products are invulnerable to a virus.   I know that there are people
> on this list who will never change their opinion of MS just like they will
> swear everything released by HW is great.  I didn't expect to convert you.
> But at least I am open to seeing the value of a product whether I like the
> company who makes it or not.  You, apparently, are not able to.  And just
> because Brittany Spears sells more records than HW doesn't make her a bad
> singer, just not my style.  Particularly touchy on this subject
> aren't you?
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Mather <paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU>
> To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.SPC.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: OFF: Virus alert (genuine)
>
>
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000, JOHN M GRAY wrote:
> >
> > => That would be NT,95, Unix, Linux and oh MACs if you want to
> count them.
> > => Sorry I don't have time to rant in detail like you do, I have more
> important
> > => stuff to do.
> >
> > Obviously, actually *reading* the messages you respond to is not one of
> > the things you consider important either.
> >
> > But, despite your assertion you have "more important stuff to do," you
> > spewed:
> >
> > => My email got exactly the response I expected from MS haters.  Reminds
> me of
> > => how MAC users whine at how MS is the dominating OS now.  I'm sure the
> > => "better" systems you use will soon take over.  Funny, many computer
> people I
> > => know think Unix, Linux and MAC's are steaming piles.  I'll let them
> know
> > => that based on your expert authority and bigger dick that they are
> wrong.  I
> > => admit MS isn't the best at every thing, just that they pretty good
> products
> > => and stand by my assertion that they don't suck as much as you say, if
> they
> > => did, they wouldn't be where they are now.   They didn't
> invent many of
> the
> > => products they push, only made them better, but Ford didn't invent the
> > => automobile either and they make a pretty good car.   The blanket
> statement
> > => that you make that everything MS puts out sucks shows how closed mind
> and
> > => biased you are.  I
> > =>  bow to your bigger dick, better OS, (what was the name of your great
> system
> > => again?)and humbly await the time when it takes over the computing
> world.
> > => I'll probably have a long wait.
> >
> > Go back to school and learn to read.  Better yet, learn to comprehend.
> > You were the one who tried to impress everyone with your big-time
> > network administrator credentials.  Ooooh.  Aaaah.  Sorry, try harder.
> > *I* wasn't the one who cavalierly dismissed the experience of everyone
> > else, and claimed they just had "sour grapes."  I just made the
> > misfortune of relating personal and first-hand experience of Micro$oft
> > products.
> >
> > I don't waste my time hating Micro$oft.  (Thank you for labelling me a
> > "M$ Hater."  I guess it's always easier to deal with someone when you
> > put a label on them.)  It's not worth it.  In fact, I feel sorry for
> > those I know who have to use Windoze on a daily basis, for they are
> > always lamenting it.  If you like it, I'm happy for you.  Just don't act
> > like it's some kind of thought crime to think badly of Micro$oft.  It
> > isn't (yet?).
> >
> > I seem to recall it was *you* who kicked over this whole can of worms in
> > the first place by remonstrating with people on here not to call poor
> > Billy Gates and his pals in Redmond names, and we should stop being so
> > awful about poor Micro$oft's current misfortunes.  Tell it to the 6
> > o'clock news.  Tell them to pretend ILOVEYOU didn't happen, and didn't
> > disrupt thousands of computers and cause the deletions of many many
> > files.  (I will pretend that story didn't run in today's paper, too.)
> > Hey, maybe if we all think hard enough, reality will change around us?
> >
> > Please show me where I said that "everything MS puts out sucks."  In
> > fact, I've never used the word "sucks;" I hate that word.  (I believe
> > "blow chunks" was my chosen phrase.:)  Micro$oft products are, on the
> > whole, inferior (and in some cases---e.g., Windoze---are grossly so),
> > but even I am not so stupid as to make a blanket statement that
> > *everything* they put out is unmitigated pap.  Hey, you don't spend a
> > ton of money buying up Turing Award winners like cheap whores and not
> > get anything for your money.  (And the law of averages says that
> > something good will eventually slip through the net.)
> >
> > As for your tired logic of "if Micro$oft was bad, it wouldn't be where
> > it is today," let me remind you that the old adage used to be "Nobody
> > got fired for buying IBM."  The new adage is "Nobody gets fired for
> > buying Micro$oft."  It's not because it's the best, but it's because
> > it's what everyone uses.  Do a bit of reading on evolutionary theory.
> > Alternatively, consider this: "if Britney Spears made bad music, she
> > wouldn't be where she is today; I mean, tons of people love her, and she
> > sells oodles of records, so she must be great."  Whilst I'm sure, on
> > some level, the music of Britney Spears can be considered "adequate," it
> > is far from what many would call the state of the art.
> >
> > Micro$oft is the Britney Spears of computing.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> > PS: The "best" (as you put it) does not always win.  But, as Hawkwind
> > and BOC fans, we are used to that...
> >
> > e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu
> >
> > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> >  deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> >         --- Frank Vincent Zappa
>