Re: Turdbag GIF

[pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) writes:

>In article <62efbc$evp$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
>Paul Francis Gilbert <pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote:
>>Hopefully the new FAQs will renew interest in developing for Apple //'s,
>>and will offset any damage caused by both sides in the recent debates.

>   FAQs don't attract developers. Piracy drives them off. And since
>you folks refuse to take the industrial-strength blinders off off your
>heads (or since they're so far up your *** it's all black to you
>anyhow), you're not going to realize this until far too late.

I'd have to disagree with this statement; it's all too much a matter
of opinion. In my opinion, making more information and guides available
is the way to attract new developers. Lets face it, Apple // is a niche
market. Apart from a very few making some money off selling software to
enthusiasts, not many can make a living out of the 2's anymore. While this
does not excuse piracy, it means that any piracy is almost 
inconsequential in determing the degree to which developers can be 
attracted to developing for the //'s and GS's. I therefore think that 
abusive posts in yours is having a more detrimental affect. We've already
seen posts from some old readers saying they're leaving because of all
the constant flaming.

THusly, it is entirely your fault (and a few others) for starting these
stupid anti-Turley flames in the first place. It's pure and simple: you
are driving off developers. Although, as you so elegantly put it ;-) your
blinders are probably so far up your *** that you don't realise it ;-)

>   You want any form of developers sticking around, do something to
>support them, not some mindless chant of "peace" that attempts to
>sweep a very large problem under a very small rug that anyone with
>brains can see through. If you're going to stick up for pirates (and
>your refusal to ask turkey for the slightest shred of "evidence"
>supporting the lie of the week in his "Tell it like I think it is
>after my brain got fused solid by drugs" sure shows what side you're
>on, Mr. Silver-tongued creep), you don't deserve a single iota of new
>software that's being developed.

This paragraph is absolutely fascinating obviously Nathan does not 
believe in the old axiam "Innocent until proven Guilty." Obviously he
seems that Turley should prove that he's innocent... thank God he's
not a judge. 

Ahhh... I now understand. You would rather have constant flames going
than finding some peace and getting on with promoting the Apple //. 
Perhaps Nathan is really a Soviet double-agent, bringing about the
downfall of the last bastion of the Apple // from the inside. 
[That gives me a great parody plot idea for another epic saga ;-)]

>   We have a cancer here that wants to pirate and kill off any new
>developers, and you're mouthing off that thinking positive thoughts
>will make it go away. The only way you can say that with a straight
>face is if you're speaking for the cancer-- you'd rather have happy
>thoughts not criticizing what is wrong than new software. I wish
>that could be enforced on you, but you're giong to try and have your
>happy thoughts and new software for as long as possible.

The trouble is that we all have different opinions of what the problem
is. The very fact that so many people have objected to your FAQ restriction
should have hinted to someone with even your industrial-strength mental
blocks that your opinions are not shared by the majority. Not that I expect
rationality from you all that much anymore... I've pretty much given up on
it to tell you the truth.

Certainly it's much more difficult for serious // development to be done
in such a hostile environment. If Brutal Deluxe (or whatever their name
is) really think they have a problem with Turley, then let them go to
court of it, and stop sticking your nose in what's none of your business.

Again, a person is innocent until proven guilty. If BD can get the courts
to agree that Turley did the pirating, then I'll accept it. Until such
time, all I have are subjective accounts that are entirely too one-sided
to be considered gospel truth [although admittadly, BD's webpage seems
to be fairly rational, although how technically correct it is I don't
know [the page where it divided it into Acts]].

I'm certainly not going to subscribe to the ideal, as you so strongly,
suggest, that Turley is a guilty scum until proven he's not.

>Nathan Mates

>--
><*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
># This posting is copyright Nathan Mates, and may not be reprinted
># in full, partial, or quoted form on any archive site associated with
># Charles Turley. 

--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.