Bill Garber wrote:
"PCUser" <netslacker@MSmustdie.com> wrote in message 3fe336fd_5@corp.newsgroups.com">news:3fe336fd_5@corp.newsgroups.com... : : Bill Garber wrote: : : > "PCUser" <netslacker@MSmustdie.com> wrote in message : > 3fe2b9d2_5@corp.newsgroups.com">news:3fe2b9d2_5@corp.newsgroups.com... : > : : > : Bill Garber wrote: : > : : > : > "Paul R. Santa-Maria" <paulrsm@buckeye-express.com> wrote in : > : > message 3FE27CD5.1FB66208@buckeye-express.com">news:3FE27CD5.1FB66208@buckeye-express.com... : > : > : Bill Garber wrote: : > : > : > "Exegete" <millers@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote: : > : > : > : 2. IBM did target the home market. Several times. : > : > : > Again, those machines, short of the Jr, were ALL : > targetting : > : > : > the business market. I should know. I freaking used them, : > : > : > AT WORK. : > : > : : > : > : Sorry to disagree with you, Bill. The original IBM-PC had : > 64K : > : > : and a cassette interface and was targeted at the Apple II : > in : > : > the : > : > : home market. Business users, seeing "IBM" on the case, : > : > immediately : > : > : purchased them and upgraded them to be usable in business. : > : > : > : > I know Paul, but that Roy has rubbed me the : > : > wrong way for some time now and I just went : > : > crazy. I hate know-it-all types and he strikes : > : > me as that type and I can't tolerate it. : > : > From now on, anyone who makes me nuts : > : > will go on the blocked sender list and he's : > : > there now. Constructive critism I can take, : > : > such as you've displayed, : > : : > : How is Paul's disagreement with you any different from Roy's? : > That is, : > : how is proving you were wrong by Paul more "constructive" than : > being : > : proven wrong by Roy? : > : > Simply this. Paul has viewed my statements as they are, : > my opinion. Then he proceeded to "disagree" with that : > opinion. Roy viewed my statements as factual and considered : > them merely mistakes, and attempted to correct me. : <snip> : There : > are those who care to share opinions and facts : : I don't understand how those two statements can both be true. Care to : enlighten me? I'll try this way. Truth aside, Roy's response not only causes hurt feelings, but also insults my integrity as an intelligent person, Paul's does not. : and those just : > out to upgrade their own sense of accomplishment by merely : > downgrading anothers views, and this is the bare truth. : : However, to attribute that to someone, when you can't read their mind is : to impugn their motives. In short, since no one can know what someone : else is thinking, to think this of someone is to be guilty of the same : crime/sin/error one would charge them with. I think from what I can see so far that you are an intelligent, caring person and have no intention of disparaging me in any way. Having said that, there are those who are empathetic and can see into other's psyche's rather easily. I am one. I can often sense what a person feels and thinks by a few words, facial expression or hand jesture. : My : > view on personable behavior is what is in question here, not : > who was first, the IBM or Apple. : : However, Roy didn't challenge your view, but your facts. If he was : right, even slightly, that doesn't invalidate your opinion, nor would it : be a personal attack. Perhaps your "hate" (your word above) has blinded : you to the degree that you have attributed to him something that isn't : there. Is that not possible? If it isn't there, I wouldn't have seen it on numerous occasions. Maybe he had a father like mine, I can't know unless I'm told, but I know me and I tend to go overboard in an attempt to be right having been told I'm wrong and stupid by one who spent his entire life feeling like a loser and downgrading those with only slightly more intelligence than himself in order to alleviate his own feelings of inadaquacy. FINI!
Ok, you don't need to go into that.But I can say this: what you have done is to project your feelings onto someone else. You have seen what wasn't there.
Allow me to say that again. You have seen what wasn't there.I can state that, because Roy wasn't trying, and has never tried to say you were stupid, or didn't know anything about computers or computing. I can say that, because, I, of course, am Roy.
What is below is a rather verbose continuation and substantion of that that statement. Let me just, concisely say here, that you totally misunderstood me, and have falsely attributed to me motives and intents that were not mine. As a result, a flame war has broken out. I must bear some responsiblity for that, but below is my defense.
*********************************************What I *have* done, is pointed out when, in my opinion, you went over the top. As you just said "I tend to go overboard", and I agree with you. I've tried to give some balance, which is one of my tendencies. You have seen that as a put down when it wasn't.
Yesterday, someone reads an old post, and gives his two cents. You went ballistic on the guy. It wasn't called for. You don't like anti-MS statements. You've made that clear. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Anti-MS people are entitled to their opinion too. It's a free forum. But what makes it work, when it works, is people putting a rein on flaming.
I used to flame here. A lot. After a while, it just gets boring. And for those who read it, it gets boring really fast.
Yesterday, I reined in my flame, and tried (at first) to gently correct factual errors in your post. You claimed that they weren't factual errors, and then rephrased your statements, perhaps to express what you meant to express.
But Bill, no one can know what you meant to say. They can only deal with what you *did* say.
My profession is one of dealing with words and statements. I can't interpret what someone meant to say or didn't write. I can only parse what's written. Sometimes, knowing the person or situation, I can know which of two or three possible meanings was meant. But if someone says "B", I can't know that they meant "A" or "AB." My "corrections" were of what you put in the post, not what you meant to say, or what you thought your statements said. Sometimes we think one thing, and say or write something else, or part of what we thought. But then the fault in the failure to communicate isn't on the part of the one receiving the message.
Allow me to make a case in point - a failure on my part.I was once making a point in a speech. To illustrate my point I referred to a young woman I was dating who was my minister's daughter. However, what I SAID was, "When I was dating my pastor's wife." Needless to say, THAT created some confusion and amusement. That wasn't what I was thinking, that wasn't what I was trying to communicate, but that's what I said. No one was at fault but me for that failure to communicate my point.
You made statements yesterday that, as written, were not factual. I tried to correct what was written. I didn't try to demean you as a person, or say that your opinion was wrong. Nor did I try to correct what you meant to say, or thought you said. I dealt with the words that you posted, because I assumed that you meant what you said. In other words, I gave you credit for making honest, but incorrect statements. So I tried to "balance" your statments by stating the facts.
You, evidently, based on what you said above, attributed to me an mean spirited put down of you as a person. That was not my intent, nor do I believe that the "corrections" did that.
Nor was it my intent to be mean with my suggestion that you practice letting anti-MS statements be "water off a duck's back." Such statements, as you have made clear, offend you. Well, you are going to need to learn to live with it, because such statements have been and *will* be made in this newsgroup. If they offend you so much, then don't read the group. Or be prepared to be in neverending flamewars. I, humbly, suggest that you have better ways to spend your time.
I did try to reason with you to practice what you were preaching. I used your own words toward you. So if "my" words were demeaning, then you were demeaning someone else. If it hurt, I'm sorry, but did you consider that you were hurting someone else? First?
Now, after your first response, when you made demeaning statements to me, then yes, "Flame on!", I responded in like manner.
I am, as Ed said, argumentative. I DO like to be right. But I'm not always right.So, when someone points out that I'm wrong, and can prove it, I'll drop the matter; sometimes, rarely perhaps, I'll concede my error. But I won't take someone else's opinion as a fact.
Well, it's getting late in the day, and my daughter and her family are visiting from the coast, so I won't be around to continue this - I have much more important things to do.
I hope you and all who have wasted their day reading this have a blessed Christmas.
Roy
Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-) Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net Remove - SPAM and X to contact me --- This email ain't infected, dude! Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----