Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: Insanity

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Insanity

 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
Dustin wrote:
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:ifmb0f$3vp$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>
>> SeaNymph wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>>
>>>>> You're missing the point. MS called you a sysop. That's fine.
>>>>> MS definies the term differently than most others. That's the
>>>>> point.

>>
>>>> So? It does not negate that I was a Sysop for MSN.

>>
>>> And nobody ever said it did.

>>
>> Yes they did ... aardvark wanted me to demean what I did by saying
>> it "wasn't the purest definition of the word" therefore I wasn't
>> REALLY a sysop. I'm not doing that. There are at LEAST 3
>> applications for the term, sysop, and MSN fits definitions #2 & #3.
>> Dustins version of Sysop was definition #1.



> When you view something besides wikipedia; say a real dictionary.com
> site; you get this:


Do you know the standards wikipedia has to go through for any text to be
allowed to be published? There has to be verifiable proof that what is
published is to anyones best knowledge true. A person can't even edit a
wiki unless they can verify every dot and letter from some reliable source.
So, I'm fairly confident that the definition provided by that wiki is spot
on.

>
> An MSN chatroom was years after the creation of the bulletin board
> systems; Jenn. Your definitions #2 and #3 are later user added crap to
> try and justify IrcOper positions; which is what you actually were on
> MSN. Not a SysOp.



>> I am a knowledgeable person and I say I WAS a sysop by definition,
>> had the job, got paid for it, and did it for several years.



> Your knowledge is greatly disputed amongst other knowledgeable people
> in the field of computing. And by definition, dictionary.com no less;
> not wikipedia; you were NOT a SysOp.


I was a sysop based on definition #2 & #3 that I provided, and I worked with
a couple hundred others over the period of time I was one.


>>> The point people are
>>> trying to make is the the use of the term by MS is incorrect.

>>
>> They are lieing.



> No, they aren't. MS ****ed the term up just as they have with other
> terms and copyrights from other companies. It's the MS way. You played
> right into it.


I can't help you don't like MS.... take it up with them.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
"Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:ifmemm$85c$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

>> When you view something besides wikipedia; say a real
>> dictionary.com site; you get this:

>
> Do you know the standards wikipedia has to go through for any text
> to be allowed to be published? There has to be verifiable proof


New standards now finally? In what possible way does that make
wikipedia more reliable than dictionary.com?


> I was a sysop based on definition #2 & #3 that I provided, and I
> worked with a couple hundred others over the period of time I was
> one.


That you provided.. LOL, funny!

>> No, they aren't. MS ****ed the term up just as they have with other
>> terms and copyrights from other companies. It's the MS way. You
>> played right into it.

>
> I can't help you don't like MS.... take it up with them.


You didn't learn much from the kids teasing you in school if the best
you could accomplish was weak imitations.


--
Hackers are generally only very weakly motivated by conventional
rewards such as social approval or money. They tend to be attracted by
challenges and excited by interesting toys, and to judge the interest
of work or other activities in terms of the challenges offered and the
toys they get to play with.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jenn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
Dustin wrote:
> "Jenn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:ifmemm$85c$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>
>>> When you view something besides wikipedia; say a real
>>> dictionary.com site; you get this:

>>
>> Do you know the standards wikipedia has to go through for any text
>> to be allowed to be published? There has to be verifiable proof


> New standards now finally? In what possible way does that make
> wikipedia more reliable than dictionary.com?


dictionary.com is one reference ... wiki has many verifiable references to
the information they publish.


>> I was a sysop based on definition #2 & #3 that I provided, and I
>> worked with a couple hundred others over the period of time I was
>> one.



> That you provided.. LOL, funny!


I didn't write the wiki ... and you can actually view their references.




--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Java Management Insanity JavaEnquirer Java 6 07-21-2005 08:58 PM
OSPF to RIP redistribution control insanity check Ivan Ostreš Cisco 1 10-21-2004 05:17 PM
NOT off-topic. The definition of insanity is... Bay Area Dave Digital Photography 20 05-10-2004 05:21 AM
mouse wheel insanity Bob Computer Support 8 02-24-2004 11:49 PM
Viewstate Insanity Big D ASP .Net 6 01-06-2004 09:56 PM



Advertisments