Nixophiles at their hypocritical best

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by impossible, Oct 17, 2008.

  1. impossible

    impossible Guest

    impossible, Oct 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. impossible

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 17, 5:31 pm, whoisthis <> wrote:
    > In article <AfRJk.336003$TT4.54408@attbi_s22>,
    >
    >  "impossible" <> wrote:
    > > "Why Android's 'Kill Switch' Is a Good Thing" (and Apple's is bad)


    How is that hypocritical?

    He states the differences between them and why he thinks one is bad
    and one is good. The article seems completely consistent with itself.

    Has this person made other statements elsewhere that are inconsistent
    with the views they expressed in this article?

    I'm also wondering what makes this person representative of all your
    nixophile friends? The author just seem like your run of the mill tech
    magazine columnist to me. Do you have the extra background conspiracy
    info behind this, or are you just jumping to conclusions again?

    > so I guess its not totally open then as it would seem that if it were it
    > would be possible to remove the kill switch entirely.


    Yep, doesn't sound totally open to me. But then again, most things
    Google makes aren't totally open anyway.

    Maybe impossible is confusing Google fanbois with Linux fanbois?
    Googlophiles?

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Oct 17, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "AD." <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Oct 17, 5:31 pm, whoisthis <> wrote:
    >> > In article <AfRJk.336003$TT4.54408@attbi_s22>,
    >> >
    >> > "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> > > "Why Android's 'Kill Switch' Is a Good Thing" (and Apple's is bad)

    >>
    >> How is that hypocritical?
    >>
    >> He states the differences between them and why he thinks one is bad
    >> and one is good. The article seems completely consistent with itself.
    >>


    Really? When Apple put a kill switch in its phone, the nixophiles were up in
    arms, and no amount of reasoned discussion could change their minds. For
    example:

    http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz...6/f77bfcf9057b97a4?lnk=st&q=#f77bfcf9057b97a4

    But now when Google does much the same with the nixophile's beloved
    Android-based phone? It's perfectly ok -- in fact, it's EXACTLY what
    everyone needs. If you fail to notice that contradiction.....well, you're
    simply not looking at this issue objectively.

    I stand by my original comments on Apple, and I find no reason to panic
    about Google's move either.

    >> Has this person made other statements elsewhere that are inconsistent
    >> with the views they expressed in this article?
    >>
    >> I'm also wondering what makes this person representative of all your
    >> nixophile friends? The author just seem like your run of the mill tech
    >> magazine columnist to me. Do you have the extra background conspiracy
    >> info behind this, or are you just jumping to conclusions again?
    >>


    Stop trying to parse this like a bloody lawyer. Is it a contradiction or
    not?

    >> > so I guess its not totally open then as it would seem that if it were
    >> > it
    >> > would be possible to remove the kill switch entirely.

    >>
    >> Yep, doesn't sound totally open to me. But then again, most things
    >> Google makes aren't totally open anyway.
    >>


    Good: now you're beginning to understand. Android was the darling of the
    nixophiles so long as it was an open-source abstraction. But put open-source
    to work in a world where the private interest of outfits like Google and IBM
    take precedence over the "cause" and it all suddenly starts to look a little
    different.

    >> Maybe impossible is confusing Google fanbois with Linux fanbois?
    >> Googlophiles?
    >>


    Nixopliles know only two companies -- Microsoft and its Everyone Else -- so
    its easy for things to get confused. Lawrence D'Loser, for example, hates
    Google (because Google owns a vast amount of intellectual property). But
    while he launched the troll-bait about Apple's kill switch (and was joined
    in the knee-jerk condemnation by the usual crowd of nixophiliacs here) that
    crowd has been totally silent on Google's move . Why? Becase it's considered
    sacrosanct to ever draw attention to anything that limits choice when it
    comes to the mythology of "open-source" .

    >
    > Shall we now ask what google is hiding...... perhaps it phones home with
    > all of the data that goes in and out so they can optimise adverts to the
    > individual user...?


    Perhaps there are just too many conspiracy theories.
     
    impossible, Oct 17, 2008
    #3
  4. impossible

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 18, 1:42 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > Stop trying to parse this like a bloody lawyer. Is it a contradiction or
    > not?


    No.

    Here's a little bit of insight for you...

    Not everyone you rail against holds the same views on everything. You
    can't legitimately claim hypocrisy or contradiction when you compare
    statements from different people that hold different views.

    If someone claimed hypocrisy when you and Woger (both being rabid
    antinixophiles) disagreed on something, you'd probably loudly protest
    about that even if you couldn't put your finger on exactly why it was
    wrong.

    Or if you knew exactly why it's wrong, you might say nothing because
    for you to complain about flawed generalisations or strawman arguments
    would actually be hypocritical.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Oct 17, 2008
    #4
  5. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 18, 1:42 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    >> "whoisthis" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article
    >>> <>,
    >>> "AD." <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Oct 17, 5:31 pm, whoisthis <> wrote:
    >>>> > In article <AfRJk.336003$TT4.54408@attbi_s22>,
    >>>> >
    >>>> > "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>>> > > "Why Android's 'Kill Switch' Is a Good Thing" (and Apple's is bad)
    >>>>
    >>>> How is that hypocritical?
    >>>>
    >>>> He states the differences between them and why he thinks one is bad
    >>>> and one is good. The article seems completely consistent with itself.
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Really? When Apple put a kill switch in its phone, the nixophiles were up
    >> in
    >> arms, and no amount of reasoned discussion could change their minds. For
    >> example:
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz...6/f77bfcf9057b97a4?lnk=st&q=#f77bfcf9057b97a4
    >>
    >> But now when Google does much the same with the nixophile's beloved
    >> Android-based phone? It's perfectly ok -- in fact, it's EXACTLY what
    >> everyone needs. If you fail to notice that contradiction.....well, you're
    >> simply not looking at this issue objectively.
    >>
    >> I stand by my original comments on Apple, and I find no reason to panic
    >> about Google's move either.
    >>
    >>>> Has this person made other statements elsewhere that are inconsistent
    >>>> with the views they expressed in this article?
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm also wondering what makes this person representative of all your
    >>>> nixophile friends? The author just seem like your run of the mill tech
    >>>> magazine columnist to me. Do you have the extra background conspiracy
    >>>> info behind this, or are you just jumping to conclusions again?
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Stop trying to parse this like a bloody lawyer. Is it a contradiction or
    >> not?
    >>
    >>>> > so I guess its not totally open then as it would seem that if it were
    >>>> > it
    >>>> > would be possible to remove the kill switch entirely.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yep, doesn't sound totally open to me. But then again, most things
    >>>> Google makes aren't totally open anyway.
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Good: now you're beginning to understand. Android was the darling of the
    >> nixophiles so long as it was an open-source abstraction. But put
    >> open-source
    >> to work in a world where the private interest of outfits like Google and
    >> IBM
    >> take precedence over the "cause" and it all suddenly starts to look a
    >> little
    >> different.
    >>
    >>>> Maybe impossible is confusing Google fanbois with Linux fanbois?
    >>>> Googlophiles?
    >>>>

    >>
    >> Nixopliles know only two companies -- Microsoft and its Everyone Else --
    >> so
    >> its easy for things to get confused. Lawrence D'Loser, for example, hates
    >> Google (because Google owns a vast amount of intellectual property). But
    >> while he launched the troll-bait about Apple's kill switch (and was
    >> joined
    >> in the knee-jerk condemnation by the usual crowd of nixophiliacs here)
    >> that
    >> crowd has been totally silent on Google's move . Why? Becase it's
    >> considered
    >> sacrosanct to ever draw attention to anything that limits choice when it
    >> comes to the mythology of "open-source" .
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Shall we now ask what google is hiding...... perhaps it phones home with
    >>> all of the data that goes in and out so they can optimise adverts to the
    >>> individual user...?

    >>
    >> Perhaps there are just too many conspiracy theories.
    >>

    > No.
    >


    Hmmm....more selective editing on your part. Had no response to anything I
    said, did you? Well, I replaced your deletions from my post so that everyone
    can see that.

    > Here's a little bit of insight for you...
    >


    That'll be the day...

    > Not everyone you rail against holds the same views on everything. You
    > can't legitimately claim hypocrisy or contradiction when you compare
    > statements from different people that hold different views.
    >


    Why are you so intent on ducking the issue here? The knee-jerk nixophiles
    who openly condemned Apple for restricting deployment of certain
    applications on its phones on its phones are now tripping over themselves
    now to explain why Google's implementation of an Android kill swtich is a
    good thing. That's patent hypocrisy.

    > If someone claimed hypocrisy when you and Woger (both being rabid
    > antinixophiles) disagreed on something, you'd probably loudly protest
    > about that even if you couldn't put your finger on exactly why it was
    > wrong.
    >


    Nah, I'd address whatever the argument happened to be. Maybe you should try
    that yourself sometime.

    > Or if you knew exactly why it's wrong, you might say nothing because
    > for you to complain about flawed generalisations or strawman arguments
    > would actually be hypocritical.
    >


    These are the sort of distractions I'll let you waste your own time with.
    Myself, I couldn't care less.
     
    impossible, Oct 18, 2008
    #5
  6. impossible

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 18, 2:25 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > >> Perhaps there are just too many conspiracy theories.

    >
    > > No.

    >
    > Hmmm....more selective editing on your part. Had no response to anything I
    > said, did you? Well, I replaced your deletions from my post so that everyone
    > can see that.


    Now we have some real hypocrisy. You don't like selective editing, but
    you just pasted in my response below a different question entirely. So
    far, you've been the only one to do any actual selective editing -
    everything you've complained about up until now has just been standard
    usenet ettiquette of snipping irrelevant or redundant text.

    If you read back my reply of "No." was to this question of yours:

    "Stop trying to parse this like a bloody lawyer. Is it a contradiction
    or not?"

    Pot-Kettle-Black. You complaining about selective editing - sheesh!

    Or was that done deliberately just to prove you know what hypocrisy
    means?

    <snipped>

    > Why are you so intent on ducking the issue here?


    Huh? I just claimed you haven't demonstrated hypocrisy (in anyone
    else) yet. Hypocrisy is your entire basis for this thread.

    The only ducking of the issue is you trying to twist out of backing up
    your original claim of hypocrisy.

    > The knee-jerk nixophiles
    > who openly condemned Apple for restricting deployment of certain
    > applications on its phones on its phones are now tripping over themselves
    > now to explain why Google's implementation of an Android kill swtich is a
    > good thing. That's patent hypocrisy.


    "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it
    means."

    A recap....

    1) One of your nixophile apparently doesn't like the iphone kill
    switch and starts a thread about it here. Also according to you that
    nixophile is also a Google hater. There is no indication (evidence
    welcome) this nixophile thinks the Android kill switch is a good idea
    (unlikely with them being a Google hater anyway) instead of hating
    kill switches full stop.

    2) A PC World columnist says he doesn't like the way the iphone kill
    switch was kept secret, but he thinks that the way Google makes it
    public knowledge upfront is better. There is apparently no indication
    (evidence welcome) this person is one of your nixophiles (nixophiles
    are not generally into magazines like PC World).

    3) You come to the conclusion that two different people holding
    apparently different views is hypocrisy, and you kindly start a thread
    here to helpfully document this for us.

    4) whoisthis objectively points out that having a kill switch means
    that Android wouldn't be completely open. Noone has disputed this so
    far, so this part of the thread ran out of controversy and has gone
    quiet.

    5) I thought that the content in (3) wasn't about hypocrisy but was a
    flawed generalisation on your part.

    6) Instead of offering further evidence to show that EITHER the
    nixophile OR the columnist is a smartphone kill switch hypocrite you
    would rather continue to ignore what hypocrisy actually means and
    claim that I am ducking the issue (without showing the actual
    hypocrisy there is no issue).

    Is that a good summary? Sorry I snipped some clutter to help stick to
    the actual issue you first brought up - not to worry I haven't
    expunged it from history, it should still be in this very thread on
    your newsserver or the archives if you really want to read it again.

    So far the nixophile and the columnist thinking that the iphone kill
    switch is bad (although for apparently different reasons) is the only
    thing you've offered that they even agree on. Note: two people
    agreeing on one thing and not agreeing on another doesn't
    automatically make either of them a hypocrite. They can have different
    reasons for agreeing or disagreeing.

    Any evidence showing actual hypocrisy will be very welcome (besides
    what you just demonstrated yourself). I am sure that a nixophile and a
    columnist are capable of such hypocrisy, and the argument will be
    cleanly settled with some evidence.


    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Oct 18, 2008
    #6
  7. impossible

    Richard Guest

    impossible wrote:

    >> Shall we now ask what google is hiding...... perhaps it phones home with
    >> all of the data that goes in and out so they can optimise adverts to the
    >> individual user...?

    >
    > Perhaps there are just too many conspiracy theories.


    The thing is, everyone runs a kill switch for applications on their
    desktop PC in the form of antivirus software, so why is it a major when
    anyone does it on a phone, particually a phone that you have no control
    over what you _can_ run like the iPhone.
     
    Richard, Oct 18, 2008
    #7
  8. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "Richard" <> wrote in message news:gdch48$g2$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>> Shall we now ask what google is hiding...... perhaps it phones home with
    >>> all of the data that goes in and out so they can optimise adverts to the
    >>> individual user...?

    >>
    >> Perhaps there are just too many conspiracy theories.

    >
    > The thing is, everyone runs a kill switch for applications on their
    > desktop PC in the form of antivirus software, so why is it a major when
    > anyone does it on a phone, particually a phone that you have no control
    > over what you _can_ run like the iPhone.


    Exactly.
     
    impossible, Oct 18, 2008
    #8
  9. impossible

    impossible Guest

    "AD." <> wrote in message
    news:...

    On Oct 18, 2:25 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >> Hmmm....more selective editing on your part. Had no response to anything
    >> I
    >> said, did you? Well, I replaced your deletions from my post so that
    >> everyone
    >> can see that.

    >
    > Now we have some real hypocrisy. You don't like selective editing, but
    > you just pasted in my response below a different question entirely.


    <shakes head>

    When you gut my remarks to make yourself seem clever, it's difficult to know
    exactly where all the pieces fit back together. May I suggest in future that
    you simply leave posts intact? Oh, wait...then you'd need some kind of
    substantive argument. Maybe you can get Lawrence D'Loser or
    CupaPee/Carnation to have a play with you -- they love that stuff --
    myself, I'm through with your games.
     
    impossible, Oct 18, 2008
    #9
  10. impossible

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 19, 5:02 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "AD." <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > On Oct 18, 2:25 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    > >> Hmmm....more selective editing on your part. Had no response to anything
    > >> I
    > >> said, did you? Well, I replaced your deletions from my post so that
    > >> everyone
    > >> can see that.

    >
    > > Now we have some real hypocrisy. You don't like selective editing, but
    > > you just pasted in my response below a different question entirely.

    >
    > <shakes head>
    >
    > When you gut my remarks to make yourself seem clever, it's difficult to know
    > exactly where all the pieces fit back together. May I suggest in future that
    > you simply leave posts intact? Oh, wait...then you'd need some kind of
    > substantive argument. Maybe you can get Lawrence D'Loser or
    > CupaPee/Carnation to have a play with you -- they love that stuff  --  
    > myself, I'm through with your games.


    I don't claim to have a substantive argument at all - I've just been
    trying to hear yours on the topic you so graciously started. Obviously
    you must've been too busy at the time to include the logical reasoning
    or more evidence behind it in your first post, so I was just hoping it
    could be included in a follow up. It's a shame that standard usenet
    quoting etiquette on my part is all that has prevented us from hearing
    it. I deeply regret that.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Oct 19, 2008
    #10
  11. In article <-privat.org>, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs "AD." typed:
    >> On Oct 18, 2:25 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    >[snip a bunch of well-thought-out and reasoned discourse]
    >
    >Arguing rationally with "impossible" is like feeding strawberries to a pig.



    ... ? ... only the pig enjoys it ? :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Oct 20, 2008
    #11
  12. In message <>, Carnations wrote:

    > There is little/no value in quoting an entire 100 line post when you may
    > be responding to only three or four lines in the entire post.


    Ah, but then you get accused of making the poster say things they didn't
    say.

    Which is nonsense, of course. You're not making them say anything: that's
    what their own posting is for.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 20, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Magic347
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,300
    Wm James
    Jul 3, 2003
  2. Hugh
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    515
    Plato
    May 19, 2004
  3. Dan Sullivan
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,397
    Dan Sullivan
    Jan 4, 2004
  4. Eljee
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    466
    ½ Confused
    Sep 21, 2006
  5. Mickey Mouse

    FSF's Stallman branded a hypocritical liar

    Mickey Mouse, Dec 18, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    129
    Views:
    2,601
Loading...

Share This Page