Re: Insanity

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Jenn, Jan 1, 2011.

  1. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Dustin wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote in
    > news:ifmb0f$3vp$-september.org:
    >
    >> SeaNymph wrote:
    >>> "Jenn" <> 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 fucked 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)
     
    Jenn, Jan 1, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jenn

    Dustin Guest

    "Jenn" <> wrote in
    news:ifmemm$85c$-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 fucked 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.
     
    Dustin, Jan 1, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jenn

    Jenn Guest

    Dustin wrote:
    > "Jenn" <> wrote in
    > news:ifmemm$85c$-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)
     
    Jenn, Jan 1, 2011
    #3
    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. Ivan Ostreš
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,960
    Ivan Ostreš
    Oct 21, 2004
  2. Bob

    mouse wheel insanity

    Bob, Feb 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    751
    Dennis
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. Bay Area Dave

    NOT off-topic. The definition of insanity is...

    Bay Area Dave, May 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    731
    Bay Area Dave
    May 10, 2004
  4. Vlvetmorning98

    Yet more Lucas insanity

    Vlvetmorning98, Sep 27, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    919
    Tad Bitt§ï£
    Oct 1, 2004
  5. Dom
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    413
    Walter Roberson
    Jul 21, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page