Standards NZ and OOXML

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    See:
    http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2008/old-dog-same-old-tricks

    and:
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080318151252279

    The gist of the matter can be expressed as (quoting Groklaw):

    "The New Zealand Open Source Society is reporting that an employee at
    Microsoft recently sent an email to one of the technical bodies advising
    an NB involved in the OOXML ISO process, smearing a man's reputation,
    Matthew Holloway, apparently to undermine his technical input which was
    critical of OOXML."

    Seems Microsoft has got its hand properly caught in the till, and all
    the tea in China is insufficient for Microsoft to try and bribe and
    bluster its way out of this lot.
     
    peterwn, Mar 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:47e0e0d0$...
    > See:
    > http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2008/old-dog-same-old-tricks
    >
    > and:
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080318151252279
    >
    > The gist of the matter can be expressed as (quoting Groklaw):
    >
    > "The New Zealand Open Source Society is reporting that an employee at
    > Microsoft recently sent an email to one of the technical bodies advising
    > an NB involved in the OOXML ISO process, smearing a man's reputation,
    > Matthew Holloway, apparently to undermine his technical input which was
    > critical of OOXML."
    >


    Do you mean "Matthew Holloway" -- a.ka.a <mail to: matthew at
    holloway.co.nz., a.k.a. "Matthew Holloway (née Cruickshank)"
    (http://nzoss.org.nz/system/files/nzoss-newsletter-feb-2008.pdf),
    a.ka.Matthew Cruikshank? A.k.a, the known IBM-ODF Alliance propagandist? Are
    you saying that somebody at Microsoft actually questioned this guy's
    credentials to objectively analyze document standards issues?
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peterwn

    thingy Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > See:
    > http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2008/old-dog-same-old-tricks
    >
    > and:
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080318151252279
    >
    > The gist of the matter can be expressed as (quoting Groklaw):
    >
    > "The New Zealand Open Source Society is reporting that an employee at
    > Microsoft recently sent an email to one of the technical bodies advising
    > an NB involved in the OOXML ISO process, smearing a man's reputation,
    > Matthew Holloway, apparently to undermine his technical input which was
    > critical of OOXML."
    >
    > Seems Microsoft has got its hand properly caught in the till, and all
    > the tea in China is insufficient for Microsoft to try and bribe and
    > bluster its way out of this lot.


    Another link.

    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/0B47485921D44083CC2574110068B1B6

    "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."

    So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Mar 19, 2008
    #3
  4. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > peterwn wrote:
    >> See:
    >> http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2008/old-dog-same-old-tricks
    >>
    >> and:
    >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080318151252279
    >>
    >> The gist of the matter can be expressed as (quoting Groklaw):
    >>
    >> "The New Zealand Open Source Society is reporting that an employee at
    >> Microsoft recently sent an email to one of the technical bodies advising
    >> an NB involved in the OOXML ISO process, smearing a man's reputation,
    >> Matthew Holloway, apparently to undermine his technical input which was
    >> critical of OOXML."
    >>
    >> Seems Microsoft has got its hand properly caught in the till, and all the
    >> tea in China is insufficient for Microsoft to try and bribe and bluster
    >> its way out of this lot.

    >
    > Another link.
    >
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/0B47485921D44083CC2574110068B1B6
    >
    > "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    > Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >
    > So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    > outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >



    How precious! Matthew Holloway-Cruickshank has a vested business interest in
    stopping ISO approval of OOXML. For anyone to claim that he has been
    "smeared" because the objectivity of his judgment is in question is
    pathetic. Standards NZ should be ashmaed of itself for trying to cover this
    up. It just goes to show you how political these matters really are.
     
    impossible, Mar 19, 2008
    #4
  5. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Mar 20, 5:24 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > Do you mean "Matthew Holloway" -- a.ka.a <mail to: matthew at
    > holloway.co.nz., a.k.a. "Matthew Holloway (née Cruickshank)"
    > (http://nzoss.org.nz/system/files/nzoss-newsletter-feb-2008.pdf),
    > a.ka.Matthew Cruikshank? A.k.a, the known IBM-ODF Alliance propagandist?


    Yes, but calling him a 'propagandist' is rather llke the pot calling
    the kettle black, since by the same token, I would call you a Micro
    $oft propagandist.

    > Are
    > you saying that somebody at Microsoft actually questioned this guy's
    > credentials to objectively analyze document standards issues?


    The E-mail from Standards NZ to Microsoft NZ speaks for itself. In
    that regard, whoever chose to redact the Microsoft employee's name is
    not known, it could have either been Standards NZ or the NZ Open
    Source Society.
     
    peterwn, Mar 19, 2008
    #5
  6. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Mar 20, 5:24 am, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    >> Do you mean "Matthew Holloway" -- a.ka.a <mail to: matthew at
    >> holloway.co.nz., a.k.a. "Matthew Holloway (née Cruickshank)"
    >> (http://nzoss.org.nz/system/files/nzoss-newsletter-feb-2008.pdf),
    >> a.ka.Matthew Cruikshank? A.k.a, the known IBM-ODF Alliance propagandist?

    >
    >Yes, but calling him a 'propagandist' is rather llke the pot calling
    >the kettle black, since by the same token, I would call you a Micro
    >$oft propagandist.
    >


    Well, there you go. Quit whining then.

    >> Are
    >> you saying that somebody at Microsoft actually questioned this guy's
    >> credentials to objectively analyze document standards issues?

    >
    >The E-mail from Standards NZ to Microsoft NZ speaks for itself. In
    >that regard, whoever chose to redact the Microsoft employee's name is
    >not known, it could have either been Standards NZ or the NZ Open
    >Source Society.
    >


    Do you mean that Standards NZ may have issued a statement blindly defending
    whoever it was that NZOSS wanted it to defend? This gets better by the
    minute. Thanks for the update.
     
    impossible, Mar 20, 2008
    #6
  7. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Mar 20, 12:18 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > How precious! Matthew Holloway-Cruickshank has a vested business interest in
    > stopping ISO approval of OOXML. For anyone to claim that he has been
    > "smeared" because the objectivity of his judgment is in question is
    > pathetic. Standards NZ should be ashmaed of itself for trying to cover this
    > up. It just goes to show you how political these matters really are.


    Quite.
     
    peterwn, Mar 20, 2008
    #7
  8. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Mar 20, 10:44 am, thingy <> wrote:

    >
    > "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    > Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >
    > So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    > outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >


    Looks that Microsoft employees are playing 'pass the buck' in the hope
    of avoiding being hit by a flying chair, since the whole episode is
    turning to custard from Microsoft's point of view despite
    'Impossible's' attempts to put a pro-Microsoft spin on this incident.

    Brett, repent and start studying GNU / Linus before it is too late -
    there is a glorious future ahead in that area of IT.
     
    peterwn, Mar 20, 2008
    #8
  9. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 20, 10:44 am, thingy <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    >> Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >>
    >> So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    >> outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >>

    >


    Gee...let's think about this...Maybe because the ISO is an **international**
    body? Maybe because Mark Cruikshank has aligned himself with the partisan
    interests of IBM, a **multionational** corporation?

    > Looks that Microsoft employees are playing 'pass the buck' in the hope
    > of avoiding being hit by a flying chair, since the whole episode is
    > turning to custard from Microsoft's point of view despite
    > 'Impossible's' attempts to put a pro-Microsoft spin on this incident.
    >


    Heh, heh. According to you, Standards NZ is in the pocket of NZOSS -- I
    don't think there's anything much there to spin.
     
    impossible, Mar 20, 2008
    #9
  10. peterwn

    Brendan Guest

    On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:49:05 GMT, impossible wrote:

    > "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Mar 20, 10:44 am, thingy <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    >>> Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >>>
    >>> So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    >>> outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >>>

    >>

    >
    > Gee...let's think about this...Maybe because the ISO is an **international**
    > body? Maybe because Mark Cruikshank has aligned himself with the partisan
    > interests of IBM, a **multionational** corporation?
    >
    >> Looks that Microsoft employees are playing 'pass the buck' in the hope
    >> of avoiding being hit by a flying chair, since the whole episode is
    >> turning to custard from Microsoft's point of view despite
    >> 'Impossible's' attempts to put a pro-Microsoft spin on this incident.
    >>

    >
    > Heh, heh. According to you, Standards NZ is in the pocket of NZOSS -- I
    > don't think there's anything much there to spin.


    What a load of shit. He never said anything of the fucking sort.

    MOST people would think that Microsoft sending defamatory comments to a
    government body in the effort to exclude competition is bad.

    No one wants to be locked into Microsoft's revenue stream, not even you if
    you have a brain in your head.

    Trust that dick Roberts to be mixed up in it...

    --

    .... Brendan

    #244321 +(10097)- [X]

    <Cthon98> hey, if you type in your pw, it will show as stars
    <Cthon98> ********* see!
    <AzureDiamond> hunter2
    <AzureDiamond> doesnt look like stars to me
    <Cthon98> <AzureDiamond> *******
    <Cthon98> thats what I see
    <AzureDiamond> oh, really?
    <Cthon98> Absolutely
    <AzureDiamond> you can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2
    <AzureDiamond> haha, does that look funny to you?
    <Cthon98> lol, yes. See, when YOU type hunter2, it shows to us as *******
    <AzureDiamond> thats neat, I didnt know IRC did that
    <Cthon98> yep, no matter how many times you type hunter2, it will show to
    us as *******
    <AzureDiamond> awesome!
    <AzureDiamond> wait, how do you know my pw?
    <Cthon98> er, I just copy pasted YOUR ******'s and it appears to YOU as
    hunter2 cause its your pw
    <AzureDiamond> oh, ok.


    Note: All my comments are copyright 20/03/2008 2:30:06 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Mar 20, 2008
    #10
  11. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:49:05 GMT, impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Mar 20, 10:44 am, thingy <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    >>>> Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >>>>
    >>>> So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    >>>> outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Gee...let's think about this...Maybe because the ISO is an
    >> **international**
    >> body? Maybe because Mark Cruikshank has aligned himself with the
    >> partisan
    >> interests of IBM, a **multionational** corporation?
    >>
    >>> Looks that Microsoft employees are playing 'pass the buck' in the hope
    >>> of avoiding being hit by a flying chair, since the whole episode is
    >>> turning to custard from Microsoft's point of view despite
    >>> 'Impossible's' attempts to put a pro-Microsoft spin on this incident.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Heh, heh. According to you, Standards NZ is in the pocket of NZOSS -- I
    >> don't think there's anything much there to spin.

    >
    > What a load of shit. He never said anything of the fucking sort.
    >


    Watch your language. When you're wrong, you're wrong, and cussing doesn't
    improve matters.

    http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/4fb24ef8817a4635

    > MOST people would think that Microsoft sending defamatory comments to a
    > government body in the effort to exclude competition is bad.
    >


    Matthew Holloway-Cruickshank has a vested business interest in favoring ODF
    over OOXM, and his anti-OOXML tracts written in league with other ODF
    Alliance lobbyists are a matter of public record. See for example:

    http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html

    > No one wants to be locked into Microsoft's revenue stream, not even you if
    > you have a brain in your head.
    >


    > Trust that dick Roberts to be mixed up in it...
    >
    > --


    Your partisan bias is noted. Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    honorable of you!
     
    impossible, Mar 20, 2008
    #11
  12. peterwn

    thingy Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:49:05 GMT, impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Mar 20, 10:44 am, thingy <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation Brett
    >>>>> Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    >>>>> outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >>>>>
    >>> Gee...let's think about this...Maybe because the ISO is an
    >>> **international**
    >>> body? Maybe because Mark Cruikshank has aligned himself with the
    >>> partisan
    >>> interests of IBM, a **multionational** corporation?
    >>>
    >>>> Looks that Microsoft employees are playing 'pass the buck' in the hope
    >>>> of avoiding being hit by a flying chair, since the whole episode is
    >>>> turning to custard from Microsoft's point of view despite
    >>>> 'Impossible's' attempts to put a pro-Microsoft spin on this incident.
    >>>>
    >>> Heh, heh. According to you, Standards NZ is in the pocket of NZOSS -- I
    >>> don't think there's anything much there to spin.

    >> What a load of shit. He never said anything of the fucking sort.
    >>

    >
    > Watch your language. When you're wrong, you're wrong, and cussing doesn't
    > improve matters.
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/4fb24ef8817a4635
    >
    >> MOST people would think that Microsoft sending defamatory comments to a
    >> government body in the effort to exclude competition is bad.
    >>

    >
    > Matthew Holloway-Cruickshank has a vested business interest in favoring ODF
    > over OOXM, and his anti-OOXML tracts written in league with other ODF
    > Alliance lobbyists are a matter of public record. See for example:
    >
    > http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html
    >
    >> No one wants to be locked into Microsoft's revenue stream, not even you if
    >> you have a brain in your head.
    >>

    >
    >> Trust that dick Roberts to be mixed up in it...
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > Your partisan bias is noted. Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    > you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    > honorable of you!
    >
    >


    Anybody who wants to have an open standard that can be freely
    implemented will have a vested interest.....The difference between M$
    and HC is HC will be on a level playing field with everybody (incl M$)
    else if ODF is taken as the standard, he will have no undue or
    monopolistic advantage...

    You only have to look at MS's "speed" over the EU anti-trust case / CIFS
    to realize if MS's version "wins" it will take 10+years to claw
    back....if ever....and the CIFS revenues is peanuts compared to Office
    revenues.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Mar 20, 2008
    #12
  13. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Mar 20, 3:10 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    > Your partisan bias is noted. Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    > you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    > honorable of you!


    Yiur blatantly partisan pro Micro$oft approach is fast becomng clear
    to all.

    By the way, are you Max Burke. If not, you both argue on ng's until
    the cows come home.
     
    peterwn, Mar 20, 2008
    #13
  14. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 20, 3:10 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Your partisan bias is noted. Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    >> you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    >> honorable of you!

    >
    > Yiur blatantly partisan pro Micro$oft approach is fast becomng clear
    > to all.
    >


    I just call things as I see them, supported by the weight of reason, logic,
    and evidence. If you can't handle that, tough.

    > By the way, are you Max Burke. If not, you both argue on ng's until
    > the cows come home.
    > \


    And you argue like a 12-year-old. Now go away and read something before you
    embarass yourself again.
     
    impossible, Mar 20, 2008
    #14
  15. In article <>, Brendan did write:

    > What a load of shit. He never said anything of the fucking sort.


    DNFTT.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 20, 2008
    #15
  16. In article <>, peterwn <> wrote:
    >On Mar 20, 3:10 pm, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> Your partisan bias is noted. Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    >> you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    >> honorable of you!

    >
    >Yiur blatantly partisan pro Micro$oft approach is fast becomng clear
    >to all.
    >
    >By the way, are you Max Burke.


    I don't think so. Impossible can seem sane for quite a while and did not ad
    hom much at all to start with. The same cannot be said of Max. :)
    Suggest you read neither of them and improve your signal to noise ratio. :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Mar 20, 2008
    #16
  17. peterwn

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:


    [.....]

    > I just call things as I see them, supported by the weight of reason,
    > logic, and evidence.


    [....]

    LMAO!!!!! And Roger is a misunderstood genius mainframe engineer.

    It's all in the definitions. "reason" "logic" and "evidence" must be *very*
    subjective terms.
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 20, 2008
    #17
  18. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:49:05 GMT, impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Mar 20, 10:44 am, thingy <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Microsoft's representative on the group, director of innovation
    >>>>>> Brett
    >>>>>> Roberts, says the email was sent by a person "offshore"."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So was it a NZ MS employee while outside NZ, or a non-NZ MS employee
    >>>>>> outside NZ, in which case what was he doing commenting?
    >>>>>>
    >>>> Gee...let's think about this...Maybe because the ISO is an
    >>>> **international**
    >>>> body? Maybe because Mark Cruikshank has aligned himself with the
    >>>> partisan
    >>>> interests of IBM, a **multionational** corporation?
    >>>>
    >>>>> Looks that Microsoft employees are playing 'pass the buck' in the hope
    >>>>> of avoiding being hit by a flying chair, since the whole episode is
    >>>>> turning to custard from Microsoft's point of view despite
    >>>>> 'Impossible's' attempts to put a pro-Microsoft spin on this incident.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Heh, heh. According to you, Standards NZ is in the pocket of NZOSS -- I
    >>>> don't think there's anything much there to spin.
    >>> What a load of shit. He never said anything of the fucking sort.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Watch your language. When you're wrong, you're wrong, and cussing
    >> doesn't improve matters.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/4fb24ef8817a4635
    >>
    >>> MOST people would think that Microsoft sending defamatory comments to a
    >>> government body in the effort to exclude competition is bad.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Matthew Holloway-Cruickshank has a vested business interest in favoring
    >> ODF over OOXM, and his anti-OOXML tracts written in league with other
    >> ODF Alliance lobbyists are a matter of public record. See for example:
    >>
    >> http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html
    >>
    >>> No one wants to be locked into Microsoft's revenue stream, not even you
    >>> if
    >>> you have a brain in your head.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> Trust that dick Roberts to be mixed up in it...
    >>>
    >>> --

    >>
    >> Your partisan bias is noted. Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    >> you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    >> honorable of you!

    >
    > Anybody who wants to have an open standard that can be freely implemented
    > will have a vested interest.....The difference between M$ and HC is HC
    > will be on a level playing field with everybody (incl M$) else if ODF is
    > taken as the standard, he will have no undue or monopolistic advantage...
    >


    How does any company exercise a "monpolistic advantage" over a document
    format that can be freely implemented by any developer and freely chosen --
    or not -- by any end user? Published standards are no one's property, just a
    set of presumably useful specifications. So I really don't see why a
    standards body would need to concern itself with the "levelling" of
    anything.

    In so far as HC plays a role in the deliberations of Standards NZ, I presume
    that he is vigorously pursuing both his business interests, as a software
    developer, and his professional interests as an engineer -- just as I
    presume the various Microsoft, IBM, Sun, and other reps do when they are
    consulted. All in all, I'd say that these folks collectively do a pretty
    good job. But for anyone of them to take offense at the thought that this
    politically charged businsess of neogtiating rules might challenge someone's
    objectivity from time to time is disengenuous to say the least.

    > You only have to look at MS's "speed" over the EU anti-trust case / CIFS
    > to realize if MS's version "wins" it will take 10+years to claw back....if
    > ever....and the CIFS revenues is peanuts compared to Office revenues.
    >


    Yes, And if you're looking for a way to knock Microsoft down a peg, that's
    understandable. I just can't ever get interested in the piling on.
     
    impossible, Mar 20, 2008
    #18
  19. peterwn

    impossible Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "impossible" typed:
    >
    >
    > [.....]
    >
    >> I just call things as I see them, supported by the weight of reason,
    >> logic, and evidence.

    >
    >
    > It's all in the definitions. "reason" "logic" and "evidence" must be
    > *very* subjective terms.
    > --


    Your the King of Subjectiivity -- I'll let you handle that end of things..
     
    impossible, Mar 20, 2008
    #19
  20. peterwn

    Brendan Guest

    On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:10:32 GMT, impossible wrote:

    > Watch your language.


    Why?

    >When you're wrong, you're wrong, and cussing doesn't
    > improve matters.
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/4fb24ef8817a4635


    Maybe I have been drugged and kidnapped by horny female volleyball team
    from Sweden (again), but your url does nothing to support your claim...

    >> MOST people would think that Microsoft sending defamatory comments to a
    >> government body in the effort to exclude competition is bad.
    >>

    >
    > Matthew Holloway-Cruickshank has a vested business interest in favoring ODF
    > over OOXM, and his anti-OOXML tracts written in league with other ODF
    > Alliance lobbyists are a matter of public record. See for example:
    >
    > http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html


    And microsoft has vested interests in ooxml.

    I just don't see your point. Or more correctly, i see your point but i
    think it's puerile and partisan. Obviously so.

    Exactly who do you think you are convincing here? We don't even think you
    have a logical argument let alone a GOOD argument...

    >> No one wants to be locked into Microsoft's revenue stream, not even you if
    >> you have a brain in your head.
    >>

    >
    >> Trust that dick Roberts to be mixed up in it...


    > Your partisan bias is noted.


    Noted where?

    >Never bothered to investigate yourself, did
    > you? Never questioned anything said so long as it was anti-Microsoft. How
    > honorable of you!


    Didn't have to - your argument is illogical and improbable. Your reputation
    precedes you.

    THAT has been NOTED.

    Anyway, my main points are these:

    1. microsoft cannot be trusted. Therefore an 'open' standards based on
    their work are at least suspect, definitely inefficient, and probably
    involve profits for them later at our expense.

    2. see 1.

    --

    .... Brendan

    A man came round in hospital after a serious accident.
    He shouted, "Doctor, doctor, I can't feel my legs!"
    The doctor replied, "I know you can't, I've cut your arms off".


    Note: All my comments are copyright 20/03/2008 7:28:11 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Mar 20, 2008
    #20
    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. Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ

    interesting post from Miguel de Icaza on OOXML

    Brett Roberts, Microsoft NZ, Feb 1, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    790
    impossible
    Feb 7, 2007
  2. peterwn

    Microsoft Office and ooxml (.docx)

    peterwn, May 26, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    169
    Views:
    2,571
    Jonathan Walker
    Jun 1, 2007
  3. Jonathan Walker

    Microsoft employee offered incentives for OOXML support

    Jonathan Walker, Sep 3, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    434
    Jasen Betts
    Sep 9, 2007
  4. peterwn

    Open Office and OOXML

    peterwn, Apr 16, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    355
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Apr 23, 2008
  5. impossible

    Microsoft, OOXML, and Apache

    impossible, Jul 27, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    403
    impossible
    Jul 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page