From: Chris.Waters@f1.n100.z60.wlink.nl (Chris Waters)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 11:22:49 -0100

Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In <1992Oct12.230138.274@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.062257.18201@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>I went back and checked the last 1,000 posts to c.o.o.a, your assertions
>in this tirade are largely unfounded.  Via e-mail, I'm sending you
>a copy of all my posts in this last 1,000 messages.

I panicked when I saw that "1000" messages at the top of the message in
my mailbox, deleted it, and fired up my newsreader, prepared to flame
you a new "output port".  :-)  Fortunately, before I started flaming, I
read the news, and realized that you had not mailed me 1000 messages. 
Anyway, we have over a thousand messages still on-line here, so I can
search out the data for myself.  Right after I finish digging the lint
out of my bellybutton.  :-)

>I have not been "trashing OS/2", if you mean by "trashing", sluring
>it with unfounded put downs.

This is where we disagree.  This is also where others disagree.  Many
other people have pointed out which parts of your posts were unfounded. 
I don't really have the time.  I was trying to gently suggest that you
take the time to figure out why people are flaming you on this
newsgroup.  If you don't want to bother, it's not my problem.  I'm
perfectly cabable of ignoring flamewars.  I was *trying* to do you a
favor--personally, I don't care if you claim that *CP/M* is better than
OS/2, or whatever.  If you want to deny what seems obvious to me and
others, that is your privilege.

>For some odd reason you believe that anyone trying to prove a case
>that NT is better than OS/2, or that IBM is not handling OS/2 well
>is inappropriate behavior.  I do not share your opinion.

On the contrary.  I welcome reasonable and well-balanced posts.  I'd be
the last one to deny that OS/2 has its share of problems.  This is what
you *used* to provide.  Might I suggest that if you had spent the same
amount of time that you've used to post to this group, whining about
your problems over the last few months, you would have been able to
isolate the problems you've had with the C/Set 2 compiler, and probably
get them fixed.

Note that I have not been complaining about the posts from the fellows
at MS.  This is because I feel that they have been more objective than
you have.  At least recently.  I may disagree occasionally with what
they say, but I feel that they, at least, are still maintaining a
reasonably balanced perspective.

>A "flame" implies unfounded negative tirades, while it's true that I
>nearly always add my opinions to my postings from other sources, I'm
>not sure why you call them flames.  I'm simply in the midst of pointing
>out a number of problems with OS/2.  Why am I wrong to do this?  I am
>currently of the opinion that OS/2 is not doing well, I express this
>opinion, and I provide quotes from many sources to back up my opinion.

Ok, you're right.  Flaming is probably a bit too strong of a term. 
Whining might be a more appropriate description.  :-)

>As to a single post being sufficient... baloney!  OS/2 and its problems are
>far too complicated to cover in a single message.

Perhaps, but I see messages from you covering the same things, over and
over.  This is why I said that a single post should be sufficient.  A
single post to cover a single point.

>Further not all of my messages are of this nature, a full quarter of them
>are merely informational... check the file of messages I'm sending and
>see for yourself.

Yes, many of your posts are quite reasonable.  If this weren't the case,
I would have given up long ago, and wouldn't even be bothering to
participate in this discussion.

>They say far worse things about Microsoft than I ever say about IBM.

Fools abound.  I find it more productive to ignore fools than to respond
to them.  But then I'm awfully thick-skinned.  I'm an arrogant sumbeach.
I *know* that my opinions are correct, so I don't really care whether
others share them.  :-)

>They personally attack me far, far, more than I personally attack them.
>(I try very hard to avoid personal attacks.. but in the heat of the
>moment I sometimes forget.)

And lately it seems like you've been forgetting more often than you used
to.

>I'm sorry if they're "hurt", but that's what the get for personally
>identifying themselves with an OS.  I have good reasons why I like
>NT over OS/2, and Microsoft over IBM.  This advocacy group is
>a reasonable place for expression of the advocacy of those views.

Actually, I've long preferred MS to IBM myself.  But, at the moment, IBM
has the best operating system for the money for the PC platform.  When
NT is released, this will probably change, but that is in the future.

Anyway, back to the subject of your posts for a minute.  It seems to me
that whenever there is any ambiguity or uncertainty, you give MS every
benefit of the doubt, and always assume the worst possible case for IBM.
This is why people accuse you of lying:  you may be factually correct as
far as it goes, but your interpretations of the available data are
plainly biased to an alarming degree.

Again (and I don't know how many times I'm going to say this), I am
*not* an OS/2 advocate.  I am an OS/2 user, but that is as far as it
goes.  If anything, I am prejudiced in favor of MS over IBM.  But
despite this, I find your posts imbalanced and untruthful in their
implications, if not their specific facts.

Aaaaaanyway.  I think I've said about as much as I care to on this
topic.  If you wish to ignore or deny my well-intentioned criticisms,
that's fine.  We could (and probably should) take this to email, but I
can't really think of anything new to say.  Nor do I really care to
waste any more time on thi$_ b3*% #(
NO CARRIER

:-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!

Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy