From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:25:08 GMT

In <1992Sep29.195435.7622@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.214538.9729@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
>> In <1992Sep27.105150.2986@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:
>> 
>> >Oh, but pardon me, I am remiss.  But I ask you this, what would have happened
>> >here in this thread if I started stating how windows is multitasking, etc.
>> >Instead of you're one article saying I was incorrect about windows, I would
>> >have received at least 5 replies saying that windows doesn't really multitask,
>> 
>> Perhaps, but those 5 replies would have been wrong.  Tell us, Pete,
>> are you generally in the habit of doing things simply because they are
>> expedient rather than because they are right?

>Tell me, Fred, are you generally in the habit of bogging down discussions
>with useless talk about definitions, name calling, etc.  Maybe you should
>go work for the government.

Gee, and I never even knew that you worked for the government, Pete.
Seriously, the idea of YOU complaining about this in THIS group is
laughable. 

>> 
>> >and one of those would have probably been from you.  
>> 
>> Guess again, Pete.  I'm not the sort of Genuinely Clueless Bozoid (tm)
>> that you seem to be, so I generally only say things to people about
>> things they've gotten wrong; like you getting this wrong.

>What a great personality trait.  Only saying things to people when you're
>pointing out that they're wrong.  Do you have any friends?

Well, perhaps I should have included a bit more context there for the
Genuinely Clueless Bozoids among us.  Given the context that remark
was in, it seems pretty clear that the intent was that I only
criticize people for being wrong about things which they are wrong
about.  Do they teach that kind of creative clipping when you start at
Microsoft, or is it a personal trait, Pete?

>(I.E. if you can get take personal slams at my, I can take personal slams
>at you.  It's only fair, isn't it?)

If I can take personal slams at your WHAT, Pete?

>> 
>> >To tell the truth,
>> >I considered that explicetly when composing these articles, and decided
>> >that maybe if I just talked about pre-emptive multitasking that people
>> >would be too clouded about OS/2 vs Windows to call me on misdefining
>> >pre-emptive multitasking with just multitasking.  
>> 
>> Excuse me?  Would you like to translate this into English and try
>> again?  Whatever you're trying to say, it's pretty unclear, to say the
>> least. 

>Sorry, I'll try again.   The mistake I made was to mislable preemptive
>multitasking with just multitasking IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
>I was kind of hoping people wouldn't call me on this so we could get on
>with the real discussion.  This is the OS/2 group, so I took into account
>that people in this group don't consider Windows a real multitasking
>system.  

Well, that's not quite true.  I'm a person.  You're a person (or so
you tell us).  We are collectively people.  You are in this group.  I
am in this group.  Therefore, we are people in this group.  I consider
Windows a 'real multitasking system'.  You consider Windows a 'real
multitasking system'.  Therefore, we are people in this group who
consider Windows a real multitasking system.  So, the above statement
is false.

>I do, BTW, but I wanted to discuss what was at hand, and not
>the "is windows a multitasking system/operating system/etc" issues.
>However, you seem to have wanted to derail the collective train of though
>and brought discussion down to this "definitions" and personal slams level.
>Oh, well...

>> 
>> >But, All you other folks,
>> >look, Fred here is saying that Windows Multitasks, and he is known to
>> >dislike MS.  Send all email flames to him, though, 'cause that discussion
>> >has been on the net before. 
>> 
>> Well, if it's been on the net before, how come you got it wrong, Pete? 

>Oh, how clever of you Fred.  Pulling things from different contexts, putting
>them together, and using them as a slam.  For all you net goers, that's
>on page 5 of the netnews guide to flames, paragraph 3.

Spoken by one of the resident experts on the subject.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy