From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Unprofessional Posts from Brian S.
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 23:01:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.062257.18201@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>Ok, I have bloody well had it up to here.  Before I get to the meat of
>this post, I should make it clear that I'm not an OS/2 "advocate" in the
>sense of thinking that OS/2 should "beat" NT.  I use OS/2 because it
>happens to fill my needs at the moment.  I may well buy and use NT when
>that comes out.  However, the incessant trashing of OS/2 by a certain
>Brian Sturgill has finally reached the point where I can't take it any

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 have not been "trashing OS/2", if you mean by "trashing", sluring
it with unfounded put downs. I have however been systematically
pointing out its flaws, and in general I have meticulously pointed out
my sources.  The care I exhibit in this documentation is rarely
shown by yourself or other OS/2 advocates.
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.

>more.  A few months ago, I thought Mr. Sturgill was a reasonably fair,
>if somewhat biased, man.  His bias was understandable--he'd used both
>OS/2 and NT, and found that NT was a better match for his needs.  That's
>fine, I have no problem with that.  However, over the course of the last
>month or two, Mr. Sturgill has turned into an incessant flamer of OS/2

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.

>and IBM.  This I find offensive and insulting.  He has gone from being a
>biased observer struggling to maintain his impartiality to being an
>arrogant put-down artist.

If you are so personally identified with OS/2 and IBM that the case
I have been presenting against them insults you personally, than
I don't think I'm the one with the problem.

>
>Brian, if you're reading this, the only reason I'm bothering to post is
>because I used to respect you, and I have lost that respect.  If I
>thought you were a fool, I wouldn't bother.
>
>In <1992Oct12.001103.12636@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>
>>My "ranking on IBM" is far less than the "ranking on Microsoft" that goes
>>on in this group.
>
>Have you ever heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right?"  It
>sure doesn't seem like it.

I am not convinced that the "ranking" that goes on is wrong on either
side, this is after all an advocacy group.
I at least am trying to provide sources to back up my claims.
Take for example my recent postings showing that Microsoft left
OS/2 2.0 before 1.3 came out.  It has taken days to get people to
accept this, despite my quoting from Dietal and Kogan and an IBM press
release to back up my claim.  "Ranking" implies picking on someone for
no reason, I believe I have plenty of reason to pick on IBM, and
I have in the last few weeks quite careful to show sources to
back up what I beleive.
My feeling is that the quiet readers in this group, can take my statements,
my sources, and those postings from others and make their own decisions.

>
>>My main purpose is to point out that IBM is not an
>>angel, that they are every bit (if not more so) as responsible as Microsoft
>>for the IBM/Microsoft split, and that IBM has been incompetent in many
>>areas in its handling of OS/2.
>
>That's fine.  A single post should be sufficient to make this statement.
>12 posts per day flaming IBM and OS/2 is not the sign of a man who wants
>to help his fellows--it is the sign of an angry and upset man who wants
>to hurt someone.

Of the last 1,000 messages in this group, 56 were mine, less than 1% --
4.3 messages per day.  Now I ask you, don't you think claiming 12 posts
per day is a bit irrational on your part?  You could just as easily
have checked for yourself.

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

>
>And you are hurting someone.  You certainly hurt my feelings when you
>say that I'm a fool for using OS/2, rather than waiting for NT.  Your

I have never stated that you are a fool for using OS/2, in fact if I
remember correctly (forgive me if I'm wrong... but there are a lot of
posters) you do DOS development and use mainly DOS apps.  OS/2 is
clearly a good platform for such things; you'd be a fool NOT to use
OS/2.  As a matter of fact, you might be one of the small group that
will be better off continuing to use OS/2 after NT comes out.
This is not the first time I've said this in a post, and I've said
it several more times when people ask me about OS/2 vs NT in e-mail.
I do believe that anyone using mainly Windows apps (unless they have
a Trident card, and don't have 3.1 needs) are better off running
Windows 3.1 than OS/2.  I believe that Windows NT is the future.
I am more and more convinced that OS/2 is irrelevant... in some
since this should cheer you up, soon I won't care enough about OS/2
to knock it. :-)

>attitude has become insufferable and insulting.  Why do you think that

I'm insufferable?  IBM sends a ridiculously flawed letter out to
developers, I post it verbatim... who gets yelled at? Me!
It's amazing really, I post quotes from Cringely, a Microsoft press
release (about the NTSL report), and a letter from IBM... and
people blame _me_ for what they say.

>people are flaming you on this group?  Is it because they're afraid
>you're right?  I hate to tell you--it's not.  It's because you're
>insulting people, and you show no signs of being aware of this fact. 
>I'm sure that people who accuse you of lying and spreading FUD are
>reacting out of hurt.  Think about your posts.  Think about the reaction

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

>of someone who is happily using OS/2--someone who has no objections to
>NT, but who can't or won't wait for it to be released.  Someone USING
>the system. Not developing for it, using it.  As a person in this

Again... why do you take my postings about IBM and OS/2 personally?

>category, I find many of your recent posts very insulting.  I have
>enough confidence in you to hope that you will be able to see why if you
>study some of your recent posts.  And enough confidence in you to feel
>that this word to the wise should be sufficient.  Don't prove me wrong. 
>You're not in my kill file yet.

If I bother you that much, by all means put me in your kill file.
I don't want to "torture" you.  If you don't know, send me e-mail...
I have the directions saved away somewhere.

>
>Think before you post.  It can work wonders.  Sure, some of the OS/2
>advocates are equally insulting and insufferable.  But just because you
>see someone acting like a child is no excuse for acting like a child as
>well.  Think--does the world *really* need to see 40 posts every day
>covering the same damn points?  Over and over and over again?  Will
>winning net.arguments do any damn good in the real world?  Think.  I
>know it's a former IBM motto, so you may be dubious, but thought *is*
>considered a good thing, even by some non-IBM employees.  :-)

40 post per day? :-)  And I think if you look through the messages list
I'm sending you, you'll find I don't harp on the same things over and over.
I purposely vary them over time.  I do purposely repeat things in
posts and in response of similar messages... this is a standard technique
for getting your message through.

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

I'm sorry that you don't like me pointing out OS/2's flaws, but you'd
best get used to it.  If you can't stand the heat... well then you'd
best get out of the kitchen.

BTW, there is an obvious counter to what I'm doing, and I've noticed a few
people have caught on.... go out and get your own sources to back your
arguments.  Hell, quote Zachmann!  Don't worry, I won't be "hurt" if
you do. :-)

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                I strongly encourage you to read Ross Perot's
University of Utah                             United We Stand
Center for Software Science             How we can take back our country.
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373  (It's more important than OS/2 vs NT! :-))
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy