From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: MS's misconduct!
Date: 01 Oct 92 10:32:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Sep30.202508.1970@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com wrote:
> In <1992Sep29.195435.7622@microsoft.com> petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly) writes:

> 
> >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. 

Glad I could add some humor to your day...

> 
> >> 
> >> >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?
Purely personal, of course.

> 
> >(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?

PETE.EXE acting up again, sorry.
>
> 
> >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.
Not my lack of use of the word "all" when preceding the word "people".
Now, iff you and I are the only people in this group, then my statement
is false with the proof you gave.  However, if there are at least 2
people in this group who don't consider Windows a real multitasking system,
then my statement is true.  I personally have observerd a number of people
claiming that windows was not a real multitasking system, or at least
claiming things from which that statement can be derived.  You are more
than welcome to go through past post to find these claims, but because
of time constraints, I cannot do that for you.

PHILL-MODE: OFF ;)


> >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.
ditto to you...

petesk@microsoft.com
My Opinions..
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy