[tlug] Lunatic Lynch-mob of Linux Losers

["Shannon Jacobs \(6881\)" <shannon.jacobs@example.com>]

Don't think! Don't take crazy risks! Be Safe and Sane with Microsoft!

> Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:54:43 -0700
> From: "Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>
<snip>
> Really, do you think Microsoft gives a Good Goddamn about what is
> posted to this list? If so, you may be mistaken.
>
> -Josh

Such profound words from one of the fearless leaders.

Yeah, Microsoft should care. I could imagine them compiling a little booklet 
titled "Can you entrust *YOUR* business to Linux people?" Something to give 
to business leaders and decision makers who might be considering Linux. They 
could say it's just a collection of jokes to show what kind of people use 
Linux. The insane rantings of the last few days would have quite bit of FUD 
potential, and I really don't see how the wide circulation of such stuff 
will help establish the credibility or reputation of Linux.

[No you little trolls, before you make your next crazy accusations, I assure 
you that I am *NOT* working for Microsoft. I'm using a Windows box just now 
because I had to rule out Linux as being related to an email problem I 
encountered a few minutes ago. Pretty clearly a server problem at the other 
end.]

Amusingly, I *still* tend to persist in seeing problems in terms of 
solutions, so I see a solution to this FUD-related problem. Care to make a 
little wager as to whether my constructive suggestion will receive a 
thoughtful and considered response? (Okay, so that puts a spin on the issue. 
However, if there is actual consideration (after all of those crazed rants), 
I dismiss it as a transient pretense of rationality intended to win a 
rhetorical wager.)

Suggestion: All messages republished through the TLUG mailing list should 
include a copyright statement or at least a link to a copyright policy. From 
a legalistic perspective, I'd suggest the copyright should be claimed on 
behalf of the club and posters would agree to that as a condition of using 
the mailing list. It might be nicer to assert the copyrights on behalf of 
the posters, but without some form of strong certification of the authors' 
identities, that seems legally meaningless. SMTP headers are too easily 
faked.

That might not be sufficient to prevent adverse usage, but I'm sure you can 
consult with one of the many eminent lawyers in the club? What? No eminent 
lawyers. Okay, I'll just ask one of laywer friends... (Actually I have my 
doubts as to whether I'd call them friends, but I wouldn't want to dispute 
the claims of a lawyer.) No, on second thought, I guess I won't. Not such 
good friends as that, and for some reason I don't feel like going so far out 
of my way for the sake of TLUG.

So guess why I don't see the local lynch mob as a real problem? It isn't 
because of their lack of personal credibility, though it would be quite easy 
to point at various examples of their loud-mouthed lying and lily-livered 
lowardice and say "Who conceivably cares?" By the way, that was mostly 
intended to be an alliterative joke, but it fell flat, as most of my jokes 
do. However, in this case, it's a simple lack of effort, not a timing 
failure to nail it. I can't think of a synonym for "coward" that begins with 
"L", a quick search didn't find one, and that's enough for TLUG.

Still it's a poor joke grounded in the reality of twisted editing and 
lynch-mob-style screaming--with me in the 'starring nigger' role. If this 
had been an actual lynch mob, I wouldn't try to defend myself myself with 
reason. In case of actual lynch mobs, you run for the county line. (I only 
exist because my grandparents did that?) Doesn't apply here. Rather here 
it's the old joke "I can't challenge unarmed opponents to a battle of wits." 
Truth be told, I only glanced over their rantings, for 'inspiration', as it 
were, but you'd have to pay me to actually read them in their sordid 
entirety. (If you were actually paying me to attempt to *fix* their poor 
ramblings, I'd charge penalty copy rates. Some of my authors barely speak 
English, but I don't think any of them write so poorly. However, that's 
natural since they actually know what they're writing about, even if the 
English itself is beyond them.)

No, the main reason I don't see a problem in the TLUG lynch mob is because I 
don't see a solution. I'm vaguely reminded of the wannabe problem of trying 
to understand people who voted Bush 4 times. (Including primaries most 
Americans (born after 1961) had at least 9 chances to vote Bush on a 
national basis--and some did.) The problem is that most people never learn? 
Where's the solution? However, that reminds me to include a link that 
actually speaks on my own behalf (rather than speaking to the early s@example.com 
project) and that contains some material that's less than 5 years old.

http://shanenj.tripod.com/antibush.html

Not that I'm repudiating the ancient link the ad hominem TLUG troll wanted 
to play with, but those actual technical problems were mostly solved. If I 
cared that much about the opinions of TLUG, I could take the time to dig up 
the posts and email I was referring to, and list my suggestions next to the 
BOINC features that (eventually) implemented them. No, I'm not claiming 
credit, though I did make some efforts to bring those ideas to the attention 
of decision makers who might have decided to use them, hue and cry 
notwithstanding. Actually, it was another loud hue and cry of three or four 
people. (I'd sort of like to use the allterative "nattering nabobs of 
negativity", but that one's been thoroughly discredited by the messenger...) 
I can't claim credit simply because my suggestions failed on the patent 
criteria of "non-obviousness". At least they seemed abundantly obvious to me 
at the time, though it's not obvious why such obvious things so often take 
years to implement. BOINC finally seems to be accomplishing some useful 
things.