Comments inline. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 Ed, you apparently have never had children that continually ask "why". >>> Oh, but I do. And I answer them to the best of my ability. Perhaps you should do the same. Why do you exist? Because it is obvious that you exist, you would not be standing here talking to me if you did not exist. >>> We are not arguing my existence. We are arguing the whether accepting a small gift of appreciation and a title from a partner company for providing peer support is unethical. "Why?" Well, because you first have to exist before you can talk. "Why?" Because otherwise you wouldn't have vocal cords. "But why?" >>> Let's get back to the topic instead of your feeble attempts to distract me. And no Ed, I am not calling you a child, I am saying that you are acting like a child. >>> Now, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone can argue with anything as long as they deny the obvious. >>> You still haven't answered to whom these things are obvious. Just because something is obvious to you in your little fantasy world doesn't mean that they're obvious to me. I can argue over my own existence and nobody will be able to prove that I exist as long as I want to deny the obvious fact that I exist. >>> I am not denying anyone's existence. I am denying that your value judgments are obvious. They are only obvious to you. This is what you are doing and while you can deny the obvious, >>> To whom? it does not mean that the obvious is not true, >>> You are the one stating your opinion as fact and as being obvious, so you have the burden of proof to show that your opinions are true and obvious. that you and I both exist >>> I know you exist because I have seen and met you (unless Greg Deckler died between then and now and you is an impostor). I suspect that it is not necessarily obvious to many on this list that you exist. Perhaps I am the one who is mad and I invented you and I write this entire argument just for the list's entertainment (or whatever). So, you see, even the "fact" that you and I exist isn't necessarily obvious to all. But that isn't the subject here. The subject is whether accepting a small gratuity and title from a partner company for providing peer support is unethical. And on that point, you have yet to make a satisfactory case, in my opinion. and that the IT industry either regulates itself or will be regulated by government. >>> Nice conjecture. Guess what? I know people that have never used an Auctioneer, but guess what? The Ohio Revised Code has explicit laws and regulations regarding the "Auctioneer" occupation. >>> Is that because they became MVPs? I know certain hippies that have never gotten a haircut. Guess what? The Ohio Revised Code has extensive laws and regulations regarding the "Barber" occupation. >>> Are there extensive laws and regulations regarding the "hippie" occupation? Your use of that term tells a lot, by the way. There are also laws and regulations for... "Architects", "Attorneys", "Cosmetologists", "Dentists", "Embalmers", "Telephone Solicitors", "Innkeepers", "Nurses", "Pawnbrokers", "Precious Metal Dealers", "Chiropractors", "Real Estate Brokers", "Plumbers", "Sanitarians", "Secondhand Dealers; Junk Yards", "Motor Vehicle Salvage", "Hearing Aid Dealers", Private Investigators", "Speech-Language Pathologists" >>> How many of those because regulated because they accepted MVP status? In any of your long-winded fatuous posts will you ever address exactly how this is unethical? ...just to name a few >>> That reminds me of the "and much more" that always ends a list in television commercials. Okay, how many more are there? One, two? > In one breath, you claim that you're all about "facts and logic". But > in the next breath, you admit that you can't "prove the obvious". The > two statements, at least to me, are incompatible. What I draw from > those two statements is that you have opinions you consider to be > fact, and are incapable of proving them. The easiest proof, in your > mind, is to call them "obvious" and walk away, which, of course, proves nothing. > > More comments inline. > > In summary, Greg, I think you ought to seek professional help. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:44 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 > > First, I never said I was a "master logician". This is simply another > in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that > proves the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what > you read, choose to embelish what you read or assume things about what > you read. What I said was that I stick to the facts and logic, not that I am a "master logician" > > >>> See above. > > Second, philosophers have been arguing over "existence" for a long, > long time now. And the fact that I exist is pretty evident and obvious > to me at least. > > >>> Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Perhaps you might > >>> care to > explain its relevance to this discussion. > > Finally, I really have no interest in proving the obvious to you or > anyone else. > > >>> Then you have no grounds assert that what you say is grounded in > >>> facts > and logic. So I am free to argue that everything you say is grounded > in hot air. > > It is obvious > > >>> To whom? > > that computers and technology have become critically important > components of everyone's daily lives. > > >>> I know at least one person who has no computer and derives very > >>> little > benefit from them. So your point is wrong. > > It is obvious > > >>> To whom? > > that the entire recorded history of occupations and public welfare > laws in the United States points to the fact that as an occupation > becomes increasingly important to the public welfare that licensing > and other laws are passed to regulate it's behavior. > > >>> That would be "its". Again, obvious to whom? > > It is obvious > > >>> To whom? > > that without self-regulation that these laws will likely be passed by > state governments and could be quite restricting and quite harsh. > > >>> This is conjecture, not facts or even logic. > > It is obvious that because of the computer industry's rather > libertarian bent > > >>> Deckler's rule #53 for arguing: When you can't prove something, > >>> give it > a label that has all sorts of connotations. Yeah, Microsoft is real > libertarian. This supposition shows just how little about computers > and the computer industry you really understand. > > that we, as independent computer consultants and professionals, have > no single voice with which to speak in order to combat laws and > regulations that others would pass to regulate us. > > >>> Personally, being that I am a member, the Computer Society of the > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers speaks for me. I do > not interpret its standards of ethics to read that accepting a small > gratuity from a partner company to be a massive conflict of interest. > Sorry to bring this argument back on topic, but I felt that you're > wandering off in some other direction. > > It is obvious > > >>> Again, obvious to whom? > > that with self-regulation comes less of a need for government to pass > laws and regulations hence keeping government off our backs. > > >>> So, accepting a small gratuity from a partner vendor will cause > >>> the > government to over-regulate the computer industry? Wow! I never > realized the implications. I shall resign my MVP status at once to > save the industry! > > Yes Ed, it is obvious > > >>> To whom? > > that I sit back in my chair with a nice smug smirk plastered right > across my face > > >>> You always have that smug smirk. > > because I know that if you don't like MY ethics, > > >>> This implies that all of this is obvious to you. Is that what you mean? > It isn't obvious to me. Is it obvious to anyone else who might still > be reading this thread at this point? > > boy are you going to hate the ethics imposed upon you by government. > > >>> Oh my god! Now I'm resigning my MVP status for the good of the country! > Maybe I can get some sort of medal for this. > > It makes me laugh so hard that because you and others like you will > not even admit to a simple, obvious, conflict of interest that you > have doomed EVERYONE in IT to ever increasing government regulation. > > >>> You really believe this? > > Why do I laugh? > > >>> Because you're insane? > > Shouldn't I care because I am in IT as well? I laugh because I don't care. > I'll find something else to do. I am no crusader and Ed, frankly, > people like you are not worth crusading for. In fact, you; in > particular Ed, DESERVE to be regulated by the goverment. > > >>> In other words, we're all damned to hell, but you'll go to heaven. > Greg, you're in the wrong profession. You should be preaching > fire-and-brimstone to those who care. Maybe you ought to be a cult > leader or something. Well, you kind of are already; you're the leader > of a cult of one. > > No, I cannot prove, > > >>> Duh. > > or simply choose not to do all the work to prove, > > >>> The former. > > the obvious. > > >>> When it's so obvious to you, why isn't it obvious to everyone else? > Because you're living in a fantasy world. To you, this is all right > out of The Twilight Zone. Greg, you might be a couple of steps away > from a padded cell. > > I cannot prove that an apple is red or that the sky is blue or that we > live on a planet that orbits a sun. > > >>> Pity. > > I also cannot prove that either we regulate ourselves or someone else > will do it for us. > > >>> Duh. > > But, just because I cannot prove it does not mean that it is not true > or a fact of life. > > >>> What you have failed to do throughout this less-than-brilliant > >>> treatise > is to explain how accepting a small gift from a partner vendor will > send the entire computer industry into ruin. You argue about the > whole general ethics thing, but you haven't yet proven that this > particular thing about MVP is, in fact, unethical. Your entire > argument has been, "It's unethical because I say it is." Well, that is neither logical nor factual. > > > "I cannot prove the obvious." > > > > Then, contrary to your prior assertions, you are hardly a master logician. > > > > "If you are not willing to accept the obvious, then I will never be > > able to prove anything to you." > > > > As I recall from my schooling in mathematics, even the obvious must > > be proved. Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean > > that it is a truth. Mr. Deckler, I assert that much of what is > > obvious truth to your mind is not truth in the rest of the world's reality. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg > > Deckler > > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:19 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 > > > > Yes, you are correct Ed. I cannot prove the obvious. I cannot prove > > that an apple is red or that the sky is blue or that you live on the > > planet that orbits a sun. If you are not willing to accept the > > obvious, then I will never be able to prove anything to you. > > > > > Likewise, and more importantly sinc, you haven't proven your > > > statement > > true. > > > It is only a "real or perceived" conflict of interest in your own > > > mind. You haven't proven anything beyond that. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mo > > de > > =&lang > > =english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode > =&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
