The subject was before "Re: Mail filtering, and Tulasi - (was) Re: Everson's Ahom proposal" Changed it to "Don't be evil - Unicode Inc President"
"Shall Mark Davis continue to encoding any letter/symbol used in scripture like Koran?". The "unicode hot f**k" portal link/passage portion is omitted from the email ~mark (Mark E. Shoulson) cited and used as reference to compose the reply (appended herewith). It was Everson/Magda who omitted that portion before the email was delivered to unicode forum. So ~mark did not read the original email: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg28840.html ~mark am I correct? Fyi, Magda recently moved that "unicode hot f**k" portal to "under cover" state. > You're really out of line making cracks about how much money > Mark Davis is or should be making; it's (a) not your business and > (b) not relevant to the discussion at hand. To experiment one shall post a message to a worldwide Islamic forum. In the message s(he) shall mention facts like: Mark Davis, President of Unicode Inc, has supervised encoding some letters/symbols used in "Koran". google upper-deck executives orchestrate google policies. google advertises in "hot f**k" portal for revenue. CNN and other news say google profited from add in "prescription drug abuse". > Might as well get this out into the open. Portion of Mark Davis (Unicode Inc President) income come from "hot f**k" portal revenue and "prescription drug abuse". So shall Mark Davis continue to encoding any letter/symbol used in scripture like "Koran"? Google add on hot f**k portal: http://techstack.com/forum/apache/70011-hi-im-16-hot-f*u*c*k-me-night-free.html http://www.xred2.com/Amazing_hot_amateur_on_Fucking_Machines___Hardcore_sex_video Prescription drug abuse: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-22/us/google.drug.ads_1_prescription-drug-abuse-google-advertising-internet-search-giant-google/2?_s=PM:US http://www.ktbs.com/news/28409624/detail.html Who is Magda Danish? Administrator of unicode @ unicode.org forum http://www.jigsaw.com/scid11549476/magda_danish.xhtml?ver=5 http://unicode.org/consortium/directors.html http://unicode.org/consortium/img/magda.jpg > ~mark > (NOT employed by any large corporation, not making money off > advertisements, etc. That good enough?) Shall be good enough if not from add in hot f**k portal / drug abuse as well as other low-moral conscious-deficient activity. Is this response good enough? Tulasi From: Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Mail filtering, and Tulasi - (was) Re: Everson's Ahom proposal To: tulasi <[email protected]> Cc: Unicode Discussion <[email protected]> On 06/29/2011 02:58 PM, tulasi wrote: > > This unicode @ googlegroups is a property of Google Inc. > Do you know that 97% of google revenue comes from advertisement? > http://gigaom.com/2009/07/17/where-does-google-get-97-of-its-revenue/ > > It seems Mark Davis is upper-deck executive at Google Inc. > So part of his living comes from the revenue that Google Inc earns from > advertisements through protocol like unicode @ googlegroups > > My suggestion to Mark:- > Ask Google Inc to clean-up all such protocol and take pay-cut - > fyi academia in California has been living with at least 15% pay-cut for a > while. > Shall Mark do so it shall elevate Unicode Inc moral/consciousness. > I hope so! > Look, this keeps going on and you really should stop it. First of all, saying that Google gets 97% of its income from advertising is like saying that doctors get 97% of their income from patients. That's the business they're in, were you expecting something else? You seem to have some kind of axe to grind against Unicode for being a commercial entity. Might as well get this out into the open. Standards committees generally are part of the commercial sector, because businesses are a big part of what will use and be affected by the standards. I'm not sure how you propose to do what needs to be done to create a standard like this without business involvement. There are occasional complaints and resentment (including from me) about perceived overstrong influence of this or that company in some of the decision-making, but that's to be expected, and I don't think anyone (except you) really believes that some companies are out there maliciously trying to tweak Unicode in order somehow to make them money unfairly. You're really out of line making cracks about how much money Mark Davis is or should be making; it's (a) not your business and (b) not relevant to the discussion at hand. So, out with it: what is it that you suspect Unicode Inc and Google are doing that is so underhanded and unfair that you need to make these insinuations? Let's at least set that to rest so you can talk about the *actual* business of Unicode without such distractions. ~mark (NOT employed by any large corporation, not making money off advertisements, etc. That good enough?)
