S
Stephen Harris
C Montague said:
How is your post any different? Isn't some stranger just tuning into this
thread going to find your post to me belittling? Nick does have a history of
undeserved holier than thou, high and mightiness which I may have quoted in
this thread:
Nick wrote:
"And I standby my original Post " treat the cause and not the symptoms".
I can see we will never agree, so let's just abide by our own opinion. I
just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to the OP.
Nick"
Nick is not capable of practicing what he preaches.
Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors behavior
disgraceful? I would imagine it is because you feel you have the right to
express your opinion and at the same time you don't think I have the same
right because you disagree with it.
That is because you are a like-minded two-faced moral imposter as is Nick.
You feel it is ok for you to pass out grades in ethics because you are
"superior".
Nick feels he can give computer advice because of his superior logical
reasoning.
Now you say Nick "only gave his opinion" My first response was:
"No you were not following the advice given in that thread."
Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging) the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick
SH replied to Nick:
"There is nothing in either thread you quoted about _"physically removing"_
the connection. Maybe you don't know what the above ^^^ term means.
Choosing not to connect to the internet is a logical software solution or
it is something you don't do, which is not a physical removal. The ideas are
different because sometimes you have to physically remove an internal Nic
card in order to uninstall drivers or change resources for an internal
modem. JK was saying it didn't matter if you uninstalled QoS."
SH: I was in a position to comment objectively about this because I was
involved in the post(s) Nick referred to above. I received personal email
from Ron who was the person needing help when this issue was resolved,
thanking me for my help.
So I was in a position to state that Nick's initial post was factually in
error.
There is no reference whatsoever, to "physically removing the connection".
What you may regard as 'belittle' is my recognition that Nick for some
reason, performed a major bungle in interpreting those posts.
Nick's advice, factually, ranged from useless to slightly harmful,
depending upon the setup and age of the person implementing his advice.
Nick is too inexperienced to take such things into account.
But he is not too young to know not to give advice about a particualr
subject
that he knows practically nothing about. This is a peer to peer support
forum.
That entitles everyone to post an opinion. But this forum has another
purpose,
which is to provide helpful information to people with problems. That
purpose
is not served by people contributing advice to other people whose value
ranges
from inappropriate to quite useless bordering on harmful depending on the
situation of the person who tried to use such advice.
My first response labels his advice as useless, which it truthfully is, and
is indeed mildly critical because I realize Nick has posted on a topic that
he knows hardly anything about. That is not helpful to other current readers
on this forum, or to poeple who will later read the archives of this
newsgroup
when they encounter the same problem.
That is the ethical standard I adhere to. Correctness of advice given is
more
important than the right to post wrong information under freedom of speech,
as I think the purpose of this forum is to emphasize helpful advice to
problems,
not some self-aggrandizing, pretend to be helpful, acutally ingnorant
misinformation.
I did not accuse Nick of lying in his initial post of advice. But in his
defense
of that initial post where he kept bringing up/diverting attention to
irrelevant
subjects. Like that Microsoft' documentation was out of date since SP2,
or that in the best case scenario, it only took several seconds more to
disconnect a cable rather than use the mouse to disable a connection.
So I referred to his lying in later posts which would be clear to someone
who
read the entire thread.
You would know that if you had read the entire thread carefully. Nick
didn't read those prior posts that he used for reference carefully either.
He just spouted off at the mouth, or blew hot air. You also have no
technical expertise to evaluate Nick's posting. You are of the same ilk
as Nick which is why you took offense. I believe in calling a liar a liar
because it warns other people. I have no use for the morality of people
who encourage the posturing of false civility when confronted with a lie.
Certainly I belittled Nick's later posts when he tried to cloud/confuse the
issue
of his giving stinking advice by bringing up irrelevant side issues. Some
people
might interpret mildly disparaging language as equivalent to mild
condemnation.
I am proud of doing that. I believe in calling a spade a spade.
Nick's first post can be considered a mistake. But his effort
to justify his mistake became a lie.
And I consider your morals phoney flotsam.
I don't want to be liked by shallow, superficial, philosophical people.
Your pretensions permeate your post.
You have a problem with your personal honesty and
I think it is unlikely you make backups of your computer. And IMO,
it is unlikely you are capable of seeing how these issues are related.
In case it is not clear, I am showing contempt for your post,
not merely dismissing or belittling it. That is not really true,
I hold you and your kind in contempt.
Brids of a feather, flock together,
Stephen