Ode to Kurttrail...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Winux P
  • Start date Start date
Leythos wrote:


You've got to be smokin' something REAL good or be delusional to put
Kurttrail on the same level with pcbutts1. Pcbutts1 was a proven thief
and pirate. Monopoly$oft is a proven criminal corp. (antitrust).
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't put him in the same boat as butts, I was talking about
people that we know were filtered. Again, and I don't know how you
missed it, I said I've never seen Kurt do anything that caused a problem
for a computer - why do you miss the important parts and see only the
blind parts. Heck, I was one of the people tracking down the vendors of
the software he pirated, helped to expose the thief even worked with
several others to expose him to the hosting provider (which did
nothing), but I've never considered Kurt in that light, not anything
like him, don't put words in my mouth, it's beneath you.
Kurttrail has never even given the idea in these groups that he has once
pirated one copy of Windows. I have more respect for Kurttrail than I
do for pcbutts1, Monopoly$soft, or you for that matter just because you
don't understand Kurttrail's only issue is that he has a big mouth. He
has proven his integrity and earned respect of more than just me in the
group. I can't say the same for you.
Click to expand...

You completely missed what I said, and at no point have I said anything
bad about kurt, never suggested in any way that he was a pirate or
thief, never implied it - you read into it what you wanted to
see/hear/read.
OK, so you have confirmed for us thus far that you are delusional, and
you also have problems with counting and logic.
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
Leythos, right here is when you gave the impression of putting Kurttrail
in line with pcbutts1. When responding to Michael Stevens basically to
the tune of "well, if you think Kurttrail should have been allowed to
continue posting, you probably think that pcbutts1 should have been able
to continue posting too..."

Argue it all you want, but that is the impression you gave.
Again, I didn't put him in the same boat as butts, I was talking about
people that we know were filtered. Again, and I don't know how you
missed it, I said I've never seen Kurt do anything that caused a problem
for a computer - why do you miss the important parts and see only the
blind parts. Heck, I was one of the people tracking down the vendors of
the software he pirated, helped to expose the thief even worked with
several others to expose him to the hosting provider (which did
nothing), but I've never considered Kurt in that light, not anything
like him, don't put words in my mouth, it's beneath you.


You completely missed what I said, and at no point have I said anything
bad about kurt, never suggested in any way that he was a pirate or
thief, never implied it - you read into it what you wanted to
see/hear/read.
Click to expand...
<snip>
 
Has he ever posted anything useful for Microsoft Products users? If the
answer is emphatic no then clearly no one is missing him!
 
I always thought that when you use another usenet service provider, the
mssages eventually come to a central location i.e. msnews.microsoft.com
and it at this point the messages get zapped, unless google manages to
cache them on time!
 
I will bet ya if you clear of the posts in this group you will not see
his posts either. Me I couldn't care either way.
Click to expand...


I agree. He didn't have anything to contribute on technical matters
except to insult MVPs and symantec!
 
ANONYMOUS said:
Has he ever posted anything useful for Microsoft Products users? If the
answer is emphatic no then clearly no one is missing him!
Click to expand...

Helped more people than you ever will.
 
Michael;
I can not explain why other dangerous posters do not also have their posts
removed.
Perhaps the person behind it see posts excessively attacking others and
organizations as more offensive.
Even though these newsgroups are technical, Kurt's constant personal attacks
at times deserve to be removed.
Kurt definitely fits if that is the criteria used.
He has also demonstrated that he cares more about his hate for others than
he does care for peoples rights.
If Kurt truly cared about people, he would not have hoped for harm to come
to my family (he has never met them) simply so he could he have me learn
something he ASSUMES I do not understand.
The others may act the way they do out of ignorance or stupidity, Kurt is
more like blind vengeance.
His posts and website are evidence of this.
That is only one of many possible reasons Kurt may have EARNED what he is
getting.
Kurt has little or no control of himself and likes to whine when someone
does what he is incapable...control Kurt.
 
Leythos, right here is when you gave the impression of putting Kurttrail
in line with pcbutts1. When responding to Michael Stevens basically to
the tune of "well, if you think Kurttrail should have been allowed to
continue posting, you probably think that pcbutts1 should have been able
to continue posting too..."

Argue it all you want, but that is the impression you gave.
Click to expand...

Then you didn't take it the way I intended it to be taken.
 
I always thought that when you use another usenet service provider, the
mssages eventually come to a central location i.e. msnews.microsoft.com
and it at this point the messages get zapped, unless google manages to
cache them on time!
Click to expand...

Nope, they replicate around the world, in several methods, but no one
server is in control of deleting messages on other servers.
 
In
Kurt Kirsch said:
Thanks Michael. I very much appreciate your post.
Click to expand...

You are welcome, I don't know who is running the newsgroups now, but they
could certainly take a few pointers from their predecessor John Eddy who
rode you hard, but was a fair adversary. He did pull your posts that you
would even expect to be pulled (even though you complained about it 8-)),
but never did he do a blanket ban of your posts like the person running the
newsgroups is doing now. This is blatant censorship, and should never be
allowed in a Usenet group, no matter who owns the newsgroup. If the owner of
the newsgroup cannot successfully confront the criticisms by supplying
viable answers and has to resort to censorship, questions of integrity must
come into play.
Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of your posts.
But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms about the
motherboard being the defining component that determined a new system. 8-) I
might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to the System Builders
Agreement to get that information, I used your post with your permission in
my web page on the subject.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
 
Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of your posts.
Click to expand...

How about his OPINION on the backup copy and all the partial segments of
it that he posted - taking one sentence out of a entire paragraph does
not make you right.
But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms about the
motherboard being the defining component that determined a new system. 8-)
Click to expand...

Which was changed, some time ago, and is no longer applicable, according
to the SB website.
I
might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to the System Builders
Agreement to get that information, I used your post with your permission in
my web page on the subject.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
Click to expand...

Why not post the rest of the information from the site, it contains more
than the little bit that Kurt provided - like how an End User is
considered a Systems Builder by MS, because the OEM supplier is required
to either Pre-Install the software or provide it ONLY to another OEM.
Oh, one more thing, they completely clarified what a computer is now.
 
Michael said:
You are welcome, I don't know who is running the newsgroups now, but
they could certainly take a few pointers from their predecessor John
Eddy who rode you hard, but was a fair adversary. He did pull your
posts that you would even expect to be pulled (even though you
complained about it ), but never did he do a blanket ban of your
posts like the person running the newsgroups is doing now. This is
blatant censorship, and should never be allowed in a Usenet group, no
matter who owns the newsgroup. If the owner of the newsgroup cannot
successfully confront the criticisms by supplying viable answers and
has to resort to censorship, questions of integrity must come into
play. Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of
your
posts. But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms
about the motherboard being the defining component that determined a
new system. I might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to
the System Builders Agreement to get that information, I used your
post with your permission in my web page on the subject.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
Click to expand...

Actually the link to the SBL is publicly accessible. It is the pages
that MS explains rules not specifically mentioned in the SBL that you
must agree to be a Microsoft Partner.

First I went to the public Front End for MS OEM @
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/default.mspx. Then went to the left hand
menu and hovered over "Licensing," which brings a drop-menu, from
which I chose "OEM SB Localized Licenses," which is located @
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/default.mspx. This bring you
to a page that has 43 links to different local SB licenses, from which
I chose English which takes you to
http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/English_SB_License.pdf.

And all that was done without accepting anything.
 
In
Leythos said:
How about his OPINION on the backup copy and all the partial segments
of it that he posted - taking one sentence out of a entire paragraph
does not make you right.


Which was changed, some time ago, and is no longer applicable,
according to the SB website.


Why not post the rest of the information from the site, it contains
more than the little bit that Kurt provided - like how an End User is
considered a Systems Builder by MS, because the OEM supplier is
required to either Pre-Install the software or provide it ONLY to
another OEM. Oh, one more thing, they completely clarified what a
computer is now.
Click to expand...

Say what?
Did you prove anything?
I don't think so.
Don't you get it? You can't win.
You also didn't lose.
The only one that defines what gets activated is the person that answers the
phone and believes what the user tells them. Obviously, the activation is
geared toward the clueless and uninformed because anyone with any savy can
say the right words to obtain an activation if they are entitled to it.
It is evident activation is a success even though it is very flawed
technology, because Bill is once again the richest man in the world.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
 
Michael said:
You are welcome, I don't know who is running the newsgroups now, but they
could certainly take a few pointers from their predecessor John Eddy who
rode you hard, but was a fair adversary. He did pull your posts that you
would even expect to be pulled (even though you complained about it 8-)),
but never did he do a blanket ban of your posts like the person running the
newsgroups is doing now. This is blatant censorship, and should never be
allowed in a Usenet group, no matter who owns the newsgroup. If the owner of
the newsgroup cannot successfully confront the criticisms by supplying
viable answers and has to resort to censorship, questions of integrity must
come into play.
Personally, I have never seen anyone find you wrong on any of your posts.
But you must admit you yourself did open the can of worms about the
motherboard being the defining component that determined a new system. 8-) I
might be mistaken, but didn't you have to agree to the System Builders
Agreement to get that information, I used your post with your permission in
my web page on the subject.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
Click to expand...

http://groups.google.com/group/micr...to+Kurttrail...&rnum=1&hl=en#c8180c495c46bc70
 
In
ANONYMOUS said:
I agree. He didn't have anything to contribute on technical matters
except to insult MVPs and symantec!
Click to expand...

And what exactly did your assessment of his contribution compel you to
agree to condone censoring kuttrails posts? Since obviously your
contributions are non-existent on the newsgroups I would be curious about
your credentials that would make your opinion viable. Could you list your
credentials to validate your opinion?
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
 
I cannot claim to have read all of Kurt's posts, but perhaps enough of them
to have an idea of why you're offended by them, but also, perhaps, some idea
of his intent; though he uses very personally offensive language and
insults, I can't help thinking that his take on the matter is 'you aren't
paying attention to the fundamentals of what I'm saying' and uses his
abrasive manner to provoke discussion.

The ordinary users' best interests are not well served by recitation of
boiler-plate explanations and rationalizations of matters such as WPA--we
all know we're stuck with dealing with it, and when we have trouble due to
no fault of our own, we deal with it but don't have to like it, and one
could say Kurt is doing MS a favor if they would only attend to the
irritation level.

MS may or may not be sensitive to user input, but it would behoove them to
be.

Certainly, it may not be easy to resist providing defensive rejoinders, but
it seems to me to be more effective to do so.

Other frequent posters to this NG have been much more intentionally
personally offensive, in a manner intended to have the last word. Kurt
usually provides some rationalization for his position, which is more than
some of these can say.

I certainly regret *any* censoring of these NGs, as the free tenor of the
discussions is something I value highly. Where before, I might well have
simply thought Kurt was being somewhat intolerant, now I find myself
squarely in support of him.

J
 
Back
Top