UPGRADE OR FULL VERSION

[Michael Stevens]

In

I will take this chance to state the obvious, and I believe that the
only reason you might relinquish the final word in this post -- if in
fact you do so -- is to try to save some face. Just for the record,
this is the second time you've "offered" me the final word (which is
completely illogical, but I don't expect you to understand that).
You have *taken* it on countless occasions. It is clearly your
foremost objective, and anyone who is wondering if that's true should
just run a query on your nick.

Linda, as just about anyone knows I am not a fan or friend of Kurt, but your
post is so off base I must respond.
Kurt pushes buttons, and he really pushed yours to the point you sound like
you are close to a breakdown.

Time and time again -- and this is shown by the written record here;
anyone can go and check - you have shown that your ultimate goal is
not to help people,

Not true, he posts more helpful posts than I have seen from you.

nor to participate in rational discussion,

Not true, he posts with detailed examples of what formed his opinion.

but to
espouse your own ideas and shoot down anyone you see as opposing you,

True, he is tenacious and uses any means to do so.

regardless of how correct they invariably are, and how astonishingly
mistaken you are.

The jury has not been given the chance to decide who is right or wrong yet,
so the only thing astonishing is you think he is astonishingly mistaken.

You fabricate foundations for these absurd
arguments seemingly out of thin air.

I see lots of documentation that forms his foundations, none are so far
proven, but they are well documented.

Such prestidigitation is not
well suited to a forum ostensibly devoted to the advancement of
knowledge; you serve only to bring the participants down to your
level. I am as guilty of this as any, and I take full responsibility
for my actions.

Possibly, but it is a general newsgroup and so therefore a pretty undefined
forum.

My only defense is that, being considerably more
intelligent than you,

Pardon me, but I haven't noticed big difference in intellect.

I feel some deep-seeded need to speak out
against the blatant, glaring inaccuracies you consistently introduce
into this forum. I have a great deal of trouble leaving stupidity
alone, especially your particular brand of it, which seems to
generate some depraved form of loyalty in those of similarly
deficient mind. I hate to see this inanity breed; you are a breeder
and nothing else.

I don't see glaring inaccuracies in Kurt's posts, but I do see a difference
of opinion in how Kurt see's the information and others in the newsgroups
interrupt it.

The tactics you employ to ensure the survival of this inanity are so
unrefined, so transparently obvious, that it pains me even to read
them. You don't listen to those with opposing viewpoints; you don't
pay attention to debate. You close your eyes, you close your mind,
and then you call people names. *You call them names!* The
absurdity of this is obviously lost on you - as it is lost on all
teenagers who call their schoolmates names - but to those of us with
I.Q's higher than 60,

Partially true except for the I.Q's higher than 60
Certainly seems to have been a success in pushing your button.

this is so patently ridiculous as to warrant
some concern on our part. You have all the intelligence of a sea
anemone, Kurt, and Darwinism suggests that someday soon, someone of
superior intellect (most anyone) is going to come along and remove
you from the food chain. We're concerned, my boy. We're concerned
for your well-being.

Now I am getting worried about you.

So: You call them names, you insult them, and when they respond to
your insults, you insult them some more for having stooped to your
level (a level on which, I might add, you have already very clearly
established yourself). You are a one-trick pony, Kurt. You don't
know what you're talking about when it comes to copyright law,

Have you been able to prove you are right or he is wrong? Tell us about
copyright law. Whatever you say will have the same weight as Kurt, it has
not been defined.

your
computer skills are clearly lacking,

I haven't noticed this at all. I even ask him for help on issues I know he
is an expert on.

and as for pure human
interaction, I've seen blind, rabid, lame dogs in heat with better
people skills.

Now here is where I can agree with you, I am not a fan of his tactics, but
your allegations are emotionally driven and exactly what Kurt was trying to
get from you.

I tell you this not because I think you're an
imbecile (though, clearly, you are), but because if you want to hold
out hope of ever getting your point across - about anything - you
should really start working on your communication skills.

The communication skills are crude and abrasive, but you have to agree, they
pushed your button and got HIS point across.

I
shouldn't even need to mention that the most ubiquitous proclamation
in all your quasi-arguments is "LOL," but it just goes to further my
point.

I think he is being honest with you, he is LOL

You can't formulate a rational thought to save your life, and
so you just go with the least common denominator, namely, a hackneyed
internet abbreviation, rampant verbal abuse, lame-duck opinions, and
microscopic genitalia. Whoops! Did I say that?

Yes you did, LOL Kind of makes that rational thought argument a little
shallow.

Let me summarize. You know nothing about any of the topics on which
you post;

Not true

your posts consist almost entirely of name-calling

Not true, the name calling is a small part of the posts. You just let it
influence your judgement more than it should.

and
fabricated, delusional arguments;

I haven't seen any fabrications, I don't agree with his opinions about what
he posts, but they are not fabrications.

you preface each one of those posts
with "LOL";

LOL, most of the time I can see why.

and all of your posts are so twisted, irrational, and
incoherent as to warrant psychiatric evaluation.

I don't see all of them needing psychiatric evaluation, just a few. LOL

What are you
*doing* here, Kurt? Shouldn't you be in a bayou somewhere, strumming
a banjo and waiting for your sister to get home? I think there's a
sow out back that needs your attention.

Now you went to his level.

I know this post will probably get edited out, and that's fine. I
only hope you get to it before Mike does, because it will be the last
time you'll hear from me - I'm finally going to filter you out of my
life. For a while I found your posts sort of entertaining in a sick,
masochistic way - I almost enjoyed discovering that your idiocy and
your depravity plumbed deeper depths than I previously imagined even
existed. Now, however, I've grown sick of your rants, your rambling,
and your rampant bestiality. Notice, though, that I've managed to
lay bare the cold, hard truth about you in this post without ever
having uttered a curse word. As they say, profanity is the result of
a deficient mind attempting to express itself forcefully, and your
mind is about as deficient as they come.

I see little hard truth about Kurt from your post, but a lot of emotional
difference of opinion that clouds truth.
Profanity does not always have to be spoken to be profane.


--
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

 

[Alias]

You know, just for you, since I like you, I looked for Lurkers post, but
it doesn't seem to be on the Usenet server I use.

Here ya go:

I will take this chance to state the obvious,

If it is so obvious, is it rational to have a need state it?

and I believe that the only
reason you might relinquish the final word in this post -- if in fact you
do
so -- is to try to save some face.

It would seem to me that he was setting you up to have you demonstrate
that getting the last word is more important to you than it is to him.

Just for the record, this is the second
time you've "offered" me the final word (which is completely illogical, but
I don't expect you to understand that).

How is it illogical? He offered not to reply to you, to give you the
last word, "if it is so important to you." It is evident that the
last word means more to you, than it does to him.

You have *taken* it on countless
occasions.

Now that is illogical. How would he know, in advance, that any of his
posts would not be replied to, in order to "take" the last word?

It is clearly your foremost objective, and anyone who is
wondering if that's true should just run a query on your nick.

And the appearance here is that the last word is more important to
you.

Time and time again -- and this is shown by the written record here; anyone
can go and check - you have shown that your ultimate goal is not to help
people,

Definitely untrue. He has helped me with a problem, and as a regular
lurker here, I've read many posts of his that have helped others.

nor to participate in rational discussion,

Untrue. Most of his philosophical agreements about Microsoft
Licensing are totally based in the rational and the real. Most of his
opponents are that base their opinions on irrational beliefs, because
they tend to call anyone, that doesn't follow Microsoft's licence
according to what those opposing Kurt believe it means, is a thief or
a pirate, which is outside the realm of reason, and has never been
proven, just like he says to them all the time.

but to espouse your own
ideas and shoot down anyone you see as opposing you,

You do know that is what any person that hold strong rational opinions
would do, don't you?

regardless of how
correct they invariably are,

That is subjective. For my part, I see that it is Kurt that is the
one that is "invariably" correct. He explains what is the reality of
the licensing situation. Just look at this thread. He was the one
that posted the System Builders License, while his opponent just
alluded to it, and made it sound like it said something it definitely
does not say.

and how astonishingly mistaken you are.

How astonishingly taken with him you are! All you are doing is
stating that he is wrong, but you have yet to show one example of it.
At least he goes out of his way to explain himself and his opinions.

You
fabricate foundations for these absurd arguments seemingly out of thin air.

Actually, he did not start this one. In this thread he corrected the
fabrication foundations of other posters.

Such prestidigitation is not well suited to a forum ostensibly devoted to
the advancement of knowledge; you serve only to bring the participants down
to your level.

What he actually does is pushes the buttons of those that oppose him.
He did it with you. "Last word is yours, if it is so important to
you." What he did was goad you into displaying that the last word was
more important to you than to him.

He goads Leythos all the time, by demonstrating that all he does is
present disinformation, and then by adding a couple of comments that
is sure to get his goat, and Leythos is completely incapable of
ignoring the bait Kurt leaves for him.

I am as guilty of this as any, and I take full
responsibility for my actions.

No, you don't take real responsibility. If you really think that all
Kurt does is put on a slight-of-hand show, then you wouldn't get
involved in it at all. It is obvious that you are a victim of his
rational agreements, and you didn't like it when he explained why you
were mistaken, so know you are trying to get him back by attacking
him, because you cannot rationally and logically show that is opinion
is incorrect.

My only defense is that, being considerably
more intelligent than you,

Now that is just sad that you feel the need to express your belief
that you are more intelligent than Kurt, rather than letting your
words speak for you.

I feel some deep-seeded need to speak out against
the blatant, glaring inaccuracies you consistently introduce into this
forum.

Yet you have done nothing to explain that anything he has said is
inaccurate. He gave you the opportunity to do just that, but all you
did was continue the character assassination as he put it.

I have a great deal of trouble leaving stupidity alone,

From this diatribe about Kurt, it would seem that you are just lonely.

especially
your particular brand of it, which seems to generate some depraved form of
loyalty in those of similarly deficient mind.

So anyone that believes that the licensor is not the final authority
when it comes to the legal interpretation of its license is a
deficient mind? As Kurt always points out that would include IBM, as
that is why they aren't settling with SCO over its interpretation of
the UNIX license, because it is the courts that are the final
authority.

That is the foundation of Contract Law in the US. That's why we have
courts to settle contract disputes. Contract law would be totally
unnecessary, if the contractor is the final authority in interpreting
its own contracts.

I hate to see this inanity
breed; you are a breeder and nothing else.

You have yet to demonstrate that anything Kurt advocates is an
"inanity," though he does breed the wrath of those that he has shown
to be irrational purveyors of disinformation.

The tactics you employ to ensure the survival of this inanity are so
unrefined, so transparently obvious, that it pains me even to read them.

Are you confessing to be a masochist?

You don't listen to those with opposing viewpoints; you don't pay attention
to debate.

Now you are just prevaricating. Kurt demonstrates that he listens to
his opposition, and is very deliberate in explaining why they are
mistaken. This thread is the perfect storm of his style. He didn't
have to post the System Builders License. All he really needed to do
was challenge Leythos to quote where the System Builders License
states that upgrading the motherboard invalidates the OEM Windows XP
license, but understanding that Leythos would avoid doing that from
prior experience, Kurt demonstrated why Leythos was just spreading
disinformation, before he called Leythos out on his irrational opinion
about it.

You close your eyes, you close your mind, and then you call
people names. *You call them names!*

Yes he does. After he explains and demonstrates why they have earned
the names he calls them. It is just his way to push their buttons.
And it seems to work every time, because instead of focusing on what
Kurt has shown where their opinions are deficient, inaccurate, or just
plain incorrect, his opposition just focuses on the names they have
been called by him, which to any casual observer further demonstrates
how irrational his opposition really is.

The absurdity of this is obviously
lost on you - as it is lost on all teenagers who call their schoolmates
names -

If all he did was call them names, then you would be correct, but that
is not Kurt's style. Kurt explains his opinions, dismembers the
opinions of his opposition, and then entertains his audience. Kurt
makes this group interesting to lurk.

but to those of us with I.Q's higher than 60, this is so patently
ridiculous as to warrant some concern on our part.

And that concern is misplaced. What should concern you is your and
the rest of his opposition's obsession with him, and his style, rather
than focusing on his rational opinion.

You have all the
intelligence of a sea anemone, Kurt, and Darwinism suggests that someday
soon, someone of superior intellect (most anyone) is going to come along
and
remove you from the food chain. We're concerned, my boy. We're concerned
for your well-being.

If you really had done a search of his posts in this group, then
you'll see that no one with a superior intellect has been able to
remove him from this food chain. While he might not be the brightest
bulb in the bunch, when it comes to his arguments on Microsoft's
Licensing, no one has been able to come close to actually dispelling
his opinions about it.

So: You call them names, you insult them, and when they respond to your
insults, you insult them some more for having stooped to your level (a
level
on which, I might add, you have already very clearly established yourself).

No. He ridicules them for only acknowledging the name-calling at the
expense of supporting their own opinions, or trying to dispel his
opinions.

You are a one-trick pony, Kurt.

If he was, then he wouldn't have lasted as long here as he has.

You don't know what you're talking about
when it comes to copyright law,

That is patently untrue. His opinion on fair use is the absolute
reality of the situation according to the existing legal precedent.

your computer skills are clearly lacking,

And what evidence do you have to support that opinion?

and as for pure human interaction, I've seen blind, rabid, lame dogs in
heat
with better people skills.

Is Kurt abrasive? Yes. He is deliberately so, especially with those
that he sees it would affect, but I've also seen him have pleasant
conversations and go out of his way to help people.

I tell you this not because I think you're an
imbecile (though, clearly, you are), but because if you want to hold out
hope of ever getting your point across - about anything - you should really
start working on your communication skills.

Those that he respects, he shows his respect. Those that he doesn't
respect he shows his utter contempt of them. With Kurt, he wears what
he thinks about you on his sleeve.

I shouldn't even need to
mention that the most ubiquitous proclamation in all your quasi-arguments
is
"LOL," but it just goes to further my point.

If that was the sum total of his posts, you would be correct, but that
is hardly the sum total of his posts.

You can't formulate a rational
thought to save your life, and so you just go with the least common
denominator, namely, a hackneyed internet abbreviation, rampant verbal
abuse, lame-duck opinions,

That would be your own unsupported opinion.

and microscopic genitalia. Whoops! Did I say
that?

Yes, you did. And it is as totally unsupported as the rest of your
Kurt diatribe.

Let me summarize.

You have been totally affected by Kurt. You and the rest of his
opposition cannot disparage his opinions reasonably, so all you have
left is to irrationally disparage his character.

You know nothing about any of the topics on which you
post; your posts consist almost entirely of name-calling and fabricated,
delusional arguments; you preface each one of those posts with "LOL"; and
all of your posts are so twisted, irrational, and incoherent as to warrant
psychiatric evaluation.

Now that is funny! After you spend a whole post showing how
irrational you are when it comes to Kurt, it is you that would seem to
warrant the psychiatric evaluation.

What are you *doing* here, Kurt? Shouldn't you be
in a bayou somewhere, strumming a banjo and waiting for your sister to get
home? I think there's a sow out back that needs your attention.

Since you are the one that is doing all this squealing over Kurt, are
you the sow that needs his attention?

I know this post will probably get edited out, and that's fine. I only
hope
you get to it before Mike does, because it will be the last time you'll
hear
from me - I'm finally going to filter you out of my life.

Too bad that you didn't do that before you exposed yourself to be
totally consumed with fascination with Kurt.

For a while I
found your posts sort of entertaining in a sick, masochistic way -

So you were confessing to your masochistic tendencies before.

I almost
enjoyed discovering that your idiocy and your depravity plumbed deeper
depths than I previously imagined even existed. Now, however, I've grown
sick of your rants, your rambling, and your rampant bestiality.

And what is this fascination of yours with bestially all about? Is
this another confession about your sexual depravity?

Notice,
though, that I've managed to lay bare the cold, hard truth about you in
this
post without ever having uttered a curse word. As they say, profanity is
the result of a deficient mind attempting to express itself forcefully, and
your mind is about as deficient as they come.



Enjoy the sheep!

And your obsession with bestiality is the result of your depraved mind
attempting to express itself forcefully into the open air of day.

</delurk>

 

[Leythos]

[note - not properly quoted - this was from Lurker]

Leythos is completely incapable of ignoring the bait Kurt leaves for
him.

Hey, didn't I state in a very early thread that I already see him as a
Troll and that I'm just playing with him. I agree, he likes to push
people's buttons, but once you understand that, he's fun to play with. It
was only before I understood him that I slipped and let him get to me, now
I just play with him (much the way he does with the majority of people he
replies too).

I had actually kill-filed him, got bored one day last week, and unkill
filed him so I could play with him some more - he's actually fun to bait
and watch

 

[Leythos]

[ again, not from Alias, but from Lurker via Alias]

He didn't
have to post the System Builders License. All he really needed to do
was challenge Leythos to quote where the System Builders License
states that upgrading the motherboard invalidates the OEM Windows XP
license, but understanding that Leythos would avoid doing that from
prior experience, Kurt demonstrated why Leythos was just spreading
disinformation, before he called Leythos out on his irrational opinion
about it.

And you missed the point too - His position is that the EULA is the final
word, and mine is that the EULA left some questions in OEM's minds that
were explained in detail on the website. Now, do you see.

And in case you missed it, I did quote the part of the Systems Builders
SITE that declares the "Computer" as the motherboard. I even provided a
Link to the MS site with the exact text of what MS considers the term
"Computer" to mean.

The differences in opinion on the EULA are that one side takes the EULA as
gospel and if they have a area that is vague they take it to mean what
they want it to mean for their case. The other group looks at the EULA and
seeks clarification from the Systems Builder site for areas they consider
Vague.

 

[David Candy]

You'll need a web cam to go with the vibrator or we'll all lose interest in the threead, Stop teasing us..

 

[kurttrail]

[ again, not from Alias, but from Lurker via Alias]

He didn't
have to post the System Builders License. All he really needed to do
was challenge Leythos to quote where the System Builders License
states that upgrading the motherboard invalidates the OEM Windows XP
license, but understanding that Leythos would avoid doing that from
prior experience, Kurt demonstrated why Leythos was just spreading
disinformation, before he called Leythos out on his irrational
opinion about it.

Since we are finally talking about OEM software again, and not about me,
I gonna respond.

And you missed the point too - His position is that the EULA is the
final word, and mine is that the EULA left some questions in OEM's
minds that were explained in detail on the website. Now, do you see.

Yes, MS uses extra-SBL & extra-EULA policies, that are
password-protected, to make up new rules. Does MS directly contact it's
OEM customers to get them to agree to these New Rules? No.

The first question a judge would have is why these extra-agreement
policies aren't written into the agreements. Do you have a compelling
and reasonable answer for that, after over a dozen years of MS selling
OEM software?

And in case you missed it, I did quote the part of the Systems
Builders SITE that declares the "Computer" as the motherboard. I even
provided a Link to the MS site with the exact text of what MS
considers the term "Computer" to mean.

Password protected. Meant for system builders, not end users of OEM
software. MS partners like you are willing to abide by these
extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules," since by following them, you can FUD people
into buying more copies of software than they really need, according to
the EULA as it is written.

The SBL clearly states, "A 'fully assembled computer system" means a
computer system consisting of at least a central processing unit, a
motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a case."

A motherboard is just one of five parts of a computer in the SBL, then
after-the-fact of the SBL, on a password-protected site, MS tries to
claim that the Motherboard is the Computer, in direct contradiction to
the SBL!

And the SBL is mainly a Redistribution license, not a Usage license to
begin with. The End User agrees to the End User License Agreement,
which doesn't mention the "Motherboard" at all!

The SBL and the EULA contradict each other on the matters of transfer of
the OEM software. So does the SBL transfer terms apply to the End User
of OEM software who is there own SB, or do they follow the EULA's
transfer terms? Which terms, the SBL or the EULA, are applicable to a
End User who is his/her own System Builder?

The differences in opinion on the EULA are that one side takes the
EULA as gospel and if they have a area that is vague they take it to
mean what they want it to mean for their case. The other group looks
at the EULA and seeks clarification from the Systems Builder site for
areas they consider Vague.

LOL! ;-) Sounds like Microsoft and its unscrupulous partners. The
EULA is vague on the matter of when upgrading a computer makes it into a
new computer. So then after the fact of the agreement MS, on its
password-protected site, makes up "New Rules" to make the EULA mean
something more that is actually stated in it.

I understand why you, as a MS partner, accept MS's extra-SBL &
extra-EULA password-protected policies, GREED. By following them, you
get people to buy more copies of software than they really need under
the EULA as written.

Like SCO and IBM, SCO is NOT the judge of what the UNIX license means,
and neither is MS. And like IBM, I'm willing to wait for MS to prove
that their unsubstantiated extra-EULA claims in a REAL court of law, and
not just blindly accept them with no facts to back up its claims.

Your motivation to believe MS's "New Rules" is your own greed, mine is
the protection of the rights of the consumer over that of the arbitrary
whims of a known corporate criminal and its willing greed-filled
toadies.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

Password protected.

The only thing from stopping anyone from seeing it is registration, not
password protection - if you register (yes, you have to make your OWN
password) you can see the site. Much like many other sites on the net.

 

[Alias]

"Leythos" wrote

The only thing from stopping anyone from seeing it is registration, not
password protection - if you register (yes, you have to make your OWN
password) you can see the site. Much like many other sites on the net.

Are you really so dense that you can't understand how that page is not for
the End User and the only contract the End User has agreed to is the EULA?
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of XP users will never know of
that web site and it isn't mentioned in the EULA as a place to go for any
contractual updates to the EULA.

Ergo, the only contract is the EULA which doesn't mention the word
"motherboard" once.

Alias

 

[Leythos]

I understand why you, as a MS partner, accept MS's extra-SBL &
extra-EULA password-protected policies, GREED. By following them, you
get people to buy more copies of software than they really need under
the EULA as written.

There is only one flaw in your idea - I don't sell OEM anything. When we
order parts, we get a quote in the customers name, order in their name,
pay for it on our account, and charge the customer the exact amount of the
order without any markup. It doesn't matter what we order or from who we
order it from, the customer pays the amount we are charged and benefits
from OUR discount, we have never marked up any product that we buy for
customers.

So, it doesn't make a hill of beans to me if the EULA causes people to or
not to purchase more/less software from MS.

The only thing that matters to me is that when we design a solution and
the customer takes ownership, that the licenses completely cover the
customer. I would rather err on the side of too many licenses than too few
licenses, and the cost is not that much different on most cases.

 

[kurttrail]

The only thing from stopping anyone from seeing it is registration,
not password protection - if you register (yes, you have to make your
OWN password) you can see the site. Much like many other sites on the
net.

"If they wish, customers may voluntarily register their product by
providing their name and contact information. Registration is for those
customers who want to receive future communications on product updates,
service releases and other special offers." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx

And the site is password-protected until the End User "VOLUNTARILY"
registers for that site. And since that is a site for SYSTEM BUILDERS
and not END USERS, I fail to see how it is remotely applicable to END
USERS!

And I really do love how you nit-picked one phrase out of my whole post!
Afraid of answering the tough questions I posed in it, especially the
one where the SBL and the EULA conflict with each other, and which one
would be applicable to the End User that is his/her own System Builder!

Consider your button pushed, Lamethos! ;-) ROFL!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

And the site is password-protected until the End User "VOLUNTARILY"
registers for that site. And since that is a site for SYSTEM BUILDERS
and not END USERS, I fail to see how it is remotely applicable to END
USERS!

If you don't want the information you don't have to access the site. I'm
not a System Builder either, but I still accessed the site - there is
nothing on the pages (and I'm sure you will agree) that legally stop the
Public from accessing the site - at least it's not been tested in court

And I really do love how you nit-picked one phrase out of my whole post!
Afraid of answering the tough questions I posed in it, especially the
one where the SBL and the EULA conflict with each other, and which one
would be applicable to the End User that is his/her own System Builder!

Actually, since I agree that the SBL and EULA provide a possible conflict
in terms for a vague section I didn't see any reason to respond - I've
already said that I agree that it's vague, that it's clarified in the SB
site, and that I will abide by the expanded definition and other
clarifications that MS has provided.

Consider your button pushed, Lamethos! ;-) ROFL!

LOL, you couldn't push my buttons if you tried - after I figured you out
weeks ago it was easy to play your game.

 

[Leythos]

Are you really so dense that you can't understand how that page is not for
the End User and the only contract the End User has agreed to is the EULA?
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of XP users will never know of
that web site and it isn't mentioned in the EULA as a place to go for any
contractual updates to the EULA.

Are you so dense that you can't read where I've already agreed that the
information in the EULA is EXPANEDED ON (notice I never said the EULA
points at it) in the SB site, and that I never said that any person has to
visit the site, only those that was to understand the terms AS DESCRIBED
BY MS.

Did you miss that - you keep saying the same thing without understanding
what I say.

Oh, and for contractual and legal matters, there is nothing binding that
keeps the general public from accessing the SB web site. I'm not a SB and
was able to access it with just a simple registration.

 

[kurttrail]

There is only one flaw in your idea - I don't sell OEM anything. When
we order parts, we get a quote in the customers name, order in their
name, pay for it on our account, and charge the customer the exact
amount of the order without any markup. It doesn't matter what we
order or from who we order it from, the customer pays the amount we
are charged and benefits from OUR discount, we have never marked up
any product that we buy for customers.

So, it doesn't make a hill of beans to me if the EULA causes people
to or not to purchase more/less software from MS.

The only thing that matters to me is that when we design a solution
and the customer takes ownership, that the licenses completely cover
the customer. I would rather err on the side of too many licenses
than too few licenses, and the cost is not that much different on
most cases.

LOL! Another button pushed! ;-)

"I would rather err on the side of too many licenses than too few
licenses, and the cost is not that much different on most cases."

What the hell, it ain't your money that's buying the "too many
licenses," it's your customers money. I bet you are a MS stockholder
too!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

What the hell, it ain't your money that's buying the "too many
licenses," it's your customers money. I bet you are a MS stockholder
too!

I had an opportunity to buy MS stock in the early days and didn't, I
almost kick myself for that. As I currently don't own Any stocks I can say
I have no vested interest in any of the companies that we utilize to build
solutions for other companies.

I bet you've never been to a company that's been through an Audit and then
fined for not having enough/valid licenses?

I like this new nicer conversation method you've started with today, it
makes it easier to chat with you when you're not being mouthy.

 

[Leythos]

It's early evening here.

Heh.

yea, I know, but I would still say morning as it's morning here

 

[Leythos]

Yep, you're too dense.

Oh, almost forgot - good morning to you too.

 

[Alias]

Are you so dense that you can't read where I've already agreed that the
information in the EULA is EXPANEDED ON (notice I never said the EULA
points at it) in the SB site, and that I never said that any person has to
visit the site, only those that was to understand the terms AS DESCRIBED
BY MS.

Did you miss that - you keep saying the same thing without understanding
what I say.

Oh, and for contractual and legal matters, there is nothing binding that
keeps the general public from accessing the SB web site. I'm not a SB and
was able to access it with just a simple registration.

Yep, you're too dense.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Oh, almost forgot - good morning to you too.

It's early evening here.

Heh.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

Are you so dense that you can't read where I've already agreed that
the information in the EULA is EXPANEDED ON (notice I never said the
EULA points at it) in the SB site, and that I never said that any
person has to visit the site, only those that was to understand the
terms AS DESCRIBED BY MS.

No, it's not an expansion, it is a totally "New Rule." Nowhere in the
EULA does it even hint that a computer with MS OEM WXP installed on it
can be upgraded to a point where it becomes a new & different computer!

This is where you are totally dense. The changing of the motherboard
equalling a new computer, is not an expansion of any existing rule in
either the SBL or the EULA, but is a totally different and "New Rule!"

Did you miss that - you keep saying the same thing without
understanding what I say.

Did you that the motherboard "New Rule" is in direct contradiction with
the SBL, when it defines a 'fully assembled computer system," as
"consisting of at least a central processing unit, a
motherboard, a hard drive, a power supply, and a case?"

The motherboard is only one of five parts of a computer in the SBL, yet
MS creates their password-protected, registration-required "New Rule"
where changing one out of the 5 parts that make up a computer in the SBL
equals a totally new and different computer!

And then you have the EULA that NEVER mentions anything about upgrading
a computer to a point where it becomes a new & different computer! So
who is bullsh*tting whom, here? MS has had every opportunity over the
last dozen or more years to clearly define when upgrading a computer
turn that computer into a totally different and new computer, yet they
haven't! No judge in his right mind would even enforce MS's
password-protected, registration-required extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules" on
any End User, and the only people that think that is even a remote
possibility are moronic MicroSycophants like you.

To his credit, even Bruce Chambers, one of the most rabid pro-EULA MVPs
in MSGroups, doesn't buy this extra-SBL/EULA crap.

Oh, and for contractual and legal matters, there is nothing binding
that keeps the general public from accessing the SB web site. I'm not
a SB and was able to access it with just a simple registration.

So registration was required in order to get through the
password-protection. What judge in his right mind would rule that that
is the same as the EULA, which you don't have to register to read?!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[David Candy]

This is totally boring.

Here's a better story.

I got home at Sat 4:50pm which is my birthday, Niel was gasping for breath out the front. I asked did he want an ambulance and he said no. So I waited and he finally said "get me a valium". So I got a glass of water and a valium (try finding drugs without glasses) and put them next to him. Bill, whose wife val died a month ago (this is second household death this month and third last 6 months), came out and held the glass for him while I got a wet towel to wipe spew of him. He was now unable to talk so we called an ambulance as he couldn't say no ("If you don't say no we we call an ambulance"). His head was dropping forward and and he was p[icking it up to suck in a gasp of air. I held his head up for a while. But he was still breathing for himself. I put wet towel on his head to hopefully provide relief. We heard ambulance approaching so I told Bill to monitor his breathing and went to where ambulance could find us quickly. It arrived at 5:04pm. I had already collected all his medications (and thought chalking V on his head a bit too disaster like). Ambulance arrived, advised medical history (heart attacks and what he claimed were panic attacks) and the valium and gave medicine to ambos.

They walked over and discovered he was no longer breathing or beating so laid him down, half out the front door and half inside. They called a paramedic ambulance as well and while we waited they gave CPR while trying to fix electrodes. My other neighbours had noticed by now and were coming over.

In another 5 mins the paramedics arrived and they spent twenty minutes preparing syringes of andreneline, bi carbonate of soda (no idea why), and an IV drip. They then shocked him three times at which stage some computer said "Check Patient". They then shocked him a few more times.

They then gave 1/2 hearted CPR while the loaded him in the paramedic ambulance, left the general ambulance parked outside and all 4 went off in the second ambulance at 6 PM. We sent one of the ambulance person's phone with him thinking it was Niel's (all but me thought he was going to recover). The hospital was unable to revive him either (not that that was likely).

I found the ambos badge so waited at his ambulance for an hour to give it back. An 1/2 hour later he came back saying seen my blue phone and we said it's at hospital. He left and a person bringing Niel's possessions turned up, incl the phone. So I rang ambulance dispatch and they sent a third ambulance for the phone (but I was in back yards fielding calls from the ambos friends while trying to tell some of Niel's friends (who live at the back of us) he was dead.

We then told his friends up and down the street that Niel had died at 5pm.

Niel was known as the Mayor of Randwick as he knew every person in Randwick, minded every house on the street when people were away, like a beneign Dorrie Evens. 20 to 30 people visited him everyday as he held court on the front yard.

I should have continued to hold his head up and not trust the intoxicated 73 yo bill whose wife is a bit less than a month dead. I should have earnt his ire and called the ambulance anyway (would have save 5-10 minutes), he had many heart attacks last 6 months and didn't go to hospital for any but the first. He didn't want to go back to smoker unfriendy places. He I had had known he was unconscioused rather than in too much pain to talk I would have put him in the coma position (the position for breathing problems is the one the person finds most comfortable).

His sister came down from Brisbane today. He left a message on her phone at about 4 pm so they recorded it.

I promised him several times after his "turns" that I would look after his cat (which I will, but I wasn't expecting the financial penalty so soon). Lucky muggsy is over 10 so it won't be too long. He's a bit confused as to why all of us who don't feed him suddenly are. And where is Niel. He waits outside for Niel to return. Unfortunatly Muggsie has expensive tastes in food. He will only eat fresh food (must come out of a can NOW) and won't eat the same type twice in a row. So generally he has 1/3 of three cans of food a day (with other 2/3rd being tossed) and dry food that has to be freshly poured. He eats 20 times a day.

Of course we also had two visits from the police.


Now what was that about an EULA?