Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Let's just think about it for a while:
1) - In post #1 you tell us that Red Hat should be ashamed for not following Google's policy, which they actually don't have to follow.
2) - In post #3 you are more specific in which rules of Google's policy Red Hat allegedly has broken, again, rules that Red Hat doesn't need to comply with.
3) - In post #7 you again tell us that search engine companies somehow can make the rules and begin with calling people that don't agree with you fanboys.
4) - Post #9, you are again telling us that search engine providers should be allowed to tell website providers what should be allowed and what not.
5) - Funnily, while attempting to tell us that search engine providers should make the rules, you somehow blame people that don't agree with you to be happy with a less open Internet (post #11). I hope you see the irony.
6) - Post #19, again telling those that don't agree with you that they are fanboys, while telling us in post #24 that you are not "heated".
7) - In post #32 you go further and call Red Hat's behavior anti-societal, and people that don't agree with you parrots. When asked by me in post #36 to come up with examples for Red Hat's anti-societal behavior you just ignore the question.
8) - Post #40, again people not agreeing with your view are called fanboys.
9) That brings me to the question: Why did you expect a thread in which you are calling people that don't agree with you fanboys and being happy with a less open Internet (while you tell us that there should be rules dictated by search engine providers) not to become serious?
Disclaimer: I am in no way related to Red Hat (though I have been accused of being on their payroll already) and don't use one of their products, not even Fedora, so I hardly qualify as fanboy.
|
K, I'll be serious a moment...
1 - I already mentioned that was done tongue-in-cheek, meaning I intended it half-true, half-jest.
2 - People continue to misunderstand me. Googles rules effect how things are listed on Google.com, not the internet in general. I did not mean to imply that they can force Red Hat to do anything directly. Finally, if it sounded that way it is because I flubbed up the statement, not because that was my
intent.
3 - People who don't agree with me
may indeed be fanboys, and indeed they may also
not be. Last, they may actually think that
I am a fanboy. That said, none of those things actually matter either way.
4 - I have attempted to clarify my
actual intent for those words, and several times, if that's not getting through, I'm not sure what else I can say...
5 - I did not... and I quote you,
"while attempting to tell us that search engine providers should make the rules," attempt to tell you, or anyone else for that matter, who should make any rules for anything. Period. What I actually said was, and I am paraphrasing, that Google
has rules about listed page behavior and that Red Hat's enterprise support page violates it. As to what I meant by that, I'll point you to #4 and my previous attempts at clarification.
6 - The "advanced reply" form doesn't show post numbers, nor does it show me how many are under the form and how many are left. So, I don't know which one is post #19, so I can't comment. I'm afraid to click the "show all" button because it may trigger a redirect and empty my form, because that's a typical behavior of forum software.
7 - "You" was the wrong choice of words on my part, it should have been "people" in the general sense, like the sentence above it. There was some venting from me there, due to associative triggers, (Read: Situation reminded me of another which brought up related feelings.) ...which I usually try to direct
away from people.
8 - Who, specifically? Or are you assuming that meaning was
implied? Which, it could have been but, unfortunately, I can't remember because portions were impulsive in nature.
9 - Again, are you making assumptions of implied intent on my part? That one I do remember and I don't recall thinking... "Geeze, it would be so nice if the internet were less open." Or are you perhaps using propaganda to try to twist my words into a meaning that is, in the general sense, viewed negatively by the
majority of the people here? Hmmm. In fact, I could
assume that
intent about a lot of your statements. But, I only went that far with one of them. Load of fun, isn't it?
