Hi again! =)
On 9/22/06, Jeffrey Ian Dy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I said "some arguments embodied that of Microsoft's" it was a
factual statement. It was not meant to define the intention of the
bill. The purpose of why a law should be written is in its (1)
explanatory note and (2) in its statement of principles. So please
don't misinterpret my post nor misrepresent my intentions.
I have no intention of doing so at all, although it may be possible that
I or someone else may unintentionally do interpret your statements in a
way that you may construe as a misinterpretation. Nor do I have
anything to say about how your statement ought to define the intention
of your bill; as it is, I find it quite satisfactory that the draft has
gone to lengths in explaining the situation, albeit not in full detail.
However, I will dispute that your quoted statement above is _not_ just
factual; it tells me that you are identifying some arguments presented
here as part of the set of arguments Microsoft has put up against what
your office claims to stand for, but that same statement also tells me
that you are identifying Microsoft as an adversary for what you claim to
stand for, and your office is indeed willing to fight Microsoft in its
own game, to fight fire with fire.
Alas, as everyone else knows, both sides lose at the end.
There is sometimes a danger of quoting a line or two (or in this case
a paragraph) then lengthily discuss the merits of what was said. This
is the reason why I refrain from quoting people, though I try, in my
best capacity to explain. Way back in college, I remember constructors
and deconstructors (not in C++ or OOP, but in Philosphy). People tend
to deconstruct statements made and reconstruct them to fit one
bias. To avoid that, the context from which the language was used must
be realized when reconstructing.
Nice lesson. I know where you are coming from. We had the same class
in Philosophy 1 too; I distinctly remember the term `language game.' :P
I don't think my bit on the previous post would be considered as
`lengthy,' by the standards of PLUG/FOSS folks here on the list. Dean,
Paolo, Manny, et al. have delivered far longer, more technical, and more
passionate locutions than my little bit of writing. I consider myself
more as a reluctant participant to this shebang.
However, the fact that _you_ do notice my posts seems to imply that my
little words pack quite a hit ;) Not that I'm conscious of my posts or
anything; I'm just a regular reader of this list as everyone else (who
isn't bored to death of {f,b}lamewars anyhow ;) who finds this
discussion both interesting and scary at once.
So, perhaps, as you appear to be a lawyer, and I appear to be a
programmer, it is strongly possible that we are talking in two
completely different `language games,' and we are most probably not
understanding each other. I'll just grin and bear with that for the
time being. :P
As for the bit in danger of {over,under}quoting, I have this to say:
_no_ quoting at all increases the danger of what text your replying on
of being taken to extreme context. Your reply, as well as `summary'
replies to the other PLUGgers, while serves your purpose, is not exactly
`good form' to use in online discussions, as it tends to muddle the
valid points raised with the fallacies, not to mention it makes it
easier for one to forget to attribute points to the right people. It
also makes you even harder to read.
I myself am quite guilty of this now, in replying to your post, but I do
hope the readers do take my leave. ;) Some may even take your style as
far worse than top posting, but enough of the netiquette lesson...
Everybody knows that M$ campaigned globally against FOSS. Bill Gates
even called its lobbyists "communists" and the CEO of M$ (I forgot,
not Bill) in 2005 called FOSS a cancer and asked governments to stop
FOSS legislation.
[That would be Steve Ballmer himself, mastermind of the Miami Vice
Windows 1.0 ad :P]
Hence, I was actually pointing out that some arguments raised here,
while I sincerely believed to be well-intentioned, are the same
arguments being used by M$ against FOSS in the global arena, and
echoing it, is like helping the anti-FOSS propaganda campaign
globally.
Well, what the word `advocacy' means, primarily among advocates, is `to
put down something else besides what you advocate.' While definitely
not a dictionary definition, that seems to be what your part on this
bill does, and from my point of view, it is that impression that does
not best represent what FOSS is, or hopes to be.
In other words, please try not to fight fire with fire. It is already
too hot here.
Now, just to clarify because this may be used against us and say that
we are legislating discrimination (which we are not, please read my
previous post), we have nothing against M$. It was a factual
statement. It was even far from discriminatory.
Good to hear that from you. Let us hope that your claim is indeed true.
I don't like spreading FUD, either, but the spectre of discrimination,
like the paper tiger, always beats the real one. So please, do make
good your claim.
Let me just hope, in behalf of everyone here, that this bill, whether it
flips or flops, does its good for the people, and nothing else.
I did not call M$ fascists nor Nazis nor anything of that sort. It was
factual and I have evidence to prove it. And the *intent* of the
statement is to reiterate the consequences of statements we will be
saying in *public* because we might find ourselves in the future
involuntarily on the other side of the fence.
Well, good for you Godwin's Law has been invoked (which means this
debate is over ;) so there's no point in discussing Nazis any further.
There is, however, still a point in discussing the nature of your bill,
but I suppose that it ought to be done in the House, and not here, as
there is too much dirty laundry already :P
For the record, let me state that I am not going to oppose this bill
(the fact that a gentleman in Congress is interested makes good game.)
However, let me state that I am also not too enthusiastic about passing
and ratifying this bill into law so speedily either; I would rather
advise caution, both on the part of the proponents of this bill, as well
as on the part of the true beneficiaries of this bill, which I _do_ hope
is not some other congressman's purse.
Cheers,
Zakame
--
Zak B. Elep || http://zakame.spunge.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
