RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
In one word NO. I just found out that I am both an idiot and a conspiracy theorist, apologies to everyone. Kind Regards _ MIke Brunt -Original Message- From: Kwang Suh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:18 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert Yes, it is there. I just viewed it. Did you put the URL back together? --- "Brunt, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a footnote, that page is no longer there!! > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:54 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt . > > > At 03:49 PM 09/13/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >What does FUD mean? > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > > > >Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, > I'll just say this is > >obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super > COM object that comes > >with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as > didn't know this > >already, they really dont have enough information > to form any useful > >opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. > The article is FUD, > >plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully > grasp the concept of > >what ActiveX is. > > > >jon > > > >Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came > out on Monday on > > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For > those of you > > > who are critical of .net and want some more > material to back up > > > your position, here you go: > > > > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > > >00.html > > > > > >Jackson Moore > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
Yes, it is there. I just viewed it. Did you put the URL back together? --- "Brunt, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a footnote, that page is no longer there!! > > Kind Regards - Mike Brunt > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:54 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt . > > > At 03:49 PM 09/13/2001 -0400, you wrote: > >What does FUD mean? > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > > > >Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, > I'll just say this is > >obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super > COM object that comes > >with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as > didn't know this > >already, they really dont have enough information > to form any useful > >opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. > The article is FUD, > >plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully > grasp the concept of > >what ActiveX is. > > > >jon > > > >Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came > out on Monday on > > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For > those of you > > > who are critical of .net and want some more > material to back up > > > your position, here you go: > > > > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > > >00.html > > > > > >Jackson Moore > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
Just a footnote, that page is no longer there!! Kind Regards - Mike Brunt -Original Message- From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:54 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt . At 03:49 PM 09/13/2001 -0400, you wrote: >What does FUD mean? > >-Original Message- >From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > >Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is >obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes >with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this >already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful >opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, >plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of >what ActiveX is. > >jon > >Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > > your position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
Fear, Uncertainty, and doubt . At 03:49 PM 09/13/2001 -0400, you wrote: >What does FUD mean? > >-Original Message- >From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > >Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is >obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes >with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this >already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful >opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, >plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of >what ActiveX is. > >jon > >Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > > your position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt Rey... - Original Message - From: "Won Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > What does FUD mean? > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is > obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes > with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this > already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful > opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, > plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of > what ActiveX is. > > jon > > Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > > your position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
I think you'll agree that doesn't make it right. --- Billy Cravens Web Development, EDS [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Russel Madere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:58 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. FUB is usually false or misleading information to create those three things in the reader about the subject. Microsoft sowed a lot of this about a number of products. It looks like it is reaping time. > -Original Message- > From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:49 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > What does FUD mean? > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this > is obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that > comes with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this > already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful > opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is > FUD, plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept > of what ActiveX is. > > jon > > Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > >computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you who > >are critical of .net and want some more material to back up your > >position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=FUD Hit #1 in this context: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. (Female Urinary Device was a close second.) Ron Hornbaker President/CTO . . . . . . . . . . . . http://humankindsystems.com . . . . . . . . . . . . w e c o d e. w e c a r e. > -Original Message- > From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:49 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > What does FUD mean? > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is > obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes > with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this > already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful > opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, > plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of > what ActiveX is. > > jon > > Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > > your position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
Re: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
http://www.google.com/search?q=fud Won Lee wrote: >What does FUD mean? > >-Original Message- > ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Usually a Microsoft tactic... > What does FUD mean? > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is > obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes > with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this > already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful > opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, > plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of > what ActiveX is. > > jon > > Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > > your position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. FUB is usually false or misleading information to create those three things in the reader about the subject. Microsoft sowed a lot of this about a number of products. It looks like it is reaping time. > -Original Message- > From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:49 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > What does FUD mean? > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert > > > Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is > obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes > with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this > already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful > opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, > plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of > what ActiveX is. > > jon > > Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: > > >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > > your position, here you go: > > > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, > >00.html > > > >Jackson Moore > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
RE: OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert
What does FUD mean? -Original Message- From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:02 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re:OT .NET: ActiveX in Disguise? FUD alert Totally off topic, but as someone who likes .Net, I'll just say this is obvious. I myself have described .Net as a super COM object that comes with windows. If someone is critical of .Net as didn't know this already, they really dont have enough information to form any useful opinion. It would be an opinion based in ignorance. The article is FUD, plain and simple. The author doesn't even fully grasp the concept of what ActiveX is. jon Jackson Moore (CFTalk) wrote: >In case you haven't seen it, this article came out on Monday on > computerworld.com and in their newsletters. For those of you > who are critical of .net and want some more material to back up > your position, here you go: > >http://www.computerworld.com/rckey11/story/0,1199,NAV63_STO63605, >00.html > >Jackson Moore >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
