[discuss] Google - no thanks

I've been using Open Office for a couple of months now. I read with horror the news item highlighted on the OO homepage about "coupling" with Google. No thanks! If you put a Google toolbar in OpenOffice be sure you give me a way to get rid of it. Google is a huge corporation with some rathe

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

GOOGLE ROCKS! I use GOOGLE for everything! *note my email addy* I have the GOOGLE bar on my Firefox, on all my systems (Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows). I have Google notifier on my Mac. I have Google Talk, Hello, Google Desktop Sidebar, Picasa, and GOogle Earth on my WIndows box. My site is hosted

RE: [discuss] Google - no thanks

EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2005 12:36 AM To: discuss@openoffice.org Subject: [discuss] Google - no thanks I've been using Open Office for a couple of months now. I read with horror the news item highlighted on the OO homepage about "coupling" with Google. No thanks!

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:35:59 -0800 Greg Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been using Open Office for a couple of months now. I read with > horror the news item highlighted on the OO homepage about "coupling" > with Google. No thanks! If you put a Google toolbar in OpenOffice be > sure

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Hi michael, Personally to me its like having an advertising banner slapped across the program. I haven't seen it, so i can't say Must be carefull though I would be happiest if it was an optional downloadable add-on wizard like the dictionaries. In other words opt-in not opt-out. i alrea

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Michael Adams wrote: On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:35:59 -0800 Greg Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been using Open Office for a couple of months now. I read with horror the news item highlighted on the OO homepage about "coupling" with Google. No thanks! If you put a Google toolbar in

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/13/05, Laurent Godard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would be happiest if it was an optional downloadable add-on wizard > > like the dictionaries. In other words opt-in not opt-out. > > i already did it using OOoWikipedia > Well it is not Google completeness, it is far more serious, as Wik

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/12/05, Greg Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IIf you put a Google toolbar in OpenOffice be > sure you give me a way to get rid of it. Since when did OpenOffice.org come with a browser? It doesn't. No place to put a Google toolbar - idiot. The Google Toolbar will be included with th

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Laurent wrote: > i already did it using OOoWikipedia > Well it is not Google completeness, It wouldn't take much to changer the OOoWikipedia macro to a G-OOogle macro. IIRC, all it requires is a simple change of the URL that is called. Off topic question: Are there _any_ search engines that pro

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/13/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chad wrote: > > >You conspiracy theory nutjobs need to get a life - seriously. > > Google supplies surveillance data to a number of illegitimate regimes, > who perpetuate rape, pillage, and death on the inhabitants of the > territory who opp

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad wrote: >Google does not do those things. That is very wishful thinking on your part. xan jonathon -- Does your Office Suite conform to ISO Standards? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

So you are saying that Google rapes people. Google kills people. Google pillages people's homes. You're out of your mind. It's a damn search engine. It doesn't even have a penis to rape with. On 10/13/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chad wrote: > > >Google does not do those thin

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

on 10/13/05 15:11 'Chad Smith' wrote: So you are saying that Google rapes people. Google kills people. Google pillages people's homes. You're out of your mind. It's a damn search engine. It doesn't even have a penis to rape with. On 10/13/05, Jonathon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chad wr

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/13/05, Steve Kopischke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and > get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail. > No, it's not an intitial misreading of johathan's post. Allow me to recap. Jonathon claimed:

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: On 10/13/05, Steve Kopischke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail. No, it's not an intitial misreading of johathan's post. Allow me t

RE: [discuss] Google - no thanks

o: discuss@openoffice.org Subject: Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks i already did it using OOoWikipedia Well it is not Google completeness, it is far more serious, as Wikipedia is free :) http://www.indesko.com/sites/en/downloads/ooowiki

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

OK, Chad. Fine. Be pedantic. Allow *me* to recap. on 10/13/05 17:23 'Chad Smith' wrote: On 10/13/05, *Steve Kopischke* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and get a rise out of him. If that i

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Justin wrote: > How about a button for integration with Wikipedia's sister project > http://en.wiktionary.org/ a dictionary wiki which seems a natural fit Once upon a time, a wikionary macro for OOo was available. However, I couldn't find it when I went hunting for it two or so months ago, and

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Le jeudi 13 octobre 2005 à 18:23 -0400, Chad Smith a écrit : > Google does not do those things. Some countries may, but Google doesn't. And > just because Google cooperates with the local governments does not mean that > they support or condone that government. This is actually a point a lot of p

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Steve Kopischke wrote: Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail. Jonathon - your contentions would be easier to acknowledge if you could provide more than veiled references to unnamed entities

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Jonathon Blake wrote: Nicu wrote: I suspect one of those unnamed entities is the USA government Now why would you possibly think that I was referring to something like that? If you do some searches on Google it would say on the bottom of the page: "In response to a complaint we receive

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:10:51 -0500 Robert Derman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Adams wrote: > > >On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:35:59 -0800 > >Greg Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>I've been using Open Office for a couple of months now. I read with > >>horror the news item hig

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/14/05, Nicu Buculei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Kopischke wrote: > >>> > > Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and > > get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail. > > > > Jonathon - your contentions would be easier to acknowle

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le jeudi 13 octobre 2005 à 18:23 -0400, Chad Smith a écrit : > > > Google does not do those things. Some countries may, but Google doesn't. > And > > just because Google cooperates with the local governments does not mean > that > > they s

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: You just brought up Nazis. You lose. Come on Chad. There are cases where Nazis are a perfectly good comparison. In this instance, Nicolas was making a valid historical note. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ /\/_/ No trees were harmed in th

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: I can't believe you just accused the US government of rape, murder, and piliaging. I will never take anything you have to say seriously again, nicu. I have completely lost all respect for you. You don't believe this has ever happened? It's really scary that you are unable to

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Daniel Carrera wrote: Chad Smith wrote: I can't believe you just accused the US government of rape, murder, and piliaging. I will never take anything you have to say seriously again, nicu. I have completely lost all respect for you. You don't believe this has ever happened? It's really scary

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Rich wrote: umm. i though he was being ironical... That's possible... but knowing Chad, I don't think he was. I'm sure he'll correct me if he was being ironic. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://oooauthors.org /\/_/ /\/_/ No trees were harmed in the generation of \/_/this em

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Nicu Buculei wrote: Steve Kopischke wrote: Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail. Jonathon - your contentions would be easier to acknowledge if you could provide more than veiled references

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: On 10/14/05, Nicu Buculei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steve Kopischke wrote: Jonathon - your contentions would be easier to acknowledge if you could provide more than veiled references to unnamed entities. I suspect one of those unnamed entities is the USA government I ca

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: On 10/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le jeudi 13 octobre 2005 à 18:23 -0400, Chad Smith a écrit : You just brought up Nazis. You lose. Sorry, Godwin's Law no longer applies. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

I really didn't join this email list to discuss politics. There are plenty of other places on the web to discuss these matters. Can you either make this a private conversation or take it to a place where the purpose is to discuss politics? beckie -- "Courage in women is often mistaken for insan

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:51:15 +0100, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nicu Buculei wrote: Steve Kopischke wrote: Chad - you are intentionally misreading Jonathon's posts just to try and get a rise out of him. If that is your intention, take it to e-mail. Jonathon - your contentions would b

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/14/05, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chad Smith wrote: > > > You just brought up Nazis. You lose. > > Come on Chad. There are cases where Nazis are a perfectly good > comparison. In this instance, Nicolas was making a valid historical note. No, it wasn't. The companies he w

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Beckie Child wrote: I really didn't join this email list to discuss politics. There are plenty of other places on the web to discuss these matters. Can you either make this a private conversation or take it to a place where the purpose is to discuss politics? beckie Robert Derman replies: S

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On Fri, 2005-14-10 at 12:42 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > Comparing a website that filters out certain links to other > websites due to local laws to a company that built gas chambers and death > camps for Hitler is far from apples and oranges. At least apples and oranges > are both fruit. This is mo

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/14/05, Bruce Byfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-14-10 at 12:42 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > > > Comparing a website that filters out certain links to other > > websites due to local laws to a company that built gas chambers and > death > > camps for Hitler is far from apples an

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: That is *exactly* why Google *has to* abide by the laws of the land. Other wise they *would be* guilty of a crime. Filtering out the word "Democracy" is still nothing remotely similar to building the "showers" in Auschwitz! Filtering search results based on the demands of the l

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On 10/14/05, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chad Smith wrote: > > > That is *exactly* why Google *has to* abide by the laws of the land. > Other > > wise they *would be* guilty of a crime. Filtering out the word > "Democracy" > > is still nothing remotely similar to building the "sho

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Chad Smith wrote: You are setting a trap. No I'm not. The questions is worded where I can't answer correctly. What would upset me is the action of the US government, not Google. I would not blame Google for obeying the government, no. I would be upset with Uncle Sam because that would be in

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

just take this last six months in iraq, murder of civilians and pillaging of oil, rape - the prison camp convictions stops short. And thats the big stuff run by the generals. John Picken Daniel Carrera wrote: Chad Smith wrote: I can't believe you just accused the US government of rape, m

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Daniel Carrera wrote: Chad Smith wrote: That is *exactly* why Google *has to* abide by the laws of the land. Other wise they *would be* guilty of a crime. Filtering out the word "Democracy" is still nothing remotely similar to building the "showers" in Auschwitz! Filtering search results base

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Le vendredi 14 octobre 2005 à 12:42 -0400, Chad Smith a écrit : > On 10/14/05, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Chad Smith wrote: > > > > > You just brought up Nazis. You lose. > > > > Come on Chad. There are cases where Nazis are a perfectly good > > comparison. In this instance,

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

Le vendredi 14 octobre 2005 à 14:47 -0400, Chad Smith a écrit : > That is *exactly* why Google *has to* abide by the laws of the land. So to extrapolate your thinking, if tomorrow you get offered a job running one of the chinese political prisons (on chinese soil, where the law of the land says i

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 08:11 -0400, Chad Smith wrote: > On 10/14/05, Nicu Buculei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I suspect one of those unnamed entities is the USA government > > > > -- > > nicu > > > I can't believe you just accused the US government of rape, murder, and > piliaging. Ge

Re: [discuss] Google - no thanks - dropping this thread

Alexandro Colorado wrote: On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:51:15 +0100, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nicu Buculei wrote: Steve Kopischke wrote: Jonathon - your contentions would be easier to acknowledge if you could provide more than veiled references to unnamed entities. I suspect one of those