More irrational people. :-)

Article: The Battle in 64 bit Land: Merchant Chips on the Rise
By: Interested in Illinois (, May 6, 2004 6:32 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Dean Kent ( on 5/6/04 wrote:
>Interested in Illinois ( on 5/5/04 wrote:
>>But Dean, censorship of ideas (as opposed to mere profane language) would stop
>>those ideas from being heard, no matter how valid they are. Shouldn't people decide
>>what ideas are worthwhile? Censorship of profane language is far more objective and less damaging.
>Um... Too bad? Seriously, my intent is not, and has never been, to provide a soapbox
>for every Tom, Dick and Karl to express his/her opinion on any subject that he/she
>holds dear. It has always been specifically to provide for, and encourage, debate
>on issues relating to computer technology. Period.
>Your suggestion implies that I can spend my own money, time, motivation and skills
>to create something, but any ungrateful, inconsiderate, self-serving, rebel with
>a cause should be able drag it down and destroy what I have created without so much as an "I'm sorry"?

Dean you believe that I am attempting to 'destroy' your life project??? If this is what you have taken from all this then if you want I will not frequent RWT anymore.

>Or are you suggesting that you are 'people' and I am not?


>>Dean, have you read 'Animal Farm'?

You might want to read it.

>>Just what sort of language is acceptable? Your implication of 'Salem' 's thinking
>>as being like that of a donkey is perhaps acceptable use of language to state your
>>opinion of him I suppose, since mythological works like the Bible contain the word
>>'ass' in English renditions. But the question remains, what is obscene language?
>[n] male donkey
>[n] a man who is a stupid fool
>Synonyms: bozo, cuckoo, fathead, goof, goose, jack, twat, zany
>See Also: ass, fool, muggins, sap, saphead, tomfool

So what words or perhaps are all three, four, and five letter words from the dictionary acceptable?

>>No, I would not want this 'waitressInGaza' person to be censored for 'wrong ideas',
>>but the use of profane language does detract from presentation, and his argument. It is also rude.
>The simple fact is that David Kanter and myself decide what ideas are acceptable
>here. Period. We may decide to take input from others, but we are in no way obligated
>either morally or legally to allow any ideas here that we personally do not consider
>appropriate. Period. You may argue the point, you may ask and you may beg. You
>may get what you wish for, but then you may not.
>Funny how life has been implemented such that you can only control yourself and
>nobody else - and how frustrating that is to so many people who don't actually take the time to control themselves.

Yes, as I figuratively stand besides Lenin's tomb this thought is all too prevalent.

>>Dean is correct, there are possibly other motives and issues involved, and to render
>>the issue as a dichotomy is simplifying it a great deal. The Question is not whether
>>people who critizise Intel are necessarily 'anti-Intel', it is what Intel did, and
>>the nature of the critisisms directed at it. I maintain Intel made prespostorous
>>claims of IA64 architectural performance in the past decade. Is this true? Did
>>Intel make such claims which in retrospect are clearly false? If this is the case,
>>would the person accusing Intel Corporation of indecent conduct regarding this matter
>>be 'anti-Intel'? Are authorities who arrest a person who killed another 'anti-'
>>that person for wanting to prosecute him? Or are they doing what is just and noble?
>It is one thing to present facts and come to unpopular conclusions directly related
>to those facts. It is quite another to take those facts and use them as a springboard
>for pontificating on unrelated subjects such as religion, race, politics, etc. to
>fulfill your own personal agenda. This is not a publication that presents itself
>as dealing with those subjects, and therefore I consider it rude to everyone else
>to discuss them in depth. If one wishes to mention the issue and then invite others
>to discuss it on an appropriate forum, or privately via email, I would consider
>that perfectly acceptable. To do otherwise is most certainly *not* considerate
>of 'the people' at all, since it should be presumed that visitors here are not here to discuss those subjects.
>>Dean, I'm willing to do more than that. In fact, at your request, I am willing
>>to become 'spiritual advisor' to Real World Tech in all manner regarding ethics.
>Show me your credentials, and prove that you are actually worthy of such a position.

Well, I am aware of the implications of the thesis of Animal Farm.

Is this enough?

>I am more than willing to listen. Or do you think that because you claim to be
>ethical that the people should just believe you?

My word is my bond.

>>Out of a sence of duty to the Communal nature of RWT.
>Or, perhaps, Veni, vidi, viri

Is this a Latin expression? What are you stating?

>>Remember Dean, people may be 'anti-' an observed behaviour such as lying and deception,
>>not necessarily against the entity in question unless it became habitual and a part of the essence of that entity.
>When one fights a moral/ethical battle by using the very tactics that one is supposed
>to be fighting against, one runs the risk of losing support for one's cause. If
>you want to claim others should reveal their motivations, then you should do so yourself.
>Paul has stated several times why he favors Itanium. For some reason many people
>want to ignore that and claim that there are some ulterior motives, and insist that
>it must be a morally, ethically questionable desire to make financial gain - even
>when no valid argument can be made that his actions could achieve that result.
>This is a deceptive tactic, intended specifically to discredit the person and not the argument.

But Dean aren't you doing here the exact same thing you're accusing me of? The pot calling the kettle black? My motivation is disclosure. My argument is out of a sense of ethic.

You are accusing me of being 'deceptive'. Yet all I am asking is for RWT to include a small disclosure at the end of an article discussing market share, market performance etc. regarding the author(s)' financial interests regarding companies discussed. Who is the one attempting to be deceptive? Who is the one who is calling for ethical clarity? I have stated my intent. I have given you my motive.

>If your beef is with Intel, then using Paul as a surrogate whipping boy just to
>give yourself satisfaction is immoral, IMO. If you don't like his reasons for supporting
>Itanium, you should respect them just the same - just as you would expect someone
>to respect your support for Marxism, even if they don't like your reasons. Or do
>you stand to gain financially for socialist behaviors?

The world is inevitably socialist. It's just that some people seek to deny this and prevent the transformation to utopia.

< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
New Silicon Insider Article OnlineDavid Kanter2004/05/03 12:25 AM
  TDP questionSingh, S.R.2004/05/03 06:18 AM
    TDP questionWouter Tinus2004/05/03 08:11 AM
      TDP questionanonymous2004/05/03 09:12 AM
        TDP questionWouter Tinus2004/05/03 09:51 AM
          TDP questionanonymus2004/05/04 08:26 AM
    TDP questionPaul DeMone2004/05/03 08:16 AM
      TDP questionAlberto2004/05/03 09:16 AM
        TDP questionPaul DeMone2004/05/03 11:11 AM
          TDP questionAlberto2004/05/03 05:25 PM
      TDP questionMaarten2004/05/04 05:22 AM
        TDP questionPaul DeMone2004/05/04 07:54 AM
  New Silicon Insider Article OnlineBob Koz2004/05/03 08:58 AM
    New Silicon Insider Article OnlinePaul DeMone2004/05/03 09:21 AM
      Does your 'evidence' include backstabing corps?Interested in Illinois2004/05/03 10:00 AM
      Does your 'evidence' include backstabing corps? (NT)Interested in Illinois2004/05/03 10:00 AM
        Does your medication cost alot?waitressInGaza2004/05/03 11:16 AM
          I don't need that poison. We have you. (NT)Interested in Illinois2004/05/03 11:21 PM
            I think this can stop now (NT)David Kanter2004/05/04 01:57 AM
    New Silicon Insider Article OnlineDaniel2004/05/03 02:34 PM
  core size -- x86 vs. IPFanonymous2004/05/03 09:02 AM
    core size -- x86 vs. IPFPaul DeMone2004/05/03 09:24 AM
      core size -- x86 vs. IPFanonymus2004/05/04 08:35 AM
  Corrections aboundInterested in Illinois2004/05/03 09:19 AM
    StalkingDean Kent2004/05/03 01:20 PM
      StalkingSalem2004/05/05 07:28 PM
        More irrational people. :-)Dean Kent2004/05/05 07:48 PM
          More irrational people. :-)Interested in Illinois2004/05/05 10:07 PM
            More irrational people. :-)Heath Provost2004/05/05 10:27 PM
            More irrational people. :-)aap2004/05/06 12:27 AM
              More irrational people. :-)Dean Kent2004/05/06 01:45 AM
            More irrational people. :-)Dean Kent2004/05/06 01:38 AM
              More irrational people. :-)Interested in Illinois2004/05/06 06:32 AM
                More irrational people. :-)Beelzebubba92004/05/06 07:49 AM
       (NT)mas2004/05/07 04:56 PM
              More irrational people. :-)Beelzebubba92004/05/06 07:41 AM
            More funBeelzebubba92004/05/06 07:33 AM
              OT: Even More Funhobold2004/05/07 04:56 AM
                OT: Even More FunPaul DeMone2004/05/07 09:10 AM
                  OT: Even More Funhobold2004/05/08 11:59 AM
  New Silicon Insider Article Onlinemas2004/05/03 10:44 AM
    New Silicon Insider Article OnlinePaul DeMone2004/05/03 11:02 AM
      New Silicon Insider Article Onlinemas2004/05/03 11:15 AM
        New Silicon Insider Article OnlinePaul DeMone2004/05/03 11:24 AM
      New Silicon Insider Article Onlinemas2004/05/03 12:31 PM
        New Silicon Insider Article OnlineDavid Kanter2004/05/03 11:16 PM
      New Silicon Insider Article Onlinemas2004/05/03 02:53 PM
        New Silicon Insider Article OnlinePaul DeMone2004/05/03 03:03 PM
          New Silicon Insider Article OnlineMarc M.2004/05/03 10:04 PM
  Opteron CMP performance estimation?Wouter Tinus2004/05/03 12:21 PM
    Opteron CMP performance estimation?Paul DeMone2004/05/03 12:59 PM
      But your CMP scaling is signficantly worseIlleglWpns2004/05/03 02:21 PM
        But your CMP scaling is signficantly worsePaul DeMone2004/05/03 02:56 PM
          Check which clock rate?IlleglWpns2004/05/03 03:41 PM
            Check which clock rate?Paul DeMone2004/05/03 03:49 PM
              You are right, my badIlleglWpns2004/05/03 03:58 PM
  Opterons with more cacheDresdenboy2004/05/04 01:44 AM
    Opterons with more cachePaul DeMone2004/05/04 08:09 AM
      Opterons with more cacheDoug Siebert2004/05/05 04:59 PM
Reply to this Topic
Body: No Text
How do you spell purple?