Following was posted 9 years ago by mjcr. It still rings truthful, little
has changed in regards to the uncalled for Wintrolling. - HPT
> From: mjcr <m...@mindspring.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
> Subject: Re: Linux haters (wintrolls hate Linux and love FreeBSD)
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:55:01 -0800
> Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> JD <dy...@jdyson.com> wrote:
>> "mjcr" <m...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>> John S. Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> wrote:
>>>> Hey, I have to let off steam once in a while. Some guys might go to
>>>> the 'red light' district to find 'trouble'. I sometimes do the
>>>> 'advocacy group' thing, which is of similar character, filled with
>>>> similar characters :-).
>>> If your want to find trouble and argue fuss and fight, it is it the
>>> right place. Some *.advocacy groups are for that purpose, COLA is not
>>> one of them.
>>> To do so in COLA, is off topic and a violation of the charter of COLA
>>> and possibly your AUP.
>> You mean to be kind and reasonable (like I have been) would violate
>> COLA :-).
> I did make a typo, sorry.
> This statement was made "Hey, I have to let off steam once in a while.
> Some guys might go to the 'red light' district to find 'trouble'. I
> sometimes do the 'advocacy group' thing, which is of similar
> That view is not appropriate for comp.os.linux.advocacy, in spite of the
> tales told by the Anti-Linux propagandists. They have tried to use an
> false charter to prove the reason for their existance in this newsgroup.
> (BTW it was one of those anti-Linux propagandists who posts under the
> identity of "Joe the Aroma" who initiated the crossposting of this
> The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy combined with its name and the
> dicussions that followed the RFD that lead to the vote that created this
> newsgroup, rejects that view of the purpose of comp.os.linux.advocacy.
> What I intended to say was:
> If you want to find trouble and argue fuss and fight, this is not
> the right place. Some *.advocacy groups are for that purpose, COLA
> is not one of them.
> We Linux users, sysadmins, and yes advocates, etc, do not have animosity
> againt the BSD's, their users, sysadmins, etc. One of the recent
> operating style of the anti-Linux propagandist is to stir up discord
> between Linux and the rest of this unix community.
> Below here is the text of an article that I posted on Sat, 9 Mar 2002
> -18:49:28 0800 in <slrna8lido.2hg.m...@mindspring.com> that initiated
> the -thread "A Tale of Four Charters". It covers the difference between
> the -purpose of comp.os.linux.advocacy and some of the other *.advocacy
> groups. (Note, that is another thread that was started in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy alone, and then an anti-Linux propagandist who
> posts under the identity of Erik Funkenbusch crossposted it.)
> This is the tale or rather a comparison of four advocacy newsgroup
> charters and their supporting data.
> First let's take a look at the players.
> NAME: comp.os.linux.advocacy (COLA)
> NEWSGROUP LINE: Benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems
> REFERENCE: Frequently Asked Questions and Primer for
> comp.os.linux.advocacy Edition I section 22.214.171.124
> CHARTER: For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
> operating systems.
> NAME: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy (COMNA)
> NEWSGROUP LINE: Windows NT advocacy arguments.
> REFERENCE: <comp-os-ms-windows-reorg-C...@uunet.uu.net>
> CHARTER: Discussions, arguments and complaints for and against Windows
> NT, especially as compared to Windows, OS/2, Unix and
> NAME: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy (COMA)
> NEWSGROUP LINE: Speculation and debate about Microsoft Windows.
> REFERENCE: <1992Apr13.181609.16...@uunet.uu.net>
> CHARTER: This group is intended for general-level discussions about
> Windows, and especially rumors, speculation, unannounced
> products, pricing, support, upgrade policies, and comparisons
> to other operating systems.
> NAME: comp.unix.advocacy (CUA)
> NEWSGROUP LINE: Arguments for and against Unix and Unix versions.
> REFERENCE: <comp.unix.advocacy-C...@uunet.uu.net>
> CHARTER: For discussions of the form 'Unix sucks!', 'Unix rules!',
> 'Unix is obsolete!', 'Unix is better/worse than system X',
> 'Unix X is better/worse than Unix Y', and similar.
> Since the beginning of the year, the anti-Linux propagandists have been
> working overtime in spreading disinformation in reguard to the purpose
> of this newsgroup.
> Earlier this year, they tried to foist a false charter on this newsgroup
> and pass it off as the charter of COLA. The were stopped in that
> effort, and the publication of the FAQ and Primer and brought a halt to
> that tactic of theirs.
> Now that the false charter has been discredited, a new favorite tactics
> of theirs is to present a misinterpertation of the real charter that is
> more to their liking. There by sactioning their activities here. They
> have presented rewording of the charter and the group's name to how they
> would accept it real purpose, then implying since it was not done that
> way, that their activities in COLA are sactioned by the charter.
> Let us examine some of their positions:
> * COLA is a newsgroup created for arguments and flamewars with both
> Linux proponents and Linux opponents fighting over the issues. No, it
> is not. Compare the newsgroup line (aka the newsread description) and
> the charter of COLA to those of CUA and COMNA.
> The newsgroup line for COMNA describes it as a place for "arguments"
> about advocacy of Windows NT. The charter of COMNA calls for
> "discussion" *and* "arguments and complaints", *both* "for and
> against Windows NT". That vision of what COLA should be, that the
> anti-Linux propagandists would have the readership of COLA believe,
> applies to COMNA, not COLA.
> Like that of COMNA, the newsgroup line for CUA describes it as a
> place for "arguments". Not only arguments, but "arguments for and
> against unix". The charter of CUA supports that view as well. So
> what they would have the readership of COLA believe applies to CUA.
> * COLA is a newsgroup created for endless debates for the sake of
> The newsgroup line for COMA includes the word "debate" as sactioned
> event in that newsgroup. For that aspect of what they want the
> readership of COLA to believe about COLA applies to COMA.
> * COLA is a newsgroup created for posting rumors about Linux. Rumors,
> good bad or otherwise.
> The charter for COMA includes the language "especially rumors,
> speculation". That means that COMA was established as a place for
> The anti-Linux propagandists claim that their interpretation of the
> purpose of COLA is accurate and that to reject their disinformation is
> to dishonor and/or disresepct those who worked on the RFD, CFV and voted
> for the creation of COLA with the newsgroup name, newsgroup line, and
> charter of this newsgroup. In reality it is the anti-Linux
> propagandists who are dishonoring and disrepecting those who created
> this newsgroup by suggesting that they were not able to clearly state
> the purpose of this newsgroup when it was so clearly stated for other
> advocacy groups created both before and after the creation of COLA.
> If COLA were created for the negative purposes that anti-Linux
> propagandists would have the COLA readership believe, why was it not
> clearly stated to be for those purposes; the same as CUA, COMA, and
> COMNA. What the anti-Linux propagandists are doing is using
> disinformation to hijack this newsgroup.
> If those who created COLA wanted it to be a place for arguments, debates
> for debating sake, for rumors and the rest, both for and against Linux.
> It would have been so stated in the newsgroup line, charter, and perhaps
> in the very name of COLA. But the the woe of the anti-Linux
> propagandists, they did not do so. So now the anti-Linux propagandists
> need to distort reality to justify their misdeeds in this newsgroup.
> Another argument used by the anti-Linux propagandist for their being in
> COLA is that they have been in COLA. They make that arguments by
> invoking the posting history of COLA. What they are saying is like
> claiming that a town that has been invaded by a criminal element becomes
> the legal stomping ground of that element.
> Consider a town that has been invaded by street gangs. They have not
> been ejected from the town for several years. Now because they have
> been vandalizing the town and abusing and terrorizing the towns people
> for a few years, they now have a right to keep doing it? This is the
> situation that the anti-Linux propagandists would have you accept for
> I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux.
> May all that you wish upon me and mine be visited upon you ten fold.