On Sat, November 27, 2004 1:57 pm, Rodolfo J. Paiz said: > On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 11:36 -0500, Sean wrote: >> I quoted you directly and correctly and I did read your post. >> > No. You quoted a small part of my post, which was (when taken out of > context) not indicative of the message I intended to convey. I quoted you accurately. I quoted the portion to which I wanted to respond. Please read back and you'll see that the quote didn't injure your point. Your indignation is being over exercised in this case for no reason. It's very interesting in your reply to the OP and to me you failed to quote the entire message but just portions. Maybe you should look at your own posts? >> I'm not out to destroy >> Nvidia, nor am I out to promote them. >> > Neither am I... a point which you seem to have missed. What you seem to be missing is that it is a reasonable desire to promote better choices for the open source world. To that end, it is reasonable to look for ways to motivate companies that aren't providing open source solutions. Asking people to think carefully before they support Nvidia is a reasonable thing to do. The OP never used the word boycott. His post seemed rational and thoughtful. Personally, I do boycott Nvidia because they don't provide what open source solutions. >> There are better options for the vast majority of people, if >> that means less Linux business for Nvidia, so be it. >> > If someone chooses a better option and that means less business for > Nvidia, so be it. That's the free market at work and I like that. And > part of what you missed is that I advocated finding, choosing, and > supporting those "better options" wherever possible. Yes, indeed. Thanks for agreeing with the main idea behind my post. Would be nice to hear more from you on what open-source video card solutions you promote and suggest for people. > > What you clearly missed, or chose to miss, is that the OP proposed not a > boycott but a crusade to hurt Nvidia. I disagreed with him, saying that > a company should lose market share to better options and that we should > not engage in destructive actions. I furthermore said that someone with > a destructive mindset who wanted to damage a vendor should first choose > the worst offenders, those who provide no support or drivers for Linux > at all. > No, what you've clearly missed is that you're reading your own words into the OP's statement. Please go back and read how rational his first post was and what he was trying to relay. You've consistantly used the word crusade where he never did. Do you think putting words in his mouth helps your case? > Hopefully this is clearer to you now. It has made your attitude clear. Cheers, Sean
