Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!
usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dab6
From: d...@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Subject: Paid Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <1992Jul11.035033.22723@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Sender: n...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: d...@po.CWRU.Edu (Douglas A. Bell)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 03:50:33 GMT
Lines: 7
It is suprising how many microsoft employees manage to post to this
group from 9 am to 5 pm. I guess that since they post while on the
payroll, the are spokepersons no matter what their .sig's say.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!news
From: ibm...@eng.clemson.edu (Larry Salomon, Jr. - Q)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <1992Jul11.193529.5417@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: n...@hubcap.clemson.edu (news)
Organization: Clemson University
References: <1992Jul11.035033.22723@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 19:35:29 GMT
Lines: 18
From article <1992Jul11.035033.22...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, by d...@po.CWRU.Edu
(Douglas A. Bell):
>
>
> It is suprising how many microsoft employees manage to post to this
> group from 9 am to 5 pm. I guess that since they post while on the
> payroll, the are spokepersons no matter what their .sig's say.
Oh, get a grip. And I suppose you're going to state that while I was at
IBM, I was a spokesperson whenever I posted anytime from 9am-5pm? Give me
a break! I was anything *but* a spokesperson!
Let's not start this thread again, or I'll call Gordon Letwin in from the
closet! :)
Cheers,
Q ibm...@gumby.eng.clemson.edu
---------------------------
It's not from Star Trek, nor James Bond...
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!wingnut!philipla
From: phili...@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <1992Jul11.233516.3604@microsoft.com>
Date: 11 Jul 92 23:35:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <1992Jul11.035033.22723@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Lines: 24
In article <1992Jul11.035033.22...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> d...@po.CWRU.Edu
(Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>
>It is suprising how many microsoft employees manage to post to this
>group from 9 am to 5 pm.
You should try working here sometime... It's amazing how few
people work 9-5. More like 9-8, or 10-10...
>I guess that since they post while on the
>payroll, the are spokepersons no matter what their .sig's say.
What a tired argument this is... I see .cwru in your address -
are you a spokesperson for Case Western?
-Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara 1 Microsoft Way
phili...@microsoft.com Redmond, WA 98052-6399
Note: Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!rz.uni-hildesheim.de!fles0110
From: fles0...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de (Frank Leskova)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <1992Jul14.072423.8768@rz.uni-hildesheim.de>
Sender: n...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
Reply-To: fles0...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
Organization: Universitaet Hildesheim, RZ
References: <1992Jul11.233516.3604@microsoft.com>
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 07:24:23 GMT
Lines: 46
In article 3...@microsoft.com, phili...@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Jul11.035033.22...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> d...@po.CWRU.Edu
(Douglas A. Bell) writes:
>>
>>It is suprising how many microsoft employees manage to post to this
>>group from 9 am to 5 pm.
>
> You should try working here sometime... It's amazing how few
>people work 9-5. More like 9-8, or 10-10...
>
>
>>I guess that since they post while on the
>>payroll, the are spokepersons no matter what their .sig's say.
>
> What a tired argument this is... I see .cwru in your address -
>are you a spokesperson for Case Western?
>
> -Phil
Maybe I missed something, but what does this line of discussion have to do
with advocating OS/2 (or not)?
I think it is the right of MS-employees to write what they want, as long as
it is based on facts, and maybe even as long as it isn't too agressive
against other people who post in this group. But I also have to add: this
should be respected on both sides - not just by MS-employees.
I have been following this discussion (and the ones before this one) and can't
help getting the impression that both sides are so busy with beating up on
each other that newcomers to this group might wonder about the missing
".flame" in the group-name.
Basically it is possible that someone who works for MS does represent the
official MS opinion, but I have yet to see real proof for this.
I understand this group as a place, where OS/2 users and -non-users can argue
about the pros and cons of their systems. Insults of one side agains the other
should be kept on an E-MAIL base. In other words:
DONT CLOG UP OUR SYSTEMS WITH ALL THIS GARBAGE!
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Leskova, PO-BOX 730408, 3000 Hannover 71
University of Hildesheim, Germany
E-Mail: fles0...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
Someday we will look back on Windows and laugh...
Anything written above (by me) is my opinion, of which I do not know if anyone
else shares it - although I hope so.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!
quads!soh3
From: s...@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <1992Jul15.061138.1074@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: n...@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: s...@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <1992Jul11.233516.3604@microsoft.com>
<1992Jul14.072423.8768@rz.uni-hildesheim.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 06:11:38 GMT
Lines: 83
In article <1992Jul14.072423.8...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de> fles0...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
writes:
>>>I guess that since they post while on the
>>>payroll, the are spokepersons no matter what their .sig's say.
>>
>> What a tired argument this is... I see .cwru in your address -
>>are you a spokesperson for Case Western?
>>
>> -Phil
>
>Maybe I missed something, but what does this line of discussion have to do
>with advocating OS/2 (or not)?
>I think it is the right of MS-employees to write what they want, as long as
>it is based on facts, and maybe even as long as it isn't too agressive
>against other people who post in this group.
I agree on the condition that MS-employees do not do two things on the
net:
1) They should not promote their own products on the public forum funded by
people's taxes. Recently I saw a post by a microsoft employee who said
that one can upgrade to MSC for something like $139. This was an information
which was not solicited by any party in the thread and actually we were talking
about their competitor's good upgrade pricing. Well, if this person was
not posting from microsoft.com, then we might think he was just trying to
help. But he is a salaried microsoft employee who benefit from selling
the product he was passing the information on. I think if he was trying to
help he should use e-mail or some other medium. Instead he chose a public
forum to do that at the expense of Borland. This leads to the second point.
2) They should not **demote** their competitors products on the public forum.
By demote, I mean saying things that will adversely affect people's choices
on the product in question. I have once seen a guy from microsoft saying
he would want to see a **real good** product coming out of IBM when in the
thread a person (not from IBM, of course) asked if MS has ever published
a real good product (This might not be the exact transcription of what was
really said). One might say, this is not a serious offense. Granted. But
still that is only a tip of an iceberg. I have seen many posts that conveys
derogatory messages (very subtle but clear in intention and meaning conveyed)
about os/2 and its doomed future. One MS employee even went so far as to
say that os/2 has no place on the desktop because Windows and NT will
take care of the whole gamut from the low end all the way up. This was posted
on a thread (I believe) cross-posted to one of the os/2 related groups. I can
dig it up if you want the evidence. All these from microsoft employees do not
sound good to me. My opinion is that they are on the verge of abusing public
forum to benefit their company and themselves.
BTW, they all claim that they do not speak for microsoft. I believe that they
believe it. But a Ford employee touting a Ford card in a automobile related
news group does not sound like a unmotivated factual talk.
I want point out one last thing: Have you ever seen an IBMer either
defending os/2 or attacking windows or windows nt. Also have you seen
many people other than microsoft employees defending windows?
>But I also have to add: this
>should be respected on both sides - not just by MS-employees.
>I have been following this discussion (and the ones before this one) and can't
>help getting the impression that both sides are so busy with beating up on
>each other that newcomers to this group might wonder about the missing
>".flame" in the group-name.
>Basically it is possible that someone who works for MS does represent the
>official MS opinion, but I have yet to see real proof for this.
>I understand this group as a place, where OS/2 users and -non-users can argue
>about the pros and cons of their systems. Insults of one side agains the other
>should be kept on an E-MAIL base. In other words:
>DONT CLOG UP OUR SYSTEMS WITH ALL THIS GARBAGE!
>
>---
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Frank Leskova, PO-BOX 730408, 3000 Hannover 71
>University of Hildesheim, Germany
>E-Mail: fles0...@rz.uni-hildesheim.de
>
>Someday we will look back on Windows and laugh...
>
>Anything written above (by me) is my opinion, of which I do not know if anyone
>else shares it - although I hope so.
>
Min
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!unixland!public!peterk
From: pet...@public.sub.org (Peter Kittel)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Organization: Public News & Mailserver, Commodore Germany PM UNIX, Frankfurt
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 07:38:40 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul16.073840.28680@public.sub.org>
References: <1992Jul11.233516.3604@microsoft.com>
<1992Jul14.072423.8768@rz.uni-hildesheim.de> <1992Jul15.061138.1074@midway.uchicago.edu>
Lines: 29
s...@quads.uchicago.edu (min-woong sohn) writes:
>I agree on the condition that MS-employees do not do two things on the
>net:
>1) They should not promote their own products on the public forum funded by
>people's taxes. Recently I saw a post by a microsoft employee who said
>that one can upgrade to MSC for something like $139.
Why is such a simple information already "promoting"?
>2) They should not **demote** their competitors products on the public forum.
Yes, but they are also humans. I am rather neutral in this case and just
watch the fire to gather what's up in these respects, and I see *much*
fire. So I can understand when one person in some singular case can't
keep totally cool. Don't demand too much from a mere human.
But the most important item in my eyes is, that none of such advocates
may hide his connections that could cause biases. When a person clearly
uncovers in his .sig for what company he works, then it's fairly easy
for any reader to look at the words with a grain of salt. It would be
totally unfair to appear on the net as a private person while being in
fact a paid member of some involved company. *That* I would call unfair.
--
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
or pet...@public.sub.org
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: gordonl@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
Subject: Re: Paid Microsoft employees
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.233140.5660@microsoft.com>
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:31:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
References: <1992Jul11.233516.3604@microsoft.com>
<1992Jul14.072423.8768@rz.uni-hildesheim.de> <1992Jul15.061138.1074@midway.uchicago.edu>
Lines: 139
In article <1992Jul15.061138.1074@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I want point out one last thing: Have you ever seen an IBMer either
>defending os/2 or attacking windows or windows nt.
This is yet another in an endless series of examples of people who either:
1) have no idea of what has gone before, but make authoratative
statements as if they were knowledgable, or
2) have very selective memories
Here are some quotes of IBM employees disparaging Microsoft and microsoft
products:
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
From: dwl@watson.ibm.com (David W. Levine)
Subject: Re: Seamless Windows Worry (Long, sorry!)
Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 04:10:47 GMT
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
...
This is where OS/2 2.0 wins big over Windows. There's a genuine operating
system controlling the machine, not a souped up program loader and
--------------------------------------- ^^^^^^^^
filesystem (eg DOS)
David W. Levine -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
dwl@watson.ibm.com -- (914) 784-7427
This IBM employee disparages DOS by calling it a "souped up program loader".
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: Sad news for IBM and OS/2
Sender: news@watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
> but unless you have any evidence
> that NT will be late, why assume it will be?
Perhaps you missed the post (<1992Feb22.062238.21937@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>)
containing quotes from various Microsofties swearing that the retail
version of NT would be shipping in mid-92? When you say "why assume it
will be late", you really have to specify "late according to *which* date".
:-)
> Development on NT has gone very well; for a while (when OS/2 2.0 was
> still at MS) there was speculation as to which would ship first.
Perhaps, but in what year? :-)
> What is now NT Windows was once NT OS/2, or OS/2 3.0. It was the
> next logical step,
Yes, *OS/2 3.0* was the next logical step. Unless MS flip-flops again,
and NT will run *all* my OS/2 programs (which means PM), then NT is
of no use to me.
> Certainly Windows apps get higher priority.
Sure - they need higher priority because they're not multi-threaded. :-)
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
This posting contains a series of disparagements and snide remarks.
He ridicules NT shipping dates, and ridicules Windows programs. He
accuses MS of flipflopping.
Path: microsoft!uunet!uunet!think.com!linus!philabs!castle!scifi!watson!
yktnews!admin!news
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: New York Times article - What's going on?
In <1992Mar1.010225.6024@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
> What are all the 286 owners going to run? :-)
I've been running OS/2 1.x for years. Why would I want to downgrade
===============================================================^^^^^^^^^
to Windows? :-)
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Path: microsoft!uunet!uunet!usc!rpi!clarkson!clarkson
From: drxmann@ausvmr.VNET.IBM.COM (Dustin Christmann)
Subject: Gordon Letwin's Raving
In <1992Mar20.112800.9435@wsl.ie> John J. Allen writes:
>What's Gordon's problem, why does'nt he just go back to the MessySoft
>groups.
Well, it's nice to hear the other side of the story. Unfortunately, more of-
ten than not, it's unmitigated bull.
Thanx,
Dustin Christmann
this IBM employee accuses me of "raving", and then asserts that
my postings are often "unmitigated bull". Perhaps the readership
will repost any of my postings in which I directly and personally
slandered IBM employees.
My file of such stuff goes on and on, but this is enough.
To make things perfectly clear, I don't give a hoot about such "ravings"
and "unmittigated bull", myself. However, two different IBM lawyers sent
me threatening letters trying to force me off of the net. This was in
response to my posting about the amount of assembly language in the product.
Note that the civilized way, if you're unhappy with someone's posts, is
to complain to them and ask them to moderate their behavior. You then
fall back on the legal threats if and only if:
1) your complaint is valid and your threats are real, and
2) you've exhausted less drastic means
IBM went directly to the serious legal threats, written to folks who
they assumed were my bosses, hoping to get me fired. More, they had
no basis for the complaints; their arguments were unmitigated bullshit.
So I sent them a little reply about IBM's postings on the net. The
above examples are excerpted from page after page of stuff that I sent back.
I said that I had been laughing off the personal attacks by IBM, but
since IBM was talking major damage suits as an appropriate response to
postings then it seemed like a good idea to me...
I never heard back from the IBM lawyer, but I have noticed a quieting
of IBM postings. Perhaps there's a correlation.
By the way; this has nothing to do with Larry Solomon's departure from IBM.
gordon letwin
not a spokesperson for microsoft