If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 25, 9:09*am, chrisv wrote:
Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 20, 10:15*am, chrisv wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a joke. LOL. *What a "surprise" to see Mr Myers rushing to the defense of his beloved Intel. What scummy behavior, on their part. May I see your God credentials, please? *Or are you totally unacquainted with scripture? Weird. I don't think it's weird at all. You speak in a peremptory fashion, as if your judgments were obvious, indisputable, and final. Leaving our readers across the Atlantic out, we live in a country where some huge fraction of the population claims to be Christian. Never mind what reality those claims correspond to, they reflect a publicly-stated allegiance to a set of values that should have some consonance with judgments that are obvious, indisputable, and final. The only real content of your post is moral judgment. According to the commonly-accepted text, moral judgment is a job to be left to God. Either 1. You are out of line with publicly-declared allegiances to values, or 2. You have some credentials that qualify you to judge for God. Robert. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 25/08/2010 10:13 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:09 am, wrote: Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 20, 10:15 am, wrote: What scummy behavior, on their part. May I see your God credentials, please? Or are you totally unacquainted with scripture? Weird. I don't think it's weird at all. So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily? You speak in a peremptory fashion, as if your judgments were obvious, indisputable, and final. Leaving our readers across the Atlantic out, we live in a country where some huge fraction of the population claims to be Christian. Never mind what reality those claims correspond to, they reflect a publicly-stated allegiance to a set of values that should have some consonance with judgments that are obvious, indisputable, and final. The only real content of your post is moral judgment. According to the commonly-accepted text, moral judgment is a job to be left to God. Either 1. You are out of line with publicly-declared allegiances to values, or 2. You have some credentials that qualify you to judge for God. Robert. Ha-ha-ha, ROLFMAO. Good one Robert, you'll convince everyone that you're an old man going senile yet. Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 26, 1:07*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 25/08/2010 10:13 AM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 25, 9:09 am, *wrote: Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 20, 10:15 am, *wrote: What scummy behavior, on their part. May I see your God credentials, please? *Or are you totally unacquainted with scripture? Weird. I don't think it's weird at all. So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily? The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." If you are going to accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of your standing to do so. In any case, the Ten Commandments are only one (albeit important) summary of some parts of the Law. That it is only God who is fit to judge can be found throughout scripture. People like Chris speak as if their own judgments reflected some obvious conclusion that anyone would draw. Leaving beliefs in the supernatural entirely aside, Chris demonstrates over and over again that he does not understand even the stated beliefs of our culture and thus is an unlikely person to be proposing moral judgments (as scripture would see it, in the place of God). The rest of your post is just more of your abusiveness. Robert. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in total:
On Aug 25, 9:09*am, chrisv wrote: Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 20, 10:15*am, chrisv wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a joke. LOL. *What a "surprise" to see Mr Myers rushing to the defense of his beloved Intel. What scummy behavior, on their part. May I see your God credentials, please? *Or are you totally unacquainted with scripture? Weird. I don't think it's weird at all. You speak in a peremptory fashion, as if your judgments were obvious, indisputable, and final. Leaving our readers across the Atlantic out, we live in a country where some huge fraction of the population claims to be Christian. Never mind what reality those claims correspond to, they reflect a publicly-stated allegiance to a set of values that should have some consonance with judgments that are obvious, indisputable, and final. The only real content of your post is moral judgment. According to the commonly-accepted text, moral judgment is a job to be left to God. Either 1. You are out of line with publicly-declared allegiances to values, or 2. You have some credentials that qualify you to judge for God. Robert. Wierder and wierder -- defending a non sequitur. Did he hit a nerve? To recap: chrisv accused you of being an Intel fanboy. Obviously his personal judgement which others may share. He also accused the Intel/FTC settlement of being scummy. Ditto. Nothing outside USENET norms. Deity nowhere claimed or involved. -- Robert R |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 26, 10:58*am, Robert Redelmeier wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in total: On Aug 25, 9:09*am, chrisv wrote: Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 20, 10:15*am, chrisv wrote: Robert Myers wrote: Good news for fanboys. *For the industry? *For real consumers? *What a joke. LOL. *What a "surprise" to see Mr Myers rushing to the defense of his beloved Intel. What scummy behavior, on their part. May I see your God credentials, please? *Or are you totally unacquainted with scripture? Weird. I don't think it's weird at all. You speak in a peremptory fashion, as if your judgments were obvious, indisputable, and final. * Leaving our readers across the Atlantic out, we live in a country where some huge fraction of the population claims to be Christian. *Never mind what reality those claims correspond to, they reflect a publicly-stated allegiance to a set of values that should have some consonance with judgments that are obvious, indisputable, and final. The only real content of your post is moral judgment. *According to the commonly-accepted text, moral judgment is a job to be left to God. * Either 1. You are out of line with publicly-declared allegiances to values, or 2. You have some credentials that qualify you to judge for God. Robert. Wierder and wierder -- defending a non sequitur. *Did he hit a nerve? To recap: *chrisv accused you of being an Intel fanboy. Obviously his personal judgement which others may share. He also accused the Intel/FTC settlement of being scummy. *Ditto. Nothing outside USENET norms. *Deity nowhere claimed or involved. The are Usenet norms? Would that include all of alt.*? I guess pretty much anything goes. We are off, here, into moral proclamations, a favorite pastime of many, including you. If you are going to make moral announcements as if you had the standing to do so, then it stands to reason that you should exhibit some knowledge of and consonance with the beliefs of the culture in which you made your announcements. No matter what you or I may personally believe, our culture at least nominally subscribes to a set of values that proscribes, among other things, placing oneself in the seat of judgment which, in the standard formulation, is reserved to God. It matters not in the slightest whether you have included any religious material in your announcement or what you actually believe. If you presume to be a moral arbiter, you have to establish your moral standing to *be* a moral arbiter. You can disagree, vehemently, if you wish, with assumed cultural norms, but you can't at the same time make your announcements as if they would be manifestly acceptable to everyone. Robert. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 26/08/2010 10:29 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:07 am, Yousuf wrote: So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily? The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." If you are going to accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of your standing to do so. Ah, I see, so even scripture isn't above your spin-doctoring? That commandment is quite obviously about committing perjury, and you've turned it into "only god can know what went on"? Sorry god will never take the witness stand, but trials are somehow still conducted and verdicts rendered. People like Chris speak as if their own judgments reflected some obvious conclusion that anyone would draw. Leaving beliefs in the supernatural entirely aside, Chris demonstrates over and over again that he does not understand even the stated beliefs of our culture and thus is an unlikely person to be proposing moral judgments (as scripture would see it, in the place of God). Get over it, Intel was found guilty by literally every authority who has judged them so far. Not even god can disagree with that. Yousuf Khan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 26, 9:51*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 26/08/2010 10:29 AM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 26, 1:07 am, Yousuf *wrote: So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily? The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." *If you are going to accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of your standing to do so. Ah, I see, so even scripture isn't above your spin-doctoring? That commandment is quite obviously about committing perjury, and you've turned it into "only god can know what went on"? Sorry god will never take the witness stand, but trials are somehow still conducted and verdicts rendered. E-mail me privately, and I will show you the catechism. It isn't about only God can know what went on. It's about defaming others falsely, something you do regularly. People like Chris speak as if their own judgments reflected some obvious conclusion that anyone would draw. *Leaving beliefs in the supernatural entirely aside, Chris demonstrates over and over again that he does not understand even the stated beliefs of our culture and thus is an unlikely person to be proposing moral judgments (as scripture would see it, in the place of God). Get over it, Intel was found guilty by literally every authority who has judged them so far. Not even god can disagree with that. You don't understand how consent decrees work and you never will. You're hopeless. Signing a consent agreement almost never involves an admission of guilt. A "finding" of guilt requires a criminal proceeding and a verdict. What you are engaged in here is corporate defamation, a tort, for which you could be sued. Robert. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On 8/27/2010 9:06 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:51 pm, Yousuf wrote: On 26/08/2010 10:29 AM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 26, 1:07 am, Yousuf wrote: So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily? The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." If you are going to accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of your standing to do so. Ah, I see, so even scripture isn't above your spin-doctoring? That commandment is quite obviously about committing perjury, and you've turned it into "only god can know what went on"? Sorry god will never take the witness stand, but trials are somehow still conducted and verdicts rendered. E-mail me privately, and I will show you the catechism. It isn't about only God can know what went on. It's about defaming others falsely, something you do regularly. Circular logic, I corrected you by saying it's about perjury and you agree with it, without admitting it. Is that your consent decree? People like Chris speak as if their own judgments reflected some obvious conclusion that anyone would draw. Leaving beliefs in the supernatural entirely aside, Chris demonstrates over and over again that he does not understand even the stated beliefs of our culture and thus is an unlikely person to be proposing moral judgments (as scripture would see it, in the place of God). Get over it, Intel was found guilty by literally every authority who has judged them so far. Not even god can disagree with that. You don't understand how consent decrees work and you never will. You're hopeless. Signing a consent agreement almost never involves an admission of guilt. A "finding" of guilt requires a criminal proceeding and a verdict. What you are engaged in here is corporate defamation, a tort, for which you could be sued. Robert. You mean god is gonna sue me? Yousuf Khan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
On Aug 28, 10:40*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/27/2010 9:06 AM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 26, 9:51 pm, Yousuf *wrote: On 26/08/2010 10:29 AM, Robert Myers wrote: On Aug 26, 1:07 am, Yousuf * *wrote: So "scummy behaviour" is a judgment only god can make, now? Is it one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not conduct thine behaviour scummily? The eighth commandment, as Lutherans and RC's count, is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." *If you are going to accuse someone of something, you'd best have God-like certainty of your standing to do so. Ah, I see, so even scripture isn't above your spin-doctoring? That commandment is quite obviously about committing perjury, and you've turned it into "only god can know what went on"? Sorry god will never take the witness stand, but trials are somehow still conducted and verdicts rendered. E-mail me privately, and I will show you the catechism. *It isn't about only God can know what went on. *It's about defaming others falsely, something you do regularly. Circular logic, I corrected you by saying it's about perjury and you agree with it, without admitting it. Is that your consent decree? http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm "The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others." Nothing about swearing. Nothing about perjury. We have not agreed. You have said that Intel was "found guilty." It wasn't. You have misrepresented the truth regarding Intel. Luther's Small Catechism goes much further in interpreting the Eighth Commandment as condemning the kind of behavior you regularly indulge. I'm sure I could find something similar in the Institutes of Religion (Calvin), with which I am much less familiar. None of this has anything to do with circular logic. You set yourself up as a moral judge, made false statements regarding Intel, and thus condemned yourself. You could plausibly argue that scripture and its normative interpreters are no longer relevant to a discussion of moral discourse, but that would be your only recourse. Robert. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Intel's agreement with the FTC
Robert Myers wrote:
None of this has anything to do with circular logic. You set yourself up as a moral judge, made false statements regarding Intel, and thus condemned yourself. First of all, Intel is not a being. Second, Mr Myers, may I remind you about 2nd commandnment? rgds \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel's agreement with the FTC | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | General | 71 | August 31st 10 04:24 PM |
Intel's agreement with the FTC | Bob Willard | Intel | 9 | August 22nd 10 08:53 PM |
Intel to pull x86 cross-licensing agreement with AMD in 60 days | Yousuf Khan | General | 0 | March 16th 09 09:11 PM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Homebuilt PC's | 47 | November 22nd 06 10:18 AM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Nvidia Videocards | 0 | October 13th 06 08:07 PM |