[odf-discuss] RE: Trolls

[Damon Anderson]

I'm a troll. Which I guess is somewhat better than last time, when I was a  
Pitbull.

Although I am somewhat technical I lack direct knowledge in both these  
specifications. Certainly saying that something is debunked without  
reference to the debunking is inflamatory. Also, Marbux, you do tend to  
get a bit hot headed, which is inflamatory. Hence Jean's appropo request  
to take it offline.

But I would like to make a few comments in regards to this overall  
discussion. Interoperability is an issue in the public mind set, thanks to  
MS and its' media lap dogs. As such if there is a valid debunking of this  
issue (I have yet to see it) then it needs to be publicized. Certainly  
stating that by following the specification there is interoperability does  
not achieve what I believe any of us truly expect from interoperability,  
rather that is compliance. Compliance within a standard brings  
interoperability within the standard only and that is not the goal as far  
as I can tell.

Lastly, dissent, be it correct or erroneous, is absolutely necessary to  
achieving a good standard. Dissent forces us to review and question the  
assumptions that we have made to achieve the goal. So kudos to all of you,  
but take note of the dissenter because as the times change the dissenter  
may become the majority.

-Damon



On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:19:37 +0700, marbux <marbux at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/25/07, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Max. Personally I'm tired of hearing this rant from Marbux.
>> Marbux's claims have been throughly debunked by a lot of people who
>> actually know ODF and actually have ODF implementations in the market.
>> At some point one starts to get tired of debunking the exact same claims
>> over and over.
>
>
> You're being silly again Daniel. My claims under discussion have never  
> been
> "debunked." Like you, a lot of people have called me names, but no one  
> has
> debunked what I've been saying about ODF and interop. Like you, they  
> attack
> the messenger rather than dealing with the technical issues. I am talking
> about far more than just the lists  amendment. And my lists use case is
> still waiting for anyone who claims to have "debunked" me to solve. Just
> like my business process and migration use cases. Some "debunking."
>
> And those folks with implementations you choose to believe (all one of  
> them)
> without doing your homework are not people who have even attempted high
> fidelity round trip interop with MS Office. They lack the necessary
> expertise. But our proof of concept MS plug-in is still there for anyone  
> to
> download and test.
>
> Are you denying that ODF lacks interoperability conformance requirements
> other than validation? ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives require:
>
> Standards designed to facilitate interoperability need to specify clearly
>> > and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to  
>> achieve
>> > the interoperability.
>> >
>>
> And that is a mandatory requirement. So show me where those interop
> conformance requirements are, Daniel. Show me where the ODF interop
> framework is.
>
> I said it before and I'll say it again, Daniel. You're a troll. You have
> nothing but ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies in your gun.  
> Your
> latest post is just further proof.
>
>
> BUCK "MARBUX" MARTIN
>   Director of Legal Affairs
>   OpenDocument Foundation
>   Contact:
> <http://www.opendocumentfoundation.us/contact.htm>
> -- Universal Interop Now!



-- 
Damon Anderson, Managing Director
Corigo Việt Nam
391B Lý Thường Kiệt
P.9, Q. Tân Bình
Hồ Chí Minh City, Vietnam
Mobile: +84 90 834-2421
Email: damon at corigo.com
http://www.corigo.com