Re: now playing audio file


"Dale" <dale0973@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C481BFC1-95EC-4431-92C7-ADC2623B63F1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"zachd [MSFT]" wrote:

"Dale" <dale0973@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8ED49C35-6BBA-494E-AFA5-C34C161A7A5B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The library quote is exact. It is an exact copy-and-paste from a post
by
you. It isn't taken out of context. The attribution is to you and not
the
team. The team comes in because, though you often say you don't speak
for
the team, in this quote you specifically did speak for the team.

It involves my personal value judgements within a specific context that
you
then sickly apply to be that of a team I have no involvement with and
never
have. Me != library team. =)

You mentioned the team in your quote. I did not originate the concept of
"team" in that context.

It's your original interpretation that the "team" in sentence one is the
source of *my* opinions in sentence two. It's been a misinterpretation
since day one, but you've stuck by this notion that you understand me better
than I do. It's an interesting stance to take. =)

And since when are you the expert on what I say or what I mean? At what
point in my life am I not allowed to speak off the cuff, but instead need
some professional team watching semantics in case someone decides that
the
"speaking for myself only" bit doesn't apply because they don't want it
to?
=)

This kind of dishonest behavior would seem to certainly discourage
communication.

Dishonest? Grow up, Zach. I quoted you exactly and in context. How is
that dishonest? Please don't stoop to name-calling. It is beneath
Microsoft, if not you.

No, you breathtakingly don't. It would be honest to say "speaking for
himself in informal communication". To summarize to "Apparently the windows
media player product team just doesn't think..." - that I haven't been part
of for a long time now - will remain out of context and logically dishonest.
=)

You spoke to me first. I had no intention of acknowledging your presense
in
these groups after the bad experience that came from my first post ever to
or
about you - a compliment that yielded a window and a half long outrageous
rant from you. If you weren't looking for a fight, why start one?

I apologized for any problems between us. My mom got hit by a car and had
her arm ripped from her spine, a not surprisingly painful and life-changing
injury. I apologize that I was out of sorts. Life happens and I apologize.
=\

I like my mom. =\

I've moved past anything between us a long time ago. I don't continue to
involve you in my life in any fashion. The opposite isn't true, as
demonstrated that you still have a quote from me on your page. =)

You are the only person in ten years of dealing with the newsgroups who's
stooped to that level. You can keep talking out of both sides of your
mouth
on this if that makes you happy, but so long as you keep up *my*
non-professional in-my-spare-time goofing-around words as your citation
of
the professional opinions of people, you're never going to have a moral
highground. It's just sleazy and dishonest and always will be. =)

If there is something inaccurate in the quote from you, why haven't I
heard
from your attorneys?

Sorry, I've been busy with real life things. You know how it goes when
members of your family get terminal cancer. Thankfully you are not an
uncle, so you're probably safe, but this is #2 of 6. =\

Although Judge Judy is cool, Internet Court and that kind of thing seem
childish to me. I've assumed we were maintaining informal communications.

To quote you dishonestly and to stand by
it even after you object would be libelous but you know that is not the
case
or I would have heard from your attorneys by now.

Sorry, I've been busy with real life things. You aren't the first person to
do random things, you won't be the last. You just seem smarter, which is
why I remain puzzled by you. Oh well. =)

Of course your continued
attacks and calling me dishonest when you know the facts to be otherwise
are
libelous and if they persist it may be you who hears from my attorney
instead.

Are we really that bored with our lives? If you're seriously perturbed by
me being perturbed, hit me up on email and let's take it arbitration or
something. I just remain hopeful that at some point you'll realize I
probably know what I mean better than you do. =)

Get past what, Zach? I have never attacked you personally in any way.
Open
and honest discussion of the issues and concerns that people have with
your
product does not constitute a personal attack except to the paranoid and
insecure.

I like open and honest discussions of the issues. I *probably* have a lot
more context and a lot more knowledge here than you do. (That's not meant to
be an insult, you have a lot more knowledge than me in many areas.) Seeing
uninvolved-me being used to represent the library team doesn't constitute
"open and honest discussion". Never will. =)

Insecure doesn't really work against me because I don't claim to have
anything to be secure about. I'm bumbling about looking for solutions, and
admit to my feeble incompetence given the huge ecosystem we're dealing with.
I prostrate myself before the masses trying to glean data that might lead to
something being better for the future. I envy those that feel they
understand multimedia. The more *I* learn, the more I *know* that I don't
understand.

I don't consider it a personal attack. Why would I? It's simply a
misinterpretation of my words to cast some other party in a bad light.
That's what saddens me. You have some strong feelings on the player, I
simply don't want to be involved, especially when you misinterpret what I
said. Given that I've repeatedly said that *your* interpretation of *my*
words is wrong --
We don't really have much to talk about. There's nothing new here. =)

I have no anger against you. I just state the facts as I
understand them and believe them to be true.

And you clearly understand I'm not part of the library team and don't speak
for them. I don't speak for the product team. I'm not a Voice for the
team. Really. If this is confusing to you, reread that again. I'm just me
and speak for myself only.

I laugh with amusement that you too hopefully share when I think of random
product support people being used as reference points for Microsoft
opinions. =) It's amusing, but also important: it's just not cricket to
take Random Guy X and use them as the strawman spokesperson. =)

And I see a number of references you
make to knowledge sets I helped build/provide. *shrug*

Are you implying that I have referenced any knowledge that is your own
proprietary knowledge or to knowledge that does not exist within the
public
domain and would not have existed within that domain had you never used
these
newsgroups? Or are you referring to your help in building/providing this
knowledg in relation to your role in having developed portions of the
defective software that I am providing help to others with?

I was lightly amused to see small to-me identifiable elements of knowledge
data sets I helped build out through research over time. Externally
discoverable data will remain externally discoverable. Whether or not
people take the time and effort to grok it is one thing. I prooooooobably
can generally suss things out faster than many others could.

I didn't really have much role in development of the portions of any
defective software that you are providing others help with. I'm a fellow
interested outside observer. The team you're typically thinking of is an
another building. I don't work for them or speak for them.

You help a lot of people here, Zach. But your continued off-topic rants
and
rages against anyone who has anything negative to say about Windows Media
Player don't do any good at all.

After seeing what I've seen said from professional people in professional
settings who should have known better, anybody saying something negative
about WMP in this context isn't really something I'd raise my eyebrow over.

I simply like to understand the specifics of those complains such that they
can be addressed as possible. Problem-solving is fascinating. Actually,
"Vista-hating" is a much more interesting field to me anyways. I think we
(community) have generally sussed out most issues with WMP11 by now. I like
understanding the Vista experience.

Plus I think if someone dislikes anything, it's good to dislike something
specifically. If you dislike X about Y, then you know that you want a
particular kind of X in whatever is going to replace Y in your life. Rock
on. I've probably made more contributions to external media players in the
past year than I have to anything Microsoft-based. If multimedia works for
people, I'm really happy. =) I want to suss out problems in whatever
they're going through (as opposed to dodging issues) since issues if left
unchecked could potentially corrupt the experience for other aspects of the
ecosystem too.

I think we're on the same page on most of that. You're helping people.
That's good and kind of you. =)

You have access to other forums to challenge me. You have responded to my
blog article where I quoted you. I left your response untouched and
intact.

Yeah, having a he-said she-said on a blog (sadly, my hair is long, so I'm
probably playing the "she" there) doesn't seem like effective or useful
communication. =)

You have access to my personal email address.

=) I gave you mine a long time ago. zachdms at that hotmail place.

Through Microsoft, you have
access to my employment and my home address and phone numbers.

That would be abusively stalkerish. I don't know what you're referring to
and I don't want to know. I would expect anyone accessing those resources
(if they exist) for personal reasons to get a reprimand at the very least.
My involvement with the newsgroups is on my own time. =)

In spite of all these other options, you continue to subject the original
posters to questions with rants and rages that have nothing at all to do
with
their purpose for coming to these groups. This is not at all beneficial
to
users. This seems to be a personal vendetta of your own for which I can
think of no reason.

I'll try not to rant and rage. I appreciate the feedback.

There's no vendetta here: I will remain honestly disappointed in that you
choose to leave your misinterpretation of my words up. That unfortunately
chills communications that I find really valuable.

You, sir, are little more than any other troll or Internet stalker in any
other newsgroup. You would serve yourself, me, the users of these
newsgroups, and Microsoft well if you were to simply refrain from
addressing
me or my posts.

I thought I was helpful with pointing out a couple minor glitches in the web
resources you pointed people to. I apologize if they weren't helpful.

One way or the other, we're all in this together. =)

--
Speaking for myself only.
See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Did he support this accusation?
    ... I told you that I was not interested in off-topic and ancient accusations ... I did not even speak about your accusations ... You indirectly were trying to speak for me when you lied about the context ... No, Steve, I never said that. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... I hesitate to use the name of God in the context of posting to a ... I'll stack up my life against this group in any respect. ... No scorekeeping its called confession of faith and grace not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT:Did he support this accusation?
    ... and you replied by trying to speak for me: ... Because, clearly, they are irrelevant to your speaking for me. ... You lied about me, Steve, or, at best, were grossly mistaken and ... You indirectly were trying to speak for me when you lied about the context ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: New A C Grayling book
    ... can you justify this or perhaps point me to ... It sounds the same as the tree falling ... introduce so much context that you can easily define and show the ... about Earth, evolution or life forms, and at a much more fundamental ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: now playing audio file
    ... It isn't taken out of context. ... in this quote you specifically did speak for the team. ... ever seen on any newsgroup who walks around with a chip on their shoulder. ... It's just sleazy and dishonest and always will be. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player)
Loading