Comments on: When “Agreed” means No. http://lehors.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/when-agreed-means-no/ Opinions on open source and standards Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:25:17 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Boycott Novell » Some Old and New Irregularities Surrounding the BRM in Geneva http://lehors.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/when-agreed-means-no/#comment-100 Boycott Novell » Some Old and New Irregularities Surrounding the BRM in Geneva Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:48:12 +0000 http://lehors.wordpress.com/?p=24#comment-100 [...] newer reports, here is what we have just come to find about Rick Jelliffe, the man who still fights for Microsoft. The Pro-OOXML lobbyists a la Rick [...] [...] newer reports, here is what we have just come to find about Rick Jelliffe, the man who still fights for Microsoft. The Pro-OOXML lobbyists a la Rick [...]

]]> By: Fiery Spirited http://lehors.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/when-agreed-means-no/#comment-99 Fiery Spirited Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:42:03 +0000 http://lehors.wordpress.com/?p=24#comment-99 Good point you made. I visited Rick's blog and it just as bad as you describe it. I wrote a comment on his blog that I will repost below (deletion of comments when the blog owner fail to come up with an answer to the message seem to be a standard maneuver these days). * * * I do agree that it is silly to think that it would be impossible for Microsoft to accept changes. I mean how stupid would it be of Microsoft to agree that something is a serious issue, but then neglect to really do something about it. A more reasonably tactics would be to disagree about there beeing a problem and invent some explanation about why this is so. The critical question is...what does it tell us if Microsoft/Ecma can't come up with a good enough explanation that they dare to disagree about if something is a problem? The only logical interpretation is that every one of the answers that include the word agree, but refuse to really do something, are that these are issues that Ecma think need to be adressed but where Microsoft has used their veto against any change. Good point you made.

I visited Rick’s blog and it just as bad as you describe it. I wrote a comment on his blog that I will repost below (deletion of comments when the blog owner fail to come up with an answer to the message seem to be a standard maneuver these days).

* * *

I do agree that it is silly to think that it would be impossible for Microsoft to accept changes. I mean how stupid would it be of Microsoft to agree that something is a serious issue, but then neglect to really do something about it. A more reasonably tactics would be to disagree about there beeing a problem and invent some explanation about why this is so.

The critical question is…what does it tell us if Microsoft/Ecma can’t come up with a good enough explanation that they dare to disagree about if something is a problem?

The only logical interpretation is that every one of the answers that include the word agree, but refuse to really do something, are that these are issues that Ecma think need to be adressed but where Microsoft has used their veto against any change.

]]>