First of all, a person should not do business with Microsoft. Microsoft buys out people's souls: a person purchasing something from Microsoft is as deluded as a zombie, with an illusion of expertise, under the Devil's wing(command). I try not to act as a conventional customer because in all ways I would behave in the way of a Microsoft customer.
And if a person pays Microsoft money, there's no reason for he or she to be concerned as a customer with what they do with the money because it's none of the customer's business. As a citizen, on the otherhand, it is definitely a person's business what a company such as Microsoft does with extra cash. So the important consideration is concern as a citizen regarding non-business dealings!
People who act with 'planned parenthood' are illusioned. As a citizen I understand Microsoft is immoral and bad.
On a more specific scope, just two days ago, I decided that I was totally wrong investing in a mutual fund stock. Consequently I have decided to stop investing in stocks altogether. If a specific link in a chain is faulty, one should get rid of the chain. Once a person has made a stand concerning citizenship, it should be very clear whether he or she will or will not vote. And if the decision is to vote, a person should vote purely in one's own interests.
First of all, I don't see how a person could want a good example as long as that person is ruled by a boss (Microsoft bosses for ex). A person should not have a boss. Instead a person should, if possible, allow somebody to pay you to 'do want you want to do' because he or she wants to see what you do: take 'donations' (meaning payment for your work really).
O.k. if a person can attempt that first, the person should also 'be able' to and 'optionally offer' (person's choice) his or her own resource (meaning a creation made by that person) to another, who will use (note* the person accepting the resource should not modify it unless personally wanted and it is designed to be optionally modified; the person accepting the resource should mandatorily modify it if it is designed to be modified) it to do something wanted personally, because the person able to offer wants to see what another will do.
Note* I am not saying "you should" (instead saying "a person should" because I'm only attempting to set an ideal example. A person has to make his or her own decisions.
First of all, I don't see how a person could want a good example (meaning advise) as long as that person is ruled by a boss. A person should not have a boss. Instead a person should, if possible, allow somebody to pay you to 'do want you want to do' because he or she wants to see what you do: take 'donations' (meaning payment for your work really).
O.k. if a person can attempt that first, the person should also 'be able' to and 'optionally offer' (person's choice) his or her own resource (meaning a creation made by that person) to another, who will use (note* the person accepting the resource should not modify it unless personally wanted and it is designed to be optionally modified; the person accepting the resource should mandatorily modify it if it is designed to be modified) it to do something wanted personally, because the person able to offer wants to see what another will do.
Note* I am not saying "you should" (instead saying "a person should" because I'm only attempting to set an ideal example. A person has to make his or her own decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
In reply to comment #16787521
First of all, a person should not do business with Microsoft. Microsoft buys out people's souls: a person purchasing something from Microsoft is as deluded as a zombie, with an illusion of expertise, under the Devil's wing(command).
I try not to act as a conventional customer because in all ways I would behave in the way of a Microsoft customer.
And if a person pays Microsoft money, there's no reason for he or she to be concerned as a customer with what they do with the money because it's none of the customer's business.
As a citizen, on the otherhand, it is definitely a person's business what a company such as Microsoft does with extra cash. So the important consideration is concern as a citizen regarding non-business dealings!
People who act with 'planned parenthood' are illusioned. As a citizen I understand Microsoft is immoral and bad.
On a more specific scope,
just two days ago, I decided that I was totally wrong investing in a mutual fund stock.
Consequently I have decided to stop investing in stocks altogether.
If a specific link in a chain is faulty, one should get rid of the chain.
Once a person has made a stand concerning citizenship, it should be very clear whether he or she will or will not vote. And if the decision is to vote, a person should vote purely in one's own interests.
First of all, I don't see how a person could want a good example as long as that person is ruled by a boss (Microsoft bosses for ex). A person should not have a boss. Instead a person should, if possible, allow somebody to pay you to 'do want you want to do' because he or she wants to see what you do: take 'donations' (meaning payment for your work really).
O.k. if a person can attempt that first, the person should also 'be able' to and 'optionally offer' (person's choice) his or her own resource (meaning a creation made by that person) to another, who will use (note* the person accepting the resource should not modify it unless personally wanted and it is designed to be optionally modified; the person accepting the resource should mandatorily modify it if it is designed to be modified) it to do something wanted personally, because the person able to offer wants to see what another will do.
Note* I am not saying "you should" (instead saying "a person should" because I'm only attempting to set an ideal example. A person has to make his or her own decisions.
First of all, I don't see how a person could want a good example (meaning advise) as long as that person is ruled by a boss. A person should not have a boss. Instead a person should, if possible, allow somebody to pay you to 'do want you want to do' because he or she wants to see what you do: take 'donations' (meaning payment for your work really).
O.k. if a person can attempt that first, the person should also 'be able' to and 'optionally offer' (person's choice) his or her own resource (meaning a creation made by that person) to another, who will use (note* the person accepting the resource should not modify it unless personally wanted and it is designed to be optionally modified; the person accepting the resource should mandatorily modify it if it is designed to be modified) it to do something wanted personally, because the person able to offer wants to see what another will do.
Note* I am not saying "you should" (instead saying "a person should" because I'm only attempting to set an ideal example. A person has to make his or her own decisions.