Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #17667 > unrolled thread

Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-10 15:17 -0400
    Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-03-10 16:52 -0500
      Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-10 20:07 -0400
        Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-03-10 19:27 -0500
          Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 21:00 -0400
          Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-10 21:18 -0400
            Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-03-11 07:45 -0500
              Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-11 08:53 -0400
                Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-23 14:50 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-24 08:48 -0400
                    Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-24 17:20 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-24 14:19 -0400
        Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 20:59 -0400
    Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 01:00 +0000
      Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-03-10 21:19 -0400
    Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-03-11 11:36 +0000
      Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-03-11 12:39 +0000
    Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-03-12 00:45 -0400
    Re: Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children focoloco@proton.me - 2025-03-24 08:03 -0600

#17667 — Microsoft Still Promoting and Funding Sex Changes for Children

<https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>

Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
puberty blockers quickly.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17670

CrudeSausage wrote:
> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
> 
> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
> as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
> puberty blockers quickly.
> 


It's proof that god loves us!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17674

On 2025-03-10 5:52 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>>
>> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
>> as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
>> puberty blockers quickly.
>>
> 
> 
> It's proof that god loves us!

This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing in 
Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17676

CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-03-10 5:52 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>>>
>>> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for 
>>> children as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to 
>>> administer puberty blockers quickly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's proof that god loves us!
> 
> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing in 
> Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
> 

Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17678

Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-03-10 5:52 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>>>>
>>>> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for 
>>>> children as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to 
>>>> administer puberty blockers quickly.
>>>
>>> It's proof that god loves us!
>> 
>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing in 
>> Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>
>Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?


Surely you mean Satan.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17681

On 2025-03-10 8:27 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-03-10 5:52 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>>>>
>>>> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for 
>>>> children as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to 
>>>> administer puberty blockers quickly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's proof that god loves us!
>>
>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing 
>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>
> 
> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?

I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through 
Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to 
that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of 
watching the movie through the web.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17693

CrudeSausage wrote:

> Hank Rogers wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing 
>>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>>
>> 
>> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?
>
>I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through 
>Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to 
>that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of 
>watching the movie through the web.

"There is no lock-in.  There never was, and there never will be."  -
DumFSck, lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17695

On 3/11/25 08:45, chrisv wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing
>>>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?
>>
>> I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through
>> Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to
>> that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of
>> watching the movie through the web.
> 
> "There is no lock-in.  There never was, and there never will be."  -
> DumFSck, lying shamelessly

If they had at least made the movies accessible through the web, there 
would be a way around it. I imagine that there is a way to enable their 
content's DRM through the web instead of forcing the customer to use a 
Microsoft program to watch those movies, but they seem to have no desire 
to allow it.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17880

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 12:53 this Tuesday (GMT):
> On 3/11/25 08:45, chrisv wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing
>>>>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?
>>>
>>> I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through
>>> Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to
>>> that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of
>>> watching the movie through the web.
>> 
>> "There is no lock-in.  There never was, and there never will be."  -
>> DumFSck, lying shamelessly
>
> If they had at least made the movies accessible through the web, there 
> would be a way around it. I imagine that there is a way to enable their 
> content's DRM through the web instead of forcing the customer to use a 
> Microsoft program to watch those movies, but they seem to have no desire 
> to allow it.


Why would they?
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17895

On 2025-03-23 10:50, candycanearter07 wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 12:53 this Tuesday (GMT):
>> On 3/11/25 08:45, chrisv wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing
>>>>>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through
>>>> Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to
>>>> that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of
>>>> watching the movie through the web.
>>>
>>> "There is no lock-in.  There never was, and there never will be."  -
>>> DumFSck, lying shamelessly
>>
>> If they had at least made the movies accessible through the web, there
>> would be a way around it. I imagine that there is a way to enable their
>> content's DRM through the web instead of forcing the customer to use a
>> Microsoft program to watch those movies, but they seem to have no desire
>> to allow it.
> 
> 
> Why would they?

Good point. They want people to be tied to their product and this is one 
good way to go about it. To be fair, their prices are fantastic as is 
their delivery.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17902

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 12:48 this Monday (GMT):
> On 2025-03-23 10:50, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 12:53 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>> On 3/11/25 08:45, chrisv wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing
>>>>>>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through
>>>>> Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to
>>>>> that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of
>>>>> watching the movie through the web.
>>>>
>>>> "There is no lock-in.  There never was, and there never will be."  -
>>>> DumFSck, lying shamelessly
>>>
>>> If they had at least made the movies accessible through the web, there
>>> would be a way around it. I imagine that there is a way to enable their
>>> content's DRM through the web instead of forcing the customer to use a
>>> Microsoft program to watch those movies, but they seem to have no desire
>>> to allow it.
>> 
>> 
>> Why would they?
>
> Good point. They want people to be tied to their product and this is one 
> good way to go about it. To be fair, their prices are fantastic as is 
> their delivery.


We love walled gardens..
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17907

On 2025-03-24 1:20 p.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 12:48 this Monday (GMT):
>> On 2025-03-23 10:50, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 12:53 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>> On 3/11/25 08:45, chrisv wrote:
>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing
>>>>>>>> in Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ouch!  What did you do that got god angered at you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think He is angered, but I bought a _lot_ of movies through
>>>>>> Microsoft's Films & TV site. Removing Windows means losing access to
>>>>>> that content without using an Xbox. They don't provide any way of
>>>>>> watching the movie through the web.
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is no lock-in.  There never was, and there never will be."  -
>>>>> DumFSck, lying shamelessly
>>>>
>>>> If they had at least made the movies accessible through the web, there
>>>> would be a way around it. I imagine that there is a way to enable their
>>>> content's DRM through the web instead of forcing the customer to use a
>>>> Microsoft program to watch those movies, but they seem to have no desire
>>>> to allow it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would they?
>>
>> Good point. They want people to be tied to their product and this is one
>> good way to go about it. To be fair, their prices are fantastic as is
>> their delivery.
> 
> 
> We love walled gardens..

Well, it is definitely easier on the storage than having your entire DVD 
and Blu-Ray library on it at all times. The fact that I can't share the 
content or consume it on Linux is a problem though.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17677

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-03-10 5:52 p.m., Hank Rogers wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:

>>> <https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>>>
>>> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
>>> as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
>>> puberty blockers quickly.
>> 
>> It's proof that god loves us!
>
>This is proof, for me, that the biggest mistake I made was investing in 
>Microsoft's DRM-enabled content. I'm locked-in as a result.


They really could consider providing it for Unix-like, but they have
no motive to, I guess.  Yeah, I'd rather not spend money on their
proprietary offerings.  I was able to stream the Trump movie with
Linux Chrome on my TV screen.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17679

Surely only woke users would buy Microsoft, in that case ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17682

On 2025-03-10 9:00 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Surely only woke users would buy Microsoft, in that case ...

You're absolutely correct.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17689

In article <HVGzP.307463$SZca.169785@fx13.iad>, crude@sausa.ge says...
>
>
>Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
>as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
>puberty blockers quickly.

Can we keep the lunatic culture wars and slogan-trading out of this 
group?

-- 
--
Phil, London

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17691

On 2025-03-11 11:36, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <HVGzP.307463$SZca.169785@fx13.iad>, crude@sausa.ge says...
>>
>>
>> Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children
>> as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer
>> puberty blockers quickly.
> 
> Can we keep the lunatic culture wars and slogan-trading out of this
> group?

+100

Entire thread ignored, person who started it plonked.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17712

In alt.comp.os.windows-11, on Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:17:38 -0400,
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

><https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>
>Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
>as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
>puberty blockers quickly.

That's nothing. Android has an app that will do that. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17897

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:17:38 -0400, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge>
wrote:

><https://lunduke.substack.com/p/microsoft-still-promoting-and-funding>
>
>Mandatory corporate insurance for "Gender Affirming Care" for children 
>as young as 3 years old. Microsoft employees encouraged to administer 
>puberty blockers quickly.


Thanks for the report from Dimwit Dynasty. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web