It was on Wednesday 19 July 2006 1:17 am, that Peter KÃhlmann apparently said:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:40:03 +0200, Peter KÃhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:48:12 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, you are wrong, Erik.
>>>>>> The KDE equivalent (Superkaramba) was introduced in April 2003
>>>>>
>>>>> So let me get this right, Peter....
>>>>
>>>> No, neither you or Peter have this right. See my message to Peter.
>>>
>>> You certainly have "evidence" for this, Erik.
>>> You know, those thingies your claims usually lack so sorely
>>> And you run away from when asked for
>>
>> I provided evidence, Peter. so STFU.
>
> You did nothing of that sort.
> You provided opinions. "Evidence" is something entirely different
So, this is looking like *another* of his claims to add to the growing list.
To date I have eight of his claims which, as far as I'm aware, have not been
backed up with *any* evidence provided by him:-
1] Where does NTFS store its journal?
2] How did the Morris worm spread by email?
3] What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
4] Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
standards?
5] Why is ok for *him* (without asking permission) to publicise other
people's personal information, but if a person chooses to
publicise personal information about *himself*, it is "inappropriate".
6] What about the "thousands of root exploits per month" he claimed,
& was then found to be making it all up?
7] How does Funkenbusch *know* Roy didn't come by the picture he's
ranting about, honestly?
8] How does he *know* that Roy does /not/ have the legitimate right to
use the picture despite what the copyright owner claims is the case?
All these require *evidence* from him, to back up *his* claims.
--
Disk full - remove Windows?
Y - Yes!
F - FFS YES!
|
|
