On 2006-06-13, William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 13 Jun 2006
> 07:29:37 +0000, spike1 posted this:
>
>> flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:00:31 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> Yet you and your Koolaid drinking Linux nutsacks ignore the fact that Roy
>>> is ethically wrong.
>>
>> In what way?
>> And don't go on about that sodding picture again.
>> Stealing a mars bar from a shop is a more serious crime than that!
>> (And who in their lifetime has never pilfered SOMETHING?)
>
> Apparently flatfish has admitted (some time ago) that he's used/using M$
> pirated software, so he hasn't a leg (or should that be fin) to stand on.
S/H/It tried to dance away from it by claiming s/h/it was legally
entitled to use it due to some work for someone, and that said
entitlement carried on long after the work was completed.
That was almost as authentic an excuse as the after-the-fact claims
that MDK didn't work properly, and that's why s/h/it returned it for a
refund. Despite that not being believable because it was only brought
up after s/h/it was cornered, it *still* doesn't explain the bragging
s/h/it did about making copies for friends prior to returning it.
I'd expect some more Flatso shuffling along the lines of "Prove it or
STFU." Flathead used X-No-Archive almost exclusively then and knows the
only existing evidence is that quoted by others on google (other
archives exist, however). Then s/h/it tries to pretend every person
pointing this all out must have been making everything up that they
were quoting because there's nothing directly attributable to s/h/it.
--
I was the kid next door's imaginary friend.
-- Emo Philips
|
|
