On Apr 21, 6:31 pm, spi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> cc <scatnu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:05 pm, spi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> cc <scatnu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>
> >> > On Apr 20, 7:58 am, spi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >> cc <scatnu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>
> >> >> > This phrase Linux zealot was coined for nothing.
>
> >> >> Thanks for admitting that.
> >> >> WE knew it was the truth from the start. The true zealots in this newsgroup
> >> >> are the microsofties.
> >> > I don't think there's a difference between a true zealot and a normal
> >> > zealot. They're both zealots. 1000 posts a month, and Roy is going to
> >> > condescendingly compare Microsoft to a religion with a straight face?
>
> >> And this has what to do with anything?
> >> You graciously admitted the label "linux zealot" was coined for absolutely no
> >> reason just 3 posts up. It's just an insult used to generate a negative
> >> response and you know it.
> > And so is using Microsoft zealot. I was pointing out the irony of Roy
> > comparing Microsoft to a religion when he'll get his panties in a
> > bunch if it's done the other way around. I never said linux zealot was
> > coined for no reason.
>
> Yes you did.
>
> >> >> > This phrase Linux zealot was coined for nothing.
>
> If that doesn't mean the term wasn't coined for no reason, what the hell
> does it mean?
>
> *rest snipped*
Heh, it's a typo. Multiple typoes. It should read The phrase Linux
zealot wasn't coined for nothing. Now we have that settled, and you
agree with the rest of my points, so I it's all good.
|
|
