"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Wednesday 21 February 2007 18:39 \__
>> on Feb 21 2007 13:12:22 -0500 "amicus_curious" wrote:
>>> ".. Rather the action would come against Red Hat with the effect of
>>> enjoining them to cease distribution of offending pieces of their
>> Seeing as you have a unique insight into the thought processes of
>> Ballmer, what 'offending pieces' is he 'hinting at'.
> It would be wiser to just ignore Bill Weisgerber < amicus_curious >. He's
> Microsoft's pay2post program. He's a PR mouthpiece which does not belong
> this newsgroup, let alone UseNet. Think of his posts as Wikipedia edits
> Microsoft paid for, or even Munchkins it employed to fend off OS/2. These
> are proven facts.
Well, you are completely wrong, even though a rational person could be
expected to debate an idea on the merits of the idea alone. You seem unable
to do that effectively and seem nettled that I post at all. I will make you
an offer to the point that if you can show some evidence of your charges, I
will gladly disappear forever from here. It is not so very amusing or
informative in any event. If you cannot, you should perhaps agree to do the
same. Can you muster anything to show for your bizarre theory?