On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:19:42 -0500, flatfish wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:59:41 +0000, Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:31:16 -0500, flatfish wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:09:17 -0000, Tim Smith
>>> <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>On 2007-11-29, thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On occasion I follow the links Roy posts. When I do I usually find
>>>>> them on-topic and somewhat interesting. Yes, he sometimes makes
>>>>> mistakes with his topic summaries, but I don't exactly consider that
>>>>> a hanging offense. I don't get why some people are so cranked up
>>>>So you wouldn't prefer a slight reduction in quantity in exchange for
>>>>far fewer mistakes?
>>> I don't mind the real mistakes, it's the purposely deceptive,
>>> carefully crafted and misleading subject lines that I feel is wrong.
>>This is pretty good, coming from you, who writes such dishonest tripe
> Like what?
> I speak mostly from experience and from actually looking around and
> seeing what is going on with Linux.
> I'm still involved in the business and have many contacts that I speak
> with regularly.
> While I admit to some creative massaging of the messages, the base
> points are still there.
Creative massaging? You mean LYING. Basically, what you accuse Roy of.
> Roy reads blogs and posts the comments as facts.
>>> Nobody is perfect, not even Roy but when he is constantly accusing
>>> companies, people, software of being anti-Linux etc he really should
>>> get his facts straight and tell it like it is, for better or worse.
>>I agree. And I've said as much to him myself. But not in the vile manner
> Roy is a con artist who has bamboozled COLA.
> You'll see it someday but of course ya'll will deny that I, flatfish,
> had roy pegged from day one.
Sure you did, flats. Sure you did.
>>> Bottom line, if Roy were to create a daily digest or two or maybe even
>>> three, say : Linux wins, Windows screwups, Microsoft/companies against
>>> Linux or something like that, and hyper link them to the actual
>>> articles, I would drop the subject and never reply to Roy unless it
>>> was to seriously discuss something.
>>Pull the other one. We've heard you promises before flatty, and never was
>>one ever kept. Not one.
> You'll have to talk to Mark Kent about pulling on things.
Again with the insinuations. Can't help yourself, can you? And then you
wonder why no one takes your ranting seriously.
>>> But Roy won't do that because Roy's primary motive here is not Linux
>>Where's your proof of this? Can you read his mind? Do you have some arcane
>>means of devining his motives. You have none, so don't make accusations.
> Common sense.
> Use your common sense Kier.
> There is more proof, stuff you can easily find for yourself, but I'm
> withholding it for a while because when I or theers who have also
> discovered certain *things* spring the trap, we want their to be no
> doubt whatsoever.
Bollocks. You've said this kind of this before, and produced nothing but
hot air. Do you think just because you've so often hidden behind
X-No-Archive we've all got amnesia and don't remember all the times before
> IOW he won't be able to squirm out of the trap.
Trap, my arse. Find another hobby, flatty. Stop being the slime that you
are. You disgust me far more than Roy ever could.