-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:46:35 -0500,
Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:09:14 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:40:30 -0500,
>> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:06:25 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:44:59 -0500,
>>>> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:18:29 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:29:20 -0500,
>>>>>> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:03:43 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:55:32 -0500,
>>>>>>>> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:49:44 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Out of curiousity, when Roy doesn't post some info you want, is he
>>>>>>>>>> "censoring" the info?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>> He is being dishonest.
>>>>>>>>> Not in the sense of not posting info I want, but in the sense of leaving
>>>>>>>>> out important, negative to Linux, parts and using a sensational subject
>>>>>>>>> line that often is not even remotely related to the body of the post.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So it isn't censorship then? when some stats post doesn't include the
>>>>>>>> numbers you want?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No because the numbers are a known quantity and the subject line implies
>>>>>>> that these are truthful and accurate numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and yet in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message-ID: <vyoryrxtxmn3$.1f1ybfufnzb5w$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you are quite clear in calling in censorship. So I'll just put you down
>>>>>> in the flipper catagory.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can call it what you want.
>>>>> It's dishonest either way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> actually, we were discussing what *you* called it. You are two-faced on
>>>> it. We are clear on that part, thanks.
>>>
>>> Whatever...
>>> It's dishonest.
>>
>>
>>
>> yes, your behaviour is dishonest. Glad we cleared that up.
>
> If that's the best you can come up with Jim Richardson you're in sad shape.
>
>
nah, I wouldn't waste the best comebacks on you. But nice try.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHxxx3d90bcYOAWPYRAkFTAJ9S/xLz/FTNetY7Mn3tB3BVPFWfKgCfVsMU
yiQdPCmrkRe610owtL2iOys=
=tIDT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course!
|
|