>
><unionpenny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:b5b2baec-17ac-4e33-a325-34bd71f5bf00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>On Feb 6, 11:36 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> <unionpe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> news:776a5d67-ec66-4299-aa48-023aae924dda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Feb 6, 7:10 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:83745b6c-8dff-45d7-bad5-fede8e5ee3fd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> >> > On Feb 6, 6:48 am, George Kettleborough
>> >> > <g.kettleboro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> On 06/02/09 11:09, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> >> > When net applications was soliciting sites to be part of their
>> >> > counter, it gave a pretty good clue as to why the counts are a bit
>> >> > "off". The wanted sites to serve up this ActiveX control that would
>> >> > got to user's browsers and count the individual users, sending the
>> >> > stats to Net Applications' counter via http post requests.
>>
>> >> Prove it. You have zero proof of what Net Applications "wanted to do"
>> >> and
>> >> you spew this nonsense out over and over again.
>>
>> >Do you have any inside information about what Net Applications "wanted
>> >to do"?
>>
>> Learn to read - it's Rex, not me who's making claims of what Net
>> Applications "wanted to do." If he's going to make these claims then he
>> needs to prove how he could possibly know this. I'm not the one making
>> ridiculous claims...it's your fellow "advocate" who is.
>>
>> >You scream "prove it" quite a lot. Just what are you looking for?
>>
>> How about "proof" for starters. You know... something to backup these
>> ridiculous claims.
>>
>> > A press release from Microsoft saying Rex is correct?
>>
>> Let's start with anything that can backup his ridiculous claims.
>>
>> > Hell, even with court released evidence, you would
>> > find SOME way to make the "proof" inconsequential.
>>
>> According to Rex all of this information was "sealed by the courts" yet
>> somehow Rex is the only man in America who knows the contents of the
>> sealed
>> files.
>>
>> >I really like the harping you were doing against Rex a few days ago.
>>
>> It's not just a few days ago. I jump on that liar every time he opens
>> his
>> pie-hole.
>>
>> >Remember? You had no problem with the vile, petty, disgusting, or
>> >illegal things Microsoft has done to their partners, customers,
>> >competitors, or the community at large. Your whining was that
>> >internal communications made public by the court is not a public
>> >admission. "How much can you pervert the truth without actually
>> >lying?"
>>
>> Let's start with Rex's fable of how the "Vista EULA gives Microsoft the
>> right to access *ANY* file on your computer for *ANY* reason at all."
>>
>> Talk about perverting the truth. Do backup Rex on that idiotic lie and
>> tell
>> me how you actually believe this nonsense.
>>
>> >Wow! How much more like Scientology can Microsoft get?
>>
>> How much more Kool-Aide can the zealots in the Linux cult drink?
>>
>> >> > This of course is a problem because most people who use other
>> >> > browsers
>> >> > use them because they don't want Active X invading their PCs all
>> >> > the
>> >> > time.
>>
>> >> The real problem is that you post your random hallucinations here as
>> >> "facts."
>>
>> >You are very good, Ezekiel. How much does MS pay you to go slogging
>> >through the slums of the internet? A goon of your quality should get
>> >a raise.
>>
>> Another idiot who thinks that people are paid to post to some obscure
>> "slum"
>> newsgroup that few actually read.
>
>No. Just you. I took a quick look at your recent
> posting history ...very impressive.
You ability to comprehend what you claim to have looked at is not very
impressive:
COLA Statistics, 08 Feb 2009
1: Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : 293 posts
<snip>
20: William Poaster <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : 33 posts
Me - Not even in the top 20 list with < 33 posts.
COLA Statistics, 08 Feb 2009
1: Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> : 377 posts
<snip>
20: Sinister Midget <fardblos...@xxxxxxxxx> : 44 posts
Me - Not even in the top 20 list with <44 posts.
> You spend a startling amount of time
> interacting with people you despise.
I never claimed to despise anyone. You should keep your words out of my
mouth.
And if I'm "getting paid" to post here do explain the people who post 10x
as much as I do. Are they getting paid?
> If you aren't getting paid for this, you
>have a serious personality problem ...
> and you are a sucker as well.
Another baseless conclusion.
>You are way too good to do this for free. DFS and Hadron are pikers
>compared to you. The way you made Richard Rasker look so stupid
>because his wife's college uses floppies and off-line computers for
>tests was absolutely beautiful.
Tone and intent aren't easily attained in a usenet post but I'm surprised
that anyone would interpret my posts this way. I wouldn't say that I made
Rasker look stupid and it clearly wasn't my intent to do any such thing.
Rasker is one of the more reasonable posters here IMO. If he gets a flat
tire while driving home from work he'll try to find a way to blame Window
for it but otherwise I have absolutely nothing againt him and have had some
decent conversations with him. It's not Richard - but rather the entire
test methodology of saving the tests to a floppy, handing in the floppy and
then having someone (his wife) copy the file contents to a server that's
stupid. In summary: Test procedure stupid. Richard not stupid.
> Richard has no authority at the
>college, no knowledge of how the classes operate, or why.
It's his wife's class that was tested. I'm working on the presumption that
she has some authority over her own classroom.
> Yet you made him look like an ignorant fool.
Only in your misinterpretation of the events.
> Effectively blaming a passer by
>for unrelated complex problems takes real talent, Ezekiel. You should
>be getting paid to be here.
Then it would become a job. What's the fun in that.
>I notice you did not deny getting paid, why not?
Because it's so ludicrous that it's not worth denying.
> This is usenet. There is no penalty for lying here,
> it won't matter if you lie or tell the truth.
It sounds like you're trying to justify lying. Usenet or not, there is
still a moral component to knowing telling lies.
|
|
