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"?
You scream "prove it" quite a lot. Just what are you looking for? A
press release from Microsoft saying Rex is correct? Hell, even with
court released evidence, you would find SOME way to make the "proof"
inconsequential.
I really like the harping you were doing against Rex a few days ago.
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?"
Wow! How much more like Scientology can Microsoft get?
> > 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.
|
|
