Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #173337

Re: Background check

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/13/13 1:58 PM, in article mr-4ED756.22582013042013@News.Individual.NET,
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <Zzjat.3945$az2.2512@fx08.fr7>, Snit wrote:
> 
>>>> Linux still wins.
>>> 
>>> This is curious. Wins what?
>> 
>> 
>> The mere fact that slider trolls are being commissioned to slide
>> articles in comp.os.linux.advocacy should tell you that Linux
>> and its power has grown to the point where MBA (read non-techies)
>> running big crocporations have been forced to send these trolls
>> should amaze you, as it also means Linux has won.
> 
> This is curious. Won what?
> 
> I mean, I've been a regular in these advocacy groups for almost two
> decades now and Mac advocates, or Mac users don't go around claiming
> that Mac OS X is "winning" something.

At least with the Linux "advocates" it is not just about their ego, as it is
with you. You hang on to long lost battles and post lies about people who
proved you wrong and/or dishonest on your trolling website... and repeatedly
bring up their names just to troll them.

In that way you are worse than the cult-like Linux "advocates".

> Which makes me wonder just what Linux is winning? Is it all about Android?
> Linux is "winning" web servers and smart phones but losing everything else?
> And if Linux is "winning" smart phones, isn't BSD winning it as much? At least
> when it comes to revenue, right?
> 



-- 
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Four method compared to cc's absurd claims: <http://tinyurl.com/7efkuzm>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Background check owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-13 18:15 +0000
  Re: Background check 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-04-13 20:27 +0100
    Re: Background check owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-13 19:43 +0000
      Re: Background check Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 13:05 -0700
    Re: Background check chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-13 15:33 -0500
      Re: Background check Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> - 2013-04-13 22:15 +0000
        Re: Background check owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-13 23:25 +0000
      Re: Background check owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2013-04-13 23:21 +0000
    Re: Background check Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-04-13 22:39 +0200
      Re: Background check 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-04-13 21:51 +0100
        Re: Background check Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-04-13 22:58 +0200
          Re: Background check Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 14:15 -0700
        7 posts bizarre and baseless conspiracy theory aimed at pleasing the herd Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 14:01 -0700
      Re: Background check GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2013-04-13 15:16 -0600

csiph-web