Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #18425
| From | William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? |
| Date | 2011-04-25 15:51 +0100 |
| Organization | Llareggub |
| Message-ID | <mceg88-97o.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org> (permalink) |
| References | <ip2jde$3j9$1@dont-email.me> <u_etp.31671$oP6.6070@newsfe19.ams2> |
7 wrote: > Ezekiel wrote: > >> Why do these retards tell multiple LIES each day that can easily be proven >> to be total and complete bullshit? >> >> How stupid are these idiots to post idiotic lies like this and think that >> nobody will realize that they're lying sacks of shit? >> >> >> >> <quote> >> (Rex Ballard - Last week) >> MS spends $8 billion/year in legal costs and settlements to address >> criminal acts it's admitted in court - but settled prior to exhausting all >> appeals. </quote> >> >> <FACT> >> (From the official SEC filing) >> General and administrative expenses decreased $1.4 billion or 28%, >> primarily due to decreased costs for legal settlements and contingencies. >> We incurred $283 million of legal charges during the twelve months ended >> June 30, 2009 as compared to $1.8 billion during the twelve months ended >> June 30, 2008. The prior year costs were primarily related to the European >> Commission fine of $1.4 billion (899 million pounds). >> </FACT> >> >> >> >> <quote> >> (Dumb Willy - Today) >> In their SEC filing M$ (guess)estimates Linux users at 10-12% & possibly >> as much as 14%, & warns that this can affect their business & drop in >> revenue. </quote> >> >> <FACT> >> Official SEC filing says no such thing >> > http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312511026916/d8k.htm >> </FACT > > > > Your "Official" micoshaft crap also forgets to mention now Linux owns 100% > of the Linux desktop market. > > > Windummies are proven liars yet again. ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS "Challenges to our business models may reduce our revenues or operating margins. Whether our software runs in the cloud or on a device, we continue to face challenges from alternative means of developing and licensing software. Under our license-based software model, software developers bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenue received from the distribution of their products. Certain “open source” software business models challenge our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license. A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not bear the full costs of research and development for the software." "Gains in market acceptance of open source or advertising based software may adversely affect our sales, revenue, and operating margins." "We face intense competition. We continue to experience intense competition across all markets for our products and services. Our competitors range in size from Fortune 100 companies to small, specialized single-product businesses and open source community-based projects. Although we believe the breadth of our businesses and product portfolio is a competitive advantage, our competitors that are focused on narrower product lines may be more effective in devoting technical, marketing, and financial resources to compete with us. " Now what was Zeke/Flatfish saying? > >> <quote> >> (High Plains Nymshifter - Today) >> Oh, and I noticed the crosspost to c.s.m.advocacy, a flatfish Wintrolling >> trademark. >> </quote> >> >> >> <FACT> >> From: flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> >> Subject: So Where Were You HPT? >> Message-ID: <609a2uzcd1hp.z24nvz6249jo$.dlg@40tude.net> >> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy >> >> >> From: 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> >> Subject: Re: So Where Were You HPT? >> Message-ID: p%Ssp.5327$Pi.1900@newsfe22.ams2 >> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy >> </FACT> >> >> >> >> <quote> >> My new title - "European Inventor of the Year 1995" >> </quote> >> >> <FACT> >> The "advocate" calling itself 7 is a lying piece of shit. >> </FACT> -- A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer. "Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." -- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-24 21:39 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 21:54 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 04:52 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 23:19 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 05:54 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 00:20 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 11:11 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:19 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:50 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:45 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:20 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:27 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2011-04-26 05:16 +0000
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:49 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:20 +0100
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2011-04-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 15:46 -0400
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 22:10 +0200
Re: Why are so many "Hadrons" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 16:15 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-25 08:17 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-04-25 17:54 +0000
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:17 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:42 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 09:01 -0500
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:24 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 22:21 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 22:34 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel9901x22@9901x22Steel.com> - 2011-04-24 22:52 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-24 22:54 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 14:50 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-25 15:51 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:13 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 11:16 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:25 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-04-25 17:28 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2011-04-25 21:59 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:59 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:24 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:30 -0500
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:33 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 16:55 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:03 -0700
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-04-25 17:23 +0100
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-25 12:28 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 09:39 -0700
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 12:14 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Clog_-_wog (®) <clog_-_wog@anonimous.eu> - 2011-04-25 22:04 +0200
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 11:43 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 08:58 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:01 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 07:09 -0700
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 10:22 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:02 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? Big Steel <Steel98@steel98.com> - 2011-04-25 11:04 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 11:33 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:48 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2011-04-25 08:55 -0700
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 13:19 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 12:48 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "caged steel" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:09 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 13:20 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 17:32 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 19:59 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:29 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-04-26 15:40 +0100
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 11:28 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:17 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:29 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 13:36 -0500
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:42 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? "robo-rob" <CS@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 14:53 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-26 15:22 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:16 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-26 16:18 -0400
Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 16:26 -0400
Re: Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-04-25 12:12 -0400
Why are so many Wintrolls PROVEN to be brainless twits Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-25 19:28 +0100
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 14:38 -0400
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 13:50 -0500
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Homer <usenet@slated.org> - 2011-04-25 22:59 +0100
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-25 18:51 -0400
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:43 -0500
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 07:40 -0500
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> - 2011-04-26 16:41 +0100
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-04-26 11:37 -0400
Re: Why are so many Advocates PROVEN to be brainless twits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2011-04-26 08:50 -0700
csiph-web