Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #18258
| From | An Old Friend <an.old@friend.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Why are so many "advocates" PROVEN to be lying pieces of shit? |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| References | <ip2jde$3j9$1@dont-email.me> <cs1mtqrk0cbf$.zdtwgyatgllr$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| Message-ID | <pan.2011.04.25.02.52.39@friend.com.invalid> (permalink) |
| Date | 2011-04-25 04:52 +0100 |
| Organization | X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org |
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:54:39 -0400, flatfish+++ chiseled cs1mtqrk0cbf$.zdtwgyatgllr$.dlg@40tude.net in stone using Trajan: > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:39:57 -0400, 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> <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> > > I've wondered that same thing myself. > > There is something about the mental state of these so called Linux > "advocates" that makes them hostile, nasty liars. > > Maybe it's the frustration of supporting something that has been a > dismal failure for 20 years? > Betting on a loser for that length of time has got to be a serious > downer. > > What is even more bizaare is the way the other advocates don't say > anything about it? > > Doesn't it bother them being grouped in with a bunch of liars? > > Evidently not because LIEing for LIEnux is alive and kicking in COLA. Well, personally, I'm not going to play netnanny to every poster in COLA. It seems like there's plenty of verification. I try to avoid making claims that my data is *the* only data. I talk about my experiences. And yes, those experiences are colored with my biases, as is everyone's to some degree. I've said before that I have no great love for Microsoft, and I've made jokes about certain stereotypes of Microsoft. There are also jokes about Apple users and about Linux users. When someone says, "that can't be done in Microsoft" or "that can't be done in Linux," I feel (in most cases) those people are full of it. Exceptions are if they're speaking about VERY specific software or situations (like supercomputer use or having a 100% binary-compatible Microsoft Office or speaking about OS-specific utilities that are not available in the other operating systems). Take the statement "professional quality recording can't be done in Linux." I'm fairly sure that's not a true statement, even though software such as ProTools is not available for Linux. People created professional quality recordings long before ProTools became a standard, and people can make professional quality recordings without using ProTools today: a 24 track analog recording studio can still produce excellent professional results, no matter how outdated that technology seems today. One would obviously have to make adjustments in their method of production using something other than ProTools, but I'm confident quality recordings can be made in Linux.
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? flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-04-26 14:16 -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