Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #116262

Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/26/12 9:59 AM, in article jscpq5$vv2$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 06/26/2012 12:46 AM, Snit wrote:
>> On 6/24/12 12:59 PM, in article js7rik$k70$3@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 22, 9:38 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/12 8:00 AM, in article
>>>>>> de637d5a-efbc-45e4-a6ee-dd7fce6dbea4@googlegroups.com, "cc"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <scatnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, June 22, 2012 10:34:26 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>>> 
>>>> You read all that again? I dont believe it. Begone nym of snit.
>>> 
>>> It's very rude to quote a long article just to add one line at the
>>> bottom of it.
>> 
>> Hadron does not like that I feed trolls such as cc.  Hard to blame him... so
>> he KFs me from time to time.  I do not hold that against him.
> 
> I thing Hadron doesn't like how you fill the news group up with
> repetitions of your long articles.  Especially the reposts done by your
> army of socks.

I suspect he can speak for himself.


-- 
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.

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

Thread

Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:20 +0200
  Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:12 -0700
  Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-24 14:59 -0500
    Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-25 22:46 -0700
      Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-26 11:59 -0500
        Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 10:28 -0700
          Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-26 10:34 -0700
            Summary of cc's  statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-26 18:27 -0700
              Re: Summary of cc's  statistical BS cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-27 05:39 -0700
                Re: Summary of cc's  statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 08:55 -0700
                Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:07 -0700
            Summary of cc's  statistical BS Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-27 12:24 -0700
              Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-27 22:01 -0700
                Re: Summary of cc's statistical BS Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-28 07:20 -0400
          Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-26 13:18 -0500

csiph-web