Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #310932 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-27 15:44 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-07-27 15:19 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:44 +0000
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-27 17:15 +0100
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-07-27 12:22 -0700
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 15:27 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 21:25 +0000
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-07-27 23:30 +0200
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 21:31 +0000
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 17:39 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-28 07:07 -0500
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-28 13:25 +0100
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-07-28 09:16 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-28 18:15 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-29 07:52 -0500
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-29 09:03 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-07-29 09:09 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-29 09:20 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 16:53 +0000
Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 22:09 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 03:18 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 22:34 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-23 21:38 -0700
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-23 21:09 -0700
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Dr. John Grubor" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-24 12:24 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-08-24 08:07 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 12:23 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 10:05 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 10:16 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 10:25 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 10:32 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 10:44 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 17:06 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 13:49 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 13:58 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 13:19 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-24 14:14 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:29 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 15:56 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:39 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 17:13 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 18:35 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-25 09:23 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-24 15:30 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:32 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-24 22:39 +0200
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:03 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-24 23:09 +0200
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:18 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-24 23:28 +0200
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:39 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-24 23:46 +0200
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 22:01 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 18:05 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 19:05 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:24 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 19:34 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:43 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 07:32 -0500
Turdv IS mentally ill. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:33 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 19:42 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:47 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 20:55 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-25 08:18 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:49 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:00 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:03 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 21:07 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:11 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 21:34 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-24 18:56 -0700
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:50 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 21:06 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:36 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:49 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 22:07 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 23:12 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 03:23 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:37 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 04:16 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:35 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 16:14 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:49 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 07:26 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 12:40 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-25 09:50 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:42 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:40 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 16:11 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:41 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 19:16 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:50 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:17 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 22:09 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:48 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 07:42 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-25 08:52 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:04 +0000
When are you going to check yourself in to the nearest rest home? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:41 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-24 09:05 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:31 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 16:01 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:08 +0000
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 16:52 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-24 14:01 -0700
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:43 -0600
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:51 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 17:15 -0500
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 18:39 -0400
Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 15:57 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-07-29 14:31 +0100
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-29 11:28 -0500
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-29 13:21 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:26 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-30 12:26 +0100
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-28 18:13 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-28 20:07 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-29 08:44 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-29 09:03 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-28 08:57 +0100
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-28 10:30 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 13:38 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-27 14:28 -0400
Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 15:19 -0400
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 22:37 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <g5GdnfTn94MQ30DInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #316683 |
On 08/24/15 21:12, Tommy Troll wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:07:19 -0500, Nobody wrote: > >> On 8/24/2015 8:49 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:00:14 -0500, Nobody wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/24/2015 7:49 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:42:50 -0500, Nobody wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/24/2015 5:56 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:31 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:01:13 +0000 (UTC), ronb wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:46:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT Lloyd Parsons<lloydp211@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons<lloydp211@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/ >>> enterprise- >>>>>>>>> linux >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Subscription required to get it with support. You are >>>>>>>>>>> paying for support not the product itself. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw. :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you download ti for free? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is free Red Hat -- it's called CentOS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now answer the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Doesn't really matter since you have to buy a subscription to use it. >>>>>> >>>>>> No you don't. You buy a subscription for support. >>>>>> >>>>>>> But let's just say I agree, then RedHat Enterprise would have to >>>>>>> single handedly support that market share on the desktop if one is to >>>>>>> believe the hogwash the linux loonies are trying to pass off these >>>>>>> days. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.cloud7-itconsult.com/services/table-comparison-commercial- >>>>> linux-distributions-pricing-2 >>>>>> >>>>>> You never let your complete ignorance of a subject keep you from >>>>>> posting opinions about it, do you, "Lloyd?" >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't expressing an opinion you dumbass, I was stating the fact that >>>>> I hadn't seen any desktop Linux for sale in many years. And until I >>>>> saw the link you just provided, I hadn't. >>>> >>>> That's not what your words say above, you stupid, worthless asshole. >>>> >>>>> That isn't an opinion moron. Is English your second language? The >>>>> first being dumbass! >>>> >>>> Go fuck yourself, you stupid, worthless asshole. >>> >>> FOAD! >> >> Go fuck yourself. > > Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already Edwin? Well, He is an embarrasment to the linux community. Such advocacy. LOL!!! -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 04:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <mrgq7n$7b8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #316681 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:07:19 -0500, Nobody wrote: > On 8/24/2015 8:49 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:00:14 -0500, Nobody wrote: >>> Go fuck yourself, you stupid, worthless asshole. >> >> FOAD! > > Go fuck yourself. When it gets down to this, it's probably best to just killfile Lloyd and get on with your life. -- Zero tolerance for LYING WinDrones & iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 22:35 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <g5Gdnfrn94Nk3EDInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #316645 |
On 08/24/15 19:00, Nobody wrote: > On 8/24/2015 7:49 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:42:50 -0500, Nobody wrote: >> >>> On 8/24/2015 5:56 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:31 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:01:13 +0000 (UTC), ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:46:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise- >>>>>> linux >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Subscription required to get it with support. You are >>>>>>>> paying for support not the product itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you download ti for free? >>>>>> >>>>>> There is free Red Hat -- it's called CentOS. >>>>> >>>>> That's not the question. >>>>> >>>>> Now answer the question. >>>>> >>>>> Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free? >>>> >>>> Doesn't really matter since you have to buy a subscription to use it. >>> >>> No you don't. You buy a subscription for support. >>> >>>> But let's just say I agree, then RedHat Enterprise would have to single >>>> handedly support that market share on the desktop if one is to believe >>>> the hogwash the linux loonies are trying to pass off these days. >>> >>> http://www.cloud7-itconsult.com/services/table-comparison-commercial- >> linux-distributions-pricing-2 >>> >>> You never let your complete ignorance of a subject keep you from posting >>> opinions about it, do you, "Lloyd?" >> >> I wasn't expressing an opinion you dumbass, I was stating the fact that I >> hadn't seen any desktop Linux for sale in many years. And until I saw >> the link you just provided, I hadn't. > > That's not what your words say above, you stupid, worthless asshole. > >> That isn't an opinion moron. Is English your second language? The first >> being dumbass! > > Go fuck yourself, you stupid, worthless asshole. > > Guffaw!!! Lookey! A talking rectal wart named Edwin. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 16:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <slrnmtn2a3.3uq.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #316558 |
On 2015-08-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_
>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a
>>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.
>>>
>>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
>>> and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>>>
>> Yep, and all those are FREE!! No purchase necessary though you can
>> donate money.
>
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get boxed
> sets anymore
I think it was a big mistake for Canonical to NOT offer boxed sets. It
would have been like Kickstarter is now. You get a little chotche for your
money. It encourages "donations" and takes advantage of the human
scavenger instincts for hoarding.
[deletia[
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 21:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <d41hb4Fplp9U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #316578 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:14:43 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-08-24, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>> >>>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Slime wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked >>>>>>> _anything_ >>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a >>>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5. >>>> >>>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster >>>> and cheaper to just download the ISO? >>>> >>> Yep, and all those are FREE!! No purchase necessary though you can >>> donate money. >> >> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get >> boxed sets anymore > > I think it was a big mistake for Canonical to NOT offer boxed sets. > It > would have been like Kickstarter is now. You get a little chotche for > your money. It encourages "donations" and takes advantage of the human > scavenger instincts for hoarding. > > [deletia[ They probably didn't because they knew that wouldn't have been in their best interest. IOW, if they tried to sell it people would get Linux desktop elsewhere. At least with the begging some will pay. Frankly I think that's a shame because they've done some really fine work. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 17:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <rtp1i1a4ypdn$.1trrp843mryp0.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #316558 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:39:01 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote: >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>>> Slime wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_ >>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a >>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5. >>> >>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster >>> and cheaper to just download the ISO? >>> >> Yep, and all those are FREE!! No purchase necessary though you can >> donate money. > > Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get boxed > sets anymore Wrong again Peter. https://en.opensuse.org/Buy_openSUSE > You could (for example) get boxed sets of SuSE linux long after that. And > they cost around $60. and were worth every penny of that. And you got a > good, several hundred pages handbook with them. And you still can: https://en.opensuse.org/Buy_openSUSE "The boxed version of openSUSE may be the best choice. You will get complete user manual, install DVD biarch media for just plug in your DVD drive and the software on the DVD recognizes automatically x86 and x86 64-bit systems" Wrong again Peter. That's twice in one post. It might be a new record for you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 07:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <aemota5g74ler51e0gvebb5n7efdk4c1s0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #316558 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >> chrisv wrote: >>> >>> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and >>> fabrications. >> >> It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts >> are from Windows. Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing >> about Linux at all. I use Windows at work, and I have never claimed to "love" Linux. Linux is a tool, one that is the best choice in many situations, and one that would be chosen by many more people, if the playing field was anything near level. Makes one wonder if you are capable of posting without lying, "Lloyd". >At the time he did the posts he was obviously still at work. >Why do you assume that linux users have to work at linux companies? It's the best they can do against me. I'm not "pure", so I can't say good things about FOSS or bad things about M$. *boggle* Anyway, Linux-haters immediately show what whack-jobs they are, when make such outrageous claims to attack what it obviously reasonable behavior. No, there are *not* "plenty of Linux-only jobs available" in my field. -- "There are actually plenty of Linux-only jobs available. Don't blame others because you elect to take convenience and money over the non-existant principals you claim to have. If you feel so strongly that Windows/Microsoft is so terrible and how Linux is so great and virtuous then quit whining about it and practice what you preach." - Ezekreep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 12:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <d43629F6s7vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #316744 |
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:26:54 -0500, chrisv wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>> chrisv wrote: >>>> >>>> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and >>>> fabrications. >>> >>> It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts >>> are from Windows. Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned >>> thing about Linux at all. > > I use Windows at work, and I have never claimed to "love" Linux. > OK, that was a stretch I admit. But it would be nice if you actually used it now and then. > Linux is a tool, one that is the best choice in many situations, and one > that would be chosen by many more people, if the playing field was > anything near level. > Nope, wouldn't and won't happen. If it hasn't happened in 20 or so years, it isn't going to happen at all. From a tech standpoint, there isn't anything horrible about Linux on the desktop. But the whole Linux community is based around ideas that result in no or little commercial success. > Makes one wonder if you are capable of posting without lying, "Lloyd". > Only if you are an idiot. >>At the time he did the posts he was obviously still at work. >>Why do you assume that linux users have to work at linux companies? > > It's the best they can do against me. I'm not "pure", so I can't say > good things about FOSS or bad things about M$. > > *boggle* > > Anyway, Linux-haters immediately show what whack-jobs they are, when > make such outrageous claims to attack what it obviously reasonable > behavior. > Since I use Linux on a daily basis I don't fit that description at all. > No, there are *not* "plenty of Linux-only jobs available" in my field. Based on the number of posts, is your 'field' posting to usenet while at work?? :) -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 09:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <mrhro9$4g6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #316744 |
On 8/25/2015 8:26 AM, shitv wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>> shitvv wrote: >>>> >>>> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and >>>> fabrications. >>> >>> It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts >>> are from Windows. Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing >>> about Linux at all. > > I use Windows at work, and I have never claimed to "love" Linux. Pissant. > Linux is a tool, one that is the best choice in many situations, and > one that would be chosen by many more people, if the playing field was > anything near level. Easiest way to level the playing field is for reasonable price tags to be attached to all Linux distros, and to individual apps that compete with commercial apps. That's a great first step. Then a bunch of you "advocates" can further 'level the playing field' by funding large OEM operations to sell Linux preinstalled on PCs: you can build assembly and distribution centers, create marketing and advertising campaigns, create call centers for ordering and tech support, build admin offices, buy delivery vehicles... You know, you whiners can do all the things Dell and HP and Lenovo and Gateway do (and did years ago) for their Windows-based systems. When's it going to happen? Fact is, turd, you don't want a level playing field. You want EXTREME amounts of charity. You want companies to risk resources on Linux, a proven non-seller. You want Linux to piggyback on Windows success, without paying a cent for it. You're not the only one, of course; the cheesedick, socialist-wannabe Christopher John Ahlstrom also feels entitled to benefit from corporate charity: <Creepy_quote> Aug 2012 *All* people who might use Linux should be *entitled* to the opportunity of choosing Linux running on an inexpensive computer, priced fairly and priced like the same computer running Windows." </Creepy_quote> Other side of Creepy's piehole, also in Aug 2012: "I've never bought anything but Windows laptops. For years now." heh! The slimy hypocrisy of a cola "advocate" is a wonder to behold. > Makes one wonder if you are capable of posting without lying, "Lloyd". > >> At the time he did the posts he was obviously still at work. >> Why do you assume that linux users have to work at linux companies? > > It's the best they can do against me. I'm not "pure", so I can't say > good things about FOSS or bad things about M$. > > *boggle* Yes, it boggles how much a liar you are. No one ever made such a claim about you or anyone else. That's your bogus strawman. > Anyway, Linux-haters immediately show what whack-jobs they are, when > make such outrageous claims to attack what it obviously reasonable > behavior. > > No, there are *not* "plenty of Linux-only jobs available" in my field. You may have to change your field. Plenty of people switch careers or employers for philosophical reasons, though they're not shameless, lying hypocrites like you and Creepy Chris Ahlstrom and wRonG and vallor and Dumb Willie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 17:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <zxniwmsldotf$.8wa69pxina8c$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #316556 |
On 24 Aug 2015 20:32:53 GMT, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >> JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>>> Slime wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_ >>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a >>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5. >> >> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster >> and cheaper to just download the ISO? >> > Yep, and all those are FREE!! No purchase necessary though you can > donate money. > >> Dunce. >> >>>...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had nothing >>>to do with it. >> >> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and >> fabrications. > > It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts > are from Windows. Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing > about Linux at all. That chrisv clown is another mental lightweight. It's interesting that the Linux users seem to know less about their own operating system than the so called trolls do. About the only thing they, the Linux advocates seem to be able to accomplish is talking about kill filters and trolls. And they can't even seem to get that correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 22:40 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <g5Gdnffn94PT3kDInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #316590 |
On 08/24/15 15:42, Tommy Troll wrote: > On 24 Aug 2015 20:32:53 GMT, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote: >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>>> Slime wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_ >>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a >>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5. >>> >>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster >>> and cheaper to just download the ISO? >>> >> Yep, and all those are FREE!! No purchase necessary though you can >> donate money. >> >>> Dunce. >>> >>>> ...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had nothing >>>> to do with it. >>> >>> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and >>> fabrications. >> >> It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts >> are from Windows. Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing >> about Linux at all. > > That chrisv clown is another mental lightweight. > It's interesting that the Linux users seem to know less about their > own operating system than the so called trolls do. > > About the only thing they, the Linux advocates seem to be able to > accomplish is talking about kill filters and trolls. > And they can't even seem to get that correct. You should have been around when he made the claim that negative feedback in an amplifier will not stabilize an amplifier. Then he claimed he had a BSEE which he can't prove either. All fabrications. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 16:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <slrnmtn24s.3uq.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #316555 |
On 2015-08-24, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_
>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a store
>>>> called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.
>
> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
> and cheaper to just download the ISO?
Back in the dark ages before broadband, they also sold multi-distro
bundles. They also sold shareware and freeware collections for DOS and
Windows. You don't see those much anymore either.
No need really...
>
> Dunce.
>
>>...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had nothing
>>to do with it.
>
> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and
> fabrications.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 21:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <d41hd3Fplp9U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #316579 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:11:56 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-08-24, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>>> Slime wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked >>>>> _anything_ which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I >>>>> remember was a store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of >>>>> RedHat Linux 5. >> >> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster >> and cheaper to just download the ISO? > > Back in the dark ages before broadband, they also sold multi-distro > bundles. They also sold shareware and freeware collections for DOS and > Windows. You don't see those much anymore either. > > No need really... > > In those days those multi-distro bundles were usually in books and the price of the book was almost all the money charged. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 19:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <mrgc5e$2p4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #316409 |
On 8/24/2015 7:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On 7/29/2015 11:53 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:09:20 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> Since Linux on the desktop has been nearly dead for over 20 years, >>>> killing it off would be such a waste of time. >>> >>> Please tell everyone what Linux was like over twenty years ago, and >>> what would have given it the ability to capture a large percentage of >>> desktop users at that time. >>> >>> I don't expect any reasonable answer from you. I know you're just >>> parroting troll lines about Linux. >> >> I remember when the Flounder troll was sneering at Linux's "0.24%" >> "market" >> share. Now the "market" share is more like 1.6%, and that counts *only* >> distros that are sold *commercially*. >> >> Linux desktops may not be in every home, but Linux desktops are doing >> quite find in Microsoft's salted-earth territory. >> >> As for Lloyd, I gave up on that jerk long ago. I dislike people who >> simply want to dick with people all the time. Idiots. > > but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, unread' > posts. So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 00:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <d41sffFs6gjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #316621 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:16:46 -0500, Nobody wrote: > On 8/24/2015 7:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> On 7/29/2015 11:53 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:09:20 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> Since Linux on the desktop has been nearly dead for over 20 years, >>>>> killing it off would be such a waste of time. >>>> >>>> Please tell everyone what Linux was like over twenty years ago, and >>>> what would have given it the ability to capture a large percentage of >>>> desktop users at that time. >>>> >>>> I don't expect any reasonable answer from you. I know you're just >>>> parroting troll lines about Linux. >>> >>> I remember when the Flounder troll was sneering at Linux's "0.24%" >>> "market" >>> share. Now the "market" share is more like 1.6%, and that counts >>> *only* >>> distros that are sold *commercially*. >>> >>> Linux desktops may not be in every home, but Linux desktops are doing >>> quite find in Microsoft's salted-earth territory. >>> >>> As for Lloyd, I gave up on that jerk long ago. I dislike people who >>> simply want to dick with people all the time. Idiots. >> >> but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, >> unread' >> posts. > > So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about > you. You're welcome. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <mrgfl5$dmh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #316621 |
Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 8/24/2015 7:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> As for Lloyd, I gave up on that jerk long ago. I dislike people who >>> simply want to dick with people all the time. Idiots. >> >> but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, unread' >> posts. ??? > So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about you. He's a doddering old fool. -- Smile! You're on Candid Camera.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 01:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <mrgfn0$fai$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #316657 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:16:43 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 8/24/2015 7:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> As for Lloyd, I gave up on that jerk long ago. I dislike people who >>>> simply want to dick with people all the time. Idiots. >>> >>> but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, >>> unread' >>> posts. > > ??? > >> So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about >> you. > > He's a doddering old fool. An a bitter old biddy. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones & iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 22:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <mrgm9h$iqk$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #316660 |
On 8/24/2015 8:17 PM, ronb wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:16:43 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On 8/24/2015 7:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> As for Lloyd, I gave up on that jerk long ago. I dislike people who >>>>> simply want to dick with people all the time. Idiots. >>>> >>>> but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, >>>> unread' >>>> posts. >> >> ??? >> >>> So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about >>> you. >> >> He's a doddering old fool. > > An a bitter old biddy. Hes a POS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 01:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <d41vr5Fsu44U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #316657 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 21:16:43 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 8/24/2015 7:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> As for Lloyd, I gave up on that jerk long ago. I dislike people who >>>> simply want to dick with people all the time. Idiots. >>> >>> but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, >>> unread' >>> posts. > > ??? > >> So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about >> you. > > He's a doddering old fool. I may be old, but there's more misinformation and childish trolling done by you Linux loonies these days. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 07:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. |
| Message-ID | <44oota19d9i6sabncv6i0u989gvd19qsig@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #316657 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Nobody wrote: >> >> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>> but you're perfectly willing to quote me from all those 'snipped, unread' >>> posts. > >??? "Lloyd" lives in a fantasy world, where everyone wants to read his idiocy and lies. >> So you couldn't answer, "Lloyd." Thanks for proving me correct about you. > >He's a doddering old fool. Like many lying scum, "Lloyd" thinks that everyone else is like them. They don't want to believe that many other people are simply better people than they are. -- 'Once again it's the usual double-standard of a "linux advocate"' - Ezekreep, lying shamelessly (an advocate who occasionally posted "long sigs" complained of someone posting in html)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web