Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun' - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun' - Linux ; Peter Köhlmann espoused: > > Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed > source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case > would be "7", who is truly an imbecile Peter, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 77

Thread: Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

  1. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >
    > Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
    > source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
    > would be "7", who is truly an imbecile


    Peter, abuse does not an argument make.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  2. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    Mark Kent wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>
    >> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
    >> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
    >> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile

    >
    > Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
    >


    What "abuse"?
    Calling you an "imbecile" or "lunatic" is sometimes an insult.
    To the real imbeciles

    You are so far off in la-la land about your GPL3-cult that it isn't funny
    anymore

    Face it: A *lot* of OSS developers are sternly against the GPL3. You can
    shout your idiotic bull**** as much as you want, that does not change
    anything about that situation
    --
    Tact, n.:
    The unsaid part of what you're thinking.


  3. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:42:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
    >>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give Linux
    >>> a bad name.

    >>
    >> Are you entirely ****ing out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
    >> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
    >> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who encourages
    >> trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.

    >
    > I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
    > would bite you in the arse for years to come



    I had no 'love affair' with Snit, Peter. And what on Earth has Snit to do
    with any of this? Nothing. Not a single thing. You're the only one
    dragging it in every time.

    >
    >> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
    >> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
    >> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
    >> connection whatsoever with MS.
    >>
    >> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
    >>

    >
    > Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
    > source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
    > would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
    >
    > That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the Flak
    > fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls


    Nonsense. How about you, forever dragging Snit into discussions where he
    has no relevance?

    This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
    ascribing all the evils of the world to it.

    --
    Kier


  4. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    Kier wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:42:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Kier wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
    >>>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give
    >>>> Linux a bad name.
    >>>
    >>> Are you entirely ****ing out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
    >>> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
    >>> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who
    >>> encourages trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.

    >>
    >> I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
    >> would bite you in the arse for years to come

    >
    >
    > I had no 'love affair' with Snit, Peter. And what on Earth has Snit to do
    > with any of this? Nothing. Not a single thing. You're the only one
    > dragging it in every time.


    Do you actually claim that Snot is not a troll?
    This is about your encouraging trolls. Snot *is* a troll, a hideous one. You
    *did* encourage him. Your involvement with Snot in those threads some time
    ago is one example of your behaviour regarding trolls and assholes. You
    yourself have posted that you will "discuss" with Snot as he has
    been "civil" to you.
    He naturally was. He *needs* at least one poster dumb enough to answer him
    in order to keep up the pretense

    It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael Glasser
    (Snot) than talking *with* him

    >>
    >>> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
    >>> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
    >>> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
    >>> connection whatsoever with MS.
    >>>
    >>> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
    >> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
    >> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
    >>
    >> That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the
    >> Flak fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls

    >
    > Nonsense. How about you, forever dragging Snit into discussions where he
    > has no relevance?


    He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
    tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
    to answer his garbage

    > This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
    > ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >


    No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
    --
    No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
    significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.


  5. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:00:20 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>
    >> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
    >> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
    >> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile

    >
    > Peter, abuse does not an argument make.


    Considering the abuse you are heaping on me, without foundation, that's
    really funny.

    --
    Kier


  6. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:42:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Kier wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:42 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've suspected for years that he's a proprietary software plant. He
    >>>>> spends most of his time encouraging the trolls. He's here to give
    >>>>> Linux a bad name.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you entirely ****ing out of your mind? Seriously. If anyone gives
    >>>> Linux a bad name, it's people like you making imbecilic statements like
    >>>> this. I've always been a Linux advocate. *YOU* are the one who
    >>>> encourages trolls, by going on and on about MS instead of Linux.
    >>>
    >>> I told you before, Kier. Your "love affair" with Michael Glasser (Snot)
    >>> would bite you in the arse for years to come

    >>
    >>
    >> I had no 'love affair' with Snit, Peter. And what on Earth has Snit to do
    >> with any of this? Nothing. Not a single thing. You're the only one
    >> dragging it in every time.

    >
    > Do you actually claim that Snot is not a troll?


    By the general definitions usually applied, yes, I suppose so.

    > This is about your encouraging trolls. Snot *is* a troll, a hideous one. You
    > *did* encourage him. Your involvement with Snot in those threads some time


    The operative word is *did*. I did reply to him once recently in the
    virtual desktops thread, but that is all. So, when are you going to stop
    dragging it up again and again where it has no relevance?

    > ago is one example of your behaviour regarding trolls and assholes. You
    > yourself have posted that you will "discuss" with Snot as he has
    > been "civil" to you.


    As I have pointed out about a million times - THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. Do
    you judge everything in your life by what happened two years ago? Jesus H.
    Christ! Get a life, Peter. There are more important issues to be obsessed
    about than a silly little troll in COLA.

    > He naturally was. He *needs* at least one poster dumb enough to answer him
    > in order to keep up the pretense


    I don't see you attacking Rick about it, and he has been involved with
    Snit far, far more than me. So stop singling me out like I was some sort
    of serial offender while everyone else here is virtuous. I'm not, and
    they aren't. So drop it.

    >
    > It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael Glasser
    > (Snot) than talking *with* him


    Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    correct you. The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
    doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    >
    >>>
    >>>> Exactly how I can be a 'proprietary software plant', when I am currently
    >>>> not even using Windows, I can't begin to imagine. Planted by whom, may I
    >>>> ask? I work in a factory, I use Linux because I like it, I have no
    >>>> connection whatsoever with MS.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do for the love of mike get some fresh air, your brain is going off.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
    >>> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
    >>> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile
    >>>
    >>> That does not change the fact that you yourself put you right into the
    >>> Flak fire line with your love to support idiots and trolls

    >>
    >> Nonsense. How about you, forever dragging Snit into discussions where he
    >> has no relevance?

    >
    > He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
    > tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
    > to answer his garbage


    Look elsewhere than me, then.

    >
    >> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
    >> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >>

    >
    > No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about


    Actually, yes, I will, since that *is* what this is about. It's most
    certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.

    --
    Kier


  7. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:07:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Kier wrote:
    >>>

    > < snip >
    >
    >>>
    >>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
    >>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him

    >>
    >> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    >> correct you.

    >
    > Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.


    You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.

    >
    > And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
    > any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot) need
    > posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
    > the "discussion" going
    >
    >> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
    >> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    >
    > Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
    >
    > a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
    > b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely impossible


    Irrelevant. He still posts in response to you.

    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA, and
    >>> tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible enough
    >>> to answer his garbage

    >>
    >> Look elsewhere than me, then.
    >>

    >
    > No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
    > If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are happily
    > in business, too


    So are you.

    >
    >>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
    >>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about

    >>
    >> Actually, yes, I will,

    >
    > Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here


    Show me yours.

    >
    >> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
    >> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
    >>

    >
    > It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
    > encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.


    No it isn't. You dragged him into a discussion that has nothing whatever
    to do with him.

    --
    Kier


  8. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    ____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 27 October 2007 09:59 : \____

    > Sophie McDowell espoused:
    >>
    >> "Kier" wrote in message
    >> newsan.2007.10.25.12.17.42.909278@tiscali.co.uk...
    >>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:52:07 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 25 October 2007 08:29 : \____
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
    >>>>> their P.45s?
    >>>>
    >>>> I am not allowed to comment on this in detail, but it turns out that the
    >>>> crooks
    >>>> at the BBC have become quite fearful of this reaction. Apparently, it's
    >>>> all
    >>>> too real.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> 'Not allowed' by whom, exactly?

    >>
    >>
    >> Roy's failure to answer this simple question noted.


    My previous message explains just why.

    > Gary, even my little sister only changed her name once when she was 12
    > or 13. You seem to do it several times a week. Get help, please?


    He already did. He's seeing a professional, but progress is evidently too slow.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  9. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    Kier wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:07:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Kier wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>

    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
    >>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
    >>>
    >>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    >>> correct you.

    >>
    >> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.

    >
    > You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.


    Whatever Snot may "see", it has no roots in reality

    >>
    >> And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
    >> any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot)
    >> need posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
    >> the "discussion" going
    >>
    >>> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
    >>> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    >>
    >> Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
    >>
    >> a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
    >> b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely
    >> impossible

    >
    > Irrelevant. He still posts in response to you.


    He posts in response to whatever his latest whims
    What he needs though are posters *answering* him

    >>
    >> < snip >
    >>
    >>>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA,
    >>>> and tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible
    >>>> enough to answer his garbage
    >>>
    >>> Look elsewhere than me, then.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
    >> If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are
    >> happily in business, too

    >
    > So are you.
    >


    Fine. You may feel free to see it that way

    >>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
    >>>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
    >>>
    >>> Actually, yes, I will,

    >>
    >> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here

    >
    > Show me yours.


    I am not the one dictating here

    >>> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
    >>> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
    >> encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.

    >
    > No it isn't. You dragged him into a discussion that has nothing whatever
    > to do with him.
    >


    It is a discussion about encouraging trolls. Snot would by default be part
    of that

    --
    Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.


  10. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:00:55 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:07:11 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Kier wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Kier wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>> < snip >
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
    >>>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
    >>>>
    >>>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    >>>> correct you.
    >>>
    >>> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.

    >>
    >> You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.

    >
    > Whatever Snot may "see", it has no roots in reality


    Yes, but the posts are still there.

    >
    >>>
    >>> And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
    >>> any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot)
    >>> need posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
    >>> the "discussion" going
    >>>
    >>>> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
    >>>> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
    >>>
    >>> Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
    >>>
    >>> a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible
    >>> b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely
    >>> impossible

    >>
    >> Irrelevant. He still posts in response to you.

    >
    > He posts in response to whatever his latest whims
    > What he needs though are posters *answering* him


    He is answered sometimes, but not by me. SO get off the subject of me and
    Snit, because as far as I'm concerned, it's a non-subject.

    >
    >>>
    >>> < snip >
    >>>
    >>>>> He *has* a lot of relevance in this discussion. He still haunts COLA,
    >>>>> and tries to install his Snot circuses here. He needs posters gullible
    >>>>> enough to answer his garbage
    >>>>
    >>>> Look elsewhere than me, then.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> No. This is about *you* encouraging trolls.
    >>> If others do it also, fine. Does not change the fact that *you* are
    >>> happily in business, too

    >>
    >> So are you.
    >>

    >
    > Fine. You may feel free to see it that way
    >
    >>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS and
    >>>>>> ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually, yes, I will,
    >>>
    >>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here

    >>
    >> Show me yours.

    >
    > I am not the one dictating here


    Yes, you were. YOu were trying to dictate what the discussion is about,
    while denying me the right to do likewise.

    >
    >>>> since that *is* what this is about. It's most
    >>>> certainly not about Snit, however much you'd like it to be.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It *is* also about Snot, as he is a prime axample of hideous trolls
    >>> encouraged to continue posting their garbage here.

    >>
    >> No it isn't. You dragged him into a discussion that has nothing whatever
    >> to do with him.
    >>

    >
    > It is a discussion about encouraging trolls. Snot would by default be part
    > of that


    You seem to be the only one talking about it.

    --
    Kier


  11. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Saturday 27 October 2007 10:53 : \____

    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>>
    >>> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or
    >>> closed source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that
    >>> case would be "7", who is truly an imbecile

    >>
    >> Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
    >>

    >
    > What "abuse"?
    > Calling you an "imbecile" or "lunatic" is sometimes an insult.
    > To the real imbeciles
    >
    > You are so far off in la-la land about your GPL3-cult that it isn't funny
    > anymore
    >
    > Face it: A *lot* of OSS developers are sternly against the GPL3. You can
    > shout your idiotic bull**** as much as you want, that does not change
    > anything about that situation


    Peter is right.

    Apache is a 'cult'.

    Apache Foundation Co-Founder Likes GPLv3

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | "This what Apache has long wanted because we do want them
    | [GPL-oriented developers] to use it [Apache code], and we
    | didn't like even considering the prospect of GPL-only
    | re-implementations of our works just for compatibility's
    | sake." GLPv3, he added, "is good news, from my perspective."
    `----

    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/..._foundati.html

    Novell is 'cult'.

    IBM is a 'cult'.

    Heck, even Red Hat is a 'cult'

    GPL3 welcomed by IBM, Red Hat, Novell, MySQL

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The GPL is the most widely used license in the open-source realm. More
    | than 30,000 projects, which is about 66 percent of the open-source
    | projects tracked by the Freshmeat site, use the GPL.
    `----

    http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa...9279403,00.htm

    Google...? Yup, you've guessed it right. It's a cult.

    ,----[ Quoye ]
    | [Chris DiBona of Google:] The latest revision [of GPLv3] is actually pretty
    | good.
    `----

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2132480,00.asp

    Let's not forget those so-called 'hippies' that spread their creativity free of
    charge and available for further sharing.

    [Creative Commons in Support of] GPLv3!

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Note that Creative Commons has always recommended the GPL and other
    | free software licenses for software. We look forward to transitioning
    | software we create to GPLv3.
    `----

    http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7553

    Oh, and Linux is very business-oriented, so no Linux guru could ever accept the
    GPLv3. Right?

    Linux guru backs new GNU licence

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Open source guru Alan Cox has voiced his support for the
    | controversial version 3.0 of the GNU General Public Licence
    | in an exclusive podcast interview with Computer Weekly.
    `----

    http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...nu-licence.htm

    Maybe his tongue slipped. Or maybe not.

    Alan Cox Interview

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Personally I think it's a bad idea and that Novell are going to
    | get stung by the GPLv3, and rightfully so. The license is designed
    | to keep the software free, if it fails to do this then it needs
    | fixing, so GPLv3 hopefully will fix this flaw.
    `----

    http://www.abclinuxu.cz/clanky/rozho...lan-cox?page=1

    Apache finally finds a licence that's compatible. It should be happy.

    Apache, GPL License Compatibility Back On Track

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | GPL 3 is now on track to be finalized in August. Its adoption will be
    | a major milestone in the open-source industry and will force developers
    | of GPL-licensed software to make choices about migrating to the new
    | license or contributing to a potential schism between version 2 and
    | version 3 software.
    `----

    http://www.crn.com/software/199500038

    Peter said that "A *lot* of OSS developers are sternly against the GPL3". Is
    that right?

    OpenLogic survey warm on GPL 3

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | A survey of open-source programming experts that start-up OpenLogic
    | pays to resolve software troubles has revealed some favorable
    | feelings about the new third draft of the General Public License (GPL).
    `----

    http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-617...0-20&subj=news

    Watch the figures.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    A computer is like air conditioning: it becomes useless when you open windows.
    ~Linus Torvalds
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Mem: 515500k total, 444928k used, 70572k free, 6824k buffers
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

  12. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    Kier wrote:

    < snip >

    >>>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS
    >>>>>>> and ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Actually, yes, I will,
    >>>>
    >>>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
    >>>
    >>> Show me yours.

    >>
    >> I am not the one dictating here

    >
    > Yes, you were. YOu were trying to dictate what the discussion is about,
    > while denying me the right to do likewise.
    >


    Idiot

    --
    Who the **** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?


  13. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:36:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >>>>>>>> This is about so-called advocates continually banging on about MS
    >>>>>>>> and ascribing all the evils of the world to it.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No, it is not. You will not dictate what this is about
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Actually, yes, I will,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Fine. Show us your credentials then, that allow you to dictate here
    >>>>
    >>>> Show me yours.
    >>>
    >>> I am not the one dictating here

    >>
    >> Yes, you were. YOu were trying to dictate what the discussion is about,
    >> while denying me the right to do likewise.
    >>

    >
    > Idiot


    Are you? Okay.

    Look, Peter, how about we stop this kind of stupidity.

    In fact, neither of us is stupid.

    --
    Kier


  14. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:00:20 +0100,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann espoused:
    >>
    >> Oh, Mark is certainly a lunatic. His "conclusions" about linux and/or closed
    >> source border on the "imbecile" line. His only "superior" in that case
    >> would be "7", who is truly an imbecile

    >
    > Peter, abuse does not an argument make.
    >


    Words to live by, you should try it sometime.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHI3zKd90bcYOAWPYRAs94AJ9Dg4UcHLl22jJiGbZuDz XLRhf7ZACeN5om
    6l3EHY2GWRulHJRTopIf118=
    =jTk6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
    self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long

  15. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    "Kier" stated in post
    pan.2007.10.27.12.12.26.818442@tiscali.co.uk on 10/27/07 5:12 AM:

    >>>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
    >>>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him
    >>>
    >>> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    >>> correct you.

    >>
    >> Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.

    >
    > You may not take it as correction, but that's how he sees it.


    And if Peter disagrees he could say so... but he does not. Instead he
    claims to have me in a kill file. He also fails to point to any lie of mine
    .... while I am happy to point to several of his.




    --
    Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
    --Albert Einstein


  16. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    ffv9is$tlq$00$1@news.t-online.com on 10/27/07 5:07 AM:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:31:22 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Kier wrote:
    >>>

    > < snip >
    >
    >>>
    >>> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael
    >>> Glasser (Snot) than talking *with* him

    >>
    >> Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    >> correct you.

    >
    > Snot has never "corrected" anyone in all his life, and certainly not me.


    Incorrect. Do you need proof? I am happy to provide it.
    >
    > And, as I have seen by several quotes, he jumps in often enough without
    > any "provocating" remark from me. Assholes like Michael Glasser (Snot) need
    > posters *answering* him much more than anything else. To keep
    > the "discussion" going


    You repeatedly bring me up with your trolling bastardization of my online
    name.
    >
    >> The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
    >> doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

    >
    > Right. It does not happen. For that to happen it needs two things:
    >
    > a) I am wrong about Snot. Virtually impossible


    LOL! Weren't you the one claiming I "had" to be right? Oops.

    > b) Snot needs to be correct about anything/something. Absolutely impossible


    Well, except you refuse to actually try to support that. OK.



    --
    The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.


  17. Re: [News] The MSBBC Corruption: A 'Smoking Gun'

    "Kier" stated in post
    pan.2007.10.27.10.58.57.683929@tiscali.co.uk on 10/27/07 3:59 AM:

    >> Do you actually claim that Snot is not a troll?

    >
    > By the general definitions usually applied, yes, I suppose so.


    Agreed. I do respond to a lot of trolls, so that makes me a troll-feeder...
    but that is not the same as being a troll.
    >
    >> This is about your encouraging trolls. Snot *is* a troll, a hideous one. You
    >> *did* encourage him. Your involvement with Snot in those threads some time

    >
    > The operative word is *did*. I did reply to him once recently in the
    > virtual desktops thread, but that is all. So, when are you going to stop
    > dragging it up again and again where it has no relevance?


    By bringing me up again and again he is, well, trolling for my attention.
    Then he claims to not even read the posts in response. Weird.

    ....
    >> He naturally was. He *needs* at least one poster dumb enough to answer him
    >> in order to keep up the pretense

    >
    > I don't see you attacking Rick about it, and he has been involved with
    > Snit far, far more than me. So stop singling me out like I was some sort
    > of serial offender while everyone else here is virtuous. I'm not, and
    > they aren't. So drop it.


    Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.
    >>
    >> It is quite a different matter talking *about* assholes like Michael Glasser
    >> (Snot) than talking *with* him

    >
    > Not to him, since you know very well it encourages him to jump in and
    > correct you. The fact that you don't see it because you've plonked him
    > doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


    Publicly belittling someone is likely to bring a response.



    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  18. Re: Lying Snit

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:

    (snip)
    >
    > Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.


    You are a liar. This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt
    you even know what the definitions of troll and trolling are.
    (snip)
    --
    Rick

  19. Re: Lying Snit

    "Rick" stated in post 13i72gb805se917@news.supernews.com
    on 10/27/07 11:57 AM:

    > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    > (snip)
    >>
    >> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.

    >
    > You are a liar.


    Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are some
    more, just from today:

    "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy"
    " passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"

    Many of those were repeated - and I am sure I missed some of your "finer"
    moments. It also does not include your ignorant accusations where you deny
    I know things I have already explained to you.

    In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out things
    about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have shown I can talk
    about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where you are
    completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are common
    enough to be representative of what people use; the number of choices just
    paralyzes you.

    > This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt
    > you even know what the definitions of troll and trolling are.


    I do not care how you defend your trolling, lying, and name calling. The
    fact you are engaging in such activities is very clear.


    --
    When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
    to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
    beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller


  20. Re: Lying Snit

    On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:22:56 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13i72gb805se917@news.supernews.com on 10/27/07 11:57 AM:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:42:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >> (snip)
    >>>
    >>> Rick mostly has been name calling and otherwise trolling.

    >>
    >> You are a liar.

    >
    > Yet another example of your name calling and silly insults. Here are
    > some more, just from today:
    >
    > "jerk", "Bray some more, ass", "you are clueless", "monkey boy" "
    > passive-aggressive jerk", "idiot", "stupid"


    You are ll of those things.

    >
    > Many of those were repeated - and I am sure I missed some of your
    > "finer" moments. It also does not include your ignorant accusations
    > where you deny I know things I have already explained to you.
    >
    > In the end, Rick, you do not like the fact that I have pointed out
    > things about Virtual desktops that you disagree with *and* I have shown
    > I can talk about reasoned comparisons between comparable systems where
    > you are completely unable to even figure out what systems you think are
    > common enough to be representative of what people use; the number of
    > choices just paralyzes you.
    >


    aha HAh ahA hahah HAha HHA hah HAHaha hA...

    Oh, you were serious ?

    AH ah HAhaH AHA hHA hH HAAH ahAH aha HAh ahha


    >> This is not name calling, it is a fact. I highly doubt you even know
    >> what the definitions of troll and trolling are.

    >
    > I do not care how you defend your trolling, lying, and name calling.
    > The fact you are engaging in such activities is very clear.


    Liar.
    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast