Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista - Linux ; * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply: > "Linonut" wrote in message > >> No, you haven't. You mostly just make stuff up. >> > Easy for you to say, but you are just hand waving there. And you are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 138

Thread: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

  1. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    >
    >> No, you haven't. You mostly just make stuff up.
    >>

    > Easy for you to say, but you are just hand waving there. And you are still
    > missing the point, confusing one thought with another.


    I stand by the assertion above.

    You are as honest as a Tammany politician.

    --
    Tux rox!

  2. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:VjZ1j.1001$Mu4.511@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
    >>* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> If you were smart, you'd have more control over your headers.
    >>>>
    >>> If he were smart, he would be far more interesting.

    >>
    >> Now don't be a hypocrite, Bill.
    >>

    > Can you state for the record that you find his posts captivating?


    I find the dizum idiot's posts as captivating as your posts.

    --
    Tux rox!

  3. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Linonut wrote:

    > * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:VjZ1j.1001$Mu4.511@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
    >>>* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you were smart, you'd have more control over your headers.
    >>>>>
    >>>> If he were smart, he would be far more interesting.
    >>>
    >>> Now don't be a hypocrite, Bill.
    >>>

    >> Can you state for the record that you find his posts captivating?

    >
    > I find the dizum idiot's posts as captivating as your posts.
    >


    Although slightly less dishonest. billwg is only outdone by Snot in this
    regard
    --
    Tact, n.:
    The unsaid part of what you're thinking.


  4. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:

    > Anthropogenic Global warming is bull****, this crap is isolated cases of
    > criminal activity, might as well point to the illegal drug trade as a
    > reason to burn Glaxo down.


    Actually, Jim, it is not bull****. The effect is significant, and it
    has nothing to do with illegal activities. The simple fact is that the
    amount of compounds spilled into the air due to the activities of
    civilization is causing climate change.

    There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
    climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
    work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
    no matter how you look at it.

    And just wait until normal petroleum production becomes so expensive
    that we start going to much dirtier means of squeezing energy from the
    decay of the past.

    I would agree though, that the thing that will wipe out humanity will
    come from underground, from the sun, or from the asteroid belt. Ha ha
    ha ha ha ha! So long, suckers!

    --
    Tux rox!

  5. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:RVg2j.1770$N67.1090@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>
    >>> No, you haven't. You mostly just make stuff up.
    >>>

    >> Easy for you to say, but you are just hand waving there. And you are
    >> still
    >> missing the point, confusing one thought with another.

    >
    > I stand by the assertion above.
    >
    > You are as honest as a Tammany politician.
    >

    More hand-waving, obviously. Any case on point?
    > --
    > Tux rox!



  6. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    newsYg2j.1772$N67.1694@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
    >* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:VjZ1j.1001$Mu4.511@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
    >>>* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you were smart, you'd have more control over your headers.
    >>>>>
    >>>> If he were smart, he would be far more interesting.
    >>>
    >>> Now don't be a hypocrite, Bill.
    >>>

    >> Can you state for the record that you find his posts captivating?

    >
    > I find the dizum idiot's posts as captivating as your posts.
    >

    Oh, be honest now! And you are once again side-stepping. Do you find that
    you have to do that a lot where Linux is concerned? Everything about it
    seems to need some kind of gimmick to dress it up.


  7. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

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

    On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:09:49 -0500,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Anthropogenic Global warming is bull****, this crap is isolated cases of
    >> criminal activity, might as well point to the illegal drug trade as a
    >> reason to burn Glaxo down.

    >
    > Actually, Jim, it is not bull****. The effect is significant, and it
    > has nothing to do with illegal activities. The simple fact is that the
    > amount of compounds spilled into the air due to the activities of
    > civilization is causing climate change.
    >


    No that's a simple assertion that fails to meet the scientific methdd.

    > There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
    > climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
    > work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
    > no matter how you look at it.
    >


    No, some of the claims are 2deg F, in actual fact, the *observed* rise
    in temp since 1900, is on the order of 0.7degC (about 1.1degF) and most
    of that, (0.5C) was before 1945. Our peak global temp since 1900, was in
    1998, according to the climatologists, due to the el Nino that year.

    AGW is a failed theory that hangs on only due to political pressure and
    people who don't actually read the studies they quote.

    1) Rises in CO2 presence in the atmosphere *lags* rising temp by nearly
    a milennia

    2) The earth has been *far* warmer in the recent past, as recently as
    the medieval warming period in fact, and somehow, the polar bears
    survived. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd that the polar bears are
    doomed 'cause they can't handle the heat!

    3) Yeas, arctic ice sheets have been melting and losing ice mass.
    However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.

    4) AGW ignores the energy input of that great big glowing ball in the
    sky.

    5) The famous "hockey stick" chart is big slash of misinformation, by
    chosing the starting point carefully, and the scale, you can't tell that
    the period before the chart starts was a cooling trend, "depresing"
    temps, and the scale prevents you from seeing that the temps lag
    atmospheric C02 levels by 800 years.

    It goes on and on.



    The earths measured temp has increased about 0.7degC since 1900, an
    increase that is neither large, nor particularly remarkable.

    Solar output in the last few decades has increased by approx
    1.1W/m^2, the same amount the climate models claim is responcible for
    what warming we have been seeing.




    > And just wait until normal petroleum production becomes so expensive
    > that we start going to much dirtier means of squeezing energy from the
    > decay of the past.
    >


    non-sequitur. Even if AGW were a proven hypothesis, what effect would
    that have on petroleum prices? We don't rely on temps, humidity or such
    to extract the hydrocarbons. They're there, we just dig them out.

    > I would agree though, that the thing that will wipe out humanity will
    > come from underground, from the sun, or from the asteroid belt. Ha ha
    > ha ha ha ha! So long, suckers!
    >


    ? this is how you support your theories?


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

    iD8DBQFHSe71d90bcYOAWPYRAjjRAKDb7UDf6khicqQbiD00xn i6J0oBBACeMI/v
    DZz/VPQ8wxC7SC8wJhhIpYA=
    =F4QG
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Homo sapiens, isn't

  8. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    ____/ Kier on Sunday 25 November 2007 13:05 : \____

    > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >
    >> It never ceases to amaze me how many people blindly accept, defend and even
    >> encourage some of the most broken, corrupt, and unethical things that we
    >> have ruining our **world** (not just the human race, aka "society"). And you
    >> know

    >
    > I'm not defending it. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Roy. Of
    > course it's bad and should be stopped. Just not by the methods described
    > in the original post, which helps no one.


    Sorry, Kier, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented. I wasn't my intention.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2007-10-30 19:49 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  9. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    >> You are as honest as a Tammany politician.
    >>

    > More hand-waving, obviously. Any case on point?


    No, from past experience, I've found you aren't worth the effort.

    Even if someone scores on you, you only change the call.

    As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.


  10. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:

    >> There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
    >> climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
    >> work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
    >> no matter how you look at it.

    >
    > No, some of the claims are 2deg F, in actual fact, the *observed* rise
    > in temp since 1900, is on the order of 0.7degC (about 1.1degF) and most
    > of that, (0.5C) was before 1945. Our peak global temp since 1900, was in
    > 1998, according to the climatologists, due to the el Nino that year.


    I didn't say that the 2 degrees represents the observed rise. I said it
    is the predicted rise (the lowest end of the range of predicted values.

    > AGW is a failed theory that hangs on only due to political pressure and
    > people who don't actually read the studies they quote.


    How can that be, when there seems to be FAR MORE political and business
    pressure AGAINST the theory.

    > 1) Rises in CO2 presence in the atmosphere *lags* rising temp by nearly
    > a milennia


    Never heard of water vapor, sulfur compounds, and methane?

    > 2) The earth has been *far* warmer in the recent past, as recently as
    > the medieval warming period in fact, and somehow, the polar bears
    > survived. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd that the polar bears are
    > doomed 'cause they can't handle the heat!


    Past temperature ranges don't matter. The point is, we're changing the
    equation somewhat, in a very significant way.

    > 3) Yeas, arctic ice sheets have been melting and losing ice mass.
    > However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.


    That's not what I've read. At all.

    > It goes on and on.


    > The earths measured temp has increased about 0.7degC since 1900, an
    > increase that is neither large, nor particularly remarkable.


    But it is significant. And it will become more so.

    > Solar output in the last few decades has increased by approx
    > 1.1W/m^2, the same amount the climate models claim is responcible for
    > what warming we have been seeing.


    Who said the situation is simple? It isn't. Cherry-picking
    observations to buttress one's point is not science.

    > non-sequitur. Even if AGW were a proven hypothesis, what effect would
    > that have on petroleum prices? We don't rely on temps, humidity or such
    > to extract the hydrocarbons. They're there, we just dig them out.


    Huh? Prease to spreak Engrish.

    We dig them out, and then spew them where they don't belong.

    >> I would agree though, that the thing that will wipe out humanity will
    >> come from underground, from the sun, or from the asteroid belt. Ha ha
    >> ha ha ha ha! So long, suckers!

    >
    > ? this is how you support your theories?


    Wow Jim, and I thought Erik had no sense of humor!

    In the long run, of course, the thing that will definitely wipe us out
    will come from outer space. Even if an asteroid doesn't wipe us out,
    the Sun will get us.

    However, in the short term (100 years or so), I would hate to think we
    persisted on a course that will make our near-term descendant's lives a
    living hell, or even significantly impoverished.

    In the longer term, though, I take some comfort in the long view:
    having extracted all the energy we can from hydrocarbons, we'll simply
    fall back to a primitive, unfortunate state, and then build civilization
    back up, hopefully in a more civilized format.

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

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

    On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:56:53 -0500,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>> There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
    >>> climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
    >>> work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
    >>> no matter how you look at it.

    >>
    >> No, some of the claims are 2deg F, in actual fact, the *observed* rise
    >> in temp since 1900, is on the order of 0.7degC (about 1.1degF) and most
    >> of that, (0.5C) was before 1945. Our peak global temp since 1900, was in
    >> 1998, according to the climatologists, due to the el Nino that year.

    >
    > I didn't say that the 2 degrees represents the observed rise. I said it
    > is the predicted rise (the lowest end of the range of predicted values.
    >


    A rise predicted based on models that failed to track the observed rise
    in the past. IOW, a model that doesn't predict well enough to be worth a
    crap.

    >> AGW is a failed theory that hangs on only due to political pressure and
    >> people who don't actually read the studies they quote.

    >
    > How can that be, when there seems to be FAR MORE political and business
    > pressure AGAINST the theory.
    >


    there isn't.

    >> 1) Rises in CO2 presence in the atmosphere *lags* rising temp by nearly
    >> a milennia

    >
    > Never heard of water vapor, sulfur compounds, and methane?
    >


    Yes, and not relevent to the AGW discussion, which is about manmade C02.
    Water vapour is indeed the largest contributor to GW, but what we
    "produce" of that is a tiny fraction of a fraction of one percent of the
    total, even less than the % of atmospheric C02 we produce.


    >> 2) The earth has been *far* warmer in the recent past, as recently as
    >> the medieval warming period in fact, and somehow, the polar bears
    >> survived. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd that the polar bears are
    >> doomed 'cause they can't handle the heat!

    >
    > Past temperature ranges don't matter. The point is, we're changing the
    > equation somewhat, in a very significant way.



    Yes, past temps matter. The earth has been both warmer, and colder in
    the past, with no input from man. Ergo, there are natural processes that
    affect global temps. If we don't understand them, then we can't predict
    with any accuracy what will happen when we change one variable by less
    than a third of a percentage point.

    >> 3) Yeas, arctic ice sheets have been melting and losing ice mass.
    >> However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.

    >
    > That's not what I've read. At all.
    >


    http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...uthseaice.html

    google is your friend.


    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ming-snow-job/
    is a good page on this. With plenty of info, and sources.

    >> It goes on and on.

    >
    >> The earths measured temp has increased about 0.7degC since 1900, an
    >> increase that is neither large, nor particularly remarkable.

    >
    > But it is significant. And it will become more so.
    >


    It peaked in 1998, that's significant. It's been warmer in the recent
    past, that's significant. It will no doubt get warmer, and colder in the
    future, that's significant. What it isn't, is proof of AGW.

    >> Solar output in the last few decades has increased by approx
    >> 1.1W/m^2, the same amount the climate models claim is responcible for
    >> what warming we have been seeing.

    >
    > Who said the situation is simple? It isn't. Cherry-picking
    > observations to buttress one's point is not science.
    >



    bingo, and there lies the big problem with most of the AGW stuff, it's
    cherry picking to the nth degree. Ignore the medieval warming period,
    the solar cycles, the solar output. Ignore anything that doesn't fit the
    desired model. If that doesn't work, jigger the numbers so it comes out
    the way you want it to.

    >> non-sequitur. Even if AGW were a proven hypothesis, what effect would
    >> that have on petroleum prices? We don't rely on temps, humidity or such
    >> to extract the hydrocarbons. They're there, we just dig them out.

    >
    > Huh? Prease to spreak Engrish.


    What's bad about increasing global temps? It's happened in the past, and
    led to great harvests of grapes in norther countries, and great food
    production in Greenland for one thing.

    >
    > We dig them out, and then spew them where they don't belong.
    >


    Pollution is a problem, but not the focus of this discussion. You can
    scrub out all the various combustion byproducts, But C02 results from
    combusting carbon, and there's no getting around that. So is it enough
    to make a change? and is that change detrimental? those are questions
    that AGW has not answered properly.

    >>> I would agree though, that the thing that will wipe out humanity will
    >>> come from underground, from the sun, or from the asteroid belt. Ha ha
    >>> ha ha ha ha! So long, suckers!

    >>
    >> ? this is how you support your theories?

    >
    > Wow Jim, and I thought Erik had no sense of humor!
    >
    > In the long run, of course, the thing that will definitely wipe us out
    > will come from outer space. Even if an asteroid doesn't wipe us out,
    > the Sun will get us.
    >
    > However, in the short term (100 years or so), I would hate to think we
    > persisted on a course that will make our near-term descendant's lives a
    > living hell, or even significantly impoverished.



    The globe warming up a couple of degrees won't do that.

    > In the longer term, though, I take some comfort in the long view:
    > having extracted all the energy we can from hydrocarbons, we'll simply
    > fall back to a primitive, unfortunate state, and then build civilization
    > back up, hopefully in a more civilized format.
    >


    Nope, we'll work this out too.

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

    iD8DBQFHSrhnd90bcYOAWPYRAnjvAKCOVBmKTEzDnkZIgNi/mHq1VodwIgCg32mN
    AOJ2oEw3K6PG3YRccOHwK2U=
    =dxy8
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't give a damn.

  12. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:09:49 -0500,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Jim Richardson fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Anthropogenic Global warming is bull****, this crap is isolated cases of
    >>> criminal activity, might as well point to the illegal drug trade as a
    >>> reason to burn Glaxo down.

    >>
    >> Actually, Jim, it is not bull****. The effect is significant, and it
    >> has nothing to do with illegal activities. The simple fact is that the
    >> amount of compounds spilled into the air due to the activities of
    >> civilization is causing climate change.
    >>

    >
    > No that's a simple assertion that fails to meet the scientific methdd.
    >
    >> There's a lot of argument about whether this outweighs natural causes of
    >> climate changes, but, nonetheless, even the most conservative estimates
    >> work out to about 2 degrees Fahrenheit of change. A significant amount
    >> no matter how you look at it.
    >>

    >
    > No, some of the claims are 2deg F, in actual fact, the *observed* rise
    > in temp since 1900, is on the order of 0.7degC (about 1.1degF) and most
    > of that, (0.5C) was before 1945. Our peak global temp since 1900, was in
    > 1998, according to the climatologists, due to the el Nino that year.
    >
    > AGW is a failed theory that hangs on only due to political pressure and
    > people who don't actually read the studies they quote.
    >
    > 1) Rises in CO2 presence in the atmosphere *lags* rising temp by nearly
    > a milennia
    >
    > 2) The earth has been *far* warmer in the recent past, as recently as
    > the medieval warming period in fact, and somehow, the polar bears
    > survived. Despite the claims of the AGW crowd that the polar bears are
    > doomed 'cause they can't handle the heat!
    >


    > 3) Yeas, arctic ice sheets have been melting and losing ice mass.
    > However, Antarctic Ice is *increasing* and by a greater degree.
    >


    Nope - that was an error made in 2002 which Nasa cleared up very quickly
    indeed afterwards. Antarctic Ice is not increasing, and neither is
    Arctic Ice. The only people claiming this now are Oil-company funded
    Shills. And you.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2040532.stm

    --
    | 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 |

  13. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    William Poaster espoused:
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ____/ chrisv on Friday 23 November 2007 19:25 : \____
    >>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> You are a silly loon in my opinion.
    >>>
    >>> Of course. Just like all the "suckers" who are too "weak" to take
    >>> advantage of others at every opportunity. That's the way filth like you
    >>> thinks.
    >>>
    >>>>(snip claptrap)

    >>
    >> Thanks for snipping whatever that exploitative scum had to say. I can only
    >> imagine that he supports suppression. He is a a fascist.

    >
    > amicus_curious/billwg is Bill Weisgerber. This twat has done his shill service
    > for MS for years, so naturally he supports suppression of anything that isn't
    > M$.
    >


    Or, indeed, the whole concept of suppression.

    --
    | 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 |

  14. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:0oq2j.2841$k27.1245@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
    >* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>> You are as honest as a Tammany politician.
    >>>

    >> More hand-waving, obviously. Any case on point?

    >
    > No, from past experience, I've found you aren't worth the effort.
    >

    Rationalize all you want, but you have no case.

    > Even if someone scores on you, you only change the call.
    >

    Since they only ever present a false case if they ever present at all.

    > As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >

    Vis'-a-vis' chrisv, that can happen to anyone.


  15. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >"chrisv" wrote in message
    >>
    >> Of course. Just like all the "suckers" who are too "weak" to take
    >> advantage of others at every opportunity. That's the way filth like you
    >> thinks.
    >>

    >Do people often take advantage of you?


    If one can defend oneself, one should ignore the bullies and thugs who
    prey on those who cannot defend themselves?

    You filth.


  16. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Linonut writes:

    > * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>> You are as honest as a Tammany politician.
    >>>

    >> More hand-waving, obviously. Any case on point?

    >
    > No, from past experience, I've found you aren't worth the effort.
    >
    > Even if someone scores on you, you only change the call.
    >
    > As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >


    You listen to chrisv? *GUFFAW*. Next you'll be listening to Roy and then
    what will happen?

    --
    The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems
    is a symptom of professional immaturity.
    -- Edsger Dijkstra

  17. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    chrisv writes:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>"chrisv" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> Of course. Just like all the "suckers" who are too "weak" to take
    >>> advantage of others at every opportunity. That's the way filth like you
    >>> thinks.
    >>>

    >>Do people often take advantage of you?

    >
    > If one can defend oneself, one should ignore the bullies and thugs who
    > prey on those who cannot defend themselves?
    >
    > You filth.
    >


    Chrisv sees himself as a fighter for the cause. LOL. I don't know many
    battles that were won by the "defender of the faith" saying "**** you filth
    *plonk*" and then hiding behind his kill file. Yup that's really
    defending the weaker targets eh chrisv?

    Still, chrisv always was the 3rd worst advocate in COLA. As his comments
    become more and more ludicrous and Rexx gets older we might see a
    promotion yet.

    --
    The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems
    is a symptom of professional immaturity.
    -- Edsger Dijkstra

  18. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:46:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Kier on Sunday 25 November 2007 13:05 : \____
    >
    >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:00:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> It never ceases to amaze me how many people blindly accept, defend and even
    >>> encourage some of the most broken, corrupt, and unethical things that we
    >>> have ruining our **world** (not just the human race, aka "society"). And you
    >>> know

    >>
    >> I'm not defending it. Please stop putting words in my mouth, Roy. Of
    >> course it's bad and should be stopped. Just not by the methods described
    >> in the original post, which helps no one.

    >
    > Sorry, Kier, if I misinterpreted or misrepresented. I wasn't my intention.


    Thanks, Roy. Apology accepted :-)

    --
    Kier


  19. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >"Linonut" wrote in message
    >>
    >> As chrisv notes, you can be a real piece of ****.
    >>

    >Vis'-a-vis' chrisv, that can happen to anyone.


    Only if it's well-deserved.


  20. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista


    "Hadron" wrote in message
    news:v14r15-ac9.ln1@news.individual.net...
    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>"chrisv" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course. Just like all the "suckers" who are too "weak" to take
    >>>> advantage of others at every opportunity. That's the way filth like
    >>>> you
    >>>> thinks.
    >>>>
    >>>Do people often take advantage of you?

    >>
    >> If one can defend oneself, one should ignore the bullies and thugs who
    >> prey on those who cannot defend themselves?
    >>
    >> You filth.
    >>

    >
    > Chrisv sees himself as a fighter for the cause. LOL. I don't know many
    > battles that were won by the "defender of the faith" saying "**** you
    > filth
    > *plonk*" and then hiding behind his kill file. Yup that's really
    > defending the weaker targets eh chrisv?
    >

    Curiously, his plonker seems to fail him time and again. I get plonked and
    then there he is again with his opinion. Perhaps he is using a home-made
    Linux plonker and it is not up to commercial standards or else doesn't
    persist from session to session.



+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast