information technology specialist .. - Linux

This is a discussion on information technology specialist .. - Linux ; On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:31:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:09 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On Thu, 20 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: information technology specialist ..

  1. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:31:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:09 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:50:34 -0500,
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:51:47 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> agree pretty much 100%, Erik can be a complete asshole, and he's not
    >>>>> exactly honest here, but that's a silly thing to do.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's bull. I have been completely honest here. Sure, i've been wrong
    >>>> on occasion, but to call that being dishonest is bull**** and you know
    >>>> it.
    >>>
    >>> No, you've have been deliberately misleading and weasel wording on
    >>> several occasions, I call that dishonest.

    >>
    >> No, i'd call that a bias in interpreting my comments. You and others
    >> choose to use the most inflamatory and controversial interpretation
    >> possible of anything I say.
    >>
    >> Can you give an example?

    >
    > Take about any of your posts of the last years


    So it should be quite easy for you to actually provide such an example.

    Why can't you then?

  2. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:31:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:09 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:50:34 -0500,
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:51:47 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> agree pretty much 100%, Erik can be a complete asshole, and he's not
    >>>>>> exactly honest here, but that's a silly thing to do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's bull. I have been completely honest here. Sure, i've been
    >>>>> wrong on occasion, but to call that being dishonest is bull**** and
    >>>>> you know it.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, you've have been deliberately misleading and weasel wording on
    >>>> several occasions, I call that dishonest.
    >>>
    >>> No, i'd call that a bias in interpreting my comments. You and others
    >>> choose to use the most inflamatory and controversial interpretation
    >>> possible of anything I say.
    >>>
    >>> Can you give an example?

    >>
    >> Take about any of your posts of the last years

    >
    > So it should be quite easy for you to actually provide such an example.
    >
    > Why can't you then?


    I did. I said "Take about any of your posts of the last years"

    Erik, your "reputation" is so low around here that nobody (and I'll wager
    that includes even the wintrolls) is taking *anything* you claim for
    granted. *Nothing* you claim can be taken at face value.

    You are known for constantly FUDding and being a very dishonest MS shill.
    *That* is the only thing which can be taken for granted about you.

    Nice reputation you've got there
    --
    You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species


  3. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:54:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:31:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:09 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:50:34 -0500,
    >>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:51:47 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> agree pretty much 100%, Erik can be a complete asshole, and he's not
    >>>>>>> exactly honest here, but that's a silly thing to do.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's bull. I have been completely honest here. Sure, i've been
    >>>>>> wrong on occasion, but to call that being dishonest is bull**** and
    >>>>>> you know it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, you've have been deliberately misleading and weasel wording on
    >>>>> several occasions, I call that dishonest.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, i'd call that a bias in interpreting my comments. You and others
    >>>> choose to use the most inflamatory and controversial interpretation
    >>>> possible of anything I say.
    >>>>
    >>>> Can you give an example?
    >>>
    >>> Take about any of your posts of the last years

    >>
    >> So it should be quite easy for you to actually provide such an example.
    >>
    >> Why can't you then?

    >
    > I did. I said "Take about any of your posts of the last years"
    >
    > Erik, your "reputation" is so low around here that nobody (and I'll wager
    > that includes even the wintrolls) is taking *anything* you claim for
    > granted. *Nothing* you claim can be taken at face value.
    >
    > You are known for constantly FUDding and being a very dishonest MS shill.
    > *That* is the only thing which can be taken for granted about you.
    >
    > Nice reputation you've got there


    So then that's a no. You can't actually provide any examples.

  4. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:54:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:31:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:09 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:50:34 -0500,
    >>>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:51:47 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> agree pretty much 100%, Erik can be a complete asshole, and he's
    >>>>>>>> not exactly honest here, but that's a silly thing to do.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> That's bull. I have been completely honest here. Sure, i've been
    >>>>>>> wrong on occasion, but to call that being dishonest is bull**** and
    >>>>>>> you know it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, you've have been deliberately misleading and weasel wording on
    >>>>>> several occasions, I call that dishonest.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, i'd call that a bias in interpreting my comments. You and others
    >>>>> choose to use the most inflamatory and controversial interpretation
    >>>>> possible of anything I say.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can you give an example?
    >>>>
    >>>> Take about any of your posts of the last years
    >>>
    >>> So it should be quite easy for you to actually provide such an example.
    >>>
    >>> Why can't you then?

    >>
    >> I did. I said "Take about any of your posts of the last years"
    >>
    >> Erik, your "reputation" is so low around here that nobody (and I'll wager
    >> that includes even the wintrolls) is taking *anything* you claim for
    >> granted. *Nothing* you claim can be taken at face value.
    >>
    >> You are known for constantly FUDding and being a very dishonest MS shill.
    >> *That* is the only thing which can be taken for granted about you.
    >>
    >> Nice reputation you've got there

    >
    > So then that's a no. You can't actually provide any examples.


    Wrong, Erik

    I can't be arsed to provide examples for the n-th time. They have been
    provided dozens of times already

    You have been called so often on your bull**** that it is by now quite
    ridiculous. Why should anyone be required to prove *again* what kind of
    dishonest twit you are?

    You have proven time and again that nothing you claim is to be taken
    as "true". Change that first (although I suspect you can't), and then we
    can talk.
    Until then, you remain the lying MS shill you have always been
    --
    Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
    of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?


  5. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On 2007-12-21, chrisv claimed:
    > Erika wrote:


    >>Erik, you are a proven liar.

    >
    > Indeed he is. He regularly spews crap so illogical that no one in
    > their right mind could believe it. The illogical crap is invariably
    > anti-Linux, so it can't just be a random brain defect.


    But he goes after Rex for what he views as similar things.

    Rex is at least entertaining and sometimes interesting. Erik is nothing
    more nor less than a troll. A boring troll.

    > Erik is an immoral, dishonest fsck.


    Now, now. Don't bad mouth all of the immoral, dishonest ****s by
    comparing Erik to them. At least they have /some/ redeeming qualities:
    they aren't Erik; they aren't Rhonda; they aren't DuFus; they aren't
    Flathead; etc.

    --
    I accelerate for cats.

  6. Re: information technology specialist ..

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

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:01:08 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:19:09 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:50:34 -0500,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:51:47 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> agree pretty much 100%, Erik can be a complete asshole, and he's not
    >>>> exactly honest here, but that's a silly thing to do.
    >>>
    >>> That's bull. I have been completely honest here. Sure, i've been wrong on
    >>> occasion, but to call that being dishonest is bull**** and you know it.

    >>
    >> No, you've have been deliberately misleading and weasel wording on
    >> several occasions, I call that dishonest.

    >
    > No, i'd call that a bias in interpreting my comments. You and others
    > choose to use the most inflamatory and controversial interpretation
    > possible of anything I say.
    >
    > Can you give an example?



    sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago. You
    went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.

    Everyone makes errors, I certainly do, and that's not being dishonest.

    We all have bad moments, say stupid ****, and have to face the world
    afterwards. Either you have a lot of those moments, or you have a
    disproportionate number of yours here, or you are flinging fud and
    misleading people.



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

    iD8DBQFHbF/Od90bcYOAWPYRArzeAJ9bKvXWXhSedFABZ1x8RIEkDeGDzwCg0 VAG
    lROOUR4eq9d820+0erJfwUk=
    =3BJI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

  7. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:31 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >> Can you give an example?

    >
    > sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago. You
    > went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    > windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    > bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    > amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    > claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.


    I barely remember that situation, but my recollection is that the only
    reason it "took ages" is because at the time I didn't have a working Linux
    partition to verify, and I stated several times to put the discussion on
    hold until I did.

    After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't be
    done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.

    > Everyone makes errors, I certainly do, and that's not being dishonest.


    Yet everytime *I* make one, everytime I admit to them, you still continue
    to call me a liar about them, even 5+ years after the fact. You simply
    cannot accept it when someone makes a mistake, you have to keep grinding
    their nose in it for years and years.

    Is it any wonder I dislike admitting when I make mistakes, people like
    yourself simply will not accept it and will continue to call me a liar.

    > We all have bad moments, say stupid ****, and have to face the world
    > afterwards. Either you have a lot of those moments, or you have a
    > disproportionate number of yours here, or you are flinging fud and
    > misleading people.


    Tell me. Have you ever seen me bring up a 5+ year old argument in here?
    Ever? I'd say the Fud comes from you.

  8. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:31 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>> Can you give an example?

    >>
    >> sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago. You
    >> went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    >> windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    >> bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    >> amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    >> claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.

    >
    > I barely remember that situation, but my recollection is that the only
    > reason it "took ages" is because at the time I didn't have a working Linux
    > partition to verify, and I stated several times to put the discussion on
    > hold until I did.


    Naturally, Erik, naturally
    The many posts of actual linux users telling you that you are full of it did
    not count. You (as one of the most incompetent "linux users" ever) had
    to "verify" it.

    > After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    > admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    > words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't
    > be done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.


    You *did* say it. Quit lying

    >> Everyone makes errors, I certainly do, and that's not being dishonest.

    >
    > Yet everytime *I* make one, everytime I admit to them,


    You try the weasel wording instead. You rarely admit being wrong

    > you still continue
    > to call me a liar about them, even 5+ years after the fact.


    Because you are. You have never stopped lying
    You are one of the worst liars in cola ever. Filthy scum like flatfish,
    raylopez or DFS don't count, they can be safely ignored

    > You simply
    > cannot accept it when someone makes a mistake, you have to keep grinding
    > their nose in it for years and years.


    Because you rarely admit those "errors", and often repeat them.
    Like the "Morris-worm" example. You *still* keep claiming that it spreads
    via email. It does not

    > Is it any wonder I dislike admitting when I make mistakes, people like
    > yourself simply will not accept it and will continue to call me a liar.


    When you stop lying, people will stop calling you a liar

    >> We all have bad moments, say stupid ****, and have to face the world
    >> afterwards. Either you have a lot of those moments, or you have a
    >> disproportionate number of yours here, or you are flinging fud and
    >> misleading people.

    >
    > Tell me. Have you ever seen me bring up a 5+ year old argument in here?
    > Ever? I'd say the Fud comes from you.


    Those are brought up because they are prime examples of your ongoing
    FUDding, Erik. You have never stopped that, and most of those "errors" (I
    would call all of them "blatant lies") you have never admitted.

    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    It could be worse, but it'll take time.


  9. Re: information technology specialist ..

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

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:19 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:31 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>> Can you give an example?

    >>
    >> sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago. You
    >> went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    >> windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    >> bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    >> amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    >> claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.

    >
    > I barely remember that situation, but my recollection is that the only
    > reason it "took ages" is because at the time I didn't have a working Linux
    > partition to verify, and I stated several times to put the discussion on
    > hold until I did.
    >
    > After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    > admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    > words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't be
    > done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.
    >


    - From Message-ID:




    Focus follows point is very annoying if you want to use the keyboard,
    since the mouse forces focus elsewhere, you can't switch windows using
    keyboard shortucts.




    >> Everyone makes errors, I certainly do, and that's not being dishonest.

    >
    > Yet everytime *I* make one, everytime I admit to them, you still continue
    > to call me a liar about them, even 5+ years after the fact. You simply
    > cannot accept it when someone makes a mistake, you have to keep grinding
    > their nose in it for years and years.
    >
    > Is it any wonder I dislike admitting when I make mistakes, people like
    > yourself simply will not accept it and will continue to call me a liar.


    False, I drop things when you've admitted a mistake, see the root
    'sploit threads of yore. I sometimes don't see a message in where you
    admit the mistake, like the msttcorefonts claims you made, you did admit
    that your claim that you couldn't use them on non-MS platforms was false
    right?


    >
    >> We all have bad moments, say stupid ****, and have to face the world
    >> afterwards. Either you have a lot of those moments, or you have a
    >> disproportionate number of yours here, or you are flinging fud and
    >> misleading people.

    >
    > Tell me. Have you ever seen me bring up a 5+ year old argument in here?
    > Ever? I'd say the Fud comes from you.


    Fud like your claims that the GPL can't be considered valid because
    sometime in the future it might be struck down?


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

    iD8DBQFHbabOd90bcYOAWPYRAkQ3AJ9e4f3pXL4tsXRhpi0gfp 5vWtzlkQCfTERs
    /AHAQs72Zn9i2QV/GjCuSf8=
    =JqxQ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Words fail me. Thank goodness I can make gestures.
    -- Mark Hughes (in asr - 2001

  10. Re: information technology specialist ..

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

    On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:07:42 -0800,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:19 -0500,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:31 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Can you give an example?
    >>>
    >>> sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago. You
    >>> went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    >>> windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    >>> bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    >>> amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    >>> claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.

    >>
    >> I barely remember that situation, but my recollection is that the only
    >> reason it "took ages" is because at the time I didn't have a working Linux
    >> partition to verify, and I stated several times to put the discussion on
    >> hold until I did.
    >>
    >> After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    >> admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    >> words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't be
    >> done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.
    >>

    >
    > - From Message-ID:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Focus follows point is very annoying if you want to use the keyboard,
    > since the mouse forces focus elsewhere, you can't switch windows using
    > keyboard shortucts.
    >
    >

    >
    >


    No responce Erik?

    >>> Everyone makes errors, I certainly do, and that's not being dishonest.

    >>
    >> Yet everytime *I* make one, everytime I admit to them, you still continue
    >> to call me a liar about them, even 5+ years after the fact. You simply
    >> cannot accept it when someone makes a mistake, you have to keep grinding
    >> their nose in it for years and years.
    >>
    >> Is it any wonder I dislike admitting when I make mistakes, people like
    >> yourself simply will not accept it and will continue to call me a liar.

    >
    > False, I drop things when you've admitted a mistake, see the root
    > 'sploit threads of yore. I sometimes don't see a message in where you
    > admit the mistake, like the msttcorefonts claims you made, you did admit
    > that your claim that you couldn't use them on non-MS platforms was false
    > right?
    >


    No reponce Erik?

    >
    >>
    >>> We all have bad moments, say stupid ****, and have to face the world
    >>> afterwards. Either you have a lot of those moments, or you have a
    >>> disproportionate number of yours here, or you are flinging fud and
    >>> misleading people.

    >>
    >> Tell me. Have you ever seen me bring up a 5+ year old argument in here?
    >> Ever? I'd say the Fud comes from you.

    >
    > Fud like your claims that the GPL can't be considered valid because
    > sometime in the future it might be struck down?
    >
    >
    >



    No responce Erik?


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

    iD8DBQFHcr+Qd90bcYOAWPYRAmV2AJ9V8gZZnEVcdcngbSYmbu wX2oyq2gCgmXdj
    m0vlOHak/weLro224xDy51w=
    =jE+C
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "Some days violence is just a nice quick solution to a problem that
    would need thought, planning and actual work to do justice to."
    --Wayne Pascoe

  11. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Jim Richardson wrote:

    > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:07:42 -0800,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:15:19 -0500,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:52:31 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Can you give an example?
    >>>>
    >>>> sure, the whole focus follows mouse debacle from a couple years ago.
    >>>> You went from "you cant do that and alt-tab" to "you can configure
    >>>> windowmaker to not do that" and it took you ages of hedgine and
    >>>> bull****ing your way from one to t'other. That one was particularly
    >>>> amusing to me, as it took me apporx 30 sec to disprove your original
    >>>> claim. Watching the dancing you did after that was icing on the cake.
    >>>
    >>> I barely remember that situation, but my recollection is that the only
    >>> reason it "took ages" is because at the time I didn't have a working
    >>> Linux partition to verify, and I stated several times to put the
    >>> discussion on hold until I did.
    >>>
    >>> After I had a working Linux partition, I proved my point, though I did
    >>> admit to being wrong about all versions of FFM. IIRC, you were putting
    >>> words in my mouth back then too. You kept claiming I said things "can't
    >>> be done" or that "X doesn't allow", when I never said such things.
    >>>

    >>
    >> - From Message-ID:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Focus follows point is very annoying if you want to use the keyboard,
    >> since the mouse forces focus elsewhere, you can't switch windows using
    >> keyboard shortucts.
    >>
    >>

    >>

    >
    > No responce Erik?


    >>>> Everyone makes errors, I certainly do, and that's not being dishonest.
    >>>
    >>> Yet everytime *I* make one, everytime I admit to them, you still
    >>> continue
    >>> to call me a liar about them, even 5+ years after the fact. You simply
    >>> cannot accept it when someone makes a mistake, you have to keep grinding
    >>> their nose in it for years and years.
    >>>
    >>> Is it any wonder I dislike admitting when I make mistakes, people like
    >>> yourself simply will not accept it and will continue to call me a liar.

    >>
    >> False, I drop things when you've admitted a mistake, see the root
    >> 'sploit threads of yore. I sometimes don't see a message in where you
    >> admit the mistake, like the msttcorefonts claims you made, you did admit
    >> that your claim that you couldn't use them on non-MS platforms was false
    >> right?
    >>

    >
    > No reponce Erik?


    >>>
    >>>> We all have bad moments, say stupid ****, and have to face the world
    >>>> afterwards. Either you have a lot of those moments, or you have a
    >>>> disproportionate number of yours here, or you are flinging fud and
    >>>> misleading people.
    >>>
    >>> Tell me. Have you ever seen me bring up a 5+ year old argument in here?
    >>> Ever? I'd say the Fud comes from you.

    >>
    >> Fud like your claims that the GPL can't be considered valid because
    >> sometime in the future it might be struck down?
    >>

    >
    > No responce Erik?
    >


    And Erik *still* claims that the Morris worm spread via email.
    He should by now know better, as he has been corrected literally dozens of
    times, often with links explaining the worm. Yet he still keeps repeating
    that lie

    And then he wonders why he is held accountable for years old claims. It is
    simply because he in his infinite dishonesty keeps repeating them instead
    of admitting that he was wrong
    --
    Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!


  12. Re: information technology specialist ..

    In article ,
    Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    > And Erik *still* claims that the Morris worm spread via email.
    > He should by now know better, as he has been corrected literally dozens of
    > times, often with links explaining the worm. Yet he still keeps repeating
    > that lie


    He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    constitute a lie?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >> And Erik *still* claims that the Morris worm spread via email.
    >> He should by now know better, as he has been corrected literally dozens
    >> of times, often with links explaining the worm. Yet he still keeps
    >> repeating that lie

    >
    > He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    > infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    > a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    > constitute a lie?
    >


    He should explain then why he regards "finger" as email (the Morris worm did
    *not* only use sendmail)
    He should also explain why a worm which was distributed via sendmail debug
    control messages (without *any* actual email sent) is "email"

    Face it, Tim "Hadron" "Funkenbusch", Erik is full of it. As are you,
    defending his idiotic FUD
    --
    You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species


  14. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:35:23 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >>> And Erik *still* claims that the Morris worm spread via email.
    >>> He should by now know better, as he has been corrected literally dozens
    >>> of times, often with links explaining the worm. Yet he still keeps
    >>> repeating that lie

    >>
    >> He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    >> infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    >> a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    >> constitute a lie?
    >>

    >
    > He should explain then why he regards "finger" as email (the Morris worm did
    > *not* only use sendmail)


    Oh, pull your head out of your ass Peter. Blended attacks have been going
    on for years.

    Just because the morris worm contained other attack vectors as well doesn't
    mitigate the sendmail vector. Your argument is that, since Nimbda also
    included a SMB attack, then it wasn't really an email based attack. Nice
    logic there.

    > He should also explain why a worm which was distributed via sendmail debug
    > control messages (without *any* actual email sent) is "email"


    Who said anything about an "email sent". It used email because it used
    sendmail, and sendmail is an email system. Plain and simple. Email is
    more than the message itself. Next you'll claim that if the flaw is in
    SMTP it's not a flaw in email, or if it's a flaw in MIME it's not email, or
    if it's a flaw in the rendering of a jpeg image included in an email
    message it's not really email.

    Email has been dangerous since the morris worm because email programs have
    flaws in them, including sendmail, outlook, pine, mutt, and many more.
    You're only trying live in a fantasy world by arguing otherwise.

  15. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:35:23 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >>>> And Erik *still* claims that the Morris worm spread via email.
    >>>> He should by now know better, as he has been corrected literally dozens
    >>>> of times, often with links explaining the worm. Yet he still keeps
    >>>> repeating that lie
    >>>
    >>> He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    >>> infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    >>> a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    >>> constitute a lie?
    >>>

    >>
    >> He should explain then why he regards "finger" as email (the Morris worm
    >> did *not* only use sendmail)

    >
    > Oh, pull your head out of your ass Peter. Blended attacks have been going
    > on for years.
    >
    > Just because the morris worm contained other attack vectors as well
    > doesn't
    > mitigate the sendmail vector. Your argument is that, since Nimbda also
    > included a SMB attack, then it wasn't really an email based attack. Nice
    > logic there.


    Your argument is, as windows viruses use windows cectors, all windows
    viruses are made possible by Microsoft
    *All* of them

    >> He should also explain why a worm which was distributed via sendmail
    >> debug control messages (without *any* actual email sent) is "email"

    >
    > Who said anything about an "email sent". It used email because it used
    > sendmail, and sendmail is an email system. Plain and simple. Email is
    > more than the message itself. Next you'll claim that if the flaw is in
    > SMTP it's not a flaw in email, or if it's a flaw in MIME it's not email,
    > or if it's a flaw in the rendering of a jpeg image included in an email
    > message it's not really email.
    >
    > Email has been dangerous since the morris worm because email programs have
    > flaws in them, including sendmail, outlook, pine, mutt, and many more.
    > You're only trying live in a fantasy world by arguing otherwise.


    Idiot

    And dishonest one, at that
    --
    Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!


  16. Re: information technology specialist ..

    * Erik Funkenbusch fired off this tart reply:

    >> He should also explain why a worm which was distributed via sendmail debug
    >> control messages (without *any* actual email sent) is "email"

    >
    > Who said anything about an "email sent". It used email because it used
    > sendmail, and sendmail is an email system. Plain and simple.


    You're reaching here.

    > Email is more than the message itself.


    Not in conventional usage.

    When you say "The flaw spreads by email", the first thought any normal
    person has is "it comes in via an email message".

    > Next you'll claim that if the flaw is in
    > SMTP it's not a flaw in email, or if it's a flaw in MIME it's not email, or
    > if it's a flaw in the rendering of a jpeg image included in an email
    > message it's not really email.
    >
    > Email has been dangerous since the morris worm because email programs have
    > flaws in them, including sendmail, outlook, pine, mutt, and many more.
    > You're only trying live in a fantasy world by arguing otherwise.


    Live by ambiguity, die by ambiguity

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: information technology specialist ..

    Linonut wrote:

    > * Erik Funkenbusch fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >>> He should also explain why a worm which was distributed via sendmail
    >>> debug control messages (without *any* actual email sent) is "email"

    >>
    >> Who said anything about an "email sent". It used email because it used
    >> sendmail, and sendmail is an email system. Plain and simple.

    >
    > You're reaching here.


    "sendmail" is /part/ of the email system
    And sendmail debug control messages have nothing to do with "email"

    >> Email is more than the message itself.

    >
    > Not in conventional usage.
    >
    > When you say "The flaw spreads by email", the first thought any normal
    > person has is "it comes in via an email message".


    It is *only* valid if it comes by email
    Since it does *not* (and has never) it is not a email worm

    < snip >

    --
    Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous.


  18. Re: information technology specialist ..

    On 20 Dec, 16:02, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    wrote:

    > .. this is really a dirty trick (posting someone's personal information). ..


    I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick, what is dirty about posting
    a link to someones profile, unless there is something dirty about that
    particular individual ..

  19. Re: information technology specialist ..

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

    On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:46:05 -0800,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >> And Erik *still* claims that the Morris worm spread via email.
    >> He should by now know better, as he has been corrected literally dozens of
    >> times, often with links explaining the worm. Yet he still keeps repeating
    >> that lie

    >
    > He considers something that spreads via an exploit in part of the email
    > infrastructure to be spreading via email. You do not. How does having
    > a different (but plausible) definition of "by email" than you do
    > constitute a lie?
    >



    Could you send an email to a vulnerable server and exploit it?


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

    iD8DBQFHdAdMd90bcYOAWPYRAug5AJ0XF8lUYVO0ip7xxNQDAT +MC1bfnwCeLyRq
    1js04qZluPydRIPzPQm37GA=
    =OaCU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Life is too short to be taken seriously.
    -- Oscar Wilde

  20. Re: information technology specialist ..

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

    On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:31:22 -0800 (PST),
    Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > On 20 Dec, 16:02, "ness...@wigner.berkeley.edu"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> .. this is really a dirty trick (posting someone's personal information). ..

    >
    > I posted a URL, how is this a dirty trick, what is dirty about posting
    > a link to someones profile, unless there is something dirty about that
    > particular individual ..


    It's the same thing Erik did to Rex.


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

    iD8DBQFHdAe+d90bcYOAWPYRAtLaAJ9cieyiLYqOLNVCDwBdsx fxCunPdgCfaPFF
    ullzLnjEzEO4+WX9TautI/M=
    =Ct7T
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Dash Dash Space

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