Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 29 December 2006 01:28 \__
>
> > begin oe_protect.scr
> > Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxx> espoused:
> >> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> >>
> >>>> Pos Poster Msgs Bytes
> >>>> Quoted
> >>>> 1. Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> REPREHENSIBLE LIAR
> >>>> 401 675099 15%
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the biased statistics Roy!
> >>
> >> Ahhh, a post-editor. A new low for cc.
> >>
> >
> > I suppose we should hope that with cc having got this low, he can only
> > go up from now on?
>
> I don't know if his role is to discredit people, but he might be on a
> payroll. Remember those people on Digg whom I mentioned recently? One of
> them still reads and mods down all my comments, often using vile language to
> offend me in public. There's no foe facility in that site (Slashdot has it),
> so it's a tough situation. As for UseNet, it's unmoderated. Wil Wheaton told
> us last week that he has a similar problem at Netscape. Some people
> mass-sink all his submissions. Maybe it's some of these people behind the
> anti-Wesley Crusher newsgroups... or at least the likes of these bored
> children who get religious over a product/company/TV show.
>
> Meanwhile, the Microsoft MVP keeps submitting Microsoft story as fast as as a
> teenager in Bangalore clicks those AsSense boxes.
>
This is incredibly ironic. Roy Culley posts some statistics
discrediting people and calling people RACIST(which is the lowest of
the low) and now suddenly I'm getting paid to discredit people? You
guys concentrate on me pointing out when you guys are wrong, and
blissfully ignore when I do the same to flatfish, dfs, etc. I discredit
stupid posts, not posters.
|
|
