On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:09:30 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:58:42 -0800, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
>>
>> larry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>> > Nick Ballard wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:08:53 -0800, Ruben Kincaid wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> BAWAWWAAWWAAA
>>> > >
>>> > >I suppose the healthier alternative would be go into a group where you
>>> > >know you will be disliked, and post vicious insults and other
>>> > >useless garbage to follow-up almost every legitimate post in COLA.
>>> >
>>> > What I don't understand is why worthless nym-shifting trolls like this
>>> > are not immediately plonked (or ignored) by everyone.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Because they are representing the Windows side and gives us a
>>> perspective of what Windows advocates are generally like. (shudder)
>>
>> So applying the same logic, does Roy spending his Christmas alone
>> posting misleading headlines to COLA give people a perspective of what
>> Linux advocates are generally like?
>
> Most Linux advocates are not like Roy Schestowitz.
> He is an extreme example of the sickness gone wild.
>
> In fact most Linux users I have met are nothing like the creatures in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy.
*You*, flatfish, are one of those 'creatures', whose mission here is to
troll.
> They consider COLA a joke, like most advocacy groups and laugh at COLA
> just like most people do.
'Most people' don't even know that COLA exists, so it's highly unlikely
they'd be laughing at it.
--
Kier
|
|