Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Legal implications for our resident Microsoft employees ?

__/ [William Poaster] on Tuesday 10 January 2006 12:48 \__

> Once upon a Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:23:45 -0600 dreary, as I laboured tired &
> weary, came a tapping at my door when Linønutlinønut posted this, &
> nothing more...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
>> wisdom:
>>> What is the implication on anonymity that does *not* encourage vile
>>> offence? UseNet archives, for example, make it far from pargamatic.
>>> Having said that, this could make anonymous Munchkins [1] illegal, at
>>> least in Linux forums where they are unwelcome and disruptive at times.
>>> Roy
>>> [1]
>>> http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/gizmos/2005/11/2_grassroots_an.html
>> Well, here in COLA we don't have Microsoft Munchkins®.
>> We have Microsoft Buttmunches®.
> Hm...so maybe those that address the wintrolls, should start their reply
> with something like, for example:
> On Tue xxth Jan 200x , DFS/Edwin/Santa/Larry Qualig/Funkenbusch (delete
> which not required) the Microsoft Buttmuncher®, said/wrote:

Those that address the wintrolls should be advised to stop doing so. I
replied to trolls when I first joined this newsgroup several months ago and
could not discern truth from lies. They keep coming in because they receive
an argumentative discussion. It makes them feel like they get some work done
for their money.

I stopped reading these posts altogether. It is the best method for staying
out. No read, no urge. Sooner or later, the trolls lose interest and go back
under the bridge.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index