On 2006-07-23, William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:39:36 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2006-07-23, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted
>> something concerning:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:02:26 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who cares how many replies he gets? This isn't a competition, you know.
>>>
>>> Isn't that the purpose of a discussion newsgroup? To discuss?
>>
>> Yeah. So stop whining and discuss, fer chrissakes!
>>
>> (Try answering the question next time. Pretending to do so with another
>> question hasn't worked for you in awhile.)
>>
>> If the lack of replies to Roy bothers you, you have four good choices to
>> pick from: a) reply; b) killfile; c) don't killfile and get over yourself;
>> or, d) keep whining and making yourself out to be the ass that you are,
>> expect no change in circumstances and keep getting rightly heckled for
>> being the worthless POS that you've turned yourself into.
>>
>> I hope you choose the last one. Eventually everybody will tire of you
>> completely and stop talking to you. Then Timmy will jump in to rescue the
>> situation (mostly to gain your love and admiration), get himself killfiled
>> for being just like his hero, and you two can enjoy each others' company,
>> maybe get a room, go out to dinner, whatever.
>>
>> That would give you the opportunity to be what you were born to be: an
>> MSVP in one of the M$ groups where you can keep posting links to your blog
>> as though it was legitimate help for the problems being asked.
>
> Well heaven help *anyone* who takes advice from Funkenbusch. He's more
> likely to just blab his opinion without any proof of anything. Just like
> these questions, which he *consistently* fails to answer:
>
> 1] Where does NTFS store its journal?
>
> 2] How did the Morris worm spread by email?
>
> 3] What about using MS TT fonts on Linux?
>
> 4]Can he provide evidence for plenty of examples of competing ISO
> standards?
>
> 5] Why is ok for *him* (without asking permission) to publicize other
> people's personal information, but if a person chooses to
> publicize personal information about *himself*, it is "inappropriate".
>
> 6] What about the "thousands of root exploits per month" he claimed,
> & was then found to be making it all up?
>
> 7] How does Funkenbusch *know* Roy didn't come by the picture he's
> ranting about, honestly?
>
> 8] How does he *know* that Roy does /not/ have the legitimate right to
> use the picture despite what the copyright owner claims is the case?
>
>
> The list of unanswered questions is growing, but Ewik The Weasel will
> probably ignore it.
I asked him 3 questions that can be added. But, in a nice guy moment, I
promised I'd narrow them to one if he didn't answer (and he didn't).
You can add it or not. There are a lot of small unanswered questions
that can't possibly be tracked already, so I don't know if it needs to
be carried too. But here goes:
Why, Erik, do you think it's important to drag Digg, or any other
outside forum or activity, into COLA to lend support to your
specious claims about the (un)popularity of Roy's posts in COLA?
If he keeps this up the list is going to be mostly about his obsession
over Roy and Roy's posts. It'll start becoming eerily reminiscent of
Flatfart's love affair with Terry Porter.
--
Rahak: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
|
|
