On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:02:39 +0000, Edwards wrote:
>
> That if he calls someone a criminal without _some_ kind of evidence,
> he will get called on it.
Ask him to send you the email and see for yourself.
>> What if it were flatfish or Erik that did the same thing?
>
> Did what same thing? Got called a criminal without any supporting
> evidence whatsoever? When did anything like that happen?
No.
Continued to post copyrighted images on a website without permission.
>> Do you think the Linux community in COLA would have reacted with a
>> deafening silence?
>
> How the hell should I know? What difference would silence make anyway
> -- is this yet another variant of the "silence == tacit agreement"
> schtick?
No.
It's a testament to the double standard that exists in this sewer'esq
group.
>
> Eh? This whole stupid topic has been nothing but a witch hunt. "He's
> heavier than a duck, and he floats in water, so he's a _criminal_!"
Ask Erik to send you the email.
> So much for "debating on technical points" as opposed to "name
> calling". But look who I'm talking to, you can go on and on calling
> me and my compatriots "Linux nutsacks" and have that count towards
> your "good linux advocacy" in somebody's little black book.
Some of you are nutsacks.
There is no advocacy in COLA so I am in fine company.
>> At least not that I know of.
>
> Never at a loss for weasel words.
When surrounded by weasels I guess I've picked up the dialect.
> [Remeber kids, it's not _name calling_, it's debating on _technical
> merits_. Only a linux user could say "rabid" and have that be
> considered "name calling" here.]
Who cares?
Are you another person with a thin skin hiding behind academia?
If you can't take the heat, get out of the sewer.....
> Like culling through someone's blog and then publicly calling them a
> criminal based on what they found? Yeah, that would _suck_.
Culling?
It's trivial to find.
> If the letters do _not_ provide evidence of criminal conduct on Roy's
> part, then I am not interested in seeing them.
That's it, bury your head in the sand.
You sound like a nut!
I'll bet you think O.J is really *not guilty* because a jury of his peers
(all morons BTW) found him not guilty...
I'd sure hate to have you on a jury.
You'd be the guy who would award the criminal $50,000 in damages because
he cut his arm off smashing it through a plate glass window while trying
to break into a 7-11.....
> If the letters _do_ provide evidence of criminal conduct on Roy's
> part, then, not being a member of law enforcement or a duly appointed
> officer of the court involved, I have no _right_ to see them.
Yo, Barney Fife.....this is a discussion group, nothing more nothing less.
You are taking this WAYYYYYYYYYYY too seriously.
Are you some kind of a wannabe rent a cop or something?
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
|
|