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

Re: Pirate?! WTF?!

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?"
 


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