On 2006-06-14, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:25:26 +0000, Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2006-06-14, tab <trentallenblack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ROY? Poor decision? He stole for personal gain.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> That's the crux of Erik's "criminal" claim, and has not yet been
>> publicly supported.
>
> Of course not.
> Erik's beef is with a Linux advocate, what do you expect?
That if he calls someone a criminal without _some_ kind of evidence,
he will get called on it.
> 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?
> 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 Winvocate in this group is interested in a witch hunt and in
> tracking down people or their personal information.
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_!"
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.
> At least not that I know of.
Never at a loss for weasel words.
> We leave that to the rabid Linux people like Daeron, mjcr and Sinister
^^^^^
[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.]
> Midget who live for the day we screw something up and post personal
> information that will allow them to track us down.
Like culling through someone's blog and then publicly calling them a
criminal based on what they found? Yeah, that would _suck_.
> Email Erik for a copy of the letters.
> I think you will be surprised.
If the letters do _not_ provide evidence of criminal conduct on Roy's
part, then I am not interested in seeing them.
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.
--
Darrin
|
|
