On 2006-06-13, William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 13 Jun 2006
> 09:07:39 +0100, William Poaster posted this:
>
>> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on Tue, 13 Jun 2006
>> 07:29:37 +0000, spike1 posted this:
>>
>>> flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:00:31 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet you and your Koolaid drinking Linux nutsacks ignore the fact that Roy
>>>> is ethically wrong.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>> And don't go on about that sodding picture again.
>>> Stealing a mars bar from a shop is a more serious crime than that!
>>> (And who in their lifetime has never pilfered SOMETHING?)
>>
>> Apparently flatfish has admitted (some time ago) that he's used/using M$
>> pirated software, so he hasn't a leg (or should that be fin) to stand on.
>
> Correction:- My bad, it seems it was a *linux* product he'd bought,
> copied, then returned to the store for a refund! I found the thread
> archived at Google: Linux based Home Theater PC HowTo - May 14th 2005:
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z62A2104D
Here's a thread where Flatfart's act is mentioned:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/6195824f5e13b65e/c38bd98ec3472477?lnk=st&q=flatfish+xp+corp+group%3Acomp.os.linux.advocacy&rnum=1&hl=en#c38bd98ec3472477
http://tinyurl.com/qrfm7
Here's where Flatface admits having it (s/h/it also used to lift the
archive header when s/h/it *wanted* a particular post available). In it
s/h/it admits the copy, but doesn't give the details about the
acquisition:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/23ebc0cc3adc77c5?hl=en&;
http://tinyurl.com/zx4ud
My recollection may be slightly amiss. Memory will do that to you. But
there's no doubt it was stolen XP. I believe I have it right, though,
as later a link will show. But, for now, let's delve into another take
or two.
Here's another slightly different angle:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/502b5e5facb6f771?hl=en&;
http://tinyurl.com/zohrb
And another:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ffb1610d36b83267?hl=en&;
http://tinyurl.com/l8hxj
Here's one quoting the admission to "acquiring" a copy & license for it:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/eb5e3f32e173cfd1?hl=en&;
http://tinyurl.com/rxkpp
S/H/It wants to claim s/h/it's stolen version is legal because of a
license held by someone s/h/it doesn't work for. If that's the case,
there's not an illegal copy on the planet because *someone* holds a
license for the copies everybody has.
Flatso is sure to claim there's no proof of anything, so everybody
should just STFU (the same as s/h/it does whenever the subject is
s/h/it's nyshifts). An all too typical Flattie mantra whenever the
subject turns to s/h/it's thefts.
--
There are few things more satisfying than seeing your children
have teenagers of their own.
-- Doug Larson
|
|
