begin risky.vbs
<1lu5odee8ncdg$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 23:10:45 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> Since your gambling return you haven't continued your inane
>> followups to Roy S' posts. Has your master plan backfired. Is
>> their something cunning in your not making these inane followups
>> anymore?
>>
>> Come on Erik, you said there was a plan. What was it? Or were you
>> just being a plonker as usual?
>>
>> Why do you always run away Erik? You have stopped spamming Roy's
>> [News] post so what was the plan Erik? I can only conclude that
>> you are pathetic twat. Prove me wrong Erik.
>
> What are you talking about? I responded to your earlier message.
> Claiming that I "ran away" is bogus.
>
> I'll repeat what I said the last time you asked.
>
> "I've been too busy catching up to respond to most of Roy's tripe,
> don't worry, i've not forgotten."
Bollocks. It took no time for your inane tripe responses. If you were
smart enough you could even write a script to do it.
The fact of the matter is you thought spamming Roy's [News] posts
would somehow undermine the effort Roy makes. You were, as usual, so
clearly wrong that you ain't got the guts to admit it.
So I ask you once again. What was the purpose of your inane followups
to Roy's [News] posts? Couldn't be you're an arsehole by any chance
could it?
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
