In article <eid914$8n6$00$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Apparently, the definition of on-topic, at least based on observing the
> > actions and statements of these people is:
> >
> > 1. Any post that says something good about Linux. (It doesn't matter if
> > the post is actually correct).
> >
>
> This is blatantly wrong. I have often enough seen posts where such posts
> were corrected. I have done so several times myself
Yeah, but that's one of the reasons one of the people I was thinking of
when I wrote "these people" lists you as a top troll-feeder. (Hell,
these are the people that are questioning Linonut's motives for being
here...that shows how disconnected from reality they are).
...
> > 3. Any post by Roy (either of them) or Mark Kent is on-topic.
>
> Utter bullshit.
> But Roys News-posts are (typically) on-topic
But you acknowledge that they aren't 100%? Man, you are going to be
labeled a wintroll if you aren't careful!
Don't think for a minute that when I wrote about "these people" I was
including you among them. You know what an advocacy group is for, and
will call bullshit on both sides. You are more prone than I to getting
insulting about it, and will let more bullshit go by from the pro-Linux
side than I would, but hey--your way only gets half the group to think
you are an arrogant jerk. My way gets both sides thinking that. :-)
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
