begin risky.vbs
<4102462.thEK2Xrxj6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> __/ [ Roy Culley ] on Friday 27 October 2006 22:13 \__
>
>> 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?
>
> My interpretation of this says that it's all good news. The better
> Linux does (and conversely -- the worse Microsoft does), the less
> ethical Wintrolls will become. It's like an animal that's being
> cornered. The more threatened it feels, the more aggressive it will
> become.
>
> We should be happy about this degenerative behaviour of anti-Linux
> propagandists.
Well Erik certainly fill that bill. The rest exhibited degenerative
behaviour from the beginning.
> It does, after all, acknowledge the fact that Linux is taking
> over. If there is a stampede of (ex-)Microsoft employees and
> shareholders who spend a lot of time in this /LINUX/ group, it shows
> that they fear it and seek to vandalise it. Singing the merits of
> Windows in /WINDOWS/ forums no longer works. If you can't compete,
> crush your competitors.
It does seem futile to promote MS these days. Still there are those
that seem to think an illegal monopoly can succeed. Maybe in the US
but nowhere else.
> By the way, I'm off for almost a week. I'm leaving on a jet this
> afternoon. I'll be back to the normal routine next week.
Enjoy your break. I doubt we other Linux advocates can keep up your
good work in your absence. Viel spass. :-)
--
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
|
|
