flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:54:51 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, flatfish+++ belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> There was virtually NOBODY replying to it in the beginning until people
>>> brought up that fact and the offline emails started flying between Roy and
>>> his shills.
>>
>> You, of course, have the requisite evidence?
>
> I'm glad you asked:
>
> See this thread for proof they are emailing offline:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e0a43f476d753eaa
>
> Take a look at the reply count when Shyster started this and then at some
> point Erik, I believe, made mention of the fact that Roy's messages
> according to the stats (Dragon of course) receive very few replies and
> thus generate very little discussion.
>
> Now notice the huge increase in replies, mostly from Kent and Poaster from
> the point on.
>
> It's obvious what they are doing.
>
I'm not surprised he asked. Whenever something glaringly obvious is asked
about the nutty "me too" behaviour of a key 5 or 6 posters, one of
their sidekicks always asks someone to "prove it".
Do we have to prove that at night it gets dark, but brighter in the day time?
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain IMO : just read the replies to
Roy's spam
"Hmmm, Interesting"
"Nice One Roy"
"That will have the wintrolls running Roy"
"LOL. Nice Roy"
"Windows is for retards"
etc
--
Your daily dietary values may be higher or lower depending on your caloric
needs.
|
|
