Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Review: OpenOffice Writer is ok because it's free.

  • Subject: Re: Review: OpenOffice Writer is ok because it's free.
  • From: Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:09:51 +0200
  • Cancel-lock: sha1:oQQIOS7wG0iV+sIkyg9ECHrpp1o=
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: CERN LHC - http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
  • References: <6378504.BmughhReFX@schestowitz.com> <a9xRg.11463$tR4.7903@newsfe10.lga> <RfxRg.24114$r61.7628@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk> <9287340.tknSN7tjXc@schestowitz.com> <87irjde0g1.fsf@geemail.com> <pan.2006.09.24.17.24.57.433699@nomail.com> <ojsiu3-ibd.ln1@dog.did.it> <aejfh2h6jvm9dnj008ds3cgq0673dcurf6@4ax.com> <ef8skm$9j2$1@tux.glaci.com> <859nu3-8e6.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>
  • User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1160501
Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>> 
>> You know its getting bad when a accused troll hugger like me is 
>> starting to dust off his killfile.
>> 
>
> Haha!  I think that this is like one  of those marketing rules - when
> you've read the same fud four times from the same person, and refuted it
> appropriately, you know that:
> a) They'll not change their tune
> b) Your response makes no difference
> c) They're looking for a response in order to give credibility to their
> claims
> d) You'll get bored before they stop getting paid.
>
> So, you might as well kfile them, and get on with some proper debate!

Oh look.

Yawn : another soliloquy from Mark about trolls. Yet again nothing about
Linux or his Linux experience. Just more bullshit about "proper debate"
in which, of course, he never plays any part. Mark, for some reason,
thinks that "debating" is kissing Roy's arse and reminding him how much
he appreciates his "NEWS" posts. This, of course, is not debating. It is
mutual masturbating.

,----
| Debate \De*bate"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Debated; p. pr. & vb.
|    n. Debating.] [OF. debatre, F. d['e]battre; L. de + batuere
|    to beat. See Batter, v. t., and cf. Abate.]
|    1. To engage in combat for; to strive for.
|       [1913 Webster]
| 
|             Volunteers . . . thronged to serve under his banner,
|             and the cause of religion was debated with the same
|             ardor in Spain as on the plains of Palestine.
|                                                   --Prescott.
|       [1913 Webster]
| 
|    2. To contend for in words or arguments; to strive to
|       maintain by reasoning; to dispute; to contest; to discuss;
|       to argue for and against.
|       [1913 Webster]
| 
|             A wise council . . . that did debate this business.
|                                                   --Shak.
|       [1913 Webster]
| 
|             Debate thy cause with thy neighbor himself. --Prov.
|                                                   xxv. 9.
| 
|    Syn: To argue; discuss; dispute; controvert. See Argue, and
|         Discuss.
|         [1913 Webster]
`----

-- 
The truth is not free.  It's that simple.  If you change the truth, it is no
longer true - so the truth is not free!
		-- Jules Bean about freeness of documentation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index