<nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175808153.164979.15160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> law firm would not be so inclined. Jones is a paid Linux shill, pure
>> and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[rant warning /]
Listen to yourself, Bill Weisgerber. You make me bloody sick! It is you,
Bill
Weisgerber, who was exposed as one that gets paid to shill for Microsoft
(the paid2post thing in the New York Times). I, like PJ, have nothing but
personal belief to drive my actions. While your fascist approach to
supporting a suppressive and corrupt business world is fuelled by
financial
interests, some people out there are actually concerned about the morbid
state of the industy, which is corrupted the most by perdatory business
minds like yours (you're a professor in economics, aren't you? I know the
type). So which is your course's textbook? A Mousolini thesis?
At first I didn't understand that you were saying that amicus_curious
is in reality Bill Weisgerber. I was not aware of the connection, but
a_c looks worse in this post than anything I've seen him put up.
Usually it's just the mixture of truth, twisted truth and lies that
you'd expect from a smart, paid lawyer. But this smearing of PJ is
beyond contempt.
I find it rather curious that the first and only reaction of the OSS
advocate is to demonize anyone who doesn't show the proper derision for
anything to do with Microsoft or any other opponent of OSS by claiming that
they are somehow in the pay of Microsoft. Are you so blind to the world as
to think that there can only be one side to any issue that you support?
That seems like the height of arrogance to me. Fortunately for the rest of
us, it makes you look silly and easy to beat in any kind of discussion.
But on the current exchange, I merely responded to the question as to what
SCO's point might be with the anwer that they were charging Ms Jones with
being a paid IBM/Novell shill. I saw that as a sort of irony given the
proclivity of the OSS fans to make the same claim with no supportive
evidence either. I'll quit posting entirely if your fellow can show any
evidence and I expect him to do the same if he should fail to produce. That
is an easy wager to make, since I know who I am and I further know that what
he is claiming is false. The only solution to that equation is that his
evidence is invalid as well. So I am assured of victory, although I am sure
that he will ignore the challenge. I believe that is called the "anonymous
coward" syndrome in other forums.
When PJ collected and posted the documents from the Iowa trial, just
before Microsoft yanked them, I thought, I'll bet there's going to be
a new effort to get her. Now we see it. Unfortunately she will be
obliged to spend both money and time dealing with the accusations.
|
|
