On Apr 21, 6:05 pm, spi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> cc <scatnu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>
> > On Apr 20, 7:58 am, spi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> cc <scatnu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>
> >> > This phrase Linux zealot was coined for nothing.
>
> >> Thanks for admitting that.
> >> WE knew it was the truth from the start. The true zealots in this newsgroup
> >> are the microsofties.
> > I don't think there's a difference between a true zealot and a normal
> > zealot. They're both zealots. 1000 posts a month, and Roy is going to
> > condescendingly compare Microsoft to a religion with a straight face?
>
> And this has what to do with anything?
> You graciously admitted the label "linux zealot" was coined for absolutely no
> reason just 3 posts up. It's just an insult used to generate a negative
> response and you know it.
And so is using Microsoft zealot. I was pointing out the irony of Roy
comparing Microsoft to a religion when he'll get his panties in a
bunch if it's done the other way around. I never said linux zealot was
coined for no reason. I said it has a negative connotation. The same
negative connotation Microsoft zealot has. Hint: the word zealot has a
negative connotation. That had nothing to do with my point, Linux
users crying that Microsoft is a religion is extremely hypocritical.
|
|
