Kier wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:55:00 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> She attacked [H]omer, so she'll need to earn back the trust. Feeding scum (with
>> a proven track record) like 'Hadron' and 'DFS' while attacking altruism is
>> inexcusable.
>
>Is there some reason [H]omer is to be immune from criticism? Waterskiddoo
>attacked excessive zealotry in the advocacy of Linux, which in her
>opinion, was not a productive thing (and I agree with that). Extremism is
>rarely a useful attitude.
Defending trolls again, eh Kier?
If there was any doubt about this "waterskidoo" being a troll, that
doubt evaporated with "her" "Attn: Hadron, DFS, Tim Smith etc You Were
Right" post. In it, "she":
1. Attacked the advocates as "idealogues, zealots and cracked pots"
2. Complained about being "attacked", even though, AFAIK, "she" was
the one who started the attacks, using words like the above to
describe advocates.
3. Claimed that Linux has "the image of being a toy operating system
targeted at geeks"
4. Lied about what the advocates had to say about the Ipod, claiming
that advocates "attacked that device as if it was some kind of an evil
entity dropped on earth from hell" The truth, AFAIK, was that a
couple advocates claimed that it's feature-set did not justify the
premium price, and that's it.
5. Complained about advocates attacking Micro$oft.
6. Claimed that it is "hypocritical" to advocate Linux while earning
a living using Micro$oft products.
7. Bitched about Homer not releasing the source to the stats script,
and suggesting plagiarism, saying "what other conclusion can be
reached" other than that "the code has been copied from sources where
it should not have been copied".
In summary, this "waterskidoo" asshole pretty-much nailed the entire
Wintroll agenda. The only troll issue that "she" missed, that I can
think of, is the "there's too many versions of Linux" nonsense. I
have little doubt that, had "she" hung-around a bit longer, "she"
would have started on that, as well.
|
|
