On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:04:58 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Kier wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:13:47 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:12:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>> There is no Waterskidoo. It's Gary. So now you're sort of attacking me
>>>>> and defending flatfish, but it's just because you haven't read enough
>>>>> posts to know what I know for a fact.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not defending flatfish, and no, you don't know it for a fact.
>>>> The most you've got is a strong suspicion.
>>>>
>>>> Ever though that seeing flatfish under every stone, like Reds under
>>>> every bed, merely plays right into his hands?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, flatbrain certainly is the one who is trying to be under every
>>> stone. Look up the posts from "mr.macfeelme". They appeared in this group
>>> immedeately before "flatfish" resurfaced.
>>>
>>> Same style. Same dishonesty. And same IP-address. All of them. And all of
>>> flatfishs post.
>>>
>>> He *does* nymshift. A lot. And often enough, he slips and makes errors
>>> which *prove* that he /again/ nymshifted.
>>
>> Which I've never denied happens. But my arguement is still the same.
>> Seeing flatty under every stone merely plays into his hands. That's why I
>> ignore, mostly, types like mr.macfeelme.
>>
>
> It helps a lot more if you ridicule flatfish for his need to nymshift again.
It doesn't seem to work, though, does it?
> After all, if flatfish would have something important to say, he would
> stick to *one* handle. Nymshifting only tells everyone that his "points"
> are meaningless. *All* of them
Did you actually read anything waterskidoo wrote? There was almost nothing
in it that could not have been written by any decent Linux advocate.
Pointing out that zealotry is a bad thing is hardly what any sensible
person would cal trolling, since it *is* bad for Linux. Mosat overy
extreme attitudes are, because they assume the proponent is right, and
everyone else is wrong, thereby stopping debate.
Did I think she might, just possibly, be flatfish? Yes, once or twice.
Unlike you, I put aside that knee-jerk reaction and replied to *what she
actually said*.
>
> Ignoring flatfish and not showing his repeated nymshifts only is playing
> into his hands, as he can then (partially) successfully pretend that he has
> a point
And instead of discussing Linux the group wastes all its time yapping
about a stupid, worthless idiot called flatfish, and whether or not he's
a bunch of other people too. Is that what you really want? Because that,
as far as I can see, is exactly what *he* wants.
>>> "Waterskidoo", "Attila" and "Simon Lewis" are equally the same person.
>>> Quite probably there are more nyms. I have better things to do than
>>> checking them. I just take note of those which I happen to find "by
>>> accident".
>>>
>>> And yes, those are /probably/ also flatfish nyms.
>>
>> The latter two, yes, I'd agree, are probably flatty - not waterskidoo.
>
> Ah yes. "I don't want it to be - so it can't be". Look up the posts.
> compare them. Compare the headers of those. I use more than a dozen
> indicators. Not all of them have to match, but enough must match over
> the course of several posts until I decide if a poster is in reality
> flatfish. Enough of those indicators matched for all three of them
>
>> If there's really any proof, let's see it.
>
> No. It would only help flatfish to change his style again. And you would
> not accept any of it, as it is still no "proof"
So, once again, you play that game of 'no, I'm not going to prove
anything'. If you refuse to show the proof, why should I or anyone else
believe you?
>
> Additionally, you have proven often enough to not listening to reason when
> you accepted this dishonest swine Snot as worthy of "discussion". Lots of
> people asked you to stop providing that twit a platform. You would have
> none of it. You deemed that piece of pond scum "decent" enough
About two years ago. Since which time I've barely replied to him. The fact
that you keep dragging this matter up proves you have no real argument.
NOt to mention, I don't recall giving you or anyone the right to decide
who I'll reply to or not.
I'm far more reasonable than you've shown yourself to be.
>
> And no, I will not drop your "handling" of Snot. You have not changed your
> attitude, so I see no reason to drop it
You had better, since you are being dishonest here, not me.
--
Kier
|
|
