On Feb 4, 8:43 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __/ [ cc ] on Sunday 04 February 2007 13:34 \__
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 8:15 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
>
> >> Just received the following E-mail from a stranger. I anonymise it below
> >> and share it with you.
>
> >> ===
> >> hi,
>
> >> i just happened to notice that you spent some text debunking my old
> >> 'friend' bill weisgerber last spring.
>
> >> i went around with bill (& a host of other paid2post shills) on a nytimes
> >> forum for over 3 years. despite being exposed for what/who they were/are,
> >> they just would not quit their mindless pr firm hypenosys. at that time,
> >> the nytimes was quite supportive of their charade. what a blight.
>
> >> just anecdotal.
>
> >> best regards,
>
> >> <anon>
> >> ===
>
> > How is that more believable than this "email" I "received?"
>
> > ===
> > hi cc,
>
> > i just happened to notice that you spent some time debunking my old
> > 'friend' Roy Schestowitz these past few months.
>
> > i pay Roy to post as many Vista links as possible to various linux
> > sites and newsgroups. I don't care if he is exposed for what he is,
> > i'm not going to stop paying him. Luckily there are some guillible
> > people who are quite supportive of his charade. what a blight.
>
> > just anecdotal.
>
> > best regards,
>
> > <anon>
> > ===
>
> > You can post "anonymous" emails all you like, but if there is no way
> > of verifying it then it's useless.
>
> AnoniMISED, not anonyMOUS.
>
To the rest of us, there is no difference obviously. How are we
supposed to tell? Either the "anonimised" source can post here with a
name for verification, otherwise it's all hearsay.
|
|
