On 2007-01-04, ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:44:47 -0500
> flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I'm beginning to think that Roy is so wrapped up in Linux that he is
>> having a difficult time discerning truth from his lies.
>>
>> Over here Roy and the COLA gang accuse a poster of being flatfish.
>>
>> Notice the lack of proof?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/af4d4f6
>> b2cb8445c?hl=en&
>>
>> Of course lack of proof doesn't slow down Roy "The Liar" Schestowitz.
>>
>> Take a look at the op's profile for further proof.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=sY7T2hAAAAApwfzV4vbnQLNK3wRMBDNF&hl=en
>>
>>
>> So once again we have Roy, and Homer as well (one of Roy's shills),
>> making up stuff with no proof and expecting it to be taken as fact.
>>
>> Between his baseless accusations and his misleading and often times
>> downright incorrect subject lines, I think it is fair to say that Roy
>> Schestowitz is starting to show his true colors.
>>
>> IOW, Roy Schestowitz is nothing more than a common, compulsive liar
>> who feels the need (for some odd reason) to lie in the name of Linux.
>
> glass houses
Flatfuck is obsessed with people calling everyone 'flatfish'. But, as
has been explained to s/h/it more than once, 'flatfish' is more than a
person, it's a persona.
S/H/It may want *all* of the credit. I don't know. If that's the case,
the best way is to stop nym-shifting and take the blame for everything
s/h/it does.
In any event, most of those labelled 'flatfish' are *the* Flatso.
I think flats is just trying to goad Roy and/or Homer into responding.
It would be a waste for them to do so IMHO.
--
The reason I view security as a binary value is that if your level of
security can change, without the the code changing (ie, someone discoevers
a hole), then the code was never secure in the first place.
-- Erik Funkenbusch Message-ID: <181oxog41hplq.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
