In article <f8g15j$741$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
waterskidoo <water.skidoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Linux advocacy needs people who lie? For example:
> >
> ><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/
> > ab5d29de8a28d6f0/>
> >
> > Explain how that was good for Linux advocacy.
>
> You guys are cherry picking posts to suit your POV. It looks like he
> was overzealous in the initial numbers that he claimed.
Since there was no data whatsoever to support his initial numbers, just
where do you think he came up with them?
And when he was shown that they were very wrong, why do you think he
tried to change his claim to be that he meant comments, not submissions,
even though there was no data whatsoever to support that claim, either?
...
> In the scheme of things I feel Roy's massive number of
> good posts far outshine the marginal ones.
> Nobody is perfect.
So if he posts enough good posts, it's OK with you if he purposefully
lies now and then?
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
