On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:02:20 -0800, Doug Mentohl wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 17:46, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:29:10 +0000, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>>> It was only after failing to corrupt the system that they refused the code.
>
>> No, Duh!g.
>
> Is that supposed to bother me, someone who calls himself
> MENTOHL ... :)
So you admit that this is a pseudonym then.
>> Now please, try to explain how April comes after June, Duh!g.
>
> The article don't say when the lobbying occured or indeed when the
> strategy was first formulated at Microsoft. Do you have access to
> internal MS emails on the subject.
Do you? You matter of factly stated the order of events. What did you YOU
base that statement on?
> Wether 'We won't escrow' occured before 'Microsoft Muscles the NYS
> Legislature' is moot. Why try and change the rules if the non-escrowed
> code is allowed. Whow, I just realized that this is merely another
> demonstration of your ability to piss round corners .. :)
What's with the bizarre use of smiley emoticons?
Use your brain for half a second (I know that's asking a lot) and consider
the timeline.
NYS passes law requireing escrow.
MS says "We won't escrow"
Voting machine manufacturers say "We don't have have any non-MS devices"
MS says "A solution to the problem would be to only require escrow for
voting specific software"
No, that can't possibly be, because that makes too much sense. But in your
world, I can see how that might be confusing.
|
|
