Mark Kent wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 28 August 2007 19:15 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Working behind the scenes to orchestrate ?independent? praise of
>>>>>>>> our technology is a key evangelism function. ?Independent?
>>>>>>>> analysts? reports should be issued, praising your technology and
>>>>>>>> damning the competitors (or ignoring them). ?Independent
>>>>>>>> consultants should write articles, give conference presentations,
>>>>>>>> moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as
>>>>>>>> experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour.
>>>>>>>> ?Independent? academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and
>>>>>>>> granted research money).
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> The document admitted into evidence also says, ?The key to stacking
>>>>>>>> a panel is being able to choose the moderator,? and explains how to
>>>>>>>> find ?pliable? moderators?those who will sell out.
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well there it is, straight from the horse's mouth; Microsoft buys
>>>>>>> Shills to spread lies on their behalf. Let the cynics cry "paranoia"
>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yesterday, someone brought this up in BN again:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/msft.shilling.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you spot a rise in trolling activity at a particular time or on
>>>>>> a particular topic, be suspicious. Microsoft is still bribing
>>>>>> bloggers for PR in disguise. The criminal mind hasn't bounds and it
>>>>>> has a lot of cash (slush funds) to spare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all rather sickening, really, but the technique does work, very
>>>>> well indeed. The oil companies and tobacco companies have also done a
>>>>> very very good job of this. There was some interesting coverage
>>>>> yesterday of how the world's biggest lakes have shrunk over the last
>>>>> 40 years to less then half their previous size... now how has that
>>>>> happened without anyone noticing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it did not happen, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You believe that the satellite photos have been doctored?
>>>
>>
>> Why don't you provide the list of the "largest lakes on earth" which have
>> shrunk then?
>> Of the largest 16 lakes, *three* have shrunk. And the largest one of all
>> is rising again.
>>
>
> So you agree that some have shrunk. Some of these conversations can be
> jolly hard work.
>
I don't agree *at* *all* with your claim, as it is bogus.
You claimed that "the world's biggest lakes have shrunk over the last 40
years to less then half their previous size"
When reality shows that *three* of the 16 largest have shrunk, and only one
of those more than 50%, your claim is getting a little specious
And the "happened without anyone noticing" part was somewhat special, too
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
