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.
I don't care the tiniest little bit for your phony "satellite photos" if you
are unable to tell us the "was/is size" *and* the names of those lakes.
And I notice that you completely snipped a list which contradicts your claim
somewhat. Snot has tought you well, young apprentice
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|