Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Microsoft Hires "Analysts" to Attack GNU/Linux, Open Source, and Open Standards

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.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index