On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:26:44 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:17:05 -0000, Rick wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:39:24 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:28:59 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:18:52 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <13tglk0fge8oe95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rick
>>>>> <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> linux today (linuxtoday.org) has a link to the above titled
>>>>>> article. I was somewhat surprised to see who the author is.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was surprising? Roy has written several articles for them,
>>>>> generally of much higher quality than what he posts here or on his
>>>>> web sites--probably the effect of having an editor at Datamation,
>>>>> who presumably requires his writers to be able to at least somewhat
>>>>> back their claims.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh.. I just noticed that you called him on this before. He
>>>> submitted his own story to slashdot (not that uncommon of a thing,
>>>> and slashdot has no rules against it, in fact many of said
>>>> self-submitted articles say somethign like "I just wrote a piece over
>>>> at blah... " But instead, Roy submitted it as "anonymous",
>>>> effectively trying to hide his identity as the submitter of his own
>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>> How is it that someone that someone that has so much vitriol for
>>>> those he considers to be "corrupt" seems to have no problem doing the
>>>> very things that he himself would call a "corrupt" practice if it had
>>>> been Microsoft or anyone else he didn't like doing it?
>>>>
>>>> Roy's a typical hypocrite.
>>>
>>> Of course he is.
>>> So far he's been caught using nyms (techguy is one them)
>>
>> And you don't do that ...
>
> This is about Schestowitz.
Is it?
> I don't claim anything, one way or the other and I certainly don't
> pretend to be holier than though like Schestowitz does.
Why is it OK for you to do something and not him?
>
>>> Caught posting
>>> though Mark Kent's computer. Now caught shilling his own articles
>>> under an anonymous source.
>>
>> What anonymous source?
>
> Learn to read.
> Himself under an anonymous ID.
Are you referring to the article I referenced?
>
>
>
>>> The irony is if Roy would just tone it down a little and write more
>>> like his Datamation article, IOW learn from the editors who surely
>>> toned it down for him, he could be a decent Linux advocate.
>>>
>>> But, those kind of articles don't typically bring hits to his hate
>>> sites. Misleading FUD infested subject lines do.
>>
>> ... and your obsession grows ...
>
> No, the facts about Schestowitz are coming out a little at a time. Just
> like I said they would.
... and your obsession grows ...
--
Rick
|
|
