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 ...
> Caught posting
> though Mark Kent's computer. Now caught shilling his own articles under
> an anonymous source.
What anonymous source?
>
> 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 ...
--
Rick
|
|
