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).
Caught posting though Mark Kent's computer.
Now caught shilling his own articles under an 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.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
|
|
