Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:35:49 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:55:45 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-10-25, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>>
>>>> Clearly, Furber knows that all issued patents are public knowledge and
>>>> searchable, for free, in any of a number of databases, yet he
>>>> disingenuously proclaims that the only way to know what MS's patents
>>>> are is to pay them money.
>>>>
>>>> More intellectual dishonesty.
>>>
>>> So, why slam Roy in your subject rewrite? You admit he didn't write it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know. I snipped the part where you said he knows it's deceit,
>>> and that makes him an accomplice. But that's only your opinion.
>>>
>>> Unless you're willing to share your "proof".
>>
>> Roy likes to use weasel words to insinuate a position without actually
>> saying it, then when called on it claims he didn't say that was the case,
>> so he can pretend to justify not issuing a correction.
>>
>> Roy knows how slimy his tatctics are. At least you admit here to
>> removing the context
>
> He has also gotten smarter by using words like "allegedly, possibly, might
> be, could be, etc" to minimize the possibility of being sued for his
> statements.
>
> The bottom line is that he is basically a dishonest slimeball on a paid
> mission.
>
>
Newspapers routinely use words like "allegedly, possibly, might be, could
be, etc". Do you dismiss newspapers as dishonest slimeballs?
--
If you're posting thru Google Groups - I can't see you! :p
Firey Bird brought to you by Eris and motzarella.org
Email me at thefireybird{who nests in} gmail.communist
- remove the blatant obfuscation.
(Is "blatant obfuscation" an oxymoron?)
|
|
