On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:33:31 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Yeah. The first time I see "Linux loonies", "Linux sucks", "LiarMutt",
>>> "Liarnut", "Linux liars", or "Hadron", I know the post is de facto
>>> garbage and the poster is utterly clueless, worthy only of plonkage.
>>>
>>> One can debate the merits of Linux in a civil manner; there's no need
>>> to expose oneself to churlish behavior (unless you're looking for some
>>> entertainment).
>>
>> Except in COLA you do not debate anything. If anyone mentions something
>> lacking in a Linux/OSS app you start screaming and shouting and pointing
>> fingers and accusing people of being "Winshills".
>>
>> You will find no posts from me saying Linux sucks. You will find posts
>> from me saying many OSS projects are garbage. You will also find lots of
>> posts from me advocating the better OSS packages. You will find posts
>> from me suggesting that command line building is NOT a good idea for the
>> average nOOB. etc etc.
>>
>> You can tell lies and huff and puff and make things up as much as you
>> like - the only person you are showing up is yourself as the bald faced
>> liar that you are.
>
> Like I said, "Hadron" is a watchword for lying and garbage.
Indeed it is.
> And that's no lie, anonymous coward.
<quote>
You can tell lies and huff and puff and make things up as much as you
like - the only person you are showing up is yourself as the bald faced
liar that you are.
<unquote>
Was Hadron Quack looking in the mirror when he said that?
Here's one lie from him:
<quote>
And to think Willy is normally telling us how Linux runs on a PIII
with 128 k of ram.
<unquote>
From: Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <asej15-bri.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Now Quack *can show the messages* where I'm normally saying "how
Linux runs on a PIII with 128 k of ram"?
Well he can can't he, or was the self-confessed troll making things up, &
lying yet *again*?
|
|
