After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <BtP%l.58217$qa.25215@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> > In article <03K%l.13972$he4.13767@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you approve of Roy's lying about Jimmi Hugh's Wikipedia editing?
>> >>
>> >> Cut the sophistry, Tim.
>> >>
>> >> You first have to establish that it's lying.
>> >
>> > It has been established by the edit history of Wikipedia.
>>
>> So what was the lie, Tim?
>
> That Jimmi Hugh removed Homer's Bill Gates stuff from the ACPI Wikipedia
> entry.
Thanks. Looks like a lot of monkeys have been banging away at it. Here's
Jimmy's more interesting entries:
(I know microsoft hating fan boys love to take their bias to the extreme,
but despite the numerous pathetic "criticisms" pages, criticism sections
should be avoided, ALWAYS merge criticism here.)
(Undid revision by 209.11.227.177 vandalism, probably by the same user as
before. This has been discussed already, please stop.)
(This is not censorship. That's an internal primary sourced note, we
can't verify, which makes implications we can't source and which is
unrelated the the actual ACPI standard as it exists)
(Reverted last edits... wtf... I merged the data you fucking childish
retards, check the edits, and grow a couple)
(I didn't actually clean up the preceding statement, because the primary
definition of the word other fits fine to mean all other cases... it's
not really the articles fault the editors english is poor)
Which editor is Homer? Did Homer contribution to the criticism section?
If so, then Roy isn't lying, as per this latest entry:
(Removed criticism section)
That one was a day after the "microsoft hating fan boys" [sic] noted above.
What a mess! But very transparent and interesting in some ways. Thanks,
Tim!
--
Your step will soil many countries.
|
|
