After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <Lpv%l.13960$Xl4.1629@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Uh, Flatso, without digging into it ourselves, how do we know that this
>> "GordyMichaels"
>>
>> 1. Is a real person who set up his own Gooogle site?
>>
>> 2. That it isn't /you/, or some other equally malicious and scurrilous
>> poster.
>>
>> 3. That this person isn't setting up his /own/ smear campaign against
>> Roy.
>
> Since he provides links to back his assertions, which you can easily
> independently check, why does it matter whether he is who he says he is,
> or someone else?
Ooooh, links to other bloggers.
Get outa town.
> Is one of the points you agree with Roy on attacking Wikipedia editors
> who fix up articles after Roy's friends edit them in ways that violate
> Wikipedia policy?
Nice try at imputing that Roy's friends edit them in such a way. Do they?
Or are you engaging in the same type of smearing that "Robert Clayton" and
gordymichaels claim?
> Your protestations would be a lot more believable if you didn't leap in
> so often to defend Roy by attacking the messenger and ignoring the
> evidence the messenger presents.
My record on the subject is clear. But just to reiterate -- I think you
guys are crazier and more obsessed about Roy than you claim Roy is.
Why do you jerks try to suck me into this Roy-bashing anyway? Hmmm?
Listen up -- the only stuff I see from Roy is here in COLA -- and I don't
even see a lot of that. So stop your fscking implication that my silence on
stuff I don't even read means anything.
I find all the frothing about Roy quite amusing. Especially since your own
agenda is equally clear, Tim.
--
You're being followed. Cut out the hanky-panky for a few days.
|
|
