T
The poster fromerly known as 'The poster formerly
Leythos wrote:
> In article <fa4qia$ins$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>>>>
>>>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
>>>>> vulnerable!
>>>>>
>>>> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs
>>>> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about
>>>> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run
>>>> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?
>>>
>>> I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as being
>>> secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same stupidity
>>> that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed to
>>> be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same
>>> problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the
>>> decades of warnings.
>>>
>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by
>> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?
>
> Because the MVP was refuting the claims in this group that were off-
> topic, showing that what was claimed is clearly not true, so that those
> that watched the OT mantra of linux zealots will see that it's not what
> they claim.
What is the point of refuting a claim made by a poster who no longer
posts in this group? Is there some strange MVP time machine we don't
know about or something?
And if he is going to "refute a claim" as you put it, why would the OP
not reply to a post that made that claim?
So if as you claim, he is refuting a claim which has not been made in
this group recently by a poster who doesn't post here anymore...
Still none of this explains away or justifies why he is posting about a
subject that he had through mob action with other posters harassed
another poster out of the group for.
>
> My guess is that you'll not see any (or very few) posts sourcing
> information about Linux after a week.
>
> You have to admit, it was a very disruptive amount of crap because of
> zealotry in the OS.
>
If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the courtesy to
address the issue at hand and not sidestep the subject with your response.
--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds
> In article <fa4qia$ins$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <fa4jmu$sfs$1@aioe.org>, none@non.not says...
>>>> Richard Urban wrote:
>>>>> So much for Linux (Ubuntu) being bullet proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu servers hijacked. Used to launch attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2171318,00.asp
>>>>>
>>>>> People have been saying right along that ***ALL*** operating systems are
>>>>> vulnerable!
>>>>>
>>>> I think we have a conflict here, Dick. You being one of the very MVPs
>>>> who ran alias out of this group for posting things 'off topic' about
>>>> ubuntu is now engaging in the same behaviour. Is it time you get run
>>>> out of the group for this too (in addition to your double standard here)?
>>>
>>> I think it's good to point out when a OS that has been stated as being
>>> secure for the masses is show to have been rooted by the same stupidity
>>> that the masses with Windows have. Clearly Ubuntu was being claimed to
>>> be superior to Vista, and in fact it's not, it suffers from the same
>>> problems that all OS's suffer from - stupid users that ignore the
>>> decades of warnings.
>>>
>> How does this negate the fact that this MVP is being a hypocrate by
>> doing something that he ran another poster off of the group for?
>
> Because the MVP was refuting the claims in this group that were off-
> topic, showing that what was claimed is clearly not true, so that those
> that watched the OT mantra of linux zealots will see that it's not what
> they claim.
What is the point of refuting a claim made by a poster who no longer
posts in this group? Is there some strange MVP time machine we don't
know about or something?
And if he is going to "refute a claim" as you put it, why would the OP
not reply to a post that made that claim?
So if as you claim, he is refuting a claim which has not been made in
this group recently by a poster who doesn't post here anymore...
Still none of this explains away or justifies why he is posting about a
subject that he had through mob action with other posters harassed
another poster out of the group for.
>
> My guess is that you'll not see any (or very few) posts sourcing
> information about Linux after a week.
>
> You have to admit, it was a very disruptive amount of crap because of
> zealotry in the OS.
>
If you are going to respond to my posts, please have the courtesy to
address the issue at hand and not sidestep the subject with your response.
--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
"Only religious fanatics and totalitarian states equate morality with
legality."
- Linus Torvalds
