Prev: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES FOR BOLLYWOOD FANS
Next: Software able to turn off laptop at set time?
From: »Q« on 2 Aug 2010 01:49
the frell remailer spewed:

> Your comments are ~difficult to understand.

Have you really not read past the Whistleblower Manifesto or are you
just pretending not to have read any posts in the group?


From: Franklin on 2 Aug 2010 04:45
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:31:28 +0200, rotfl wrote:
>
>> BeAr wrote:
>>>You'll never understand... [snip]
>>
>> ROTFL. IYO. The comments you make this time round haven't been voiced
>> before afaik, so it looks like you're making it up as you go along
>> under pressure.
>
> And you most eagerly don't point out, /which/ comments of my previous
> posting you regard as new. - Just to make sure, that I don't point you
> to a list of links, showing you that I (and other people) repeated the
> same /over and over and over again/ during the last years.
>
> What a fraud you are! :-(
>
> BeAr

Hi BeAr. Chris Millbank ("rotfl") is being too funny. When he's losing
an argument his M.O. is to make some unbelievable comment in order to
create a distraction.

I've found the simplest way to avoid getting distracted is to treat /all/
his comments as insane ravings. Works for me!
From: Franklin on 2 Aug 2010 04:45
rotfl wrote:

> H-Man wrote:
>
>>"I disagree. In order to cut this short, you are entitled to your
>>>facts."
>
> Erm. Methinks you got that slightly wrong H-Man. The expression goes:
>
> 'You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts'.
>
> But in this case, having read BB's comments they are in accordance
> with the ACF archive which I have done some crash reading of lately.
> So they are facts.
>
> Also, AFAICS not one PWH person disputed any part of the PWH expos�
> when it was originally posted by whistleblower:
> "The Great $Pricelessware$ Racket".
>
> That must tell you something quite important about PWH. No?

Just in case you missed it the first time, I dispute the post "The Great
$Pricelessware$ Racket" in its entirety.

It is the work of a lunatic author who proclaims deviant views and it is
riddled with errors and mistruths. To debate those falsehoods would give
them far more credence than they deserve.
From: Franklin on 2 Aug 2010 04:45
rotfl wrote:

> Your comments are ~difficult to understand.
> Anyway, your previous post alluded to there being all sorts of jolly
> good reasons for running PWH business on ACF. I have not seen them
> voiced in past debates that I've read about. Most of them seem to be a
> pile of nonsense made up as you go along - or at best exist only in
> your personal mind, but that wouldn't explain why you never raised them
> before.
>
> Here's one example of the bollix you wrote...
> (never raised by any other PWH groupy afaik)
>
> You mentioned one reason for PWH/PL is to say "thankyou" to freeware
> program authors. A very fine sentiment I'm sure. But it cannot be true
> because a) there is evidence of program authors being viscously
> attacked

"viscously attacked".

Chris, please keep your disgusting viscous fluids to yourself.
From: Franklin on 2 Aug 2010 04:45
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:06:38 +0200, rotfl wrote:
>
>> But in this case, having read BB's comments they are in accordance
>> with the ACF archive which I have done some crash reading of lately.
>> So they are facts.
>>
>> Also, AFAICS not one PWH person disputed any part of the PWH expos�
>> when it was originally posted by whistleblower:
>> "The Great $Pricelessware$ Racket".
>>
>> That must tell you something quite important about PWH. No?
>
> After months and years of ever-repeating exchanges of views, this
> lampoon was just another humoresque or source of boredom - depending
> on the mood and character of the reader. For those, who knew the
> goings-on from personal experience, the twists of "facts" and the
> flowery imaginary were too obvious to be taken seriously.
>
> If you're just pretending to be new to the group, you'll knew this by
> yourself. If not, reading through the archives to discover the /real/
> facts, will be hard work. *If* you want to do this, you should start
> at least 1999 and read from there chronologically. Reading backwards
> or just skimming the archives will yank any posts out of context.
> (You even need to read most seemingly unrelated threads, because
> posts inside any such thread may be the cause of a reaction inside a
> PW related one.)
>
> Reading a non-answer to WB as an /important sign/ is a typical
> example for such a mistake. The matter was discussed *ad nauseam*,
> already. These are just /two/ examples of countless others:
>
> Message-ID: <1521dof8xoabf.dlg(a)br.ederson.news.arcor.de>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/aa74df99dff1b21e
>
> Message-ID: <97fwmjs6treg$.dlg(a)br.ederson.news.arcor.de>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/msg/20a681aaa8c2becd
>
> Unfortunately, false accusations and twists of what happened have
> been *spammed* to acf for a couple of years by now. Therefore - just
> out of statistical reasons - you're inclined to read a multitude more
> of these, than of realistic descriptions. :-(
>
> BeAr

Thank you for two very good links.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES FOR BOLLYWOOD FANS
Next: Software able to turn off laptop at set time?