Firefox Easter Eggs ..
Doug Mentohl
Hadron
> Type about:Mozilla, about:robots into the address bar ..
Liarnut told us last year that MS programmers were lazy and corrupt for
including Easter eggs. While showing off about how great a developer he
was, he assured us that real programmers don't have the time for such
humorous inclusions.
Gregory Shearman
> Type about:Mozilla, about:robots into the address bar ..
I loved the about:robots page. The "try again" button is a hoot!".
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Ezekiel
"Doug Mentohl" <doug_m...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:gm2fbg$n3r$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Type about:Mozilla, about:robots into the address bar ..
How juvenile and amateurish. These childish easter eggs are:
1. Time spent on fun that could be better spent on debugging.
2. A potential additional vulnerability.
3. A potential back-door to worry certain classes of users -- who knows if
that is all the easter egg does?
4. A lack of respect for business protocol.
Lusotec
> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>> Type about:Mozilla, about:robots into the address bar ..
>
> How juvenile and amateurish. These childish easter eggs are:
Lots of program from lots of companies (small and large) have easter eggs.
> 1. Time spent on fun that could be better spent on debugging.
30 minutes for the code plus a few more minutes per localization and I'm
being generous.
> 2. A potential additional vulnerability.
Two registered URIs and two HTML pages add no extra security concerns.
> 3. A potential back-door to worry certain classes of users -- who knows if
> that is all the easter egg does?
If Mozilla intended to add a back-door it would hide it, not display it.
Also, the source code is available so it can always be checked and compiled
to reduce the chance it contains back-doors.
> 4. A lack of respect for business protocol.
Business protocol? I don't understand what you mean by this.
Regards.
Hadron
I think he's being facetious.
There is a poster here called Liarmutt who decried Easter Eggs in MS SW
recently for the reasons listed above. When it was pointed out lots of
OSS has them too he fled, yipping, back to Roy's lap.
Sinister Midget
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>> Type about:Mozilla, about:robots into the address bar ..
>>
>> How juvenile and amateurish. These childish easter eggs are:
>
> Lots of program from lots of companies (small and large) have easter eggs.
>
>> 1. Time spent on fun that could be better spent on debugging.
>
> 30 minutes for the code plus a few more minutes per localization and I'm
> being generous.
Zeketard must not know about the easter eggs in MICROS~1 products. Like
Bill and his horse (no, not Mrs. Bill). Or the pinball game in one of
the programs, I think Excel. Or the presentation of the coders and
their names in Windwoes 95.
All old stuff, huh? Howzabout this:
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/eastereggs/windowsxp.php
Here's a whole shitpot full:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products
The difference is, Firefox works while Winders has trouble doing what
they claim it will do. If anyone needs to spend more time working and
less time playing, it's the monopoly's employees.
--
Microsoft may not be the root of all evil, but it's not for lack of
trying.
RonB
Why doesn't it surprise that a WinTroll has no sense of humor? By all
means let's all be drones. I guess that's why you like Microsoft.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Ezekiel
"RonB" <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.uooty...@localhost.localdomain...
I'm not the one who wrote this wRonG. It was written here - why don't you
read it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.os.windows-xp/msg/40ad01736cc69bee?hl=en
<quote>
1. Time spent on fun that could be better spent on debugging.
2. A potential additional vulnerability.
3. A potential back-door to worry certain classes of users -- who knows if
that is all the easter egg does?
4. A lack of respect for business protocol.
</quote>
Interesting that when one of your fellow "advocates" writes some nonsense
like this the rest of you spinless lemmings never say a word. But if I write
the "exact same thing" suddenly it's about being a drone, no sense of humor,
etc.
You are wrong again wRonG. It's you spineless lintard idiots who don't have
a sense of humor.
RonB
> Interesting that when one of your fellow "advocates" writes some nonsense
> like this the rest of you spinless lemmings never say a word. But if I
> write the "exact same thing" suddenly it's about being a drone, no sense
> of humor, etc.
Do you actually think I'm as obsessive about reading this newsgroup as you
are? If you want me to know you're quoting someone, dipshit, than tell me
that. Unlike you, I have a life. If there are 400 new messages in COLA
guess how many I will read? -- maybe 30, probably less. Unless it's a
thread I'm involved in, the topic has to catch my interest.
> You are wrong again wRonG. It's you spineless lintard idiots who don't
> have a sense of humor.
I'm not wrong. I just go by what *YOU* wrote. I don't have time to play
your juvenile games -- if you don't attribute quotes you steal from
someone else than tough shit. And here I thought you were a level or two
above the Snithead. It looks like you're just as much of small-minded,
petty, lying piece of shit that he is.
Adios.
DFS
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:40:01 -0600, Ezekiel <ze...@yourhome.net> wrote:
>
>> Interesting that when one of your fellow "advocates" writes some
>> nonsense like this the rest of you spinless lemmings never say a
>> word. But if I write the "exact same thing" suddenly it's about
>> being a drone, no sense of humor, etc.
>
> Do you actually think I'm as obsessive about reading this newsgroup
> as you are? If you want me to know you're quoting someone, dipshit,
> than tell me that. Unlike you, I have a life.
COLA Statistics, 01 Feb 2009
RonG: 91 posts last week
Zeke: < 44 (not even in Top 20)
You earned the name RonG a long time ago - nowadays you just reinforce it
every time you blab out of that piehole.
Hadron
Possibly related to Terry "Telnet" Porter?
Tim Smith
RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not wrong. I just go by what *YOU* wrote. I don't have time to play
> your juvenile games -- if you don't attribute quotes you steal from
> someone else than tough shit. And here I thought you were a level or two
> above the Snithead. It looks like you're just as much of small-minded,
> petty, lying piece of shit that he is.
Speaking of quote attribution, did you ever figure out if it was human
error on your part or a bug in Opera that led to that post of yours
where you took text from a Snit post, and attributed it as a direct
quote from me?
--
--Tim Smith
Snit
reply_in_group-771...@news.supernews.com on 2/1/09 3:53 PM:
I love how RonB tries to say I am like him... but cannot find a single
example of my doing as he does. Not one. Not anywhere.
Amazing.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
Snit
We all make mistakes... if he can just admit he goofed his error would be
forgotten.
But he cannot make such an admission. Oh well... that is just who he is.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Zeketard must not know about the easter eggs in MICROS~1 products. Like
> Bill and his horse (no, not Mrs. Bill).
Well, isn't she a clothes-horse?
> Or the pinball game in one of the programs, I think Excel. Or the
> presentation of the coders and their names in Windwoes 95.
>
> Here's a whole shitpot full:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products
Windows Vista
1. Three images are embedded in the surface of Windows Vista's
installation DVD. According to Computing World one is the faces of
persons behind the Microsoft's antipiracy team who worked in the
hologram.
He's watchin' ya, ya buccaneers!
--
"Our attitude with TCP/IP is, `Hey, we'll do it, but don't make a big
system, because we can't fix it if it breaks -- nobody can.'"
"TCP/IP is OK if you've got a little informal club, and it doesn't make
any difference if it takes a while to fix it."
-- Ken Olson, in Digital News, 1988
William Poaster
trolls, RonB was heard to say:
The Zeke M$fanboi & troll just shot himself in the foot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Zeketard must not know about the easter eggs in MICROS~1 products. Like
>> Bill and his horse (no, not Mrs. Bill).
>
> Well, isn't she a clothes-horse?
>
>> Or the pinball game in one of the programs, I think Excel. Or the
>> presentation of the coders and their names in Windwoes 95.
>>
>> Here's a whole shitpot full:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products
>
> Windows Vista
>
> 1. Three images are embedded in the surface of Windows Vista's
> installation DVD. According to Computing World one is the faces
> of persons behind the Microsoft's antipiracy team who worked in
> the hologram.
>
> He's watchin' ya, ya buccaneers!
Where are yer buccaneers? Under me bucckin 'at!
Richard Rasker
> Hadron stated in post gm5als$d19$1...@news.motzarella.org on 2/1/09 4:19 PM:
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>
>>> In article <op.uooyp...@localhost.localdomain>,
>>> RonB <ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm not wrong. I just go by what *YOU* wrote. I don't have time to play
>>>> your juvenile games -- if you don't attribute quotes you steal from
>>>> someone else than tough shit. And here I thought you were a level or
>>>> two above the Snithead. It looks like you're just as much of
>>>> small-minded, petty, lying piece of shit that he is.
>>>
>>> Speaking of quote attribution, did you ever figure out if it was human
>>> error on your part or a bug in Opera that led to that post of yours
>>> where you took text from a Snit post, and attributed it as a direct
>>> quote from me?
>>
>> LOL. Poor WronG.
>
> We all make mistakes...
Now there's an undeniable truth ...
> if he can just admit he goofed his error would be forgotten.
Um, no. Even though admitting your mistakes is clearly the decent thing to
do, it amounts to taking a swim in a crocodile pond with a dead chicken
strapped to your back whenever Wintrolls are present.
Instead of respecting your honesty, they will consider it as "proof" of
being a liar etcetera, and pass up no occasion to trot this out over and
over again, for all eternity.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
High Plains Thumper
> Snit wrote:
>
>> We all make mistakes...
>
> Now there's an undeniable truth ...
>
>> if he can just admit he goofed his error would be forgotten.
>
> Um, no. Even though admitting your mistakes is clearly the
> decent thing to do, it amounts to taking a swim in a crocodile
> pond with a dead chicken strapped to your back whenever
> Wintrolls are present. Instead of respecting your honesty,
> they will consider it as "proof" of being a liar etcetera, and
> pass up no occasion to trot this out over and over again, for
> all eternity.
True, and both Hadron and Snit are the worst (or best if
indicative of worst) examples.
Their idea of victory is when the forum is vacated by all
advocates, hence why they keep it up, hence why Snit provides
fallacious Linux examples, so-called UI problems as troll bait to
attack the unwary.
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/snit-troll.html
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/hadron-quark-troll.html
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Hadron
You are of course wrong. Mistakes only get remembered when the same ones
are repeated ad nauseum. Your claims of Linux dominating netbooks comes
to mind where you knowingly posted links to prefiltered amazon lists. I
pointed out nicely your error only for you to repeat it. Again. And
Again. And again.
One does not make mistakes when accusing someone of "doctoring" screen
shots since its easily provable.
Since you are one of the biggest fibbers in COLA I really think your
holier than thou sermon is of little value to any of us.
Richard Rasker
Well, thank you so much for proving my point. This is the course of events
as chronicled:
<48d03620$0$720$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>: Mistake made by me,
but I didn't realize yet (Linux sales estimates based on wrong ranking
page at Amazon's).
<gaqneh$uge$3...@registered.motzarella.org>: Your first reaction: "Explain
how the spreadsheet works. I will bet you made the numbers up."
What followed, were a few altercations with regard to the spreadsheet I set
up, and the concept of estimating sales percentages from a ranking:
<gaqt02$1d4$3...@registered.motzarella.org> (insults from you)
<48d0fae1$0$729$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net> (my reply re maths)
<gat2g3$ho9$2...@registered.motzarella.org> (you: "there's only a ranking, no
real sales figures")
So far, you didn't point out any real error; you just criticized my use of
statistics and the lack of any "hard data".
The first occasion where you actually pointed out a discrepancy was here
(September 29th):
<gbou1l$gk0$3...@registered.motzarella.org>: "Linux is second in the list of
minis."
<48e08edf$0$727$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>: My reply, plus a
link to Amazon's ranking page I used.
<gbqfcb$3kg$3...@registered.motzarella.org>: You repeat your findings.
<48e0c462$0$720$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>: I repeat mine.
Realizing that you have a good point, I set out to find the cause of the
discrepancy. I asked Amazon first, and got a reply a day later:
<48e20a28$0$727$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>
Later that day, I found out that it was indeed my own mistake, not yours' or
Amazon's:
<48e26ff0$0$724$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>
"Well, the conundrum is solved -- upon close inspection of both rankings it
turns out that the ranking I used was the "In stock" list, while the one
Hadron pointed to is the overall list. So obnoxious and needlessly abusive
as he may be, he actually chose the correct list ..."
So not only did I admit that I was wrong the moment I realized it, I also
credited you with being right and pointing out the discrepancy.
> One does not make mistakes when accusing someone of "doctoring" screen
> shots since its easily provable.
I don't quite follow this. Did I ever accuse someone of doctoring screen
shots? Or do I stand accused of same?
> Since you are one of the biggest fibbers in COLA I really think your
> holier than thou sermon is of little value to any of us.
I do my best to provide correct information; I never knowingly presented
false or falsified information, and if I find out that I'm wrong about
something, I don't hesitate to admit it, and correct the situation.
But thank you for providing even more proof that being honest and admitting
to mistakes doesn't command respect from Wintrolls, but instead only serves
to increase the amount of accusations and criticism (and often in rather
abusive language, I might add).
Hadron
Snip. You cried wolf too often. I KNOW what happened. I suggested your
numbers were wrong. You called me a wintroll in denial. I proved your
numbers were wrong. You ran round like a a scolded cat as other
"advocates" defended you. Finally you admitted it.
The you did it ALL again.
And again.
Snit
on 2/2/09 7:16 AM:
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> We all make mistakes...
>>
>> Now there's an undeniable truth ...
>>
>>> if he can just admit he goofed his error would be forgotten.
>>
>> Um, no. Even though admitting your mistakes is clearly the
>> decent thing to do, it amounts to taking a swim in a crocodile
>> pond with a dead chicken strapped to your back whenever
>> Wintrolls are present. Instead of respecting your honesty,
>> they will consider it as "proof" of being a liar etcetera, and
>> pass up no occasion to trot this out over and over again, for
>> all eternity.
>
> True, and both Hadron and Snit are the worst (or best if
> indicative of worst) examples.
>
> Their idea of victory is when the forum is vacated by all
> advocates, hence why they keep it up, hence why Snit provides
> fallacious Linux examples, so-called UI problems as troll bait to
> attack the unwary.
You claim my examples are "fallacious" but you give no evidence of this.
Why not? Which example do you think I have given that is wrong?
It comes down to your inability to figure out how to copy, quit an app, and
then paste into another... you are not able to replicate what Peter Köhlmann
claims is normal behavior.
Why not? And why blame me for your weakness?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4986fe86$0$725$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net on 2/2/09 7:09 AM:
No doubt! Hey, one moron *still* posts comments of mine from 2004,
insisting that if I do not discuss them with him that is evidence of some
wrong doing on my part. And when I do acknowledge an error I am told
exactly what you say - it is taken as proof of a moral failure on my part by
several very vocal trolls.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
AM:
>>> We all make mistakes...
>>
>> Now there's an undeniable truth ...
>>
>>> if he can just admit he goofed his error would be forgotten.
>>
>> Um, no. Even though admitting your mistakes is clearly the decent thing to
>> do, it amounts to taking a swim in a crocodile pond with a dead chicken
>> strapped to your back whenever Wintrolls are present.
>> Instead of respecting your honesty, they will consider it as "proof" of
>> being a liar etcetera, and pass up no occasion to trot this out over and
>> over again, for all eternity.
>>
>> Richard Rasker
>
> You are of course wrong. Mistakes only get remembered when the same ones
> are repeated ad nauseum.
No... I made a comment that, when taken out of context, was a bit silly in
regards to the Mac Book Air. I quickly clarified and explained my position.
My poorly worded commentary was quoted by *one* troll, literally,
*thousands* of times - he went so far as to include it in his .sig.
It was the best example he could find of me doing something wrong.
I have not been following this debate enough to know who said what or why...
I will leave that to the two of you. :)
> Your claims of Linux dominating netbooks comes
> to mind where you knowingly posted links to prefiltered amazon lists. I
> pointed out nicely your error only for you to repeat it. Again. And
> Again. And again.
>
> One does not make mistakes when accusing someone of "doctoring" screen
> shots since its easily provable.
>
> Since you are one of the biggest fibbers in COLA I really think your
> holier than thou sermon is of little value to any of us.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> writes:
[snip]
>> Well, thank you so much for proving my point. This is the course of
>> events as chronicled:
> Snip. You cried wolf too often.
No, it's what /you/ keep repeating ad nauseam.
> I KNOW what happened.
It appears that you have quite a different view of those events than I do.
> I suggested your numbers were wrong. You called me a wintroll in denial.
You started out by questioning my statistical methods, not the ranking I
based my finding on.
> I proved your numbers were wrong.
You didn't prove a thing. You criticized the statistical methods I used,
instead of pointing out the real flaw. No problem there, since you hadn't
spotted the real flaw at that time.
> You ran round like a a scolded cat as other "advocates" defended you.
Hardly. Upon request, I politely and patiently explained what I did, and how
I did it, and even asked you to tell me what I did wrong. It's called
"discussing", and it's a tried and tested method in the world of science to
find things out -- up to and including flaws and mistakes.
Your contribution at that point mainly consisted of calling me a liar,
without pointing out any actual flaws. Which, admittedly, is a tried and
tested method in the world of politics to discredit opponents you can't
otherwise beat.
> Finally you admitted it.
You mean "finally" as in: the very moment you came up with a different
ranking, I realized something was wrong(*); and within a day I found out
that it was my mistake, I indeed admitted it, and credited you. No, you
don't have to thank me. The pleasure's all mine.
*: At which time I could have immediately admitted I was wrong of course --
but it's a bit silly to admit to something if you're not quite certain what
exactly it is, or even if it's your fault in the first place.
> The you did it ALL again.
>
> And again.
You may have to point those occasions out to me, as I believe that since the
above occasion, I take very good care indeed to check any information I
present beforehand, in order to avoid presenting wrong or misleading
figures. Then again, I'm not infallible, so feel free to spot any flaws or
mistakes. Just don't expect me to bow to our authority at the first "Liar!"
you utter in a discussion. When pointing out mistakes, you will have to
come up with:
a) Evidence that a mistake was actually made (and that constitutes more than
just shouting "Liar"),
b) evidence or at least credible support why it was /my/ mistake, and not
someone else's; and, preferably,
c) the exact nature of the mistake.
In the case of Amazon's notebooks, all you could eventually produce was
exhibit a -- in the form of a discrepancy between our two rankings.
I was the one contributing items b and c, and within 24 hours of you coming
up with item a.
But keep on shouting "liar" and twisting the truth all you like. It's good
and proper politics, after all, and we all know that without politics, we
wouldn't have the world we have today.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Well, thank you so much for proving my point. This is the course of
>>> events as chronicled:
>
>> Snip. You cried wolf too often.
>
> No, it's what /you/ keep repeating ad nauseam.
>
>> I KNOW what happened.
>
> It appears that you have quite a different view of those events than I do.
>
Yes I do. Since it was me who corrected you and you who FINALLY admitted
you were wrong.
Peter Köhlmann
You did *not* correct him. You questioned his numbers.
The "correction" was done all by himself.
As usual, you are shamelessly lying
And try to hide it by completely snipping his account of the events
--
Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You are of course wrong. Mistakes only get remembered when the same ones
>> are repeated ad nauseum. Your claims of Linux dominating netbooks comes
>> to mind where you knowingly posted links to prefiltered amazon lists. I
>> pointed out nicely your error only for you to repeat it. Again. And
>> Again. And again.
Typical hypocritical Hadron assholery.
> Well, thank you so much for proving my point. This is the course of events
> as chronicled:
You don't need to explain anything to that lying son-of-a-bitch.
He's grinning like a gargoyle as he continues posting insulting responses.
>> Since you are one of the biggest fibbers in COLA ...
*LMAO*
Coming from most persistent lying asshat in the Northern Hemisphere, that is
a rich creamy irony with broken glass embedded.
>> I really think your
>> holier than thou sermon is of little value to any of us.
Richard Rasker's reputation is orders of magnitude better than the
reputation of the Lying Hadron Cunt.
> But thank you for providing even more proof that being honest and admitting
> to mistakes doesn't command respect from Wintrolls, but instead only serves
> to increase the amount of accusations and criticism (and often in rather
> abusive language, I might add).
Yep. Hadron's totally oblivious to his self-nuking proclivities.
--
America works less, when you say "Union Yes!"
Richard Rasker
OK, just for fun, one more time, summarized:
Me: "Here's my sales estimate for Linux!"
You: "Liar!"
Me: "This is how I did it [spreadsheet explained]"
You: "Liar! That's all wrong! You have no hard data!"
Me: "I based it on this ranking from Amazon: [URL1]"
You: "Liar! I got this ranking [URL2], and yours is wrong!
Me (one day later): "Well, indeed, it appears I was wrong, and you were
right! I just found I used the wrong ranking, silly me!"
But I guess you expect someone to admit to their mistakes before it's even
clear that a mistake has been made -- all that's needed, is your
disagreement. Well done, that man.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Yes I do. Since it was me who corrected you and you who FINALLY admitted
>> you were wrong.
No one believes Hadron's horseshit.
They can read the transcripts for themselves, and see what a noisome troll
Queeg is.
> You did *not* correct him. You questioned his numbers.
> The "correction" was done all by himself.
>
> As usual, you are shamelessly lying
>
> And try to hide it by completely snipping his account of the events
Even flatfish has a better record for veracity than the LHC/IQT/TWAT.
--
I had another dream the other day about music critics. They were small
and rodent-like with padlocked ears, as if they had stepped out of a
painting by Goya.
-- Stravinsky
William Poaster
trolls, Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> You are of course wrong. Mistakes only get remembered when the same
>>> ones are repeated ad nauseum. Your claims of Linux dominating netbooks
>>> comes to mind where you knowingly posted links to prefiltered amazon
>>> lists. I pointed out nicely your error only for you to repeat it.
>>> Again. And Again. And again.
>
> Typical hypocritical Hadron assholery.
>
>> Well, thank you so much for proving my point. This is the course of
>> events as chronicled:
>
> You don't need to explain anything to that lying son-of-a-bitch.
>
> He's grinning like a gargoyle as he continues posting insulting responses.
>
>>> Since you are one of the biggest fibbers in COLA ...
>
> *LMAO*
>
> Coming from most persistent lying asshat in the Northern Hemisphere, that
> is a rich creamy irony with broken glass embedded.
>
>>> I really think your
>>> holier than thou sermon is of little value to any of us.
>
> Richard Rasker's reputation is orders of magnitude better than the
> reputation of the Lying Hadron Cunt.
And who is this "us"? Qiuack & his fellow wintrolls?
>> But thank you for providing even more proof that being honest and
>> admitting to mistakes doesn't command respect from Wintrolls, but
>> instead only serves to increase the amount of accusations and criticism
>> (and often in rather abusive language, I might add).
>
> Yep. Hadron's totally oblivious to his self-nuking proclivities.
He's too stupid.
Hadron
Nope. You knew EXACTLY what you were doing since you HAD to go out of
your way to find the result set you did.
AND you then did it again.
I would have believed you if it wasn't for the fact you always post
unsubstantiated nonsense and HOPE no one will check.
Hell, you even talked nonsense about saving the planet by using your old
mashing machine.
You would get along well with WronG.
:-;
>
>
> Richard Rasker
Richard Rasker
With all due respect (which is damn little as it is), you're being
ridiculous.
So you REALLY believe that someone goes through quite a lot of trouble to
fabricate stuff, only to cave in immediately after you merely point out
some contradictory information? And that this "fraud" would then provide
you with al the ammunition you need (and didn't find yourself) to prove him
wrong and further insult him?
I can't quite express what I think of your mental state without sounding
demeaning or insulting, so I won't. I'll leave that to your vivid
imagination.