Search Schestowitz under Google Images.

[Foster]

Hysterical stuff!

[Steve Carroll]

On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hysterical stuff!

Before I clicked the images I saw this:

http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/

Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.

[Hardon]

<quote>
What I find more interesting though, is that there are posts and other
articles written to try and defame or discredit him. And some use some
very strong language. Simply doing a Google search for "Roy
Schestowitz" comes up with some examples. What in the world is going
on here, and why are people trying so hard to discredit him for his
articles on techrights.org?
</quote>

Attempted character defamation seems to be the only ploy the lying
trolls posting here have.

--
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for
reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
-Albert Einstein

[Peter Köhlmann]

Hardon wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hysterical stuff!
>>
>> Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/
>>
>> Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.
>
> <quote>
> What I find more interesting though, is that there are posts and other
> articles written to try and defame or discredit him. And some use some
> very strong language. Simply doing a Google search for "Roy
> Schestowitz" comes up with some examples. What in the world is going
> on here, and why are people trying so hard to discredit him for his
> articles on techrights.org?
> </quote>
>
> Attempted character defamation seems to be the only ploy the lying
> trolls posting here have.
>

Especially flatfish Gary Stewart and the filthy cretin Hadron Snit Larry are
doing this on a regular base. Even now, years after Roys last posts to cola,
these thugs are going after him relentlessly. Seems they don't like being on
the wrong side

[bbgruff]

On Thursday 19 July 2012 07:35 Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Especially flatfish Gary Stewart and the filthy cretin Hadron Snit Larry
> are doing this on a regular base. Even now, years after Roys last posts to
> cola, these thugs are going after him relentlessly. Seems they don't like
> being on the wrong side

Certainly as far as flatfish, DFS, Hadron etc are concerned, I think that
you are right in the money with that statement, Peter.
There was distinct change in their postings, and it happened over a
relatively short period. If I had to put a date to it, I'd say that it was
at the time that Android started to become popular, and they realised that
the world was changing.

- At first, there was a denial that Android was Linux. That died a death
when the Android code went into the kernel!

- Then came the realisation that Linux is the ubiquitous OS for everything
except the desktop.

- Next therefore came a stress on "desktop" whenever statistics were posted.
That's a bit of a strange one, considering that all the statistics apply to
web access!
i.e. Desktops being used for web access aren't actually being used as
desktops, if you see what I mean. Now consumers are shunning the
desktop/laptop in favour of tablets and phones, and not Microsoft kit.

- Finally we have the first signs of the Big Change - flatfish and the "I
actually like Android"!

[Peter Köhlmann]

Flatfish Gary Stewart also "liked" linux. Several times
He installed a distro, he praised it for days.

And then he started to find "issues", mostly googled ones nobody else could
reproduce.
Not long and he labeled linux as "shitty" and "amateurish"

It will be the same routine with android. After all, the so much better win-
phones need some boost from that lying freak

[Ezekiel]

>"Steve Carroll" <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:01ddd80b-493c-4646...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

#1) It's some article written by an anonymous author calling himself
"apexwm" - which could be anyone including Roy himself or a personal friend.
Whoever it was defending Schestowitz they didn't even have the conviction to
put their name behind it.

#2) Read some of the comments - such as this one:

<quote>
"The articles are very well written and all sources for the articles are
documented". Let's look at that.

First, "well written". In fact they are childishly written. He plays dumb
games with the names. He never talks about iPhone or iPad--they are always
hypePhone and hypePad. The BBC is MSBBC. Florien Mueller is "Microsoft
Florien". And so on and so on. But if anyone calls him "Spamowitz" or "Glen
Schestowitz" he complains bitterly about how his enemies are attacking him.

Second, "documents". To be documented they need to cite verifiable THIRD
PARTY sources. His articles do have an impressive number of links in them.
Most link back to earlier articles of his own.
</quote>


Finallly - If you want to see what a dishonest scumbag liar Roy Schestowitz
search this newsgroup for "Microsoft Offices Searched for Hookers."
(Interesting title, yes?). Then the Schestowitz scumbag puts this into his
post:

<quote>
Federal investigators executed a search warrant at Microsoft's Mountain
View, Calif., offices earlier this month as part of an investigation into a
high-priced call girl ring similar to the one used by former New York Gov.
Eliot Spitzer.
</quote>



It sure sounds pretty damning... unless you read the next paragraph that he
"conveniently" left out.

<quote>
The investigator, IRS special agent Anthony Romero, was seeking the
Microsoft Hotmail account records of a woman accused of involvement in a
pricey escort service operating out of Denver, Colo. Records show that
Romero seized from Microsoft more than 3,000 files of "preserved data" from
the account of Kitty_...@hotmail.com.
Authorities believe that "Kitty Crimson" is actually Heather Bruck, a
Denver-area woman who allegedly worked as a prostitute for an escort service
that went by the names Denver Sugar and Denver Players, according to court
papers.

No arrests have been made to date in connection with the Denver Sugar/Denver
Players escort ring. There's no indication that Microsoft or any of its
employees are involved with the ring.

</quote>


The Roy Schestowitz scumbag twisted the headline into something deliberately
misleading ("Microsoft's Offices Searched for Hookers") then intentionally
posts a small portion of the story in order to imply that Microsoft is being
searched for hookers.

This is just one of many posts where he shows his dishonesty. Any bad things
said about Schestowitz were earned and are certainly deserving. This is just
one of *many* examples that shows what a dishonest scumbag Roy Schestowitz
is.


--
Earlier today I spoke again with a lobby of Microsoft shareholders. They
came to /me/ because they want to toss Steve Ballmer and I helped them
gather material.

Roy Schestowitz having delusions of grandeur
<34363814....@schestowitz.com>

[Foster]

Read the comments and understand that the person posting as
MadHatter is one of Roy's shills.

[Foster]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:03:39 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

>>"Steve Carroll" <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:01ddd80b-493c-4646...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hysterical stuff!
>>
>>Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/
>>
>>Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.
>
>
> #1) It's some article written by an anonymous author calling himself
> "apexwm" - which could be anyone including Roy himself or a personal friend.
> Whoever it was defending Schestowitz they didn't even have the conviction to
> put their name behind it.

MadHatter is a confirmed Roy shill.
Like you say, the author is anonymous and is no doubt a Roy shill.

Had this been an article about a Windows supporter the Linux loons
would be going wild.

> #2) Read some of the comments - such as this one:
>
> <quote>
> "The articles are very well written and all sources for the articles are
> documented". Let's look at that.

Notice these are precisely the two main points people take exception
to.
Coincidence?
I think not.

> First, "well written". In fact they are childishly written. He plays dumb
> games with the names. He never talks about iPhone or iPad--they are always
> hypePhone and hypePad. The BBC is MSBBC. Florien Mueller is "Microsoft
> Florien". And so on and so on. But if anyone calls him "Spamowitz" or "Glen
> Schestowitz" he complains bitterly about how his enemies are attacking him.
>
> Second, "documents". To be documented they need to cite verifiable THIRD
> PARTY sources. His articles do have an impressive number of links in them.
> Most link back to earlier articles of his own.
> </quote>

That's Roy to a tee....

Legitimate journalists would have a hard time staying employed if
they used the same tactics Roy Schestowitz does.
Unless they worked for The National Enquirer or similar such rag.

>
> Finallly - If you want to see what a dishonest scumbag liar Roy Schestowitz
> search this newsgroup for "Microsoft Offices Searched for Hookers."
> (Interesting title, yes?). Then the Schestowitz scumbag puts this into his
> post:
>
> <quote>
> Federal investigators executed a search warrant at Microsoft's Mountain
> View, Calif., offices earlier this month as part of an investigation into a
> high-priced call girl ring similar to the one used by former New York Gov.
> Eliot Spitzer.
> </quote>

I can't believe he hasn't been sued for slander or libel.
He's too small a fish I suspect.

> It sure sounds pretty damning... unless you read the next paragraph that he
> "conveniently" left out.
>
> <quote>
> The investigator, IRS special agent Anthony Romero, was seeking the
> Microsoft Hotmail account records of a woman accused of involvement in a
> pricey escort service operating out of Denver, Colo. Records show that
> Romero seized from Microsoft more than 3,000 files of "preserved data" from
> the account of Kitty_...@hotmail.com.
> Authorities believe that "Kitty Crimson" is actually Heather Bruck, a
> Denver-area woman who allegedly worked as a prostitute for an escort service
> that went by the names Denver Sugar and Denver Players, according to court
> papers.
>
> No arrests have been made to date in connection with the Denver Sugar/Denver
> Players escort ring. There's no indication that Microsoft or any of its
> employees are involved with the ring.
>
> </quote>

Roy loves to leave out minor details such as the above.
Why?
He assumes, and correctly so, that most people will not take the
time to actually vet the article but instead believe what Roy says
as fact.
Since Linux advocates tend to be lazy, this is mostly likely the
case.

>
> The Roy Schestowitz scumbag twisted the headline into something deliberately
> misleading ("Microsoft's Offices Searched for Hookers") then intentionally
> posts a small portion of the story in order to imply that Microsoft is being
> searched for hookers.
>
> This is just one of many posts where he shows his dishonesty. Any bad things
> said about Schestowitz were earned and are certainly deserving. This is just
> one of *many* examples that shows what a dishonest scumbag Roy Schestowitz
> is.

That's exactly what Roy Schestowitz is.
He's also a crybaby because it's alright for him to attack someone
but when he gets attacked he cries conspiracy and runs away.

The guy is a real piece of work for sure.

[DFS]

On 7/18/2012 8:59 PM, Foster wrote:
> Hysterical stuff!

ha!

Look at the hideous wallpaper (not to mention his grimacing face):
http://scifitness.co.uk/author/scifit/


62,000+ tweets?
http://twitter.com/schestowitz



Looks like he's still the same spamming idiot he was on cola, where he
posted reams of off-topic crapola and anti-MS hatred and lies for years.

[DFS]

On 7/19/2012 8:03 AM, Ezekiel wrote:


> The Roy Schestowitz scumbag twisted the headline into something deliberately
> misleading ("Microsoft's Offices Searched for Hookers") then intentionally
> posts a small portion of the story in order to imply that Microsoft is being
> searched for hookers.

That's our Spamowitz.

> This is just one of many posts where he shows his dishonesty. Any bad things
> said about Schestowitz were earned and are certainly deserving. This is just
> one of *many* examples that shows what a dishonest scumbag Roy Schestowitz
> is.

Yes.

And then the pile of crap thinks he can blame Microsoft for "hounding
Reiser until he murdered his wife".

What a piece of shit.

[Foster]

That's Roy in a "nut"shell........
He's truly a legend in his own mind.

[Foster]

Truly.

He has done far more damage to Linux than any troll could possibly
imagine.
Take him out of his circle of loons and he is regarded mostly as a
laughing stock.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jul 19, 6:03 am, "Ezekiel" <z...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
> >"Steve Carroll" <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:01ddd80b-493c-4646...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hysterical stuff!
>
> >Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>
> >http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/
>
> >Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.
>
> #1) It's some article written by an anonymous author calling himself
> "apexwm" - which could be anyone including Roy himself or a personal friend.
> Whoever it was defending Schestowitz they didn't even have the conviction to
> put their name behind it.
>
> #2) Read some of the comments

I did... prior to posting. One point, this anonymous author was
published on a mainstream site. Doesn't make what he wrote Gospel but
it certainly lends more weight than anyone commenting to his article
unless they credibly source with specificity. In any event, I'm not
giving my opinion on Roy or his detractors other than to point out
that there doesn't appear to be universal consensus he is what many in
COLA claim.

> - such as this one:
>
> <quote>
> "The articles are very well written and all sources for the articles are
> documented". Let's look at that.
>
> First, "well written". In fact they are childishly written. He plays dumb
> games with the names. He never talks about iPhone or iPad--they are always
> hypePhone and hypePad.

If true this shows a bias, not a hallmark of good journalism but it's
one that we, unfortunately, see all too often nowadays.

> The BBC is MSBBC. Florien Mueller is "Microsoft
> Florien". And so on and so on. But if anyone calls him "Spamowitz" or "Glen
> Schestowitz" he complains bitterly about how his enemies are attacking him.

One needn't look far to see he's being attacked... I see if often in
this ng. I don't know to what degree he deserves it, that's
subjective... but my point was that not everyone sees it one way and
certainly not the way as seen in COLA.

> Second, "documents". To be documented they need to cite verifiable THIRD
> PARTY sources. His articles do have an impressive number of links in them.
> Most link back to earlier articles of his own.

This doesn't discount the author's suggestion that his articles are
generally sourced well.

> </quote>
>
> Finallly - If you want to see what a dishonest scumbag liar Roy Schestowitz
> search this newsgroup for "Microsoft Offices Searched for Hookers."
> (Interesting title, yes?).  Then the Schestowitz scumbag puts this into his
> post:

I'm from the area in the article (Denver), I vaguely recall this
thread and, upon looking now, I see that he did include the link to
the full article so the suggestion that he "conveniently" left
anything out is a bit silly. If someone provides a link they should
rightfully assume readers will click it, I have no reason to believe
Roy isn't aware of this fact.

> <quote>
> Federal investigators executed a search warrant at Microsoft's Mountain
> View, Calif., offices earlier this month as part of an investigation into a
> high-priced call girl ring similar to the one used by former New York Gov.
> Eliot Spitzer.
> </quote>
>
> It sure sounds pretty damning... unless you read the next paragraph that he
> "conveniently" left out.
>
> <quote>
> The investigator, IRS special agent Anthony Romero, was seeking the
> Microsoft Hotmail account records of a woman accused of involvement in a
> pricey escort service operating out of Denver, Colo. Records show that
> Romero seized from Microsoft more than 3,000 files of "preserved data" from

> the account of Kitty_Crim...@hotmail.com.

> Authorities believe that "Kitty Crimson" is actually Heather Bruck, a
> Denver-area woman who allegedly worked as a prostitute for an escort service
> that went by the names Denver Sugar and Denver Players, according to court
> papers.
>
> No arrests have been made to date in connection with the Denver Sugar/Denver
> Players escort ring. There's no indication that Microsoft or any of its
> employees are involved with the ring.
>
> </quote>
>
> The Roy Schestowitz scumbag twisted the headline into something deliberately
> misleading ("Microsoft's Offices Searched for Hookers") then intentionally
> posts a small portion of the story in order to imply that Microsoft is being
> searched for hookers.

The title is slightly misleading, had he written:

'Microsoft's Offices Searched for Evidence of Hookers'

...he'd have been correct. Even so, this title and quoting the first
paragraph on an article (and providing the link for the rest) is not
exactly the hanging offense you're making it out to be ;)

> This is just one of many posts where he shows his dishonesty. Any bad things
> said about Schestowitz were earned and are certainly deserving. This is just
> one of *many* examples that shows what a dishonest scumbag Roy Schestowitz
> is.

If this example is the best you can do I'd say you have a long way to
go to convince people of his "dishonesty". The main point here is
that a usenet post is very different than journalism.

[Snit]

On 7/18/12 11:35 PM, in article ju89tt$31e$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"

Can you quote a few places where they were wrong? You know, like I do with
you when you belittle me. :)


--
* cc was unable to post a set of data that went back to 2007.
* cc is unable to post an Excel Workbook or otherwise back his claims.
* cc failed to show any sigma depiction I called wrong that was not.
* cc could not list a single step missed in making a linear trend line.

[Clogwog]

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:3t2602z03qfg.u504cgn7nx3u$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Hysterical stuff!


lol , Well, now you've done it!!!
sMarti's tight "pussy" is all whet now!
http://scifitness.co.uk/category/social/

[Snit]

On 7/19/12 4:26 AM, in article a6q96h...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thursday 19 July 2012 07:35 Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> Especially flatfish Gary Stewart and the filthy cretin Hadron Snit Larry
>> are doing this on a regular base. Even now, years after Roys last posts to
>> cola, these thugs are going after him relentlessly. Seems they don't like
>> being on the wrong side
>
> Certainly as far as flatfish, DFS, Hadron etc are concerned, I think that
> you are right in the money with that statement, Peter.
> There was distinct change in their postings, and it happened over a
> relatively short period. If I had to put a date to it, I'd say that it was
> at the time that Android started to become popular, and they realised that
> the world was changing.
>
> - At first, there was a denial that Android was Linux. That died a death
> when the Android code went into the kernel!

Wasn't it the advocates who were making that claim? I could be wrong... not
interested enough to dig up posts... but I seem to recall several of the
"advocates" saying it was not really Linux because it was forked.

> - Then came the realisation that Linux is the ubiquitous OS for everything
> except the desktop.

I think most people are well aware that Linux does very well in embedded
devices, servers, etc. This "realization" is not something recent!

> - Next therefore came a stress on "desktop" whenever statistics were posted.
> That's a bit of a strange one, considering that all the statistics apply to
> web access!
> i.e. Desktops being used for web access aren't actually being used as
> desktops, if you see what I mean. Now consumers are shunning the
> desktop/laptop in favour of tablets and phones, and not Microsoft kit.

Desktops are often used for web access - in fact, one of the big openings
for Linux to truly do well on the desktop is where the desktop is used
mostly as a web kiosk (ChromeOS). For more general desktop usage, however,
Linux does not do well.

> - Finally we have the first signs of the Big Change - flatfish and the "I
> actually like Android"!

And you think that is a bad thing? I think it is good that many people like
Android.

I will say one place *my* views have changed is that I gave Apple / Jobs too
much trust when the claimed that Android was a copy of iOS. Yes, it is
clearly inspired by it and yes, some of the Android devices - such as many
of the ones from Samsung - are clearly rip-offs of Apple devices, but I have
*not* see strong evidence to show Android is ripping off Apple's work as
much as Jobs seemed to think. Given how much Samsung clearly was ripping
off Apple (though even that has reduced from what I can tell), it lead me to
trust Apple / Jobs there more than I should have (though even at my most
"extreme" I was very clear I wanted more evidence to come to a conclusion...
but I was leaning more toward at least largely agreeing with Jobs than I am
now).

So I think you are largely wrong with your above: I believe the "advocates"
were denying Android was Linux as much as anyone else (though, again, I
would have to look through posts to verify this) and I think pretty much
everyone in COLA understands how common and useful Linux is on servers and
embedded devices and the like.

Their are two places where there is major disagreement:

1) On the value of desktop Linux: the "advocates" generally think it is as
good of a solution as is OS X or Windows, even though it is free but hardly
used (1-2% of desktops). The "advocates" tend to blame the "boogieman" (MS
or sometimes Apple) for this. Those of us who are not seen as COLA
"advocates" but are either supportive of other OSs or, such as myself,
supportive of "informed computing" where you try to understand and use the
best solution for any given problem but have no commitment to any given OS,
look and see the inherent weaknesses of the desktop Linux ecosystem and can
offer other explanations why desktop Linux does not gain much popularity.
These reasons include the historical success of Windows (it takes time for
things to change) but also includes the inherent weakness of the mish-mash
approach to making "systems" (inconsistencies and lack of
productivity-enhancing feature) and the lack of top-of-class software (such
as MS Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Electric Quilt, ScreenFlow, and many
more). Where the "advocates" generally focus on one reason and see the
issue as being very black and white (MS evil. Period), those of us who are
not a part of the COLA "advocates" (the herd) view the broader scope and
have a better understanding of the competition. JEDIDIAH and Peter K�hlmann
offer excellent examples of "advocates" who do not understand the
competition.

2) Focusing on philosophy vs. focusing on pragmatic value. Many of the
"advocates", esp. Homer, focus on the "value" of things being "Free" as
defined by Stallman (though Homer takes some things even further). While I
and others understand the value of things being open source, we do not
accept the double-talk of Stallman nor place the value of things being open
source above the value of having a productive system. And, even more
importantly, we understand that most people do the same thing. At least in
my case I tend to agree with folks such as Linus Torvalds, Jim Zemlin, and
Mark Shuttleworth (who has specifically talked about this issue of value of
open source vs. being a pragmatically good system). Since I agree with that
"side" of the open source / "Free" debate I am deemed by the "advocates" to
be evil... it is wrong to agree with Torvalds, Zemlin, and Shuttleworth in
their view. I find this absurd... largely agreeing with those three does
*not* make one anti-Linux or anti-open source.

[Marti Van Lin]

On 19-07-12 08:05, Hardon wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hysterical stuff!
>>
>> Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/

Thank you, that is a very nice read. I've seen that article before and
it's pretty nice to read it again ;-)

With exclusion of SJVN I have a high opinion about Zdnet, which is too
Pro-Microsoft and biased IMO. There for it is fantastic to read a honest
and nice article like this.

>> Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.

C.O.L.A has been harassed by lying antisocial creeps (known as
"WinTrolls") for years, who would do everything to discredit Free
Software Advocates.

Flatfish (the pervert that currently posts under the nyms "Torre
Starnes" and "Foster") posted messages under the forgery "Roy
Schestowtiz", claiming a sex change and "cut my balls for Linux".

IIRC, Roy received a unpleasant phone call from a worried uncle, asking
What on Earth got into "Roy" posting such insane stuff. How LAME is that?

Nobody in this group should *ever* forgive nor forget!

> <quote>
> What I find more interesting though, is that there are posts and other
> articles written to try and defame or discredit him. And some use some
> very strong language. Simply doing a Google search for "Roy
> Schestowitz" comes up with some examples. What in the world is going
> on here, and why are people trying so hard to discredit him for his
> articles on techrights.org?
> </quote>

Oh well "apexwm" is obviously unaware that the nasty hate campaign
against Dr. Roy Schestowitz has been going on for ages. The filthy
Ad-Hominen attacks have been pre techrights.org and even boycottnovell
(the predecessor of techrights.org).

Roy used to outnumber the Anti-Linux and Anti-Free Software garbage, by
posting positive GNU/Linux and Free Software articles in C.O.L.A and
that's why the desperate Microsoft Munchkins started discrediting him.
Roy actually sabotaged their evil master plan :-p

> Attempted character defamation seems to be the only ploy the lying
> trolls posting here have.

Indeed, that's all they have, the poor bastards.

There is a single English word, which describes the Microsoft Munchkins
very well: *wicked*

Nothing more, nothing less.

--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| https://linuxcounter.net/user/513040.html
|0|0|0| http://www.soundclick.com/martivanlin

[William Poaster]

Here is a facsimile from Marti Van Lin who, on 19/7/2012 22:21, wrote:

> On 19-07-12 08:05, Hardon wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hysterical stuff!
>>>
>>> Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>>>
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/
>
> Thank you, that is a very nice read. I've seen that article before and
> it's pretty nice to read it again ;-)
>
> With exclusion of SJVN I have a high opinion about Zdnet, which is too
> Pro-Microsoft and biased IMO. There for it is fantastic to read a honest
> and nice article like this.
>
>>> Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.
>
> C.O.L.A has been harassed by lying antisocial creeps (known as
> "WinTrolls") for years, who would do everything to discredit Free
> Software Advocates.
>
> Flatfish (the pervert that currently posts under the nyms "Torre
> Starnes" and "Foster") posted messages under the forgery "Roy
> Schestowtiz", claiming a sex change and "cut my balls for Linux".

And don't forget, that psychotic troll is often backup by "Hadron".
Which shows just what *he* is.

> IIRC, Roy received a unpleasant phone call from a worried uncle, asking
> What on Earth got into "Roy" posting such insane stuff. How LAME is that?
>
> Nobody in this group should *ever* forgive nor forget!

+1

>> <quote>
>> What I find more interesting though, is that there are posts and other
>> articles written to try and defame or discredit him. And some use some
>> very strong language. Simply doing a Google search for "Roy
>> Schestowitz" comes up with some examples. What in the world is going
>> on here, and why are people trying so hard to discredit him for his
>> articles on techrights.org?
>> </quote>
>
> Oh well "apexwm" is obviously unaware that the nasty hate campaign
> against Dr. Roy Schestowitz has been going on for ages. The filthy
> Ad-Hominen attacks have been pre techrights.org and even boycottnovell
> (the predecessor of techrights.org).
>
> Roy used to outnumber the Anti-Linux and Anti-Free Software garbage, by
> posting positive GNU/Linux and Free Software articles in C.O.L.A and
> that's why the desperate Microsoft Munchkins started discrediting him.
> Roy actually sabotaged their evil master plan :-p
>
>> Attempted character defamation seems to be the only ploy the lying
>> trolls posting here have.
>
> Indeed, that's all they have, the poor bastards.
>
> There is a single English word, which describes the Microsoft Munchkins
> very well: *wicked*
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.

Evil?

--
Floppy not responding. Press any key to format HARD DRIVE instead

Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft.
That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
-- Linus Torvalds (2003-09-28)

Every time Windows had a rebirth I would get hold of it
and buy a new machine to run it on believing that they (M$)
must now have got things right and finally created an operating
environment that could excite, impress and enthral me.
But each time their system got more ham-fisted, more insulting
and more indifferent to the pleasures and interests of the **consumer**.
-- Stephen Fry - December 2008 --

Windows is like a hooker; they're both easy,
and using either puts you at risk of viruses.
-- Kelsey Bjarnason --
comp.os.linux.advocacy

Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.

[Foster]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 23:21:55 +0200, Marti Van Lin wrote:

> On 19-07-12 08:05, Hardon wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hysterical stuff!
>>>
>>> Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>>>
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/
>
> Thank you, that is a very nice read. I've seen that article before and
> it's pretty nice to read it again ;-)
>
> With exclusion of SJVN I have a high opinion about Zdnet, which is too
> Pro-Microsoft and biased IMO. There for it is fantastic to read a honest
> and nice article like this.

It's so honest that the author doesn't even have the guts to use his
real name.

That's because it's probably one of Roy's shills, like Swapnil, or
possibly even Schestowitz himself.

Instead of reading that shill piece, read the comments to learn what
people really think of Roy.
That's if you can take it Marti.
And we all know you are very good at taking it.

[Snit]

On 7/19/12 4:34 PM, in article 19a0ii3xihyms$.199i6l3h...@40tude.net,

Instead of reading what people say about Roy read what Roy writes himself.
He has a website full of propaganda and lies and has made direct lies in
COLA.

Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA. He stopped
shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
comments. I called him on his false claims but assumed he was merely
mistaken - even defending him when others claimed he was lying. Like many
honest people I am overly trusting - it turned out I was wrong to defend him
and he was in deed lying. He also made all sorts of mistakes in his claims
about desktop Linux. Some of his lies and his errors are documented here:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/RoyTopics.txt>

Those are simply the notes I was making in preparation for being on his show
again... something he had agreed to letting me do but, once he saw my
questions and comments, he pulled out of.

[Foster]

Eveyone knows that already.
Few will admit it.

Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?

> Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA. He stopped
> shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
> comments.

You did good on the show.
You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.

He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
lambasted you behind your back.

> I called him on his false claims but assumed he was merely
> mistaken - even defending him when others claimed he was lying. Like many
> honest people I am overly trusting - it turned out I was wrong to defend him
> and he was in deed lying. He also made all sorts of mistakes in his claims
> about desktop Linux. Some of his lies and his errors are documented here:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/RoyTopics.txt>
>
> Those are simply the notes I was making in preparation for being on his show
> again... something he had agreed to letting me do but, once he saw my
> questions and comments, he pulled out of.

Why you even bother with those clowns is beyond me.
The deck is stacked against you.
You cannot win, even if you are correct.

And BTW stop falling for Goobers sick, sweet act.
He is just Roy's water boy.

[Snit]

On 7/19/12 5:45 PM, in article 1593fuoywg12w$.5dlk4rhqd9jd$.d...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>>> Instead of reading that shill piece, read the comments to learn what
>>> people really think of Roy.
>>> That's if you can take it Marti.
>>> And we all know you are very good at taking it.
>>
>> Instead of reading what people say about Roy read what Roy writes himself.
>> He has a website full of propaganda and lies and has made direct lies in
>> COLA.
>
> Eveyone knows that already.
> Few will admit it.
>
> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?

You are exactly right. It is not as though I did not provide proof - beyond
any doubt - that he was mistaken about his desktop Linux claims and even out
and out lying about his claims about me. The proof is in his own words, the
distros being discussed, and the radio show hosted on his own site.
Additionally, there have been *no* counters offered - only empty denials
where I am told I am wrong but in the absence of any reason or logic or
showing of flaws in my claims.

>> Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA. He stopped
>> shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
>> comments.
>
> You did good on the show.
> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.

Right. I did not have much experience with the then-current PCLOS. I
openly admitted to that. I also admitted I know and use Gnome more than
KDE. There is no shame in this... though my stalker said that this was a
sign I was being "exposed". Um, I "exposed" myself - and it was simply my
being honest. I have no shame in that at all.

In any case, even without my knowing the then-current PCLOS, and Roy
claiming it was a distro he knew well, we each made predictions about how it
would work (and spoke in terms of an older version). I offered, on the
show, to look at these distros and compare the facts of the distros with our
comments on them - and while we *both* had areas where we were wrong, I was
far closer to being correct than was Roy.

This is very telling: Roy claims to use the distro often - I had not used it
(or had barely... I do not recall). And yet I understand the open source
ecosystem well enough where my comments about how it would show itself were
*more* accurate than Roy's.

> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
> lambasted you behind your back.

I proved beyond any doubt that, at least in the areas being discussed, I had
a *much* better understanding of the open source ecosystem than did Roy.
This does not mean, of course, that there might not be areas of the open
source world where Roy is more knowledgeable than I am, but it was quite
telling that in the areas we discussed Roy, who is supposedly a Linux
"advocate" and has a web site where he claims to do research, was clearly
less knowledgeable than I who the false COLA "advocates" (the herd) claim is
a "troll" who hates Linux!

They never did explain how and why this could happen... why a "troll" or a
"WinTroll" (who does not really like Windows, but that is besides the
point), would show - on the topics discussed - better knowledge of a
specific older Linux distro and and an overall better understanding of the
relevant parts of the ecosystem that would allow me to show the things I
predicted (and Roy denied) on a distro Roy know and I did not!

>> I called him on his false claims but assumed he was merely mistaken - even
>> defending him when others claimed he was lying. Like many honest people I am
>> overly trusting - it turned out I was wrong to defend him and he was in deed
>> lying. He also made all sorts of mistakes in his claims about desktop Linux.
>> Some of his lies and his errors are documented here:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/RoyTopics.txt>
>>
>> Those are simply the notes I was making in preparation for being on his show
>> again... something he had agreed to letting me do but, once he saw my
>> questions and comments, he pulled out of.
>
> Why you even bother with those clowns is beyond me.
> The deck is stacked against you.
> You cannot win, even if you are correct.

Depends on how you define "winning". If I required them to be honest for me
to "win" then I would have no chance of "winning", but it does prompt me to
do far more research than I otherwise would do in terms of Linux and open
source topics, which is a huge win for me, and it gives me a chance to
observe an online cult-like group (as well as the actions of some others who
troll), which I find fascinating.

> And BTW stop falling for Goobers sick, sweet act.
> He is just Roy's water boy.

He is clearly politically and emotionally tied to Roy, but I still give him
the benefit of the doubt. As I have noted before, honest people tend to be
too trusting... I admit I am in that group. So be it.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jul 19, 6:45 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:55:22 -0700, Snit wrote:

> > On 7/19/12 4:34 PM, in article 19a0ii3xihyms$.199i6l3h7u6bb....@40tude.net,

I'd like to see this "website full of propaganda and lies" Snit is
talking about. Sounds more like web pages that Snit has created.

> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?

ROFL! Unfortunately, for Snit, his reputation precedes him; that's
what happens when you've cried wolf once too often, you lose all
credibility like Snit has. It's a fact that people are loathe to read
what he writes... much less respond to it. That no one agrees with
whatever lies he may have found means nothing. The very idea that it
would is comical ;)

If there are really all these lies people should be able to point to
them. I saw one attempt today that pointed to a news article about MS
and hookers... but it wasn't really dishonest as it was reported.

> > Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA.  He stopped
> > shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
> > comments.
>
> You did good on the show.

I thought he mostly did OK... I even stated as much on this ng.

> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.

Well, he also tried to blow a little smoke... to no good effect.

> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
> lambasted you behind your back.

I saw some of the stuff Roy said and I don't think it was as big a
deal as Snit made out. I probably didn't see it all, though... and
while I think Roy's comments that I saw were a tad over the top , the
idea behind them wasn't way out of whack. That said, i have seen some
of Roy's biases... as I have Snit's.

> > I called him on his false claims but assumed he was merely
> > mistaken - even defending him when others claimed he was lying.  Like many
> > honest people I am overly trusting - it turned out I was wrong to defend him
> > and he was in deed lying.  He also made all sorts of mistakes in his claims
> > about desktop Linux.  Some of his lies and his errors are documented here:
>
> >     <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/RoyTopics.txt>
>
> > Those are simply the notes I was making in preparation for being on his show
> > again... something he had agreed to letting me do but, once he saw my
> > questions and comments, he pulled out of.
>
> Why you even bother with those clowns is beyond me.
> The deck is stacked against you.
> You cannot win, even if you are correct.

I disagree. Were he to be honest... and refrain from blowing smoke,
he'll come out honest and that's always a win, regardless of what a
staunch advocate might say to the contrary. Obviously, Snit places
little, to no, value on that, though... which is why he is generally
not believed.

[Steve Carroll]

On Jul 19, 7:19 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/12 5:45 PM, in article 1593fuoywg12w$.5dlk4rhqd9jd$....@40tude.net,
>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip)

> > You did good on the show.
> > You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
> > of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.
>
> Right.  I did not have much experience with the then-current PCLOS.  I
> openly admitted to that.  I also admitted I know and use Gnome more than
> KDE.  There is no shame in this... though my stalker said that this was a
> sign I was being "exposed".

Ah quit yur whinin'.., it's not a dirty word, Snit... you were exposed
on those issues. Big f*cking deal... Roy was exposed as well on the
stuff you brought up.

> Um, I "exposed" myself - and it was simply my
> being honest.  I have no shame in that at all.

And no one suggested you should have shame over that, Mr. Whiner. IMO
you shouldn't have tried to blow smoke like you did... but that;s you.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Marti Van Lin belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Flatfish (the pervert that currently posts under the nyms "Torre
> Starnes" and "Foster") posted messages under the forgery "Roy
> Schestowtiz", claiming a sex change and "cut my balls for Linux".
>
> IIRC, Roy received a unpleasant phone call from a worried uncle, asking
> What on Earth got into "Roy" posting such insane stuff. How LAME is that?
>
> Nobody in this group should *ever* forgive nor forget!

Not to worry.

> There is a single English word, which describes the Microsoft Munchkins
> very well: *wicked*
>
> Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, I remember a description, in "Among the Thugs" [1], of a fellow
who, while rioting in a foreign country, tossed something like an engine
into the windshield of a bus, shattering it. The author described the
fellow as being happy because he was being "naughty".

The book is interesting, and eerie, in the manner of "A Clockwork
Orange". Also an interesting take on the "C" word that makes the nancy
boy "Hadron" so queasy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Among_the_Thugs

--
If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's
ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a
complete standstill today.
-- Bill Gates, Challenges and Strategy Memo (16 May 1991)

[Foster]

http://techrights.org/?stories
Knock yourself out.

Some advice:

1. Check the subject line and see what the article actually says
2. Check the sources and make sure they don't point back to Roy or
one of his shills.
3. Factually check EVERYTHING.

He has gotten better in recent months.

>> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?
>
> ROFL! Unfortunately, for Snit, his reputation precedes him; that's
> what happens when you've cried wolf once too often, you lose all
> credibility like Snit has. It's a fact that people are loathe to read
> what he writes... much less respond to it. That no one agrees with
> whatever lies he may have found means nothing. The very idea that it
> would is comical ;)

It doesn't matter.
Each claim stands on it's own.

If David Berkowitz exposes the CIA for misappropriation of funds
does it make it any less credible because of who he is?

Judge the situation, not the posters.

> If there are really all these lies people should be able to point to
> them. I saw one attempt today that pointed to a news article about MS
> and hookers... but it wasn't really dishonest as it was reported.

They do and have done so for years.

Here is one example, there are many if you look for them.

http://armchairtheorist.com/the-curious-case-of-boycott-novell/

In fact ZDnet closed down a thread because his shills invaded it.
All public record.

What you have to do is understand who is a shill (either way) and
who is not.

>>> Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA. �He stopped
>>> shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
>>> comments.
>>
>> You did good on the show.
>
> I thought he mostly did OK... I even stated as much on this ng.

In that particular case he did do well.
Better than I expected in fact.

>> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
>> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.
>
> Well, he also tried to blow a little smoke... to no good effect.

No he didn't.
He admitted right away he had no experience, as I recall.
Correct me if I am wrong.

>> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
>> lambasted you behind your back.
>
> I saw some of the stuff Roy said and I don't think it was as big a
> deal as Snit made out. I probably didn't see it all, though... and
> while I think Roy's comments that I saw were a tad over the top , the
> idea behind them wasn't way out of whack. That said, i have seen some
> of Roy's biases... as I have Snit's.

Everyone has a bias.
Roy wrote the book on it though and it's for commercial (hits and
fame) gain.
Snit is just off kilter most of the time and dwells on minutia.

Nobody has the time, nor the inclination to check ALL the facts and
both snit and Roy benefit from that.

You seem to be supporting Roy, so I suggest you really take a closer
look because you will uncover some horrendous things wrt to Roy.

[Foster]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:26:07 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:


> Not to worry.

I don't.
Because I never posted that crap.
All I have ever done is refer to it.
And BTW how do you loons know it wasn't Roy himself posting it to
gain sympathy?
I wouldn't put it past that slimeball.

Makes more sense than Reiser knowing where his wife was buried
because he saw the person burying her.
Yet you never objected to that theory now did you?
Of course not, it was posted by a Linux "advocate".

[Snit]

On 7/19/12 7:29 PM, in article sbz87614dzhs$.lvkyr4u80ozy$.d...@40tude.net,
"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

> http://techrights.org/?stories
> Knock yourself out.
>
> Some advice:
>
> 1. Check the subject line and see what the article actually says
> 2. Check the sources and make sure they don't point back to Roy or
> one of his shills.
> 3. Factually check EVERYTHING.
>
> He has gotten better in recent months.

Yes, he has. Part of the reason, most likely, is the fact that I keep
calling him out on his BS.

To his credit, though, he has never once that I know of blocked or removed a
post of mine. He clearly disagrees with me and he and he crew attack me
with name calling and other BS, but he does not remove my posts. That does
speak well of him.

>>> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?
>>
>> ROFL! Unfortunately, for Snit, his reputation precedes him; that's
>> what happens when you've cried wolf once too often, you lose all
>> credibility like Snit has. It's a fact that people are loathe to read
>> what he writes... much less respond to it. That no one agrees with
>> whatever lies he may have found means nothing. The very idea that it
>> would is comical ;)
>
> It doesn't matter.
> Each claim stands on it's own.
>
> If David Berkowitz exposes the CIA for misappropriation of funds
> does it make it any less credible because of who he is?
>
> Judge the situation, not the posters.

As I say: base your view on the post and not the poster. I live by this -
with a few exceptions. And this is the Internet... if you are accepting as
fact things you read in Usenet without checking other sources you are going
to be deceived.

...

>>> You did good on the show.
>>
>> I thought he mostly did OK... I even stated as much on this ng.
>
> In that particular case he did do well.
> Better than I expected in fact.

To be fair, while Roy showed himself to be ignorant on several issues he was
pretending not to be, he was kind and respectful. On the show. After the
show he resorted to lies.

This is one of the things that helped me to understand that on a show such
as that it is much harder for someone to just dodge questions and points and
to try to sound knowledgeable on things they are not. No time to Google!

>>> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
>>> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.
>>
>> Well, he also tried to blow a little smoke... to no good effect.
>
> No he didn't.
> He admitted right away he had no experience, as I recall.
> Correct me if I am wrong.

On the things I had little experience with I openly admitted to it... never
tried to hide it on the show or in COLA. I was not "exposed"... which
implies I was trying to hide something: <http://tinyurl.com/6qnqct7>. I was
not.

Here are some of the key quotes from the show where I admitted to what I
*did* not know... with absolutely *no* attempt to hide or deny it:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/RoyTopics.txt>

Openly spoke about not using "KDE that much" and how I had not used the
then-newest PCLOS (reading that quote it appears I had not even installed it
or looked at it - I wrote earlier today I was not sure if I had... appears I
had not... I just simply did not recall that earlier today - again, no
attempt at deception or whatever my stalker wants to accuse me of today).
Amazing how he babbles about how I should not be trusted in the same thread
where he is clearly being, at best, deceptive about me.

>>> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
>>> lambasted you behind your back.
>>
>> I saw some of the stuff Roy said and I don't think it was as big a
>> deal as Snit made out. I probably didn't see it all, though... and
>> while I think Roy's comments that I saw were a tad over the top , the
>> idea behind them wasn't way out of whack. That said, i have seen some
>> of Roy's biases... as I have Snit's.
>
> Everyone has a bias.
> Roy wrote the book on it though and it's for commercial (hits and
> fame) gain.
> Snit is just off kilter most of the time and dwells on minutia.

I use details to show an overall point. For example, I pointed to the
Quit/Exit problem which has been referenced by others (and myself) for
years. I did not make that point because I think that one thing, alone, is
much of a problem - but it is indicative of something that should be trivial
to get right but which is *not* done right on desktop Linux. I have made
this very clear and I have spoken of other examples: other menu names and
placements (options vs. preferences), cut/copy/paste problems, hot key
inconsistencies, buttons placement problems, etc. So the point was not any
one of these "minutia" but the overall problem of a lack of consistency and
a lack of unity on desktop Linux systems. This is one of the things that
Roy and I spoke about - and we each shared what we thought existed on both
old and new PCLOS. I *knew* older PCLOS had these problems and predicted
the current one did, just based on my knowledge of the overall ecosystem (a
macro view - not minutia). Roy expressed his view that not only did the new
system, which he used, not have the problems I spoke about he denied the
older version did as well.

I showed both the old and the new versions and showed Roy was wrong...
though I also showed that PCLOS had matured more than I had predicted on the
show... and I was very open about this as well (so in that I was "exposed",
to use my stalker's word, as being wrong - but only through my own research
and my own reporting on it... hardly something a reasonable person would use
the word "exposed" to speak of). To the contrary - it showed I am honest
and honorable. Roy is not the one who found I was wrong ... *I* was. And I
not only did nothing to hide it I made sure it was made public.

When the data disagree with my claims I openly admit to it.

> Nobody has the time, nor the inclination to check ALL the facts and
> both snit and Roy benefit from that.

I checked those I said I would... and noted where I was wrong and where Roy
was wrong. I think it is very fair to say I was more correct than Roy, but
this does not imply I was fully correct or not surprised in any way by what
I found on a system I had not used before. Good! I learned. No shame in
that!

> You seem to be supporting Roy, so I suggest you really take a closer
> look because you will uncover some horrendous things wrt to Roy.

My stalker will work to twist things to make me look bad no matter what.
From what I have seen on this thread he is trying his best to be fair, but
he is not able to be. You noted, above, that we all have biases - and we
do. My stalker's bias toward me is just too strong for him to be even close
to being reasonable in any assessment involving me.

[DFS]

On 7/19/2012 2:05 AM, Hardon wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:08 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On Jul 18, 6:59 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hysterical stuff!
>>
>> Before I clicked the images I saw this:
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/articles-of-roy-schestowitz-4010022241/
>>

>> Certainly not what I have been hearing on this ng about Roy.
>

> <quote>
> What I find more interesting though, is that there are posts and other
> articles written to try and defame or discredit him. And some use some
> very strong language. Simply doing a Google search for "Roy
> Schestowitz" comes up with some examples. What in the world is going
> on here, and why are people trying so hard to discredit him for his
> articles on techrights.org?
> </quote>
>

> Attempted character defamation seems to be the only ploy the lying
> trolls posting here have.

Don't you need some character first, "Hardon"?

[Steve Carroll]

Well, Snit made the claim... but now it seems you are, too. Can't you
just point to something that is a blatant lie? I could go there and
not find what are being labeled as lies (especially by someone like
Snit).

> >> Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?
>
> > ROFL! Unfortunately, for Snit, his reputation precedes him; that's
> > what happens when you've cried wolf once too often, you lose all
> > credibility like Snit has. It's a fact that people are loathe to read
> > what he writes... much less respond to it. That no one agrees with
> > whatever lies he may have found means nothing. The very idea that it
> > would is comical ;)
>
> It doesn't matter.
> Each claim stands on it's own.

You're missing the point... most people don't read Snit's crap so the
idea that people would agree with him, or not, is irrelevant. You
obviously asked the question as a measurement... I'm telling you your
yardstick is broken.

> If David Berkowitz exposes the CIA for misappropriation of funds
> does it make it any less credible because of who he is?
>
> Judge the situation, not the posters.

How many "situations" do you need to be in where the same person is
lying over and over before you realize it's a complete waste of time
to read what they've written? The answer isn't "infinite". If David
Berkowitz claimed to expose the CIA for the thousandth time he
wouldn't be listened to anymore, either. What I'm saying is... due to
the fact that Snit has abused usenet and its readers for as long as he
has, his response isn't an accurate assessment of anything with
respect to your question; Snit's response has the least value of
virtually anyone you could ask. If you believe otherwise you're
fooling yourself. If you're asking him just to make him feel good...
fine... but there is no reason to ask him what you did and expect the
answer to hold any kind of value to anyone without a trolling ax to
grind. This is part of the cost Snit pays for doing what he has on
usenet. Here's the best way to show you... consider what you asked
Snit. Now change it up a little and pretend the person being spoken of
is Snit and you're asking someone, anyone, familiar with his posting
history:

Tell me, how much agreement have *you* gotten exposing his lies?

The answer is obvious... *tons*... and virtually anyone you ask who
has come into contact with him in COLA and CSMA would give that
answer. This is one reason why Snit's quotes list exists... but it's
just a snapshot of things he can't deny. For every quote by every
person that you see on that list, there are boatloads more that you
don't see and they all say pretty much the same thing. This is the
"situation" that Snit has created.

> > If there are really all these lies people should be able to point to
> > them. I saw one attempt today that pointed to a news article about MS
> > and hookers... but it wasn't really dishonest as it was reported.
>
> They do and have done so for years.
>
> Here is one example, there are many if you look for them.
>
> http://armchairtheorist.com/the-curious-case-of-boycott-novell/

A LOT to read there. Aren't there any shorter examples? Or can you
point to a spot in there that is blatantly dishonest and not just a
difference of opinion? To contrast, here are some examples of blatant
dishonesty on one topic...just from the last ~week:

"Yes, Carroll's best defense is that his then-girlfriend was a..."

"Carroll obsesses over his accusations from 2004 about me causing his
then-girlfriend to leave him and..."

"And it pisses him off that his then-girlfriend saw my calling Steve
out on..."

"...for almost a decade Carroll has been making the same claims. His
"evidence" that I did wrong is that I noted the behavior of his then-
girlfriend... "

"...Carroll has repeatedly accused me of impersonating this person his
girlfriend bragged about..."

"Carroll claims the info was already something I had posted to Usenet
but he never supports that... and his claim suggests his then-
girlfriend was a..."

"It is good to see Carroll admit that his then-girlfriend was..."

"but I made it very clear I was *not* attracted to Steve's then-
girlfriend"

"Specifically, that document shows where his then-girlfriend..."

Blatant dishonesty just isn't that difficult to show.

> In fact ZDnet closed down a thread because his shills invaded it.
> All public record.
>
> What you have to do is understand who is a shill (either way) and
> who is not.

I just look at the statements, they're either true or they're not...
but it's difficult to tell when it appears to be mostly a matter of
opinion.

> >>> Heck, people have noted that Roy no longer posts to COLA.  He stopped
> >>> shortly after I was on his show and then he made false claims about my
> >>> comments.
>
> >> You did good on the show.
>
> > I thought he mostly did OK...  I even stated as much on this ng.
>
> In that particular case he did do well.
> Better than I expected in fact.

I have seen Snit hold a rational discussion in the past...
unfortunately, he can't keep his crap out of it for long.

> >> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
> >> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.
>
> > Well, he also tried to blow a little smoke... to no good effect.
>
> No he didn't.
> He admitted right away he had no experience, as I recall.
> Correct me if I am wrong.

He admitted it but he still blew some smoke (my opinion).

> >> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
> >> lambasted you behind your back.
>
> > I saw some of the stuff Roy said and I don't think it was as big a
> > deal as Snit made out. I probably didn't see it all, though... and
> > while I think Roy's comments that I saw were a tad over the top , the
> > idea behind them wasn't way out of whack. That said, i have seen some
> > of Roy's biases... as I have Snit's.
>
> Everyone has a bias.
> Roy wrote the book on it though and it's for commercial (hits and
> fame) gain.
> Snit is just off kilter most of the time and dwells on minutia.

He's also an extreme pathological liar. His dwelling on minutia is
intentional... he thinks it covers his tracks. You say you don't read
all of these lengthy posts he writes. I have... as have a few
others... and until you do you can't claim to know what he's capable
of or not.

> Nobody has the time, nor the inclination to check ALL the facts and
> both snit and Roy benefit from that.
>
> You seem to be supporting Roy, so I suggest you really take a closer
> look because you will uncover some horrendous things wrt to Roy.

I'm not supporting anyone, all I'm doing is asking for people to
support their statements. If someone says a guy has a "website full of
propaganda and lies" he/she should be able to back it up when asked.
That I see it, you're supporting Snit far more than I am supporting
Roy... and you do it by claiming not to read his crap. If you're
really not reading it then you shouldn't claim he's this or that, you
simply don't know what he is. If you are reading then you're covering
for him (or trying to). This isn't conjecture, it's fact.

[Foster]

You're nuts if you can't see it.
Kill file time.
PLONK...

[Steve Carroll]

You're nuts if you think I'm going to plow through reams of shit to
find something you could easily point to *if* it exists.

> Kill file time.

Yeah, I think that's your best course of action at this point ;)

> PLONK...

You had a chance to support your claim and you pointed to something
that was a mish mash of opinions and you expected me to read through
it all to agree that Roy is dishonest? You don't even do that with
Snit. LOL!

[Steve Carroll]

On Jul 19, 9:07 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/12 7:29 PM, in article sbz87614dzhs$.lvkyr4u80ozy$....@40tude.net,

>
> "Foster" <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >http://techrights.org/?stories
> > Knock yourself out.
>
> > Some advice:
>
> > 1. Check the subject line and see what the article actually says
> > 2. Check the sources and make sure they don't point back to Roy or
> > one of his shills.
> > 3. Factually check EVERYTHING.
>
> > He has gotten better in recent months.
>
> Yes, he has.

Sure seems like you two are keeping a fairly close watch on him.
Strange, then, that neither one of you can point to a quick
(read:short) example of his alleged lying you both claim exists to a
monumental degree.

> Part of the reason, most likely, is the fact that I keep
> calling him out on his BS.

BS you just can't seem to easily point to for some reason.

> > Judge the situation, not the posters.
>
> As I say: base your view on the post and not the poster.

No one is writing about you based on things you didn't post. It's what
you have posted that causes virtually everyone to label you a liar,
troll or worse. Trying to separate yourself from the lies you have
written won't help you.

> To be fair, while Roy showed himself to be ignorant on several issues he was
> pretending not to be, he was kind and respectful.  On the show.  After the
> show he resorted to lies.

Point to one. If it's truly a lie and not just a difference of opinion
it should be easy to show.

> Openly spoke about not using "KDE that much" and how I had not used the
> then-newest PCLOS (reading that quote it appears I had not even installed it
> or looked at it - I wrote earlier today I was not sure if I had... appears I
> had not... I just simply did not recall that earlier today - again, no
> attempt at deception or whatever my stalker wants to accuse me of today).

Quit whining about the stuff you do that causes so many people not to
trust you.

> Amazing how he babbles about how I should not be trusted in the same thread
> where he is clearly being, at best, deceptive about me.

You'll show that 'deception' any minute now, too <eyeroll>.

> I use details to show an overall point.

You also use them to hide your BS... at least, you think it does.

> When the data disagree with my claims I openly admit to it.

Bull.

> My stalker will work to twist things to make me look bad no matter what.

I just pointed to a bunch of lies you told on the same topic in the
last week. Foster took one look, realized I was right and plonked me
because Foster is a troll who will not call you out on your lying... I
guess that makes you two "herd" members ;)

[Goblin]

Its "they" now it is? Fine Snit, you have your issue with Roy that
you've taken beyond extreme now, but what exactly did I do? Nothing I
think you will agree.

I wonder why now, whilst agreeing with Foster, you don't challenge him
on that small point?

I wonder why Foster would want to make out that the grievance you have
with the way Roy represented your opinions in anyway reflects on the way
I treated you.

It seems that Steve is certainly right when he brings a reference to
"herd" with you and Foster......that sure seems like the behaviour of
what you claim the "herd" does here.

Matters not though, since I suppose since Fosters latest attack on Roy
seems to have backfired and the person he refers to as a "slimeball" is
more relevant to him and his Microsoft Advocacy of insults and lies
which he has posted here for the last 17 years under different nyms.

So to quote you Snit, "Are you going to stand up to the herd" and
correct Foster about my treatment of you before, during and after the
show? Or are you going to stick with your herd and continue on?

Regards,

--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net

BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk

Email: bytes...@googlemail.com
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114824920343832764896/posts
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin

Skype: tim.openbytes

[William Poaster]

Here is a facsimile from Goblin who, on 20/7/2012 08:54, wrote:

> Its "they" now it is? Fine Snit, you have your issue with Roy that
> you've taken beyond extreme now, but what exactly did I do? Nothing I
> think you will agree.
>
> I wonder why now, whilst agreeing with Foster, you don't challenge him
> on that small point?
>
> I wonder why Foster would want to make out that the grievance you have
> with the way Roy represented your opinions in anyway reflects on the way
> I treated you.
>
> It seems that Steve is certainly right when he brings a reference to
> "herd" with you and Foster......that sure seems like the behaviour of
> what you claim the "herd" does here.
>
> Matters not though, since I suppose since Fosters latest attack on Roy
> seems to have backfired and the person he refers to as a "slimeball" is
> more relevant to him and his Microsoft Advocacy of insults and lies
> which he has posted here for the last 17 years under different nyms.

+1

> So to quote you Snit, "Are you going to stand up to the herd" and
> correct Foster about my treatment of you before, during and after the
> show? Or are you going to stick with your herd and continue on?

Don't hold your breath. Michael Snit Glasser is one of the "anti-Linux
herd", Flatfish nyms/Hadron/Zeke etc, as that seems to be who he hangs
out with. He can protest that he's not anti-Linux all he likes, (as does
teh trolling Hadron fuckwit) but qui cum canibus concumbunt cum
pulicibus surgent.

--
Old age and guile will always beat youth & stupidity.

Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.

"If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
be posting anything right now."
DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

[DFS]

If you can't spot Spamowitz's lies and idiocy in 10 seconds, you're a
lying idiot yourself.

Don't be a lying idiot :-)

>> Kill file time.
>
> Yeah, I think that's your best course of action at this point ;)

Plonking you and Snit and cc (demented arguing of inane points for weeks
in 'stats' threads) is the best course of action for anyone reading
cola, at this point in time.

It's unfortunate, 'cause cc can be amusing:

"Did you ever see the documentary, The Fly? A man invents teleportation
and also turns into a fly."

ha!!

>> PLONK...
>
> You had a chance to support your claim and you pointed to something
> that was a mish mash of opinions and you expected me to read through
> it all to agree that Roy is dishonest? You don't even do that with
> Snit. LOL!

Flattie supported her claim (actually the fact) that Spamowitz is a
lying douche.

[Foster]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:23:35 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 7/20/2012 1:15 AM, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 11:05 pm, Foster <frankfoste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You're nuts if you think I'm going to plow through reams of shit to
>> find something you could easily point to *if* it exists.
>
>
> If you can't spot Spamowitz's lies and idiocy in 10 seconds, you're a
> lying idiot yourself.
>
> Don't be a lying idiot :-)

Sounds like that TV commercial :)

>>> Kill file time.
>>
>> Yeah, I think that's your best course of action at this point ;)
>
> Plonking you and Snit and cc (demented arguing of inane points for weeks
> in 'stats' threads) is the best course of action for anyone reading
> cola, at this point in time.

It's true.

He complains about having to wade through my small posts and
examples yet he and snit post 200 line diatribes (s)nitpicking over
the most minor points. And doing it for years!

> It's unfortunate, 'cause cc can be amusing:

Yea, he can be funny and smart at the same time.

> "Did you ever see the documentary, The Fly? A man invents teleportation
> and also turns into a fly."
>
> ha!!

Yep.

>
>>> PLONK...
>>
>> You had a chance to support your claim and you pointed to something
>> that was a mish mash of opinions and you expected me to read through
>> it all to agree that Roy is dishonest? You don't even do that with
>> Snit. LOL!
>
> Flattie supported her claim (actually the fact) that Spamowitz is a
> lying douche.

It's all over the net.
He gives credence to some anonymous person shilling for Roy, axxm or
something like that, but at the same time discredits the comments
section where people tell it like it is.

Here's another one about what Roy is up to:

http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2011/01/whats-wrong-with-boycottnovell-example.html

And then there was the famous ZdNet thread about the SpanAir crash
where the ZDnet reporter, a legit person with a real name, had to
close the thread because Roy and his shills flooded the place with
Microsoft conspiracy theories and so forth.

The net is full of people exposing Roy for what he really is and if
people don't believe it, spend a little time reading his site and
join his chat channel and see for yourself.

Just remember to check every single link.
Every single one.

[Foster]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:42:23 +0100, William Poaster wrote:


>
> Don't hold your breath. Michael Snit Glasser is one of the "anti-Linux
> herd", Flatfish nyms/Hadron/Zeke etc, as that seems to be who he hangs
> out with. He can protest that he's not anti-Linux all he likes, (as does
> teh trolling Hadron fuckwit) but qui cum canibus concumbunt cum
> pulicibus surgent.

You and Chris Ahlstrom are even starting to sound alike.
That's scary.

[DFS]

On 7/20/2012 5:42 AM, William Poaster wrote:


> Don't hold your breath. Michael Snit Glasser is one of the "anti-Linux
> herd", Flatfish nyms/Hadron/Zeke etc, as that seems to be who he hangs
> out with. He can protest that he's not anti-Linux all he likes, (as does
> teh trolling Hadron fuckwit) but qui cum canibus concumbunt cum
> pulicibus surgent.

You got high on weed and your sargeant came on you in public?

Naughty naughty Dumb Willie...

[Snit]

On 7/20/12 12:54 AM, in article U88Or.21587$1o5....@fx03.am4, "Goblin"
<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

...
First, my newsreader sucks so when you respond without quoting it is not
easy for me to see what you are responding to. I found the post and quote
what I think are the relevant parts, below. If you could, I would prefer if
you could quote relevant sections in your replies so I can better see the
context.

> Its "they" now it is? Fine Snit, you have your issue with Roy that
> you've taken beyond extreme now, but what exactly did I do? Nothing I
> think you will agree.

The "they" I was in reference to was not in reference to you and Roy but to
the COLA "advocates" in general - as well as my stalker who has been
commenting on the show.

> I wonder why now, whilst agreeing with Foster, you don't challenge him
> on that small point?

The only use of the word "they" in the post you responded to was from me....
so I am not sure what you are in reference to. In context:

-----

I proved beyond any doubt that, at least in the areas being
discussed, I had a *much* better understanding of the open
source ecosystem than did Roy. This does not mean, of course,
that there might not be areas of the open source world where
Roy is more knowledgeable than I am, but it was quite telling
that in the areas we discussed Roy, who is supposedly a Linux
"advocate" and has a web site where he claims to do research,
was clearly less knowledgeable than I who the false COLA
"advocates" (the herd) claim is a "troll" who hates Linux!

They never did explain how and why this could happen... why a
"troll" or a "WinTroll" (who does not really like Windows,
but that is besides the point), would show - on the topics
discussed - better knowledge of a specific older Linux distro
and and an overall better understanding of the relevant parts
of the ecosystem that would allow me to show the things I
predicted (and Roy denied) on a distro Roy know and I did not!

----

And this is true... and it is true of you as well... though you have made
the choice, given your political and personal connections with Roy, and not
made claims either way (as far as I recall). As I have said I get that. I
do not hold that against you. Does not mean I do not wish you were more
forthcoming in this area, but I get why you are not.

> I wonder why Foster would want to make out that the grievance you have
> with the way Roy represented your opinions in anyway reflects on the way
> I treated you.

I have repeatedly noted I do not have any negative feelings toward you.
When he put you down I noted:

-----

He is clearly politically and emotionally tied to Roy, but I
still give him the benefit of the doubt. As I have noted
before, honest people tend to be too trusting... I admit I am
in that group. So be it.

-----

So while I can see where your refusal to speak about the above quote might
lead Foster or others to say you are Roy's "water boy" or whatever, I made
it clear I do not hold anything against you for not wanting to rock the
boat. It is not the same as most in COLA - you have tighter political and
personal ties to Roy, *and* you have not said things one way or the other in
terms of my showing greater knowledge than Roy (as described above).

> It seems that Steve is certainly right when he brings a reference to
> "herd" with you and Foster......that sure seems like the behaviour of
> what you claim the "herd" does here.

Absurd. I am in no herd... and openly noted I have a different view than
does Foster. I have also been accused of being in a herd with "Onion
Knight", when people are not lying about us being the same person. Also
absurd.

> Matters not though, since I suppose since Fosters latest attack on Roy
> seems to have backfired and the person he refers to as a "slimeball" is
> more relevant to him and his Microsoft Advocacy of insults and lies
> which he has posted here for the last 17 years under different nyms.
>
> So to quote you Snit, "Are you going to stand up to the herd" and
> correct Foster about my treatment of you before, during and after the
> show? Or are you going to stick with your herd and continue on?

What specific comments are you in reference to? I have repeatedly made it
clear I do not agree with Foster in terms of you... though I also do see
where he would come to some of his conclusions. It is true you refuse to
speak up about his poor behavior, no matter how absurd, though when he and I
had our disagreement you did speak poorly of *my* behavior, and have done so
since. So in that way you did take sides with the debate between Roy and
I... and you did so without ever acknowledging his obvious lacking of
knowledge and his lies (which I first attributed to his merely being
mistaken). So your hands are not completely clean in this... and that might
explain some of Foster's comments about you.

> Regards,

[Snit]

On 7/20/12 2:42 AM, in article volnd9-...@alpha-one.wpnetwork.org,

I am in no way "anti-Linux"... hence the reason you have no quotes from me
to back that accusation, nor will you find any. More on that here:

<http://tinyurl.com/7xzqvno>

I explain my views of Linux and OSS in some detail there.

[Goblin]

Thats all very nice. And thanks but the question still remains, where's
your challenge of Foster in respect of his comment?

I'll quote it again:

> You did good on the show.
> You admitted when you didn't have experience with a certain version
> of Linux, or something similar and as trivial as that.
>

> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
> lambasted you behind your back.

So, where's the call out of Foster? I didn't "lambast" you at all did I?
It would be nice (as you've often asked of other people) to correct
Foster on that small point directly.

As for my opinion of you and a "herd" - I'd say to put you in the same
group as Foster would be highly offensive and whilst your labouring of a
point may come over as completely OTT to me, I would not seek to suggest
that you have anything in common with something like Gary
Stewart/Foster/Flatfish. - The point does stand though that if you wish
to imply "herd" over people with a Linux/OSS choice, then its only fair
when issues like the above happen that the same "herd" remark is labeled
towards you.

[Goblin]

> Here's another one about what Roy is up to:
>
> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2011/01/whats-wrong-with-boycottnovell-example.html

Great source there Flatfish/Foster/Gary Stewart , a seemingly random
blog that in its "life" has made around 20 posts, the last of which
being in May 2011 and not even about Roy.

Well....I don't know about anyone else but forget ZDnet, forget Cnet,
BBC Click or anyone else....I've read Verofakto's out of date
blog....I'm convinced. ;)

Oh and for everyone else, the "blogger" can be found on Twitter, it
takes a very quick read of its tweets to see the "quality" of what
Foster is using of a source.

I suppose in Fosters case, beggars can't be choosers.

[DFS]

On 7/20/2012 1:08 PM, Goblin wrote:
>> Here's another one about what Roy is up to:
>>
>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2011/01/whats-wrong-with-boycottnovell-example.html
>>
>
>
> Great source there Flatfish/Foster/Gary Stewart , a seemingly random
> blog that in its "life" has made around 20 posts, the last of which
> being in May 2011 and not even about Roy.
>
> Well....I don't know about anyone else but forget ZDnet, forget Cnet,
> BBC Click or anyone else....I've read Verofakto's out of date
> blog....I'm convinced. ;)
>
> Oh and for everyone else, the "blogger" can be found on Twitter, it
> takes a very quick read of its tweets to see the "quality" of what
> Foster is using of a source.
>
> I suppose in Fosters case, beggars can't be choosers.

The best source to see Spamowitz's bullshit is his sham site techrights.org.

Another good source is to listen to his bullshit lies and idiocy on
those TechLoons 'podcasts' you guys do. On the only one I ever listened
to #47, he said Win7 is not a success, and you let him get away with it.

Where's your self-respect, Goob?

Also, do you actually put Roy up on a pedestal when he visits your house?

[Foster]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:21:54 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 7/20/2012 1:08 PM, Goblin wrote:
>>> Here's another one about what Roy is up to:
>>>
>>> http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2011/01/whats-wrong-with-boycottnovell-example.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Great source there Flatfish/Foster/Gary Stewart , a seemingly random
>> blog that in its "life" has made around 20 posts, the last of which
>> being in May 2011 and not even about Roy.
>>
>> Well....I don't know about anyone else but forget ZDnet, forget Cnet,
>> BBC Click or anyone else....I've read Verofakto's out of date
>> blog....I'm convinced. ;)
>>
>> Oh and for everyone else, the "blogger" can be found on Twitter, it
>> takes a very quick read of its tweets to see the "quality" of what
>> Foster is using of a source.
>>
>> I suppose in Fosters case, beggars can't be choosers.
>
>
> The best source to see Spamowitz's bullshit is his sham site techrights.org.

Yep.
Like I said, check and double check every single source and link he
posts.

Shane, the founder of Boycott Novell had some choice words for Roy
when he severed his relationship with the site.

> Another good source is to listen to his bullshit lies and idiocy on
> those TechLoons 'podcasts' you guys do. On the only one I ever listened
> to #47, he said Win7 is not a success, and you let him get away with it.

Exactly.
That's why I said wrt to Roy lambasting snit, Goober remained mostly
silent.
That's his method of choice.
It's classic good cop bad cop and snit falls for it.

> Where's your self-respect, Goob?

He has none.
He likes being Roy's water boy.

> Also, do you actually put Roy up on a pedestal when he visits your house?

I'll bet he has Roy's picture on his desk.

[Snit]

On 7/20/12 10:00 AM, in article S8gOr.66085$LY3....@fx22.am4, "Goblin"

He is right on this point.

>> He and Goober, who remained silent mostly which is just as bad,
>> lambasted you behind your back.

I disagree with him on this: I do not know of any place where you spoke
poorly about me behind my back (say on a later show or on your or his site
or in the IRC channels). You did say some derogatory things in COLA about
me but did not comment on the basic facts in terms of Roy's mistakes and -
as it turned out - dishonesty.

> So, where's the call out of Foster? I didn't "lambast" you at all did I?

You did blame me to some extent for Roy's refusal to answer for his own
actions... but I think the term "lambast" is strong.

> It would be nice (as you've often asked of other people) to correct
> Foster on that small point directly.

See above... I have noted where I disagree.

> As for my opinion of you and a "herd" - I'd say to put you in the same group
> as Foster would be highly offensive and whilst your labouring of a point may
> come over as completely OTT to me, I would not seek to suggest that you have
> anything in common with something like Gary Stewart/Foster/Flatfish. - The
> point does stand though that if you wish to imply "herd" over people with a
> Linux/OSS choice, then its only fair when issues like the above happen that
> the same "herd" remark is labeled towards you.

It is not in any way reasonable to label me as being in any form of herd.
You point to one item (the lack of calling out of others) as a key component
of what makes the false COLA "advocates" a herd. Ok, I know this is going
to be long and one of the things you chastise me for, but I want to be clear
as to why I think it is rather silly to say that I am acting in a herd-like
way by not always calling out Foster on things I disagree with (though
sometimes I do).

But calling people out on such things is only one tiny part of it - and I
have noted many times that this, alone, is not enough to deem any group as
"herd-like". Also note where I am clear, above, as to where I disagree
with Foster. But of the herd, as I have noted:

-----
* They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll"
is (essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd. If
an outsider comes in and sucks up to the herd they might be
able to escape being called this for a short time... but it
is rare. More often than not that are attacked or accused of
being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy
the irrational worldview of the herd.
-----

I do not attack outsiders of any group... or insiders of any group, really.
Even when COLA "advocates" speak in a reasoned way I respond to them in
kind. When they act in a way that shows herd-like thinking or behavior I do
note that... but that is merely noting their behavior, it is not an attack.
And when I do so I do so in response to a specific example, at least the
vast majority of the time (I am not denying their might be exceptions).

-----
* They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often
the herd speaks of who they are kill filtering and encourage
each other to also kill filter those outside of their group.
They even post lists of "members" who have broken this rule
and spoken to outsiders... and track the outsiders (as they
pretend to ignore them)
-----

I seek out outside information and do not kill filter people for holding
different ideas. I have set my Usenet reader to mark most of my stalker's
posts as read, but that is a special case and is only one person. I do have
other posts auto-marked as read but I have never publicly discussed my
system or encouraged others to "KF" the same posts I do. Heck, I do not
discourage you or others from speaking with my stalker.

-----
* They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one
simple (and mostly incorrect) explanation - the boogieman
(generally MS though sometimes others are included in this
made up conspiracy).
-----

I do not blame the problems on desktop Linux on any one thing: I speak in
terms of historic trends, problems with the ecosystem, weaknesses of the
systems, and in terms of applications (and am certainly open to other
ideas). Even with my "favored" OK, I speak in terms of its weaknesses and
am open to hearing of ones I did not know of, with a recent example of Peter
K�hlmann speaking about some wifi areas on OS X supporting only WEP, which
is a weakness. I also recently talked about how it is a weakness for OS X
to handle NTFS drives differently in its GUI and command line (I sort of get
why there is a difference [though as I think about it maybe not], but there
should be a warning). TomB is the one who pointed this out to me and I
tested and accepted this. So this shows I do not treat my "favored" OS in
the same way as the "advocates" nor do I shun information from "unfriendly"
sources.

-----
* They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each
other - no matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call
each other out. For example, not a single herd member has
called TomB out on his outrageous behavior of contacting my
Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman and noted
how repulsive his comments are. Same thing with K�hlmann's
seeding of Google with my personal information tied to his
lies.
-----

I do not seen Google with lies of any sort, and certainly do not use names
of people when they have made it clear they do not want their names used,
even if they are known. The only exceptions to this I can think of are a
couple which were done in reaction to people doing this to me, and even that
is rare.

-----
* They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their
irrational denial of Stallman's comments, even though they
come directly from his own site, the aforementioned obsession
with the boogieman, the attacks against those who are not of
the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack
those who do not chose as they do... all irrational. All
very cultish.
-----

I do not hold anyone on that type of pedestal. A recent example of this is
where I spoke of my *disagreement* with Jobs on the level of copying Android
has done from iOS. To be fair, I did at first take his word more seriously
than I perhaps should have, but even then I made it clear I wanted to see
more evidence. I have also talked about how Job's behavior towards Woz and
others is something I found to be unacceptable... from what I know of him he
was a brilliant visionary in many ways but also could be quite a selfish and
even delusional jerk. So there is no equivalent cult-like leader who I
follow or defend. I *certainly* would not defend Jobs if he had made the
types of comments about public school students and sexuality that Stallman
did!

These are just some examples of what makes the false COLA "advocates"
herd-like... and why I am not in any way like them.


Side note prediction: my stalker will pull quotes out of context from the
time period between 2004-2006 and claim that if I do not respond to them
that this is somehow representative of how I do act in ways I do not... and
will claim that if I do not *again* prove him wrong it is a sign I think
there is an expiration date on whatever wrongs he is accusing me of.

[Goblin]

On 20/07/12 19:22, Snit wrote:
> but I want to be clear
> as to why I think it is rather silly to say that I am acting in a herd-like

Firstly I said you cannot blame the label after your claims of herd. If
you read what I put I actually said that it was offensive to label you
in the same group as Foster/Gary Stewart/Flatfish.

I'll repeat what I said:


> As for my opinion of you and a "herd" - I'd say to put you in the same group as Foster would be highly offensive and whilst your labouring of a point may come over as completely OTT to me, I would not seek to suggest that you have anything in common with something like Gary Stewart/Foster/Flatfish. - The point does stand though that if you wish to imply "herd" over people with a Linux/OSS choice, then its only fair when issues like the above happen that the same "herd" remark is labeled towards you.

Now, if I was to take a leaf out of your book, I would write a massive
discourse about misrepresenting me, snipping, changing etc. But of
course thats not the case.

What I am saying is that the rules you use to define "herd" could be
forgiven for being put to you, on the basis of your own criteria. I
could give many examples where you conveniently ignored an fraudulent
allegation towards me by Foster and his Microsoft ilk, because it was
also serving your point against Roy (or anyone else). This latest one
is just a recent example, but there's ones that I noticed going back to
2011 that I can think of off the top of my head.

Like I say, if we play by your rules of "herd" then I would be quite
right to claim that of you. I shouldn't have to prompt you to correct
someone, if you are indeed not one of the herd......but then as I said,
I don't play those games and I repeat, I would class it as grossly
insulting to put you into the Foster/Microsoft Advocate group.....I
can't though blame other people for doing otherwise though...

Regards,

[Snit]

On 7/20/12 10:57 AM, in article jd7wah4en22e$.v1evawyi...@40tude.net,

"Foster" <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Another good source is to listen to his bullshit lies and idiocy on
>> those TechLoons 'podcasts' you guys do. On the only one I ever listened
>> to #47, he said Win7 is not a success, and you let him get away with it.
>
> Exactly.
> That's why I said wrt to Roy lambasting snit, Goober remained mostly
> silent.
> That's his method of choice.
> It's classic good cop bad cop and snit falls for it.

Goblin has asked me to speak about your derogatory comments about him. So
here goes for the ones above.

I disagree with your name calling. As far as Goblin refusing to speak of
Roy's obvious areas of ignorance about the desktop Linux ecosystem as well
as his incorrect claims about me which turned out to be lies (though I did
not think so at first), you are correct. Goblin has not, to the best of my
knowledge, ever spoken about that.

But he does have political and personal ties to Roy and for him to do so
would threaten those relationships. These relationships are closer than
those of others in COLA (as far as I know). So while I do not agree with
Goblin's silence on these matters, I do understand.

I also have noted where Goblin *has* chastised me in relation to the
"debate" between Roy and I. If he is going to stay out of it I think he
should have just stayed out of it... he did, in effect, take sides - even if
only in a minor way. I disagree with Goblin on his actions there.

So I do not fully agree with either of you, but do not see either of you as
being evil or bad or whatever... I need not fully agree with people to
respect them!

[Goblin]

On 20/07/12 19:42, Snit wrote:
> I also have noted where Goblin*has* chastised me in relation to the

> "debate" between Roy and I. If he is going to stay out of it I think he
> should have just stayed out of it...

Remember the IRC logs? I think you will find that I spoke out the same
way when you were spoken about in the channel... Just because it wasn't
in COLA doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I remember when others in the channel were making accusations, I
remember vividly stating the same for you as I did to Roy. If you care
to remember you were not even present in the chatroom at the time and I
brought your attention to the IRC logs in COLA at the same time...

I do hope you remember that incident. Because it was very important
that whilst Foster and his Microsoft ilk make all their silly little
lies about my opinions, I actually apply the same "rules" to everyone,
especially when its not a matter that personally involves me.

[Snit]

On 7/20/12 11:31 AM, in article ruhOr.21627$1o5....@fx03.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 20/07/12 19:22, Snit wrote:
>> but I want to be clear
>> as to why I think it is rather silly to say that I am acting in a herd-like
>
> Firstly I said you cannot blame the label after your claims of herd.

Since the claims are not only incorrect but irrational I think I can (heck,
I could even if they were not, it would be just with less reasoning behind
it... <grin>)

> If you read what I put I actually said that it was offensive to label you in
> the same group as Foster/Gary Stewart/Flatfish.

Yes: you did say that but you also said you can understand the label being
placed on me. I was quite detailed (perhaps too much so) on why I find that
rather silly.

> I'll repeat what I said:
>
>> As for my opinion of you and a "herd" - I'd say to put you in the same group
>> as Foster would be highly offensive and whilst your labouring of a point may
>> come over as completely OTT to me, I would not seek to suggest that you have
>> anything in common with something like Gary Stewart/Foster/Flatfish.

That I agree with (well, I do have *some* things* in common with pretty much
any person, but that is being a bit pedantic.)

>> - The point does stand though that if you wish to imply "herd" over people
>> with a Linux/OSS choice,

I should have focused on this more before - your "if" there is not true. To
be clear: I do *not* see people who prefer Linux/OSS as a herd of any sort
and have no intention to ever imply such. DFS made the claim that I had
said as much, but when asked to find examples he failed to. This does not
mean I have not said things that might be taken out of context (or worded
poorly) that might imply so, but it is certainly *not* my view.

>> then its only fair when issues like the above happen that the same "herd"
>> remark is labeled towards you.

So if something that is not true of me were then it might be fair to claim
that I am part of some herd because I do not call Foster out on all of his
claims I disagree with?

> Now, if I was to take a leaf out of your book, I would write a massive
> discourse about misrepresenting me, snipping, changing etc. But of
> course thats not the case.
>
> What I am saying is that the rules you use to define "herd" could be
> forgiven for being put to you, on the basis of your own criteria.

I disagree... very strongly. I have given you a partial list of the
criteria of why I consider the false "advocates" of COLA to be a herd-like
group and why I am not like that.

> I could give many examples where you conveniently ignored an fraudulent
> allegation towards me by Foster and his Microsoft ilk, because it was also
> serving your point against Roy (or anyone else).

I ignore many accusations against both "sides".

> This latest one is just a recent example, but there's ones that I noticed
> going back to 2011 that I can think of off the top of my head.

I am sure there are many examples of my responding to posts and not calling
people out on points I disagree with - even accusations against people.
With that said, in terms of you I have repeatedly noted how I disagree with
what Foster says of you - and he has repeatedly claimed I am being fooled by
you or the like. He and I have made it clear we disagree on our view of you
- I do not see the need to note it every time he says something about you I
disagree with.

> Like I say, if we play by your rules of "herd" then I would be quite right to
> claim that of you.

This is in no way true.

> I shouldn't have to prompt you to correct someone, if you are indeed not one
> of the herd......but then as I said, I don't play those games and I repeat, I
> would class it as grossly insulting to put you into the Foster/Microsoft
> Advocate group.....I can't though blame other people for doing otherwise
> though...

You are implying that I have said individual incidences of ignoring comments
which one disagrees with about someone makes them be a part of a herd... but
I have not. I have noted that is *one* aspect of the herd that makes them
be herd-like. And it is not just saying derogatory things about someone -
it is the seeding of Google with my name, the mocking of my family, the
lying about my personal and professional life, etc. that the herd never
speaks out against, or do so only under the most rare of circumstances.

> Regards,

[Snit]

On 7/20/12 12:22 PM, in article deiOr.14418$3s1...@fx12.am4, "Goblin"

<bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 20/07/12 19:42, Snit wrote:

>> I also have noted where Goblin *has* chastised me in relation to the

>> "debate" between Roy and I. If he is going to stay out of it I think he
>> should have just stayed out of it...
>
> Remember the IRC logs? I think you will find that I spoke out the same
> way when you were spoken about in the channel... Just because it wasn't
> in COLA doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I would like to see the logs.

> I remember when others in the channel were making accusations, I remember
> vividly stating the same for you as I did to Roy. If you care to remember you
> were not even present in the chatroom at the time and I brought your attention
> to the IRC logs in COLA at the same time...

Now that you mention this I do vaguely remember it... but not the details.

> I do hope you remember that incident. Because it was very important
> that whilst Foster and his Microsoft ilk make all their silly little
> lies about my opinions, I actually apply the same "rules" to everyone,
> especially when its not a matter that personally involves me.

I would say you are more hesitant to call certain people out on their claims
which are clearly incorrect or even dishonest.

[Goblin]

On 20/07/12 20:53,

Snit wrote:> So if something that is not true of me were then it might

be fair to claim
> that I am part of some herd because I do not call Foster out on all
of his
> claims I disagree with?

This is the point I am making. No you are not part of a Microsoft
Advocacy herd for merely failing to point out all of Foster's
shortcomings, but then was ityou who has repeatedly said in the past
words to the effect of

"Why don't you call out xxxxxx you won't because you are part of the herd"?

You've said that countless times and as I remarked, applying the same
rules towards you, I could not blame people for using your games against
you.. I on the other hand don't think you are part of a Microsoft
advocacy herd, however its not unfair (like in my above recent example)
to highlight in respect of me what you have highlighted in so many others.

> I have given you a partial list of the
> criteria of why I consider the false "advocates" of COLA to be a
herd-like
> group and why I am not like that

Unfortunately, due to your excessive amounts of text, I have missed
that. If you'd like to repeat it or link directly to the article great.
I'm sorry, as much as I find your topics of interest, the relaboured
points have me missing much. For that I sincerely apologize.

> I do not see the need to note it every time he says something about you I
> disagree with.

Very true, you do not. So why then over the past year (and thats just
from memory) have you repeatedly said words to the effect of:

"Why don't you call out xxxxx, you won't because you are part of the herd"

>
> This is in no way true.

Why? You've made a decision about a group of people labeled a herd, for
actions perceived.... Why can't others do the same to you? If you are
seen to be siding with the Microsoft Advocates, not challenging
statements that you know to be false about someone who you've had past
experience, why is it unfair for you to be labeled part of that herd?
Like I said, I could have thrown that one at you. I don't because to
associate you with Microsoft Advocates here is, in my opinion very
offensive.

I think rather than "herd" many people are guilty of "missing text" of
those who share a common purpose, be it love of OSS or promotion of
Microsoft Products. You are sort of an odd one here since your personal
choice is Apple products (and others) (and no, I do not have any issue
at all with that choice).... Its funny reading the text of Foster (and
his past claims about others) - Read his text, he's happy to side with
you on any post which helps his agenda, but since you certainly have an
Apple preference in many products, he'll (and I'll quote him here)
"throw you to the wolves" at a moments notice.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - Doubt that? Cast you eye over the
last 5-10 posts by Foster. Like a true microsoft advocate he "bah's"
like a sheep, but unzip the costume and there's a wolf underneath.

Don't take my word for it, look for yourself.

[Goblin]

On 20/07/12 20:55, Snit wrote:
> On 7/20/12 12:22 PM, in article deiOr.14418$3s1...@fx12.am4, "Goblin"
> <bytes...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/07/12 19:42, Snit wrote:
>>> I also have noted where Goblin *has* chastised me in relation to the
>>> "debate" between Roy and I. If he is going to stay out of it I think he
>>> should have just stayed out of it...
>>
>> Remember the IRC logs? I think you will find that I spoke out the same
>> way when you were spoken about in the channel... Just because it wasn't
>> in COLA doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>
> I would like to see the logs.
>
>> I remember when others in the channel were making accusations, I remember
>> vividly stating the same for you as I did to Roy. If you care to remember you
>> were not even present in the chatroom at the time and I brought your attention
>> to the IRC logs in COLA at the same time...
>
> Now that you mention this I do vaguely remember it... but not the details.
>
>> I do hope you remember that incident. Because it was very important
>> that whilst Foster and his Microsoft ilk make all their silly little
>> lies about my opinions, I actually apply the same "rules" to everyone,
>> especially when its not a matter that personally involves me.
>
> I would say you are more hesitant to call certain people out on their claims
> which are clearly incorrect or even dishonest.
>

Snit this was over a year ago and I spoke to you at the time about it.
I cannot remember the dates, but I'm pleased you seem to remember the