Re: Tony "Do nothing".
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:46:10 +0000 (UTC)
Joe Dunning <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:10:19 +0000 (UTC), email@example.com
>>Jeff Liebermann <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:49:09 +0000, FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x>
>>>Meanwhile, since you've degenerated into attacking people instead of
>>>ideas, may I again suggest that you refrain from engaging in personal
>>>attacks and kindly deal with issues, opinions, and facts. If you
>>>expect the entire newsgroup to instantly abandon SCO products and
>>>follow the yellow brick road toward enlightenment and Linux, kindly
>>>act in a manner that would not put you on par with Daryl McBride and
>>>cease with the labels and character assassinations.
>>Oh, let him get it off his chest. I don't mind being called names.
>>He's very angry, and that is certainly understandable. What he can't
>>understand is that just because someone pisses you off doesn't
>>mean they don't have a right to do whatever it is they are doing.
>>Joe is angry. I'm angry. Joe thinks his anger rules the world, that
>>HIS opinions are what everyone else should follow. I know better. The
>>world will think what it likes.
>Try reading, would you? This thread was started by FyRE. Look at the
>attributions in the postings. None of the parents of this post were
>written by me. I have no idea who FyRE is, except that he and I are not
>the same person.
You sound like the same person. Bull-headed, constantly harping
at the same thing over and over again.
>Oh, and I do recognise everyone's rights to have dissenting opinions.
>What I dislike is those who want to discuss a topic, and to defend the
>actions of others, yet shelter behind equivocation.
Um, Joe: just what do you consider equivocation? Once more:
If IBM released SCO that SCO controls, SCO has a right to pursue
I don't know whether the alleged code really is in violation or
not. I've never seen it (nor have you) and I'm not qualified
to comment on its ancestry anyway.
I doubt that the wild conspiracy theories are true, but admit that
they are certainly not impossible. I think it's quite possible
that SCO is confused and has incorrectly identified the source of
the alleged code, but it's also possible that they have a real
No matter which of these is actually true, I think SCO has done
a very foolish and dangerous act by this suit, and has now
compounded it by attacking the GPL. I think they will regret
this deeply. I fear that this can do real damage to everyone
but Microsoft, who only stands to gain from it.
What's equivocal about that, Joe?