• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Has WINDOWS 7 RC Differences To Retail ???

  • Thread starter Trimble Bracegirdle
  • Start date
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 4/1/2010 12:22 AM, Joel wrote:
> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
>
>>> Frank's statement is presumably meant to troll
>>> the Linux people, but then again, he jumped on me for recommending
>>> Firefox over IE.

>>
>> No, I didn't.
>> I challenged your statement that FF was more secure than IE.

>
>
> Which is one of the dumbest things anyone could ever do.


No, calming FF was the most secure, as you did, was the dumbest.
>
>
>> I proved you wrong.

>
>
> Not even in the slightest.


And with verifiable, empirical data!
Oops!...LOL!
>
>
>> Live with it.

>
>
> Live with the fact that you're delusional, peculiar, and downright a
> fruitcake? Well, life isn't perfect, so I've learned to live with
> things like that.


You have problems with wanting everyone to think your smart, which is
your one BIG failing as you're rather stupid, as you've just proven.
>
>
>> It's actually as if he has something against the
>>> concept of alternatives, especially free ones (except for how he posts
>>> with Thunderbird, of course - really bright guy).

>>
>> Try reading my original statement and maybe taking that GED reading
>> comprehension course you've been contemplating.

>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:15:25 -0700
> From: Frank<fab@w7.crm>
> Message-ID:<4bb2e885$1@news.x-privat.org>
>
> On 3/30/2010 9:55 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
>> I guess you don't read the EULA's or pay attention to what is illegal or
>> not.
>> Open source is good for you...at least you're not breaking any laws when
>> you use it.

>
> Well that is a matter that may someday be thoroughly tested in the
> courts.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What other conclusion could one reach, in the context of your tirades
> against Linux, and blatant foolishness about IE being more secure than
> Firefox, than that you are criticizing open-source software as somehow
> ripping off commercial software?


So why have open sores started to pay royalties huh?
Oops!
>
> If you want to clarify your "original statement", feel free - flaming
> me about taking a GED reading course isn't clarifying anything,
> retard.


Keep back pedaling, you're pretty good...and it's entertaining!
Oops!...LOL!
>
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Frank <fb@tbb.moz> wrote:

>>> I challenged your statement that FF was more secure than IE.

>>
>> Which is one of the dumbest things anyone could ever do.

>
>No, calming FF was the most secure, as you did, was the dumbest.



Wrong.


>>> I proved you wrong.

>>
>> Not even in the slightest.

>
>And with verifiable, empirical data!
>Oops!...LOL!



Wrong.


>>> Live with it.

>>
>> Live with the fact that you're delusional, peculiar, and downright a
>> fruitcake? Well, life isn't perfect, so I've learned to live with
>> things like that.

>
>You have problems with wanting everyone to think your smart, which is
>your one BIG failing as you're rather stupid, as you've just proven.



Keep telling yourself that, fruitcake.


>> What other conclusion could one reach, in the context of your tirades
>> against Linux, and blatant foolishness about IE being more secure than
>> Firefox, than that you are criticizing open-source software as somehow
>> ripping off commercial software?

>
>So why have open sores started to pay royalties huh?
>Oops!



So I *was* right about your original statement, and you were "back
pedaling". Oops! Btw, you're freakin' clueless about the royalties
issue. Feel free to develop the mind of a college sophomore.


>> If you want to clarify your "original statement", feel free - flaming
>> me about taking a GED reading course isn't clarifying anything,
>> retard.

>
>Keep back pedaling, you're pretty good...and it's entertaining!
>Oops!...LOL!



You're just making shit up, idiot. I didn't "back pedal" in any way
whatsoever - you did, in fact. Oops.

LOL.

--
Joel Crump
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 4/1/2010 1:32 PM, Joel wrote:
> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
>
>>>> I challenged your statement that FF was more secure than IE.
>>>
>>> Which is one of the dumbest things anyone could ever do.

>>
>> No, calming FF was the most secure, as you did, was the dumbest.

>
>
> Wrong.


Right.
>
>
>>>> I proved you wrong.
>>>
>>> Not even in the slightest.

>>
>> And with verifiable, empirical data!
>> Oops!...LOL!

>
>
> Wrong.


You like being made a fool of in public, huh?
I guess you do. I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
and still you deny it?
You're even dumber than I thought, fool!
>
>
>>>> Live with it.
>>>
>>> Live with the fact that you're delusional, peculiar, and downright a
>>> fruitcake? Well, life isn't perfect, so I've learned to live with
>>> things like that.


If you don't like the fact that I kicked your stupid, arrogant ass then
get lost.
>>
>> You have problems with wanting everyone to think your smart, which is
>> your one BIG failing as you're rather stupid, as you've just proven.

>
>
> Keep telling yourself that, fruitcake.


Thanks for proving my point...again!
>
>
>>> What other conclusion could one reach, in the context of your tirades
>>> against Linux, and blatant foolishness about IE being more secure than
>>> Firefox, than that you are criticizing open-source software as somehow
>>> ripping off commercial software?

>>
>> So why have open sores started to pay royalties huh?
>> Oops!

>
>
> So I *was* right about your original statement, and you were "back
> pedaling". Oops! Btw, you're freakin' clueless about the royalties
> issue. Feel free to develop the mind of a college sophomore.


I guess you know nothing about the royalty contacts some open sores
companies have signed with MS huh?
Figures!
You're lost and rambling on in an incoherent manner. Get some help.
>
>
>>> If you want to clarify your "original statement", feel free - flaming
>>> me about taking a GED reading course isn't clarifying anything,
>>> retard.

>>
>> Keep back pedaling, you're pretty good...and it's entertaining!
>> Oops!...LOL!

>
>
> You're just making shit up, idiot. I didn't "back pedal" in any way
> whatsoever - you did, in fact. Oops.
>
> LOL.
>

Damn! Do you have your panties all in a bunch or what?
Oops!...LOL!
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Frank <fb@tbb.moz> wrote:

>>>>> I proved you wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Not even in the slightest.
>>>
>>> And with verifiable, empirical data!
>>> Oops!...LOL!

>>
>> Wrong.

>
>You like being made a fool of in public, huh?
>I guess you do. I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
>and still you deny it?
>You're even dumber than I thought, fool!



I told you why that info didn't prove your point. You're too simple-
minded to understand that.


>>>> What other conclusion could one reach, in the context of your tirades
>>>> against Linux, and blatant foolishness about IE being more secure than
>>>> Firefox, than that you are criticizing open-source software as somehow
>>>> ripping off commercial software?
>>>
>>> So why have open sores started to pay royalties huh?
>>> Oops!

>>
>> So I *was* right about your original statement, and you were "back
>> pedaling". Oops! Btw, you're freakin' clueless about the royalties
>> issue. Feel free to develop the mind of a college sophomore.

>
>I guess you know nothing about the royalty contacts some open sores
>companies have signed with MS huh?
>Figures!
>You're lost and rambling on in an incoherent manner. Get some help.



I know that they have nothing to do with it being legal to run the
software - it's a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Get some help
with comprehending, instead of just parroting.


>>> Keep back pedaling, you're pretty good...and it's entertaining!
>>> Oops!...LOL!

>>
>> You're just making shit up, idiot. I didn't "back pedal" in any way
>> whatsoever - you did, in fact. Oops.
>>
>> LOL.
>>

>Damn! Do you have your panties all in a bunch or what?
>Oops!...LOL!



Why would I? Arguing with you is one of the easiest exercises I do
all day.

--
Joel Crump
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 4/2/2010 1:40 AM, Joel wrote:
> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I proved you wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even in the slightest.
>>>>
>>>> And with verifiable, empirical data!
>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>
>>> Wrong.

>>
>> You like being made a fool of in public, huh?
>> I guess you do. I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
>> and still you deny it?
>> You're even dumber than I thought, fool!

>
>
> I told you why that info didn't prove your point.


You were/are wrong.

You're too simple-
> minded to understand that.


You're obviously and ego driven moron.
>
>
>>>>> What other conclusion could one reach, in the context of your tirades
>>>>> against Linux, and blatant foolishness about IE being more secure than
>>>>> Firefox, than that you are criticizing open-source software as somehow
>>>>> ripping off commercial software?
>>>>
>>>> So why have open sores started to pay royalties huh?
>>>> Oops!
>>>
>>> So I *was* right about your original statement, and you were "back
>>> pedaling". Oops! Btw, you're freakin' clueless about the royalties
>>> issue. Feel free to develop the mind of a college sophomore.

>>
>> I guess you know nothing about the royalty contacts some open sores
>> companies have signed with MS huh?
>> Figures!
>> You're lost and rambling on in an incoherent manner. Get some help.

>
>
> I know that they have nothing to do with it being legal to run the
> software - it's a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Get some help
> with comprehending, instead of just parroting.


hehehe...you have no idea what you're talking about. But keep up the
pretense...it's fun watching you dance!
>
>
>>>> Keep back pedaling, you're pretty good...and it's entertaining!
>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>
>>> You're just making shit up, idiot. I didn't "back pedal" in any way
>>> whatsoever - you did, in fact. Oops.
>>>
>>> LOL.
>>>

>> Damn! Do you have your panties all in a bunch or what?
>> Oops!...LOL!

>
>
> Why would I? Arguing with you is one of the easiest exercises I do
> all day.


Numb & dumb best describe you!
Oops!...LOL!
>
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Frank <fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:

>>> You like being made a fool of in public, huh?
>>> I guess you do. I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
>>> and still you deny it?
>>> You're even dumber than I thought, fool!

>>
>> I told you why that info didn't prove your point.

>
>You were/are wrong.



No, you are wrong.


> You're too simple-
>> minded to understand that.

>
>You're obviously and ego driven moron.



Oh, *that* is funny. You're *obsessive*.


>>> I guess you know nothing about the royalty contacts some open sores
>>> companies have signed with MS huh?
>>> Figures!
>>> You're lost and rambling on in an incoherent manner. Get some help.

>>
>> I know that they have nothing to do with it being legal to run the
>> software - it's a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Get some help
>> with comprehending, instead of just parroting.

>
>hehehe...you have no idea what you're talking about. But keep up the
>pretense...it's fun watching you dance!



Your failure to respond to the point is noted. Just like the IE
debate, you completely ignore any deeper understanding of the issue.
Pathetic.


>>> Damn! Do you have your panties all in a bunch or what?
>>> Oops!...LOL!

>>
>> Why would I? Arguing with you is one of the easiest exercises I do
>> all day.

>
>Numb & dumb best describe you!
>Oops!...LOL!



I'll take your word for it.

--
Joel Crump
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 4/3/2010 1:47 AM, Joel wrote:
> Frank<fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:
>
>>>> You like being made a fool of in public, huh?
>>>> I guess you do. I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
>>>> and still you deny it?
>>>> You're even dumber than I thought, fool!
>>>
>>> I told you why that info didn't prove your point.

>>
>> You were/are wrong.

>
>
> No, you are wrong.


You are still wrong.
>
>
>> You're too simple-
>>> minded to understand that.

>>
>> You're obviously and ego driven moron.

>
>
> Oh, *that* is funny. You're *obsessive*.


You obviously like having your ass kicked in here seeing as how
everyone, even alias, is kicking it!
Oops!...LOL!
>
>
>>>> I guess you know nothing about the royalty contacts some open sores
>>>> companies have signed with MS huh?
>>>> Figures!
>>>> You're lost and rambling on in an incoherent manner. Get some help.
>>>
>>> I know that they have nothing to do with it being legal to run the
>>> software - it's a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Get some help
>>> with comprehending, instead of just parroting.

>>
>> hehehe...you have no idea what you're talking about. But keep up the
>> pretense...it's fun watching you dance!

>
>
> Your failure to respond to the point is noted.


I provided verifiable empirical data as proof of my point. And you
provided...nothing but your big stupid arrogant mouth!
Oops!

Just like the IE
> debate, you completely ignore any deeper understanding of the issue.
> Pathetic.
>

Do you have an empirical data to back up your assertion or do you think
running your stupid mouth will suffice.
>
>>>> Damn! Do you have your panties all in a bunch or what?
>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>
>>> Why would I? Arguing with you is one of the easiest exercises I do
>>> all day.

>>
>> Numb& dumb best describe you!
>> Oops!...LOL!

>
>
> I'll take your word for it.


Good move!
>
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Frank <fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:

>>>>> I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
>>>>> and still you deny it?
>>>>> You're even dumber than I thought, fool!
>>>>
>>>> I told you why that info didn't prove your point.
>>>
>>> You were/are wrong.

>>
>> No, you are wrong.

>
>You are still wrong.



No, you still don't get it.


>>> You're obviously and ego driven moron.

>>
>> Oh, *that* is funny. You're *obsessive*.

>
>You obviously like having your ass kicked in here seeing as how
>everyone, even alias, is kicking it!
>Oops!...LOL!



OK, I'll bite. How did Alias kick my ass? Surely you aren't talking
about how he embarrassed himself royally in the thread about
MS Outlook. He was so far off the reservation it wasn't even funny.
You really are a complete idiot if you didn't catch that.


>>>> I know that they have nothing to do with it being legal to run the
>>>> software - it's a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Get some help
>>>> with comprehending, instead of just parroting.
>>>
>>> hehehe...you have no idea what you're talking about. But keep up the
>>> pretense...it's fun watching you dance!

>>
>> Your failure to respond to the point is noted.

>
>I provided verifiable empirical data as proof of my point.



No, you said that they have contracts. No details whatsoever.


> And you
>provided...nothing but your big stupid arrogant mouth!
>Oops!



Wrong. I clarified the issue, since you were so disingenuous about
it. You have continued to *fail* to respond to that, and are just
shooting off your "big stupid arrogant mouth".


> Just like the IE
>> debate, you completely ignore any deeper understanding of the issue.
>> Pathetic.
>>

>Do you have an empirical data to back up your assertion or do you think
>running your stupid mouth will suffice.



You made an assertion, not me. You didn't provide evidence, despite
your rambling lies about supposedly having done so. You're just a
nutty fruitcake, and an idiot.


>>> Numb& dumb best describe you!
>>> Oops!...LOL!

>>
>> I'll take your word for it.

>
>Good move!



Yeah, OK - fruitcake.

--
Joel Crump
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 4/3/2010 11:25 AM, Joel wrote:
> Frank<fb@sr2.cmm> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I posted the info...you saw it and so did everyone else
>>>>>> and still you deny it?
>>>>>> You're even dumber than I thought, fool!
>>>>>
>>>>> I told you why that info didn't prove your point.
>>>>
>>>> You were/are wrong.
>>>
>>> No, you are wrong.

>>
>> You are still wrong.

>
>
> No, you still don't get it.
>

Now you're projecting.
>
>>>> You're obviously and ego driven moron.
>>>
>>> Oh, *that* is funny. You're *obsessive*.

>>
>> You obviously like having your ass kicked in here seeing as how
>> everyone, even alias, is kicking it!
>> Oops!...LOL!

>
>
> OK, I'll bite. How did Alias kick my ass? Surely you aren't talking
> about how he embarrassed himself royally in the thread about
> MS Outlook. He was so far off the reservation it wasn't even funny.
> You really are a complete idiot if you didn't catch that.


Keep on thinking that and you can remain our punching bag in here!
Oops!
>
>
>>>>> I know that they have nothing to do with it being legal to run the
>>>>> software - it's a patent issue, not a copyright issue. Get some help
>>>>> with comprehending, instead of just parroting.
>>>>
>>>> hehehe...you have no idea what you're talking about. But keep up the
>>>> pretense...it's fun watching you dance!
>>>
>>> Your failure to respond to the point is noted.

>>
>> I provided verifiable empirical data as proof of my point.

>
>
> No, you said that they have contracts. No details whatsoever.


WoW! You're really lost!
>
>
>> And you
>> provided...nothing but your big stupid arrogant mouth!
>> Oops!

>
>
> Wrong. I clarified the issue, since you were so disingenuous about
> it. You have continued to *fail* to respond to that, and are just
> shooting off your "big stupid arrogant mouth".
>


You are an unmitigated idiot and you keep on proving that fact.
Oops!
>
>> Just like the IE
>>> debate, you completely ignore any deeper understanding of the issue.
>>> Pathetic.
>>>

>> Do you have an empirical data to back up your assertion or do you think
>> running your stupid mouth will suffice.

>
>
> You made an assertion, not me. You didn't provide evidence, despite
> your rambling lies about supposedly having done so. You're just a
> nutty fruitcake, and an idiot.


Damn it sure is a simple matter for all to get your panties in a
bunch!...LOL!
>
>
>>>> Numb& dumb best describe you!
>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>
>>> I'll take your word for it.

>>
>> Good move!

>
>
> Yeah, OK - fruitcake.


You must be the only person who openly admits to liking "fruitcake"!...LOL!
 
J

Joel

Flightless Bird
Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:

>>> You obviously like having your ass kicked in here seeing as how
>>> everyone, even alias, is kicking it!
>>> Oops!...LOL!

>>
>> OK, I'll bite. How did Alias kick my ass? Surely you aren't talking
>> about how he embarrassed himself royally in the thread about
>> MS Outlook. He was so far off the reservation it wasn't even funny.
>> You really are a complete idiot if you didn't catch that.

>
>Keep on thinking that and you can remain our punching bag in here!
>Oops!



Ah, so you and Alias are conspiring with each other to troll the NG,
including by pretending to troll each other - thank you for the
admission.


[snip the self-admitted troll's idiotic stupidity]

--
Joel Crump
 
F

Frank

Flightless Bird
On 4/4/2010 2:07 PM, Joel wrote:
> Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
>
>>>> You obviously like having your ass kicked in here seeing as how
>>>> everyone, even alias, is kicking it!
>>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bite. How did Alias kick my ass? Surely you aren't talking
>>> about how he embarrassed himself royally in the thread about
>>> MS Outlook. He was so far off the reservation it wasn't even funny.
>>> You really are a complete idiot if you didn't catch that.

>>
>> Keep on thinking that and you can remain our punching bag in here!
>> Oops!

>
>
> Ah, so you and Alias are conspiring with each other to troll the NG,
> including by pretending to troll each other - thank you for the
> admission.


OMG! You're confusing education with intelligence!
But seeing as how you apparently have little of either, its
understandable.
 
Top