Re: Has WINDOWS 7 RC Differences To Retail ???

[LD55ZRA]

Joel wrote:

>



> Heh ...

>



You are completely speechless right?

 

[Joel]

LD55ZRA wrote:



>> Heh ...

>

>You are completely speechless right?





Well, yeah, basically. Frank's statement is presumably meant to troll

the Linux people, but then again, he jumped on me for recommending

Firefox over IE. 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).



--

Joel Crump

 

[Frank]

On 3/31/2010 9:50 PM, Joel wrote:

> LD55ZRA wrote:

>

>>> Heh ...

>>

>> You are completely speechless right?

>

>

> Well, yeah, basically. 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.

I proved you wrong.

Live with it.



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.

 

[Joel]

Frank 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.





>I proved you wrong.





Not even in the slightest.





>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.





> 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

Message-ID:



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?



If you want to clarify your "original statement", feel free - flaming

me about taking a GED reading course isn't clarifying anything,

retard.



--

Joel Crump

 

[Frank]

On 4/1/2010 12:22 AM, Joel wrote:

> Frank 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

> Message-ID:

>

> 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!

>

 

[Joel]

Frank 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

 

[Frank]

On 4/1/2010 1:32 PM, Joel wrote:

> Frank 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!

 

[Joel]

Frank 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

 

[Frank]

On 4/2/2010 1:40 AM, Joel wrote:

> Frank 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!

>

 

[Joel]

Frank 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

 

[Frank]

On 4/3/2010 1:47 AM, Joel wrote:

> Frank 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!

>

 

[Joel]

Frank 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

 

[Frank]

On 4/3/2010 11:25 AM, Joel wrote:

> Frank 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!

 

[Joel]

Frank 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

 

[Frank]

On 4/4/2010 2:07 PM, Joel wrote:

> Frank 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.