David Leverton wrote:
Because allowing him to viciously attack us over, and over, and over, and
over, and over again is not acceptable.
I have been trying to bite my tongue but I have to ask this. Is what
you are doing any better? It's not something I want a answer to either
becaus
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:14:47 b.n. wrote:
> > Frankly, the more you challenge him this mindless way, the more I
> > believe him.
>
> If you think in such backwards logic then I don't care who you believe.
>
>
A apo
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 01:16:06 b.n. wrote:
> No, that's *your* problem now, because you and your accolites now look
> like a bunch of arrogant a**holes, instead of helpful people.
If that helps drive away idiots, then fine. Non-idiots won't use that as a
reason to use or not to use the
David Leverton ha scritto:
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 00:27:54 b.n. wrote:
If he *knew* it was idiotic, he *would not* have done it, isn't it?
That's his problem.
No, that's *your* problem now, because you and your accolites now look
like a bunch of arrogant a**holes, instead of helpful
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 00:27:54 b.n. wrote:
> If he *knew* it was idiotic, he *would not* have done it, isn't it?
That's his problem.
> Until I will see anti-paludis campaigns in the streets, sorry, it's just
> paranoia.
That seems like a rather arbitrary restriction. As you said, most
On Wednesday 17 September 2008 00:10:26 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> I provided evidence.
You provided lies.
> You attacked me.
I defended my project against your attacks.
> That is the last thing I will post in this thread or as an answer to you.
A likely story.
David Leverton ha scritto:
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 23:53:20 b.n. wrote:
David Leverton ha scritto:
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 23:18:42 b.n. wrote:
I am not going to do it because of the treatment I'd be reserved by
people like ciaranm, or you, if I only needed help or disagreed with
you
On Wednesday 17 September 2008, David Leverton wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:47:49 »Q« wrote:
> > It's not "backwards logic".
>
> "The Paludis developer posts evidence that the liar is lying, therefore I'm
> going to believe the liar" is entirely backwards.
since you can't stop and fill
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 23:53:20 b.n. wrote:
> David Leverton ha scritto:
> > On Tuesday 16 September 2008 23:18:42 b.n. wrote:
> >> I am not going to do it because of the treatment I'd be reserved by
> >> people like ciaranm, or you, if I only needed help or disagreed with
> >> your opinions.
David Leverton ha scritto:
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 23:18:42 b.n. wrote:
I am not going to do it because of the treatment I'd be reserved by people
like ciaranm, or you, if I only needed help or disagreed with your opinions.
What on Earth makes you think that?
Your behaviour.
The IRC lo
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:47:49 »Q« wrote:
> > It's not "backwards logic".
>
> "The Paludis developer posts evidence that the liar is lying, therefore I'm
> going to believe the liar" is entirely backwards.
>
>
What'
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:47:49 »Q« wrote:
> It's not "backwards logic".
"The Paludis developer posts evidence that the liar is lying, therefore I'm
going to believe the liar" is entirely backwards.
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 23:18:42 b.n. wrote:
> I am not going to do it because of the treatment I'd be reserved by people
> like ciaranm, or you, if I only needed help or disagreed with your opinions.
What on Earth makes you think that? Volker is certainly not asking for help,
and he is not
David Leverton ha scritto:
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:14:47 b.n. wrote:
Frankly, the more you challenge him this mindless way, the more I
believe him.
If you think in such backwards logic then I don't care who you believe.
It's not backwards logic.
The important words are "this mindle
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:05:22 +0100
David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:14:47 b.n. wrote:
> > Frankly, the more you challenge him this mindless way, the more I
> > believe him.
>
> If you think in such backwards logic then I don't care who you
> believe.
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 22:14:47 b.n. wrote:
> Frankly, the more you challenge him this mindless way, the more I
> believe him.
If you think in such backwards logic then I don't care who you believe.
David Leverton ha scritto:
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 00:11:30 b.n. wrote:
If it's so, what's the point of bitching with him? You won't change his
mind. So, you're again just wasting bytes.
Because people might believe him if he is allowed to go unchallenged.
Frankly, the more you challen
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM, b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, why catfighting now?
>
>
Because all the guys here are probably really lesbians trapped in mens
bodies.
:)
--
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil [EMAIL PROTECTED]"[
Allan Gottlieb ha scritto:
I am a delighted gentoo user who neither uses plaudis nor has any
complaint with it or its developers. I also don't use kde, but have
no complaint with it or its developers.
I wonder if we could end this plaudis argument, as I don't see how the
argument can actually h
19 matches
Mail list logo
