I would have been OK with the thread being locked had you not taken the time to grossly abuse your power before doing so.
In order to make your argument look better, you took a pretty sharp jab at me and then immediately locked the thread so that I couldn't respond to it. For that, in my opinion you should be stripped of your moderator title.
This sounds really good except for the fact that your statements are dishonest and don't convey the facts. You claim that I am making assumptions, however the only person here that makes assumptions is you my friend. This silly attempt to redirect the focus from your lies is not going to work. Unless you delete this thread of course.
Lets analyze your latest bout of crazy.
First, you claim that I am making an assumption that the Wikimedia foundation is not owned by Microsoft. So, which one of their board members are Microsoft employees then? I also find nothing in their annual report about any agreement with Microsoft. I'll need *YOU* to provide some evidence that it is somehow tainted. Prove it, or withdraw your claim and accept my data as evidence against your imaginary claim that Linux has more than 1-2% market share.
Source: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/...s_to_the_Board
Source: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
You said: "I recited the NetApplications data above because I find it interesting"
I gave you adequate evidence, and you immediately dismissed it refusing to acknowledge much less accept the possibility of it being credible. Instead you went back to talking about NetApplications, as if they were ever a part of the topic.
I really don't give a flying f..k about NetApplications. Please stop talking about them, it just makes you look like an idiot.
Second, you claim that I make an assumption about PAM being vulnerable. I made no assumption, I provided hard irrefutable data that there was a vulnerability.
"2010-07-08 Ubuntu PAM MOTD File Tampering (Privilege Escalation)"
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...5031#msg235031
I also said "The released exploit though greatly increases your risk if you don't manage your computer properly.". Again, not an assumption.
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...7891#msg237891
Lastly, you go on to make a claim that I make some assumption about ownership of a hacker's website. I made no such assumption. This is just another of your lies.
What I actually said was "Note that those are all published exploits so I won't link you to them, you understand I'm sure."
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...5031#msg235031
I also said "Keep in mind also that inj3cr0r.com is an academic site and not the malware underground, so you normally won't find published exploits there until the vendor (in this case Canonical / Ubuntu) have released patches." which is not untrue. I never claimed that it wasn't a hacker site, I claimed that it wasn't the malware underground. You distorted my statement so you could pretend to say that I said something I didn't. Seems you will say or do whatever is necessary to try to prove your claim even if it means being dishonest.
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...7891#msg237891
You can't prove your case with facts, so you simply stack lie on top of lie trying to get people to believe you. You then claim that I have blinders on when it would seem that you my friend are the one with the inability to accept evidence to prove your fairy tale to be false.
Source Article: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...1548#msg241548
Have a nice day, and don't forget those pills.
In order to make your argument look better, you took a pretty sharp jab at me and then immediately locked the thread so that I couldn't respond to it. For that, in my opinion you should be stripped of your moderator title.
Another assumption on your part, which you cannot verify. Reminds me about the assumptions you made about the PAM security hole, followed by your assumptions about the hacker website's ownership, ALL of which were wrong.
Lets analyze your latest bout of crazy.
First, you claim that I am making an assumption that the Wikimedia foundation is not owned by Microsoft. So, which one of their board members are Microsoft employees then? I also find nothing in their annual report about any agreement with Microsoft. I'll need *YOU* to provide some evidence that it is somehow tainted. Prove it, or withdraw your claim and accept my data as evidence against your imaginary claim that Linux has more than 1-2% market share.
Source: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/...s_to_the_Board
Source: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report
You said: "I recited the NetApplications data above because I find it interesting"
I gave you adequate evidence, and you immediately dismissed it refusing to acknowledge much less accept the possibility of it being credible. Instead you went back to talking about NetApplications, as if they were ever a part of the topic.
I really don't give a flying f..k about NetApplications. Please stop talking about them, it just makes you look like an idiot.
Second, you claim that I make an assumption about PAM being vulnerable. I made no assumption, I provided hard irrefutable data that there was a vulnerability.
"2010-07-08 Ubuntu PAM MOTD File Tampering (Privilege Escalation)"
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...5031#msg235031
I also said "The released exploit though greatly increases your risk if you don't manage your computer properly.". Again, not an assumption.
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...7891#msg237891
Lastly, you go on to make a claim that I make some assumption about ownership of a hacker's website. I made no such assumption. This is just another of your lies.
What I actually said was "Note that those are all published exploits so I won't link you to them, you understand I'm sure."
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...5031#msg235031
I also said "Keep in mind also that inj3cr0r.com is an academic site and not the malware underground, so you normally won't find published exploits there until the vendor (in this case Canonical / Ubuntu) have released patches." which is not untrue. I never claimed that it wasn't a hacker site, I claimed that it wasn't the malware underground. You distorted my statement so you could pretend to say that I said something I didn't. Seems you will say or do whatever is necessary to try to prove your claim even if it means being dishonest.
Source: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...7891#msg237891
You can't prove your case with facts, so you simply stack lie on top of lie trying to get people to believe you. You then claim that I have blinders on when it would seem that you my friend are the one with the inability to accept evidence to prove your fairy tale to be false.
Source Article: http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...1548#msg241548
Have a nice day, and don't forget those pills.
Comment