Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!63.218.45.11.MISMATCH!newshosting.com!
news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!167.206.3.103.MISMATCH!
news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
Lines: 71
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:39:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1066142375 24.69.255.232 (Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:39:35 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:39:35 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:378
Hello Dear Friends:
I have made some statements in this NG concerning The SCO Group's duplicity
that may have upset some of the die-hard SCO FanBoys.
Well , first of all I would like to say... Too Fucking Bad!
The SCO Group and it's puppet master Microsoft have employed every means
available to slander and FUD the Open Source community, the GPL, Linux and
even it's developers.
The fact that you die hard SCO FanBoys are so ignorant as to be ignoring the
obvious truths is disgusting.
SCO is claiming that IBM breached it's contract by revealing trade secrets
and contributing proprietary code to Linux!
I stated in an earlier post that The SCO Group was delaying providing any
substantive proof of what trade secrets and code IBM is alledged to have
contributed to Linux.
One ignorant individual opined that this is standard operating procedure.
This is what I mean about being a *CLUELESS* SCO FanBoy! Consider this
TRUTH for just a moment, you file a lawsuit against somebody alledging they
revealed trade secrets and misappropriated code, and then 6 months go by
and you are still dragging your feet NOT revealing what trade secrets and
what code.
IBM actually had to file a motion (Oct 8) compelling SCO to provide
specifics and SCO is *STILL* dragging it's feet! (this is fact)
Hands up anybody who believes that is Standard Operating Procedure for a
plaintiff! Will all those with their hands up please file to the left where
the Florida Real Estate Association has some beach property for sale.
Just Where the Hell is this prized Intellectual Property that SCO is trying
to protect?
Here is a link to a PDF of the motion filed by IBM:
http://www.groklaw.com/pdf/ibmmotiontocompel.pdf
Oh, IBM has agreed to full confidentiality so that is not an issue, the
issue is: "Where's The Beef"!
Does anybody not get what is wrong with this picture?
SCO is doomed - there is no grey area there. IBM is going to squish SCO like
a bug even before RedHat gets a chance at bat.
You people who continue to support SCO Of The Past better give your head a
shake 'cause them days is long gone. The codebase is practically valueless
in comparison to the massive upwardly mobile Linux so whoever crushes SCO
first will probably get first dibs on what happens to the Trade Secret
infested code base (that is sarcasm) - I am thinking the libraries get
GPLed and any encumbered code is simply forgotten (that is opinion).
Now I know Tony thinks that IBM's demand for proof is just my opinion but I
recommend you SCO FanBoys keep track of current events.
As for Darl McBride, Blake Stowell and Chris Sontag? They are liars trying
to run a con! (no grey area there)
Any comments NOT relating to my size, anger or health?
8^)
Thank you,
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: jlsels...@my-deja.com (J. L. Schilling)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Date: 14 Oct 2003 12:11:31 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <ff3c0649.0310141111.488abd85@posting.google.com>
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.124.204.226
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066158691 23813 127.0.0.1
(14 Oct 2003 19:11:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:11:31 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:388
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote in message news:
<HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>...
>
> The SCO Group and it's puppet master Microsoft have employed every means
> available to slander and FUD the Open Source community, the GPL, Linux and
> even it's developers. [...]
>
> SCO is claiming that IBM breached it's contract by revealing trade secrets
> and contributing proprietary code to Linux! [...]
>
> IBM actually had to file a motion (Oct 8) compelling SCO to provide
> specifics and SCO is *STILL* dragging it's feet! (this is fact) [...]
>
> Any comments NOT relating to my size, anger or health?
Why sure. I know it's politically incorrect to point out grammar
mistakes, but you consistently use the contraction "it's" when you
mean the possessive "its" (no apostrophe).
In other words, you do not mean to say that the SCO Group *is* the
puppet master Microsoft (which is sort of what the contraction usage
would imply), but rather that the SCO Group *has* a puppet master,
which is named Microsoft.
I'm afraid that this repeated error, along with the loss of the
"Scum Sucking Lying Thieves" addition to the company name, ruined
your latest rant for me.
Jonathan Schilling
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!
uni-berlin.de!morton-adsl-2-29.mtco.COM!not-for-mail
From: Tom Felker <tcfe...@mtco.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:32:16 -0500
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <pan.2003.10.14.22.32.16.656560@mtco.com>
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: morton-adsl-2-29.mtco.com (207.179.235.29)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1066170763 24332286 207.179.235.29 (16 [200774])
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:408
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:39:35 +0000, Brian wrote:
> Hello Dear Friends:
>
> I have made some statements in this NG concerning The SCO Group's
> duplicity that may have upset some of the die-hard SCO FanBoys.
I wonder if that has more to do with your tone than what you're saying.
I'm a Linux person, and I've been poking my nose in here recently to get a
more balanced idea of the whole thing. So I completely agree with you.
But from what I've seen, pretty much everyone here thinks SCO is way off
base. Consider that some of them sell SCO software, and I can't imagine
the lawsuit helping things. A lot of people here don't drink the OSS
Kool-aid, and aren't totally convinced of IBM's innocence or the GPL's
strength, but I think "die-hard SCO FanBoys" (and the rest of the insults
you've been throwing) is unjustified, and it makes us look bad.
--
Tom Felker, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
McBride: "I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five..."
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!63.218.45.11.MISMATCH!newshosting.com!
news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!167.206.3.103.MISMATCH!
news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<pan.2003.10.14.22.32.16.656560@mtco.com>
Lines: 72
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <n6bjb.101661$9l5.61567@pd7tw2no>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:31:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1066221075 24.69.255.232 (Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:31:15 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:31:15 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:441
Tom Felker wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:39:35 +0000, Brian wrote:
>> I have made some statements in this NG concerning The SCO Group's
>> duplicity that may have upset some of the die-hard SCO FanBoys.
> I wonder if that has more to do with your tone than what you're saying.
I tried to be nice but was treated like an ignorant schmoe.
> I'm a Linux person, and I've been poking my nose in here recently to
> get a more balanced idea of the whole thing. So I completely agree
> with you.
OK.
> But from what I've seen, pretty much everyone here thinks SCO is
> way off base. Consider that some of them sell SCO software, and I
> can't imagine the lawsuit helping things.
I have no more consideration for the SCO resellers than The SCO Group has
for the Linux community.
I think SCO resellers should immediately suspend sales of SCO software. I
think they should talk with their SCO handler and complain bitterly about
this unfounded attack on Linux, the GPL and the entire Open Source
community.
I think anybody that supports The SCO Group is supporting the attack and as
such is complicit.
> A lot of people here don't drink the OSS Kool-aid,
You do not have to be a Linux or Open Source user or tradeworker to
understand what is wrong with The SCO Group and their claims. All you have
to do is open your eyes and do a little reading.
> and aren't totally convinced of IBM's innocence or the GPL's
> strength,
IBM's innocence has little to do with anything - it is SCO's total failure
to provide any evidence in support of it's allegations about copied code -
even during discovery.
Lots of talking *TRASH* but No Evidence!
Nothing!
Nada!
Zip!
Zero!
Dick!
Does *anyone* here believe for a second you can win a case or extract a
license fee without providing proof of ownership?
> but I think "die-hard SCO FanBoys" (and the rest of the insults
> you've been throwing) is unjustified, and it makes us look bad.
Perhaps it makes ME look bad but I could care less!
It's about time these guys had a little reality check and perhaps did
something about it! Who better?
So, why don't you be The Good Linux Guy and I will be The AntiSCO Guy.
Best regards,
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!
news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!
not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:45:01 +0200
From: Kim Petersen <k...@kim.privat.kyborg.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; da; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225
X-Accept-Language: da
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
In-Reply-To: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <3f8db1d4$0$29369$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
Organization: TDC Totalloesninger
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.62.90.39
X-Trace: 1066250713 dread15.news.tele.dk 29369 80.62.90.39:55318
X-Complaints-To: ab...@post.tele.dk
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:458
Brian skrev:
> Hello Dear Friends:
>
> One ignorant individual opined that this is standard operating procedure.
> This is what I mean about being a *CLUELESS* SCO FanBoy! Consider this
> TRUTH for just a moment, you file a lawsuit against somebody alledging they
> revealed trade secrets and misappropriated code, and then 6 months go by
> and you are still dragging your feet NOT revealing what trade secrets and
> what code
The above is a very bright insight into your mind, and what you might
possibly want to gain here .... - i think i was that *CLUELESS* SCO FanBoy.
Funny enough, i've been using Linux as a professional tool, since 0.99.
I've had 3 businesses selling, advocating and supporting Linux since
then. I've set up one 100% pure Linux ISP, and am at the moment hired at
a Cobol shop, to bring them into the 21 century - which incidently
includes slowly fasing out all our customers SCO boxes (~30 servers) and
converting them to Linux - wholesale.
I've used the last year in this company, trying to get the SCO boxes
that cannot be fased out fast (either because the customer doesn't have
the cash - or just recently installed the boxes), to use some of the
modern opensource (GPL) stuff - unfortunatly that isn't always easy (and
in case of OpenOffice a pretty much impossible task).
So i'll just stand here alone in this room as the one *CLUELESS* SCO
FanBoy - methinks.
PS: It might actually be enlightening for you, to once in a while to
take the colored sunglasses off your nose, and actually read what people
are writing.
>
> 8^)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian
>
--
Mvh/Regards
Kim Petersen
Jens Grøns Vej 11, 7100 Vejle, DK - Denmark
+45 75 83 15 50
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 39
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bmknub$qs8$3@pcls4.std.com>
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1066263307 27528 192.74.137.185
(16 Oct 2003 00:15:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:15:07 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX)
(IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:462
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>Hello Dear Friends:
>I have made some statements in this NG concerning The SCO Group's duplicity
>that may have upset some of the die-hard SCO FanBoys.
While there may be Linux fanboys, I doubt there are any SCO fanatics.
Your failure to understand that none of use have any emotional
investment here is amazing.
>The fact that you die hard SCO FanBoys are so ignorant as to be ignoring the
>obvious truths is disgusting.
I've told you over and over again that the only problem I have with
your rants is that you state that they are truth rather than opinion.
We aren't ignoring anything. Most of us (on the outside of SCO
at least) aren't waving any flags for SCO's victory. We think
it's a lousy, awful mess, but we aren't so bullheaded stupid that
we insist that they couldn't have a case. There's a lot of reason
to think they don't, but we DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.
>One ignorant individual opined that this is standard operating procedure.
>This is what I mean about being a *CLUELESS* SCO FanBoy! Consider this
Oh, sheesh. His comment had nothing to do with SCO, it was a
comment about lawyers.
>You people who continue to support SCO Of The Past better give your head a
Another error. Few of us are "supporting" SCO. We have SCO servers that
we administer, or we have clients with same. Most of us also have
Linux, Mac, Windows, servers. This is largely a group of
business people, not OS fanatics.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed2.kddnet.ad.jp!
news-out.superfeed.net!propagator2-maxim!feed-maxim.newsfeeds.com!
pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<3f8db1d4$0$29369$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
Lines: 49
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <ZRjb.114335$6C4.33746@pd7tw1no>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:17:47 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066396667 24.69.255.232 (Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:17:47 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:17:47 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:535
Kim Petersen wrote:
> Brian wrote...
>> One ignorant individual opined that this is standard operating procedure.
>> This is what I mean about being a *CLUELESS* SCO FanBoy! Consider this
>> TRUTH for just a moment, you file a lawsuit against somebody alledging
>> they revealed trade secrets and misappropriated code, and then 6 months
>> go by and you are still dragging your feet NOT revealing what trade
>> secrets and what code
<clipped declaration of authority and much back patting >
> So I'll just stand here alone in this room as the one *CLUELESS* SCO
> FanBoy - methinks.
Listen, you could be Linus Bloody Torvalds himself but if you make a
bizarrely misleading statement I reserve the right to call you on it.
In all your dialogue you failed to either qualify or refute; here is my
statement and your remarks:
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
> delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of it's
> proof of violation of proprietary rights.
This is a regular tactics, nothing new under the sun here - they will
eventually have to deliver the documents - but in the meantime, they
are using their right to stall.
I am sorry but this is where the epithet "Clueless" enters into my
statement.
SCO goes to all the time, effort, trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit
against a Goliath and then drags it's feet producing the most basic
elements of it's arguments.
Do you really believe this is "regular tactics"? Are you standing by that
statement?
> PS: It might actually be enlightening for you, to once in a while to
> take the colored sunglasses off your nose, and actually read what
> people are writing.
Well, actually, I try to take the time to read everybody's replies - what
did I miss?
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserver.com!
newshosting.com!news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!167.206.3.103.MISMATCH!
news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no> <bmknub$qs8$3@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 72
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <npSjb.114354$6C4.100944@pd7tw1no>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:46:59 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066398419 24.69.255.232 (Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:46:59 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 07:46:59 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:537
to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>>I have made some statements in this NG concerning The SCO Group's
>>duplicity that may have upset some of the die-hard SCO FanBoys.
> While there may be Linux fanboys, I doubt there are any SCO fanatics.
What?
> Your failure to understand that none of use have any emotional
> investment here is amazing.
Your opinion.
>>The fact that you die hard SCO FanBoys are so ignorant as to be
>>ignoring the obvious truths is disgusting.
> I've told you over and over again that the only problem I have with
> your rants is that you state that they are truth rather than opinion.
Specify!
In other words, Put Up or Shut Up!
> We aren't ignoring anything. Most of us (on the outside of SCO
> at least) aren't waving any flags for SCO's victory. We think
> it's a lousy, awful mess, but we aren't so bullheaded stupid that
> we insist that they couldn't have a case. There's a lot of reason
> to think they don't, but we DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.
I suggest you are so Bullheaded Stupid (your words) that you choose to
ignore the most obvious facts in the case, including SCO's public
statements versus what they are really doing in the case. SCO claims
discovery is now in full swing BUT SCO is not supporting its claims with
the most basic elements of proof - What Trade Secrets and What Code!!!!
Where Is The Beef?
>>One ignorant individual opined that this is standard operating
>>procedure. This is what I mean about being a *CLUELESS* SCO
>>FanBoy! Consider this
> Oh, sheesh. His comment had nothing to do with SCO, it was a
> comment about lawyers.
Are you sure that is what Kim meant? Or is that just your opinion of what
Kim meant?
> The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
> delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of
> it's proof of violation of proprietary rights.
This is a regular tactics, nothing new under the sun here - they will
eventually have to deliver the documents - but in the meantime, they
are using their right to stall.
>>You people who continue to support SCO Of The Past better give your
>>head a
> Another error. Few of us are "supporting" SCO. We have SCO servers
> that we administer, or we have clients with same. Most of us also
> have Linux, Mac, Windows, servers. This is largely a group of
> business people, not OS fanatics.
I am not going to argue this point. What I will say is when I make
statements and then OPs respond with counter points and arguments, I
reserve the right to respond.
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:16:11 +0200
From: Kim Petersen <k...@kyborg.dk>
Organization: Kyborg A/S
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20030225
X-Accept-Language: da, en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<3f8db1d4$0$29369$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
<ZRjb.114335$6C4.33746@pd7tw1no>
In-Reply-To: <ZRjb.114335$6C4.33746@pd7tw1no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <3f8ff9ab$0$29360$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.198.126.161
X-Trace: 1066400171 dread15.news.tele.dk 29360 80.198.126.161:10412
X-Complaints-To: ab...@post.tele.dk
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:541
Brian wrote:
> Kim Petersen wrote:
>
>>Brian wrote...
>>
>>>One ignorant individual opined that this is standard operating procedure.
>>>This is what I mean about being a *CLUELESS* SCO FanBoy! Consider this
>>>TRUTH for just a moment, you file a lawsuit against somebody alledging
>>>they revealed trade secrets and misappropriated code, and then 6 months
>>>go by and you are still dragging your feet NOT revealing what trade
>>>secrets and what code
>
>
> <clipped declaration of authority and much back patting >
>
>>So I'll just stand here alone in this room as the one *CLUELESS* SCO
>>FanBoy - methinks.
>
>
> Listen, you could be Linus Bloody Torvalds himself but if you make a
> bizarrely misleading statement I reserve the right to call you on it.
>
> In all your dialogue you failed to either qualify or refute; here is my
> statement and your remarks:
>
>
>
>>The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
>>delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of it's
>>proof of violation of proprietary rights.
>
>
> This is a regular tactics, nothing new under the sun here - they will
> eventually have to deliver the documents - but in the meantime, they
> are using their right to stall.
>
>
> I am sorry but this is where the epithet "Clueless" enters into my
> statement
>
> SCO goes to all the time, effort, trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit
> against a Goliath and then drags it's feet producing the most basic
> elements of it's arguments.
Hmm, as far as i've read the IBM argument - the problem isn't that they
haven't provided the material - in fact the problem is exactly the
opposite - they've provided just about everything (including probably
xeroxes of toiletpaper that some obscure SCO engineer wrote down some
"highly" relevant facts on.
Note - SCO is in this case providing material for IBM's *defence* - not
material that SCO has an invested interest in that IBM gets right.
The more SCO can delay IBM's defence - the better they can work on their
arguments. This is basic regular tactics for lawyers. It may cause them
to be declared in contempt (but thats a payable bill) - which has
absolutely nothing to do with the actual endresults. But so far they're
just dragging their feet until the time where they actually have to lay
down the cards.
[analysis: SCO wins time, IBM looses time - good for SCO, bad for IBM].
>
> Do you really believe this is "regular tactics"? Are you standing by that
> statement?
Yes, i do. It irritates my ass just as much as it does yours - but so is
the world....
And if you'd actually read further in my responce you'd have noticed
that i actually believe that SCO is damaging any "potential" right that
they might procure from a very (from my pov) unlikely win.
>
>
>>PS: It might actually be enlightening for you, to once in a while to
>>take the colored sunglasses off your nose, and actually read what
>>people are writing.
>
>
> Well, actually, I try to take the time to read everybody's replies - what
> did I miss?
See above, try to actually read what i wrote in my responce.
>
> Brian
>
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: to...@aplawrence.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:35:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://www.aplawrence.com
Lines: 79
Sender: Tony Lawrence <a...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Message-ID: <bmoun3$sit$1@pcls4.std.com>
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<bmknub$qs8$3@pcls4.std.com> <npSjb.114354$6C4.100944@pd7tw1no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1066401315 29277 192.74.137.185
(17 Oct 2003 14:35:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:35:15 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX)
(IRIX64/6.5 (IP27))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:542
Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>>I have made some statements in this NG concerning The SCO Group's
>>>duplicity that may have upset some of the die-hard SCO FanBoys.
>> While there may be Linux fanboys, I doubt there are any SCO fanatics.
>What?
I doubt that there are any SCO fanatics. Linux has a large base of
real fans, people who have an emotional involvement with the OS,
much like some people have with their favorite sports team. Other
OSes have their fans too: ever listen to a die hard Amiga fan?
If you can find a SCO fanatic at all, it will be a long search. The
people here are administrators, programmers, businesspeople who
have no emotional investment in the product. It's possible that
some of the SCO employees might have some emotional ties, but I
bet for most of them it's much more a love of Unix in general than
SCO specifically.
>
>> I've told you over and over again that the only problem I have with
>> your rants is that you state that they are truth rather than opinion.
>Specify!
>In other words, Put Up or Shut Up!
Once again, I don't need to put up anything. I'm not the one
insisting that there is only one possible interpretation of the facts we
have at hand. You are the one who is loudly and rudely insisting
that your opinions are gospel and everyone else is blind.
>
>> We aren't ignoring anything. Most of us (on the outside of SCO
>> at least) aren't waving any flags for SCO's victory. We think
>> it's a lousy, awful mess, but we aren't so bullheaded stupid that
>> we insist that they couldn't have a case. There's a lot of reason
>> to think they don't, but we DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH.
>I suggest you are so Bullheaded Stupid (your words) that you choose to
>ignore the most obvious facts in the case, including SCO's public
I'm not ignoring anything. I assert that it is in fact you that are
blind to anything that doesn't match your view of what this must
be all about.
>What I will say is when I make
>statements and then OPs respond with counter points and arguments, I
>reserve the right to respond.
Well, gosh, Brian, has anyone restrained you from responding? Just
how would we do that? You are entitled to your opinion, and if you
understood and admitted that it is just opinion, and toned down
the unnecessary vitriol, you might find that people are willing
to calmly and rationally discuss your thoughts.
You seem to be the one who allows no room for any views contrary
to your own. I freely admit that your view is POSSIBLE, though
I do seriously doubt the wilder conspiracy aspects. I also
don't think it is appropriate to accuse people of illegality
until you have all the facts, but I certainly do understand your
anger. This can be very serious, and as I have said many times,
I think it was wrong EVEN IF THEY REALLY HAVE EVIDENCE. I
think we have the risk of real damage here, much to the glee of
Microsoft, I'm sure. On the other hand, I also am aware that
something like this had to happen sooner or later, and while
this may not be the best time (because of the pro big-business
attitudes of the current administration), that's the way it
fell and we have to live with it.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!
pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<3f8db1d4$0$29369$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
<3f8ff9ab$0$29360$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
Lines: 75
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <cFUjb.115245$6C4.20463@pd7tw1no>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:20:24 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066407624 24.69.255.232 (Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:20:24 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:20:24 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:548
Kim Petersen wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>> SCO goes to all the time, effort, trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit
>> against a Goliath and then drags it's feet producing the most basic
>> elements of it's arguments.
> Hmm, as far as i've read the IBM argument - the problem isn't that they
> haven't provided the material - in fact the problem is exactly the
> opposite - they've provided just about everything (including probably
> xeroxes of toiletpaper that some obscure SCO engineer wrote down some
> "highly" relevant facts on.
I have NO IDEA where you get this information BUT I support my argument with
the following passage from IBM's Motion to Compel:
Page 3
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
"SCO has the burden to prove the existence of a trade secret or
misappropriation by IBM of confidential or proprietary information, and
there is no presumption in SCO's favor in this regard. <cite clipped for
brevity > As a result, SCO's apparent inability to respond to IBM's
interrogatories as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has
potentially outcome determinative consequences."
If you accuse somebody of divulging trade secrets or misappropriating
confidential or proprietary information, YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY SAME!
The last line is saying basically, no trade secrets of proprietary
information, no case based on those allegations!
IBM could be within it's rights to demand those portions of the suit to be
vacated if no substantive proof is provided in support.
Then all that SCO has left is a whole lot of pissing and moaning about
losing market share - you have to know how that will turn out.
> Note - SCO is in this case providing material for IBM's *defense* - not
> material that SCO has an invested interest in that IBM gets right.
WRONG!
> The more SCO can delay IBM's defense - the better they can work on their
> arguments. This is basic regular tactics for lawyers. It may cause them
> to be declared in contempt (but thats a payable bill) - which has
> absolutely nothing to do with the actual end results. But so far they're
> just dragging their feet until the time where they actually have to lay
> down the cards.
I am sorry but you are talking out of your ass!
> [analysis: SCO wins time, IBM looses time - good for SCO, bad for IBM].
Please please please - this totally falls into the category of CLUELESS!
>> Do you really believe this is "regular tactics"? Are you standing by that
>> statement?
> Yes, i do. It irritates my ass just as much as it does yours - but so is
> the world....
> And if you'd actually read further in my response you'd have noticed
> that i actually believe that SCO is damaging any "potential" right that
> they might procure from a very (from my pov) unlikely win.
If SCO cannot show cause, the case will be dismissed.
Have you read IBM's counterclaim? Give it a read - it is pretty damning and
spells the end of SCO.
Oh, by the way, IBM does not have a reputation for filing frivolous
lawsuits.
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!
pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<bmknub$qs8$3@pcls4.std.com> <npSjb.114354$6C4.100944@pd7tw1no>
<bmoun3$sit$1@pcls4.std.com>
Lines: 19
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <oRUjb.116015$pl3.66073@pd7tw3no>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:33:24 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1066408404 24.69.255.232 (Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:33:24 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:33:24 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:549
to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>> I've told you over and over again that the only problem I have with
>>> your rants is that you state that they are truth rather than opinion.
>>Specify!
Since you are unwilling to specify where I have passed off my opinion as
fact - I suggest you, like SCO, are talking out of your ass.
As for accusing SCO of illegal activities - I stand 100% behind my
statements and defy anyone, including the lying bastards Darl McBride,
Chris Sontag and Blake Stowell, to set me straight. There are lots of
remedies they can seek!
8^)
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:03:09 +0200
From: Kim Petersen <k...@kim.privat.kyborg.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; da; rv:1.2.1)
Gecko/20030225
X-Accept-Language: da
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<3f8db1d4$0$29369$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
<3f8ff9ab$0$29360$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
<cFUjb.115245$6C4.20463@pd7tw1no>
In-Reply-To: <cFUjb.115245$6C4.20463@pd7tw1no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <3f90671e$0$29370$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
Organization: TDC Totalloesninger
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.62.90.39
X-Trace: 1066428190 dread15.news.tele.dk 29370 80.62.90.39:5384
X-Complaints-To: ab...@post.tele.dk
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:581
Brian skrev:
> Kim Petersen wrote:
>
>>Brian wrote:
>>
>>>SCO goes to all the time, effort, trouble and expense of filing a lawsuit
>>>against a Goliath and then drags it's feet producing the most basic
>>>elements of it's arguments.
>
>
>>Hmm, as far as i've read the IBM argument - the problem isn't that they
>>haven't provided the material - in fact the problem is exactly the
>>opposite - they've provided just about everything (including probably
>>xeroxes of toiletpaper that some obscure SCO engineer wrote down some
>>"highly" relevant facts on.
>
>
> I have NO IDEA where you get this information BUT I support my argument with
> the following passage from IBM's Motion to Compel:
>
> Page 3
> REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
>
> "SCO has the burden to prove the existence of a trade secret or
> misappropriation by IBM of confidential or proprietary information, and
> there is no presumption in SCO's favor in this regard. <cite clipped for
> brevity > As a result, SCO's apparent inability to respond to IBM's
> interrogatories as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has
> potentially outcome determinative consequences."
>
> If you accuse somebody of divulging trade secrets or misappropriating
> confidential or proprietary information, YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY SAME!
Have you read Jane's explanation of the language use in legal documents?
if not i suggest you do - it might refine some of your too literal
interpretations of legal speak.
>
> The last line is saying basically, no trade secrets of proprietary
> information, no case based on those allegations!
Yes, thats a defence lawyers argument - now since the court hasn't
actually ruled anything on this yet - its just words. Do you also
believe that every argument that a defence lawyer in a murder case makes
is 100% correct and couldn't in any way be turned?
>
> IBM could be within it's rights to demand those portions of the suit to be
> vacated if no substantive proof is provided in support.
>
That would be up to the court - *not* IBM.
> Then all that SCO has left is a whole lot of pissing and moaning about
> losing market share - you have to know how that will turn out.
>
>
>>Note - SCO is in this case providing material for IBM's *defense* - not
>>material that SCO has an invested interest in that IBM gets right.
>
>
> WRONG!
Argument? We're in the phase of discovery - dragging feet will be
expected from both sides.
>
>>The more SCO can delay IBM's defense - the better they can work on their
>>arguments. This is basic regular tactics for lawyers. It may cause them
>>to be declared in contempt (but thats a payable bill) - which has
>>absolutely nothing to do with the actual end results. But so far they're
>>just dragging their feet until the time where they actually have to lay
>>down the cards.
>
>
> I am sorry but you are talking out of your ass!
Can you actually dispute what i said - or just mungle around profanity?
>
>
>>[analysis: SCO wins time, IBM looses time - good for SCO, bad for IBM].
>
>
> Please please please - this totally falls into the category of CLUELESS!
again - *can* you dispute it?
>
>
>>>Do you really believe this is "regular tactics"? Are you standing by that
>>>statement?
>
>
>>Yes, i do. It irritates my ass just as much as it does yours - but so is
>>the world....
>
>
>
>>And if you'd actually read further in my response you'd have noticed
>>that i actually believe that SCO is damaging any "potential" right that
>>they might procure from a very (from my pov) unlikely win.
>
>
> If SCO cannot show cause, the case will be dismissed.
>
> Have you read IBM's counterclaim? Give it a read - it is pretty damning and
> spells the end of SCO.
Yes i have - i've read every single damn document this case has provided
- i'm reading GROKLAW (including just about 70% of the comments as
well). As i said - i'm currently hired to turn our SCO servers over to
Linux ones - and that means that i have to read this so i can determine
our (and our customers) interest/prospective futures.
>
> Oh, by the way, IBM does not have a reputation for filing frivolous
> lawsuits.
I can't say - but i can say that the IBM of today smells a heck of a lot
better than the IBM of the 80's.
>
> Brian
>
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!
pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<3f8db1d4$0$29369$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
<3f8ff9ab$0$29360$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
<cFUjb.115245$6C4.20463@pd7tw1no>
<3f90671e$0$29370$edfadb0f@dread15.news.tele.dk>
Lines: 87
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <bG5kb.118380$pl3.69880@pd7tw3no>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:08:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1066460935 24.69.255.232 (Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:08:55 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:08:55 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:599
Kim Petersen wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>> Page 3
>> REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
>> "SCO has the burden to prove the existence of a trade secret or
>> misappropriation by IBM of confidential or proprietary information, and
>> there is no presumption in SCO's favor in this regard. <cite clipped for
>> brevity > As a result, SCO's apparent inability to respond to IBM's
>> interrogatories as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
>> has potentially outcome determinative consequences."
>> If you accuse somebody of divulging trade secrets or misappropriating
>> confidential or proprietary information, YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY SAME!
> Have you read Jane's explanation of the language use in legal documents?
I have a lot of experience with legal language and documents - why don't you
explain it to me?
> if not i suggest you do - it might refine some of your too literal
> interpretations of legal speak.
"too literal" - That is a stupid statement!
>> The last line is saying basically, no trade secrets of proprietary
>> information, no case based on those allegations!
> Yes, thats a defense lawyers argument - now since the court hasn't
> actually ruled anything on this yet - its just words.
These documents are the roadmaps that a civil case follows - this is very
different from a criminal prosecution.
>> IBM could be within it's rights to demand those portions of the suit
>> to be vacated if no substantive proof is provided in support.
> That would be up to the court - *not* IBM.
It is up to IBM to demand the unsubstantiated be struck - it is up to the
court to rule.
DUH!
>> Then all that SCO has left is a whole lot of pissing and moaning about
>> losing market share - you have to know how that will turn out.
>>>Note - SCO is in this case providing material for IBM's *defense* -
>>>not material that SCO has an invested interest in that IBM gets
>>>right.
You are a fool!
>>>The more SCO can delay IBM's defense - the better they can work on their
>>>arguments. This is basic regular tactics for lawyers. It may cause them
>>>to be declared in contempt (but thats a payable bill) - which has
>>>absolutely nothing to do with the actual end results. But so far they're
>>>just dragging their feet until the time where they actually have to lay
>>>down the cards.
>> I am sorry but you are talking out of your ass!
> Can you actually dispute what i said - or just mungle around profanity?
Well, if you look at the documents SCO has provided in support of it's
statements, you will see there is not a single datum in support of their
claims concerning "trade secrets" or "proprietary materials".
It's like a murder case with no cause of death, no blood, no witnesses,
nothing - just a dead body.
You appear to be in the uncomfortable position of defending your statements
which are ABSOLUTE GARBAGE and now you are flaying around desperate for any
way out.
Why don't you show me where NOT PROVIDING PROOF in support of your basic
arguments is STANDARD PROCEDURE!
If you can come up with something more than YOUR generalities and Voodoo
legal logic - I am all ears, or eyes as the case may be. Otherwise, why
don't you call it a day.
8^)
I hate arguing with amateurs.
Brian
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!enigma.xenitec.on.ca!jpradley.jpr.com!
via-email
From: Nachman Yaakov Ziskind <aw...@egps.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Date: 20 Oct 2003 17:50:44 -0400
Lines: 30
Sender: nou...@jpradley.jpr.com
Message-ID: <20031020175059.A10911@egps.egps.com>
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<ff3c0649.0310141111.488abd85@posting.google.com>
<P6Yib.97711$pl3.12890@pd7tw3no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jpradley.jpr.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: jpradley.jpr.com 1066686644 6672 (None) 66.167.21.66
X-Complaints-To: ne...@jpradley.jpr.com
To: br...@stanley-park.com
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <P6Yib.97711$pl3.12890@pd7tw3no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:697
Brian wrote (on Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:27:43PM +0000):
> J. L. Schilling wrote:
> > Brian <br...@stanley-park.com> wrote...
> LOL
>
> Sorry Jon.
>
> Any OTHER comments NOT relating to my size, anger, health or grammar?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Brian
Just this: if, as you put it, IBM "squashes SCO like a bug", it will NOT be due
to how right IBM is/how wrong SCO is, but due to IBM spending SCO into the
ground. Can we all agree on that (even those who think SCO is dead wrong)?
If so, what's to stop M$/IBM/whoever from doing the same thing to Red
Hat/Debian/etc.? After all, at least SCO is (was) a profitable company. What's
to stop The Evil Empire from knocking off the Linux vendors, one by one? Just
like the spammers are assassinating the blocklists, even as we speak?
After all, mere things like facts don't really matter to lawyers, right?
--
_________________________________________
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, EA, LLM aw...@egps.com
Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!
sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!
residential.shaw.ca!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!
not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.79.106.253
From: Brian <br...@stanley-park.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Lie!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Reply-To: br...@stanley-park.com
References: <HUTib.94906$pl3.24021@pd7tw3no>
<ff3c0649.0310141111.488abd85@posting.google.com>
<P6Yib.97711$pl3.12890@pd7tw3no> <20031020175059.A10911@egps.egps.com>
Lines: 32
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Message-ID: <2h4lb.137668$6C4.89371@pd7tw1no>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:22:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.69.255.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1066717374 24.69.255.232 (Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:22:54 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:22:54 MDT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.unix.sco.misc:708
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> Just this: if, as you put it, IBM "squashes SCO like a bug", it will
> NOT be due to how right IBM is/how wrong SCO is, but due to IBM
> spending SCO into the ground. Can we all agree on that (even those
> who think SCO is dead wrong)?
Another MORON!
This will never get to court.
The reason SCO will lose is because they have no case.
No case, no trial.
No trial, no win.
<clipped another conspiracy theory>
> After all, mere things like facts don't really matter to lawyers,
> right?
So that's how it is?
If SCO loses, it's not because they were full of shit - it is because IBM
bought justice.
Well then, I guess SCO pissed off the wrong guy.
SCO sure has it's lunatic fringe!
Brian