Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Leythos wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of[/color]
>
> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.[/color]

to ... to ... to ...

If you can make up BS why can't[color=blue]
> anyone else make up things?[/color]

I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.

Alias

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Leythos wrote:[color=green]
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of[/color]
>>
>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.[/color]
>
> to ... to ... to ...
>
> If you can make up BS why can't[color=green]
>> anyone else make up things?[/color]
>
> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.[/color]

Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Leythos wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.[/color]
>> to ... to ... to ...
>>
>> If you can make up BS why can't[color=darkred]
>>> anyone else make up things?[/color]
>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.[/color]
>
> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>[/color]

Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
for libel.

Alias

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:47:31 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Leythos wrote:[color=green]
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.
>>> to ... to ... to ...
>>>
>>> If you can make up BS why can't
>>>> anyone else make up things?
>>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.[/color]
>>
>> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>>[/color]
>
> Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
> only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
> into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
> than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
> for libel.[/color]

No, you can't - all you have to do is lookup the definition of "Flee"
and you will see that you are only being paraniod again:

[url]http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861612126[/url]

Definition:

1. transitive and intransitive
verb run away: to run away from something
fled the burning building

2. intransitive
verb disappear quickly: to pass or disappear quickly

You FLED the USA to go to Spain - there, it completely correct and the
defintion fits.

You are the only one suggesting you did it for illegal reasons.



--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:47:31 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Leythos wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.
>>>> to ... to ... to ...
>>>>
>>>> If you can make up BS why can't
>>>>> anyone else make up things?
>>>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.
>>> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>>>[/color]
>> Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
>> only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
>> into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
>> than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
>> for libel.[/color]
>
> No, you can't - all you have to do is lookup the definition of "Flee"
> and you will see that you are only being paraniod again:
>
> [url]http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861612126[/url]
>
> Definition:
>
> 1. transitive and intransitive
> verb run away: to run away from something
> fled the burning building
>
> 2. intransitive
> verb disappear quickly: to pass or disappear quickly
>
> You FLED the USA to go to Spain - there, it completely correct and the
> defintion fits.
>
> You are the only one suggesting you did it for illegal reasons.
>
>
>[/color]

And, in your mind, what was I running away from? Why did you even write
it? Fleeing implies running away from something, just like the
definition you posted says.

Alias

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:57:41 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Leythos wrote:[color=green]
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:47:31 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>>>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.
>>>>> to ... to ... to ...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can make up BS why can't
>>>>>> anyone else make up things?
>>>>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.
>>>> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>>>>
>>> Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
>>> only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
>>> into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
>>> than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
>>> for libel.[/color]
>>
>> No, you can't - all you have to do is lookup the definition of "Flee"
>> and you will see that you are only being paraniod again:
>>
>> [url]http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861612126[/url]
>>
>> Definition:
>>
>> 1. transitive and intransitive
>> verb run away: to run away from something
>> fled the burning building
>>
>> 2. intransitive
>> verb disappear quickly: to pass or disappear quickly
>>
>> You FLED the USA to go to Spain - there, it completely correct and the
>> defintion fits.
>>
>> You are the only one suggesting you did it for illegal reasons.[/color]
>
> And, in your mind, what was I running away from? Why did you even write
> it? Fleeing implies running away from something, just like the[/color]

Yep, I feel you RAN AWAY FROM THE USA for some reason.

You appear to suggest it was for unethical reason based on your paranioa.


--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:57:41 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Leythos wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:47:31 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>>>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>>>>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.
>>>>>> to ... to ... to ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can make up BS why can't
>>>>>>> anyone else make up things?
>>>>>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.
>>>>> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
>>>> only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
>>>> into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
>>>> than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
>>>> for libel.
>>> No, you can't - all you have to do is lookup the definition of "Flee"
>>> and you will see that you are only being paraniod again:
>>>
>>> [url]http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861612126[/url]
>>>
>>> Definition:
>>>
>>> 1. transitive and intransitive
>>> verb run away: to run away from something
>>> fled the burning building
>>>
>>> 2. intransitive
>>> verb disappear quickly: to pass or disappear quickly
>>>
>>> You FLED the USA to go to Spain - there, it completely correct and the
>>> defintion fits.
>>>
>>> You are the only one suggesting you did it for illegal reasons.[/color]
>> And, in your mind, what was I running away from? Why did you even write
>> it? Fleeing implies running away from something, just like the[/color]
>
> Yep, I feel you RAN AWAY FROM THE USA for some reason.[/color]

And that reason is?
[color=blue]
> You appear to suggest it was for unethical reason based on your paranioa.[/color]

No, I read what you wrote in black and white and it's clear that you are
lying about me in a lame attempt to discredit me. This is mere
desperation on your part.

Alias

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:15 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Leythos wrote:[color=green]
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:57:41 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:47:31 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>>>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>>>>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>>>>>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.
>>>>>>> to ... to ... to ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can make up BS why can't
>>>>>>>> anyone else make up things?
>>>>>>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.
>>>>>> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
>>>>> only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
>>>>> into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
>>>>> than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
>>>>> for libel.
>>>> No, you can't - all you have to do is lookup the definition of "Flee"
>>>> and you will see that you are only being paraniod again:
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861612126[/url]
>>>>
>>>> Definition:
>>>>
>>>> 1. transitive and intransitive
>>>> verb run away: to run away from something
>>>> fled the burning building
>>>>
>>>> 2. intransitive
>>>> verb disappear quickly: to pass or disappear quickly
>>>>
>>>> You FLED the USA to go to Spain - there, it completely correct and the
>>>> defintion fits.
>>>>
>>>> You are the only one suggesting you did it for illegal reasons.
>>> And, in your mind, what was I running away from? Why did you even write
>>> it? Fleeing implies running away from something, just like the[/color]
>>
>> Yep, I feel you RAN AWAY FROM THE USA for some reason.[/color]
>
> And that reason is?
>[color=green]
>> You appear to suggest it was for unethical reason based on your paranioa.[/color]
>
> No, I read what you wrote in black and white and it's clear that you are
> lying about me in a lame attempt to discredit me. This is mere
> desperation on your part.[/color]

Dude - I'm not attempting to "discredit you", you do that without anyone's
help. You're paranoid and full of yourself and you don't have the
experience to back your claims of Linux or Vista/XP.

You are not worth "Desperation", in fact, you're not worth anything except
poking holes in your BS mantra for entertainment.


--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:15 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Leythos wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:57:41 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:47:31 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:19:38 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:59:34 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 01:07:51 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, you're wrong again, I stand by my statements (including your lack
>>>>>>>>>>> of experience, your lack of honest, your lack of understanding).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most liars like you make up more lies to cover up the previous ones.
>>>>>>>>>> Offering your opinion about my abilities is one thing. Accusing me of
>>>>>>>>> If the shoe fits - and it seems too.
>>>>>>>> to ... to ... to ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can make up BS why can't
>>>>>>>>> anyone else make up things?
>>>>>>>> I don't make up things. Sometimes I'm wrong and when I am, I admit it.
>>>>>>> Then admin that you're wrong that Ubuntu is viable for "Most" users.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should I when most users don't need to use specialized software that
>>>>>> only runs on Windows and, even then, they can use VMWare a put Windows
>>>>>> into a Window? Saying that most users can use Ubuntu is a tad different
>>>>>> than accusing someone of a crime. If you were in Europe, I could sue you
>>>>>> for libel.
>>>>> No, you can't - all you have to do is lookup the definition of "Flee"
>>>>> and you will see that you are only being paraniod again:
>>>>>
>>>>> [url]http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861612126[/url]
>>>>>
>>>>> Definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. transitive and intransitive
>>>>> verb run away: to run away from something
>>>>> fled the burning building
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. intransitive
>>>>> verb disappear quickly: to pass or disappear quickly
>>>>>
>>>>> You FLED the USA to go to Spain - there, it completely correct and the
>>>>> defintion fits.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the only one suggesting you did it for illegal reasons.
>>>> And, in your mind, what was I running away from? Why did you even write
>>>> it? Fleeing implies running away from something, just like the
>>> Yep, I feel you RAN AWAY FROM THE USA for some reason.[/color]
>> And that reason is?
>>[color=darkred]
>>> You appear to suggest it was for unethical reason based on your paranioa.[/color]
>> No, I read what you wrote in black and white and it's clear that you are
>> lying about me in a lame attempt to discredit me. This is mere
>> desperation on your part.[/color]
>
> Dude - I'm not attempting to "discredit you", you do that without anyone's
> help. You're paranoid and full of yourself and you don't have the
> experience to back your claims of Linux or Vista/XP.[/color]

You can't refute my claims so you go for the personal attacks and lies.
[color=blue]
>
> You are not worth "Desperation", in fact, you're not worth anything except
> poking holes in your BS mantra for entertainment.
>
>[/color]

You just tried to discredit me again in another lame attempt to avoid
answering why you lied and said I fled the USA. This is just more
desperation on your part and pure and unadulterated back pedaling.

Alias

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:24:35 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Dude - I'm not attempting to "discredit you", you do that without
>> anyone's help. You're paranoid and full of yourself and you don't have
>> the experience to back your claims of Linux or Vista/XP.[/color]
>
> You can't refute my claims so you go for the personal attacks and lies.[/color]

Yes, I can refute them - Linux, specifically Ubuntu, is not a viable
solution for "Most" users of windows. As for an "attack", ha ha ha, your
own statements show that you have limited experience, limited knowledge,
limited skill, when it comes to I.T. or computers.

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

Justin wrote:
[color=blue]
> Nope, zero tolerance with drugs.[/color]

Oh, then that explains why you've avoided your meds all this time. You
really should follow your doctor's prescription advice.

Love and Kisses
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2[/url]
Title Says It All ... [url]http://tinyurl.com/2ssodl[/url]

Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:24:35 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Dude - I'm not attempting to "discredit you", you do that without
>>> anyone's help. You're paranoid and full of yourself and you don't have
>>> the experience to back your claims of Linux or Vista/XP.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> You can't refute my claims so you go for the personal attacks and lies.[/color]
>
> Yes, I can refute them - Linux, specifically Ubuntu, is not a viable
> solution for "Most" users of windows.[/color]

Considering that it is, you have to resort to:

As for an "attack", ha ha ha, your[color=blue]
> own statements show that you have limited experience, limited knowledge,
> limited skill, when it comes to I.T. or computers.[/color]

Keep back pedaling, Leythos.

Alias

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:37:49 +0200, Alias wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Keep back pedaling, Leythos.[/color]

I've not "back pedaled" once, not once, and your diversionary method of
trying to change history is not going to work sonny.

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:[color=blue]
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:37:49 +0200, Alias wrote:[color=green]
>> Keep back pedaling, Leythos.[/color]
>
> I've not "back pedaled" once, not once,[/color]

That's all you do.
[color=blue]
> and your diversionary method of
> trying to change history is not going to work sonny.[/color]

More lies, tsk, tsk.

Again, please share the rest of your fantasy: What was I "fleeing" from
and why?

Alias

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.bg> wrote in message
news:f14epb$20u$2@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Justin wrote:[color=green]
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.bg> wrote in message
>> news:f138dn$ppv$3@aioe.org...[color=darkred]
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>>> Easy to say. Can you prove it? I have yet to see one good reason why
>>>>>> someone with a legit license has to phone in when all such phone ins
>>>>>> are approved.
>>>>
>>>> I know of a number of activation attempts that were not approved for
>>>> several different MS products - and it was a valid rejection - the
>>>> people
>>>> were trying to violate the licensing agreement and thought they could
>>>> get
>>>> away with it, the phone activation people did not activate for them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're lying through your teeth. You know of no such persons.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>> HAHAHAHA! So you get a THIRD answer and it's a lie? You stupid potheads
>> are all the same.[/color]
>
> Leythos is a pathological liar. Had you been around long enough, you would
> know that. You must have some kind of self esteem problem because you seem
> to have the need to denigrate people and, in this case, lie, because I
> don't smoke pot and you still haven't been able to answer the question of
> this thread (and never will it seems).
>
> Alias[/color]

1. You HAVE used pot and obviously so much so you are a flat out pothead.
You prove that on a constant basis especially because of:

2. You already have your answer. You are just too stupid to know it or
understand it. Take your pick.