Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Shareaza should be banned (flames)

Expand Messages
  • Vinnie <info@freepeers.com>
    ... [flames=on] YOU [flames=off]
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In the_gdf@yahoogroups.com, "anenga2 <anenga@h...>" <anenga@h...>
      wrote:
      > Now who's the "IMBECILE!".
      [flames=on]
      YOU
      [flames=off]
    • Vinnie <info@freepeers.com>
      ... wrote: I m not sure if you were pro-BearShare or pro-Shareaza, but in case you support Shareaza even in a tiny bit I wanted to give you a
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In the_gdf@yahoogroups.com, "A. M. <ashitaka@a...>"
        <ashitaka@a...> wrote:
        I'm not sure if you were pro-BearShare or pro-Shareaza, but in case
        you support Shareaza even in a tiny bit I wanted to give you a little
        something something...

        Is it just me, or...
        [flames=on]
        DO YOU HAVE 'SHIT' IN YOUR NAME? IS YOUR FAMILY FULL OF 'SHIT'? YEAH
        YOU, aSHITaka!
        [flames=off]

        If you are anti-Shareaza, disregard above.
      • Dave Nicponski
        [QUOTE] With Vinnie it is clear, financial gain. With Microsoft it is clear, financial gain. With Mike there is no financial gain. [/QUOTE] How about this as
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          [QUOTE]
          With Vinnie it is clear, financial gain. With Microsoft it is clear,
          financial gain. With Mike there is no financial gain.
          [/QUOTE]

          How about this as the *true* alternative that I PERSONALLY can attest to:
          The goal is security for the users. When the RIAA-bots are everywhere, and Gnutella is under massive attack, the BigRedSwitch will be thwrown, walling out the "evil ones."

          Financial gain? Perhaps in as much as we would like to see current Gnutella users stay on Gnutella, not move to FastTrack, or emule, or DC, or anything else because of the attacks.

          -dave-
        • A. M. <ashitaka@attbi.com>
          ... I was rather pro-BearShare yesterday, because you were being more rational than certain people and making very valid arguments. However, today I have
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 14, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In the_gdf@yahoogroups.com, "Vinnie <info@f...>" <info@f...> wrote:
            > I'm not sure if you were pro-BearShare or pro-Shareaza, but in case
            > you support Shareaza even in a tiny bit I wanted to give you a little
            > something something...

            I was rather pro-BearShare yesterday, because you were being more
            rational than "certain people" and making very valid arguments.
            However, today I have posted some of your flames here on the GDF to
            the Shareaza and BearShare forums for comment. I guess that might make
            me anti-BearShare or something. :)

            --A.
          • Vinnie <info@freepeers.com>
            ... make ... Alright I don t really know what to do with you so I ll let you decide, if you need a flame just send me an email and we ll take it off-line.
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 14, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In the_gdf@yahoogroups.com, "A. M. <ashitaka@a...>"
              <ashitaka@a...> wrote:
              > I was rather pro-BearShare yesterday, because you were being more
              > rational than "certain people" and making very valid arguments.
              > However, today I have posted some of your flames here on the GDF to
              > the Shareaza and BearShare forums for comment. I guess that might
              make
              > me anti-BearShare or something. :)

              Alright I don't really know what to do with you so I'll let you
              decide, if you need a flame just send me an email and we'll take it
              off-line.
            • Agthorr
              ... I don t see how this can be determined before the specs are released. Moreover, I d be willing to bet that a useful subset of the GDF would comment on them
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 15, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:20:07PM -0500, John Marshall wrote:
                > The reason the rest of the specs have not been released is because of
                > the GDF's inability to comment on them in a technical context.

                I don't see how this can be determined before the specs are released.

                Moreover, I'd be willing to bet that a useful subset of the GDF would
                comment on them technically.

                Protocol development requires asbestos skin :-)

                -- Agthorr
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.