Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Counterpoint: Does OS X Really Shine Brighter Than Vista?
InformationWeek ^ | 01/19/2007 | By David DeJean

Posted on 01/20/2007 1:24:47 AM PST by Swordmaker

It's wrong to make the differences between Mac OS X and Windows Vista into a horserace -- each OS is most challenged by its own history, limitations, and possibilities.

Does Apple's OS X operating system really shine in comparison with Microsoft's Vista?

That was the headline on a recent InformationWeek.com article. OS X Shines In Comparison to Vista [FreeRepublic Post Link] compares the Vista GUI to OS X and concludes that ". . . as much of an improvement as Vista is over XP, its main competitor, Mac OS X, still stacks up really well — and even tops Vista in several important areas."

It is part of a flood of articles and reviews that has grown as Vista finally approaches its January 29th ship-to-consumers date. It shares with many of them a blind-men-and-the-elephant quality: Seize upon one aspect of Vista or another, and draw conclusions about the whole based on the part they can see and understand.

The piece compares and contrasts the two OSes in several areas, including their development histories, the consistency of their UIs (which seems to mean both the UI changes that create a learning curve for each new version, and the ease of use and intuitiveness of the OS), and their relative security.

There is a lot the piece doesn't cover. To begin with, operating systems are hardware-specific, so they must support the hardware well or performance will suffer. Second, clean code is important: OS kernel bugs can make application developers' lives miserable, there's a definite upside to being the least buggy OS. Vista is certainly vulnerable to criticism of its tortured development history, and other reviewers have faulted the finished product for lacking features that were dropped along the way, like the WinFS file architecture. And you can't not comment on the prelaunch marketing hype, which may be a better, more successful product than the operating system it's selling.

Reviewing The UI

You'd think Apple, with its complete control of both its hardware and its user interface, would be able to create a far more coherent user environment than Microsoft's OS, which at least in theory has to run a widely divergent variety of hardware. But that just does not seem to be the case.

Granted, the Windows UI is far from perfect — no OS that forces you to click on a button labeled "Start" to stop your computer can claim the moral high ground here. But OS X is not without its flaws and foibles.


Is an unlabeled icon shaped like an apple really any more
intuitive than a button labeled "Start"?


We're about to find out -- Vista finally does away with the "Start" button.

What's up with that single mouse button, for instance? Multiple buttons and local menus are a demonstrable ease-of-use improvement. The Mac's Finder UI that separates program controls from the window that the program is running in is has always seemed awkward. And is an unlabeled icon shaped like an apple really any more intuitive than a button labeled "Start"?

(Actually, we're about to learn the answer to that last question. Vista finally does away with the "Start" button and replaces it with an unlabeled icon of the Vista window/flag.)

Learning The OS Language

The point is this: a UI is something you learn, just like a language — and just like a language, some of it is structured, clear, and consistent, and some of it is simply learned by rote repetition. The "OS X Shines" piece makes much of a supposed lack of clarity and consistency in Vista, for example, and offers as example a comparison of the number of mouse clicks it takes to discover the network address being used by your computer — three for the Mac, six for the PC. Actually, a fluent speaker of Windows can do it in three steps, too:

  1. Click on the Vista icon
  2. Type "cmd" in the search box and click on the entry for "cmd.exe" that's highlighted in the results list, or just hit Return
  3. At the command line, type "ipconfig" and hit Return.

But surely that doesn't indicate any weakness or superiority in either OS beyond a primitiveness common to both of them. Why should we ever need to know or care what IP address our computer is using? The fact that OS X users can discover it in three clicks may simply be the sad result of needing to know it more often than Windows users.

There are other examples. The "OS X Shines" piece makes a case that it is more difficult to identify the active window in Vista than in OS X., citing as evidence the "back" button in the upper left corner of the Internet Explorer screen that looks active even when it isn't the front window. That might be a problem for Mac users who have learned to look at the upper left corner of a window to see whether it is active, but for Windows users the indicators are different. Up through Windows XP, the title bar is brighter for the active window. In Vista, the title bar is semi-transparent and doesn't change color, so the visual indicator becomes the Close box: it is red in the active window, gray in non-active windows. The difference is far easier to comprehend visually than it is to explain, and in any case it's hardly a failing of either operating system.


Vista's indication of which window is active may be more of a
problem for Mac users than for PC users.

A similar argument can be made about consistency. Is Vista any less consistent than OS X because it changes the nomenclature of some of its elements? The "Start" button is one example. Another is the desktop icon that has been labeled "My Computer" since Windows 95, and becomes just "Computer" in Vista.

As "OS X Shines" correctly points out, the Apple OS makes fewer UI changes from version to version because it is on a smoother development path. OS X was first released in 2001, and represented the first complete rewrite of the Macintosh OS. In the years since, it has been updated from 10.0 to 10.4.8 — four more-or-less major updates, with a fifth, code-named Leopard, on the way, along with basketful of smaller point fixes.

Windows XP was released the same year, and embodied changes as major as those in OS X. It incorporated the 32-bit NT kernel, and radically reworked the Windows UI. Vista reworks the UI again.

But saying that merely makes a distinction without a difference. It is just as doubtful to say that the obvious UI changes in Vista would convince Windows users to switch to another OS as it is to say that OS X's static look and feel would cause users to abandon it.

In any case, the changes in Vista's UI are relatively minor: Vista resembles its predecessor XP far more than XP resembled Windows 2000, despite all the hype surrounding Vista's new Aero interface. Aero's sleek semi-transparent window borders, redesigned window controls, and widgets like the new Sidebar give Vista a different look, but not a different feel. The controls still work the same. The language the operating system speaks has not changed. It's added some new words, which users will have to pick up in conversation with it, but it is still clearly understandable.

(Aero itself isn't a cause of differences in Vista, but the result of major changes that will manifest themselves over time. The new interface and the tricks it can do, like the spin-the-Rolodex view of open windows, are product result of the way Vista deals with screen graphics through DirectX and the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) which replaced the 15-year-old Graphics Device Interface technology.)

When you look beyond the UI, by the way, Windows is undoubtedly the more consistent, compatible OS. Over its history, the Macintosh OS has introduced new versions that were incompatible with old applications — so incompatible that if you wanted to run the old app you had to keep multiple operating systems installed on your Mac. That has never happened with Windows, and Vista continues Microsoft's tradition of excellent software compatibility.

Look Under The Hood

Throughout the development process that led to Vista, Microsoft has been its own worst enemy. It has over-promised and over-publicized, with the result that there has been far too clear a view of the sausage being made. The process of creating an operating system clearly spiraled out of control in the increasingly rigid Microsoft corporate environment. Apple, in comparison, has done a better job of managing its development process — and the expectations of its customers. OS X has been a well-managed evolutionary process; Vista has been a poorly managed attempt at a revolutionary product.

Paradoxically, Vista is actually an evolutionary success as well. It's not the revolutionary OS Microsoft promised, but it has turned out to be a logical extension of Windows in the light of current technologies. While the spectacular failures — like WinFS, which was intended to replace Windows' hierarchical file system with a relational data structure — have dominated the news, many of the core components of Microsoft's OS technology have been quietly and very effectively redesigned. Vista networking, for example, finally implements IPv6, a necessary expansion of the address space that allows for the next generation of networked devices and applications. (OS X has had this for a while — one results of its smoother development process.) WDDM and DirectX graphics technology won't have much relevance until hardware and applications are widely available that actually take advantage of them, but that will happen with time.

And perhaps not too much time, at that: Vista brings far greater changes for developers than for end-users. The Windows programming APIs are being replaced by .NET Framework 3.0, which wraps up four "foundations," or code bases that combine in the creation of applications for Vista:

Is It Safe?

More problematic are Microsoft's efforts to make Windows Vista a more secure operating system. Security has never been something Microsoft did well. It has always subordinated practical measures for protecting users of its products against malware to, say, an ideological dedication to the cross-application scripting of Active X controls.

With Vista, the company seems not so much to be building in security for users as deniability for itself by explicitly making the user responsible for security wherever it can — and applying a definition of "security" that seems to confuse the safety of its customers' computing environments with its own interests in digital rights management (DRM).

Vista extends the discomfort of Microsoft's existing Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy intrusionware with its Software Protection Platform, which requires even more validation of the software's legality. At the same time, Vista doesn't seem to do much more to protect users' PCs and data from malware attacks than XP. The "OS X Shines" article may be overly strident about whether the new User Account Control (UAC) represents "authentication" or "approval," but it is correct about the result: UAC is certainly annoying.

The UAC feature requires the Vista user to explicitly approve every interaction involving the installation or execution of external code. And it is not smart about it. It makes no distinction between installations that are explicitly initiated by the user from the keyboard and those that might be initiated by a malicious Web site. It simply makes it all the user's responsibility by popping up endless dialog boxes.

This problem is, in a way, an artifact of Windows' history: Windows was created to run on stand-alone PCs long before the Internet was even thought of. As a result, it has always lacked the kind of user account controls that are basic in the Unix world, which has dealt with networks and the threats they represent — and that includes Unix offspring like Linux and OS X. Microsoft had an opportunity with Vista to fix this shortcoming, but it chose not to. Unfortunately, that makes Vista an operating system that shifts the blame rather than actually tackles the problem.

Overall, Vista's efforts at enhancing PC security seem weak and tentative, still bogged down in Microsoft ideology and "not invented here" hubris rather than implementing what's proven to work for users. But this is the first version of Windows that's really paid any attention to security, and Microsoft is famous for getting things right the second time. Vista security will doubtless get better eventually.

Reviewing The Hype

Vista has been a long time coming, and Microsoft has had no choice but to keep stoking the marketing fires through the long winter of its dysfunctional development. As a result, Vista is perhaps the most over-anticipated Windows release ever.

In the corporate marketplace, Microsoft has done what it can to push companies into Vista by pushing its other, older products over the cliff. Windows 2000, still widely used on corporate desktops, is now unsupported by its maker, and new versions of Microsoft's most popular applications, Internet Explorer and the Office suite, won't run on it. Windows XP faces a similar planned obsolescence in a very few years.

In the consumer marketplace, Microsoft has sold the applications bundled into Vista — the photo album, the parental controls, the media center and streaming video — rather than the OS itself, as if the eye candy of the Aero interface would help us take better photographs and raise safer children.

Microsoft doesn't just want the world to want Vista: it needs the world to want Vista, to generate the sales and revenues that have made the company so phenomenally successful. In a marketplace where PC sales are flattening out and alternatives to Windows are growing more capable, Microsoft needs a hit and it's selling the eye candy hard to get one.


Vista has a lot of eye candy, but its real power is under the hood.

Ironically, Vista's long-term success is assured by exactly the things Microsoft isn't selling. The reworked internals of the operating system — the graphics, services, and programming APIs — will give Vista a leg up on the competition. Linux, OS X, and every application software developer large and small will have to play catch-up because 90 percent or more of computer hardware will continue to be built to Microsoft specifications. Unless Linux and OS X make major inroads, 90 percent of all corporate desktops will eventually be forced off Windows 2000 and XP and onto Vista. And 90 percent of all consumers will eventually upgrade to Vista when they buy their next PC.

On the other hand, Vista's short-term success is anything but assured, and Microsoft may still be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If it continues to cling to its vision of DRM and User Account Control, if it continues to behave as if it had a divine right to 90 percent market share, Microsoft will create a situation that makes inroads by other OSes inevitable.

To Each Its Own

It is business decisions like these, not technology, that shape the OS marketplace. OS X and Vista are both capable operating systems with effective user interfaces. But it is Microsoft's business practices, legal and illegal, that have historically driven its dominance of the market. And it is Apple's continuing decision to sell OS X only with its own hardware, not any shortcoming of OS X, which relegates it to a tiny fraction of the OS market. In fact, it is Apple's stunning expertise at hardware design that continues to drive its success, not any superiority in the OS, and certainly not in its UI.

By the same token, Microsoft's dysfunctional development process doesn't make Vista any less successful a product. On a technical level, Vista arguably puts Microsoft in the lead: DirectX, the .Net "foundations," and other new technology make Vista an OS that takes full advantage of the most advanced hardware technologies, and the basis for a new generation of Windows applications.

The competition between the two OSes is far more complex than a simple horserace that's won or lost by minutiae like which operating system makes it easier to distinguish the active window. Even when limited to the context of the UI, the statement that OS X "tops Vista in several important areas" is dubious, and to expand that conclusion to the OS as a whole is faulty logic. Despite Vista's dysfunctional development history and outrageous hype, it is a worthy update to Windows, and on January 29 it will be the world's best-selling operating system for good reasons.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last
To: antiRepublicrat

More lies in defense of the foreign criminals that not only circumvented Apple's DRM but distributed the circumvention to the world at large. Your attempts to compare those crominal actions to personal backups, which can be legal as in the case of LP's, is absurd, especially since you yourself refused to legally perform personal backups and illegally downloaded seperate content instead. You've also already outright admitted to knowingly lying on these subjects, which is apparently feel you might as well lie in every future post, but obviously that tactic is doomed to failure, however it will allow me to continue to bump this thread so others will see your evil intent.


121 posted on 01/26/2007 10:00:17 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Your attempts to compare those crominal actions to personal backups, which can be legal as in the case of LP's, is absurd

But that's not the question. The question is whether you think a backup of a DVD is legal. An LP doesn't have the DRM that brings the DMCA into play. A CD doesn't have DRM, yet the RIAA has stated that ripping (a backup) is not fair use, i.e., it infringes on copyright.

especially since you yourself refused to legally perform personal backups

I didn't refuse. I didn't have the means. You know this, yet you persist in your libel.

You've also already outright admitted to knowingly lying on these subjects

Really? Prove it. Notice plural, "these subjects," aside from the fact that my test of you wasn't even about any of these subjects, instead being on the subject of network security tools.

122 posted on 01/26/2007 10:16:18 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The question is whether you think a backup of a DVD is legal

No that remains irrelevant, other than additional proof of your evil intent. You clearly used the word "criminal", not "illegal", in post 45, to lower the bar of acceptability for the actual criminal behavior of the foreign hackers you have been defending for months with lies. Further lies aren't helping you, you're already on the record insisting the Russian hackers weren't criminal, now trying to claim something else is criminal without equivalent proof is just more proof of your deceit.

123 posted on 01/26/2007 10:36:12 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
You clearly used the word "criminal", not "illegal", in post 45, to lower the bar of acceptability for the actual criminal behavior of the foreign hackers

No, I used it because both people who backup a DVD and foreign hackers circumvent DRM, which is covered by the DMCA. This is aside from the fact that foreigners who do no business here aren't subject to our laws (Elcomsoft sold their PDF cracking program in America).

Are you saying that motive has something to do with whether it's illegal?

Further lies aren't helping you, you're already on the record insisting the Russian hackers weren't criminal

False. I'm on the record insisting that you provided no evidence that they qualified for criminal prosecution IAW Sec. 1204, DMCA or the NET Act.

now trying to claim something else is criminal without equivalent proof

The proof that was required was any evidence of personal financial gain, which you didn't provide. However, anyone who backs up a DVD (Sec. 1201, DMCA) and takes advantage of that backup due to destruction of the original does by definition meet that personal financial gain requirement for criminal prosecution (Sec. 1204, DMCA) because he financially gained from not having to buy a replacement DVD. Likewise, those hackers selling their OS X slipstreaming tool would have fallen under Sec. 1204 -- but the tool was free.

Now quit going around in circles. I've explained all of this before several times, and even you can't be that dense.

Do you personally think that backing up a DVD is illegal? If not, why?

124 posted on 01/26/2007 11:14:55 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Yeah, that was a pretty stupid argument.

I did throw away the mickey mouse-mouse, however, and got a regular mouse to go with my mac.

125 posted on 01/26/2007 11:16:50 AM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor
Got a mac last year and never looked back.

I can work (potography), watch tv on the mac or listen to music at the same time I'm surfing here. And I never have to worry about a systems crash. Mac goes to sleep at night, and behaves like a good boy every morning when I wake him up. He does what is asked of him, and he doesn't give me trouble, and I don't have to read parenting manuals to figure him out! LOL

126 posted on 01/26/2007 11:21:17 AM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
I used it because both people who backup a DVD and foreign hackers circumvent DRM

This is another obviously contradictory lie, as you have endlessly claimed the foreign hackers couldn't possibly be criminal, but those making personal backups now somehow magically are, despite having no threatening letters, previous case history, etc. Face it, you've been busted trying to lower the criminal bar for your foreign hacker heroes by claiming something else is criminal without having equivalent evidence. It's actually worse than that LOL since you still insist your foreign hacker friends couldn't even be criminal in the first place, apparently according to you everyone BUT them are the criminals now LMAO.

127 posted on 01/26/2007 11:39:04 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug

The first gen Mac-mini with OS 10.4xx and the latest Win Vista press has me convinced that I will replace 3 of the 4 Win boxes I have with Macs, and leave the last Win box with XP Pro .

re: Processing digital photgraphy on the Mac, what software are you using?


128 posted on 01/26/2007 12:34:57 PM PST by Covenantor (Ghurka, Ghurka mohamed jihad, cold steel for hadjis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor
Minor stuff? iPhoto.

A bit more? Photoshop Elements.

A bit more? I hand it over to my husband so he can work his magic in PS2. LOL

Apperture's pretty neat, but it doesn't take the place of PS. I have the 24 inch screen. Whoa. I can process and watch the news at the same time. LOL The larger screen was definitely worth the money. Great for comparing captures. And the sound system is not too bad, especially when your hearing isn't so great anymore, and you can't hear all the highs and the lows anyway. :) It's my high def tv in this room.

The iPhoto slideshow is extremely easy for simple viewing.

Are you a pro photog?

129 posted on 01/26/2007 12:48:50 PM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor

Oops. I'm using Photoshop Elements 4, and hubby uses CS2...??? I'm terrible remembering letters. Anyway, I think you get the point!


130 posted on 01/26/2007 12:59:36 PM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Covenantor
With what I've read of Vista'a DRM scheme, which appears to have been spec'ed by the media conglomerates and RIAA, this issue alone may be the stumbling block to sales.

I've read the Vista takes the initiative to DOWNGRADE reproduction of "suspect" sounds and images. To maintain predictable resolution, i've read, you need to avoid Vista. True?

131 posted on 01/26/2007 1:00:13 PM PST by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Vista does NOT require 2GB of ram... 1GB is Fine and 512MB is the Minimum(but NOT recommended)... FUD is your name.

What were the specs for WinXP? I recall 64 minimum and 256 recommended. Ever try to run XP on 64mb? Everyone knows XP's a coffee grinder if you run it with less than 512.

It's a simple task to extrapolate from that eXPerience to Vista.

132 posted on 01/26/2007 1:23:25 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Again, show a case where personal backups of currently owned media have been criminally prosecuted...

You continue to labor under the misconception that an act is only criminal if it has been criminally prosecuted. If a statute makes an act a crime, then committing that act is a crime, even if the perpetrator is never prosecuted....even if the statute is so new that NO ONE has ever been prosecuted for that act.

If backing up your DVDs is defined as a crime, you commit that crime when you copy that DVD. Prosecuted or not, in that hypothetical, the act is still criminal.

133 posted on 01/26/2007 1:42:12 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

No, there is a difference between "illegal" and "criminal", if you follow the links above back to antiRepublican's defense of the Russian hacker's distribution of OSX cracks, search for the word "criminal" and look at how many times he basically admits it was illegal but claims it couldn't have been criminal. It's obvious he understands the literal difference, but was caught here trying to merge the two together to lower the bar for criminal actions, whereas before he was claiming a much more serious offense was simply illegal but not criminal. That's his game though, talk in circles, and baffle the casual reader with BS, it's too bad you fell for it, although I'm sure he's grinning about it.


134 posted on 01/26/2007 1:58:14 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Of course there's a difference between illegal and criminal. But the "criminal" status of an act does not depend on whether there has yet been a conviction, or even a prosecution.

A statute can make an act criminal even if that act is never prosecuted.

135 posted on 01/26/2007 2:06:06 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
...it's too bad you fell for it...

I haven't fallen for anything.

136 posted on 01/26/2007 2:06:56 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Of course there's a difference between illegal and criminal. But the "criminal" status of an act does not depend on whether there has yet been a conviction, or even a prosecution.

The request he provide letters threatening criminal prosecution, case history of criminal prosecution, etc, is because that is what I provided when he was attempting to claim the Russian hackers couldn't have possibly been criminal. He also lied in claiming that OSX had to be distributed for their actions to be criminal, which I quoted and linked above, making his current claims that personal backups are somehow criminal instead of the Russian hackers all the more ludicrous.

137 posted on 01/26/2007 2:16:22 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle; antiRepublicrat
He also lied in claiming that OSX had to be distributed for their actions to be criminal, which I quoted and linked above...

I saw that exchange. Your description of it is just not accurate.

...making his current claims that personal backups are somehow criminal...

What you call "his current claims" are in fact his attempts to argue the force of your position (although he has made it clear that position is not his own).

...instead of the Russian hackers all the more ludicrous.

"Instead of?"

I did not see on this thread where he claimed the OSX hack was NOT illegal but ripping DVDs is. I have seen where you claim he said that, several times. But your shrill repitition does not serve to make it any more true.


[Courtesy ping to Antirepublicrat.]

138 posted on 01/26/2007 4:29:49 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it

Here is his quote I linked above, which is merely one of them from the former thread, it's quite clear he is now attempting to claim a lesser offense somehow IS actually criminal, without subjecting it to his own previous requirements for criminal.

What you call "his current claims" are in fact his attempts to argue the force of your position

My position is obvious, he needs to provide equal evidence that personal backups of one's own media is more "criminal" than distributing cracks to the entire world. I've shown case history and threatening letters that distributing cracks is more criminal, yet he's called that "BS" without having anything equivalent of his own.

I did not see on this thread where he claimed the OSX hack was NOT illegal

You're lost again. "Criminal" is the context, not "illegal". He brought the word up in post 45, and the overall context is he's been defending these hackers from Russia for almost a year now, insisting they weren't "criminal", even trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution", and claiming Apple's letter threatening "criminal" prosecution was quote "BS", all linked above. He clearly brought up the word in the one false context he thought he could pretend, that personal backups were equivalent to the actions of the Russian hackers, which he might even believe himself. But since there's no factual reason to believe that, he's had to resort to lying once again, something he's already admitted to knowingly doing before, including when he knowingly made up lies regarding the US Department of Defense, only to claim months later it was some sort of "trick" he was trying to play, to make up these lies about the US DoD on behalf of his Russian hackers, then claimed it was quote "fun", accused me of sex with goats and other psychotic babble. You can read more here, by all means please do.

139 posted on 01/26/2007 5:07:27 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Here is his quote I linked above, which is merely one of them from the former thread, it's quite clear he is now attempting to claim a lesser offense somehow IS actually criminal, without subjecting it to his own previous requirements for criminal.

He's not doing that at all. You're delusional. I've been following these threads and you seem to believe you can make your claims into truth by sheer repetition.

The reality is that you are a laughingstock. Your babbling is not as lucid as that of an irrational Greenwich Village panhandler.

140 posted on 01/26/2007 5:40:24 PM PST by Petronski (Who am I and why am I here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-155 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson