David Grove writes:
> I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm just saying that there seems to be
> such a tight relationship between the high profile commercial perl entities
> to question (not accuse, just question) the violation of anti-trust laws. As
> a direct competitor of this alliant entity, I've seen some things that don't
> look kosher. I will _not_ detail this at this time or in this forum. It is
> not the place for it.
You're quite right, David. The court of law is the arena for claims
of antitrust, not this mailing list. Insinuations like those you're
making are deceptive ("O'Reilly seems to be breaking the law! Not
that I'm saying O'Reilly is breaking the law ...") and unpleasant,
not to mention based on a self-serving rewriting of history.
I'm going to unsubscribe you from the advocacy list now, David,
because your grudge against Activestate and O'Reilly has made you a
pain in the communal ass rather than an asset. Thanks for the
positive contributions you've given us, but the negative contributions
just got too much to take.
I'm not unsubscribing you because you've criticized O'Reilly. Others
have criticized O'Reilly and I haven't booted them. I'm not removing
you because you criticized Activestate. I criticize Activestate all
the time. I'm booting you because you're disingenuous, disruptive,
and almost always off-topic.
I posted this to the list so that others would know you're gone, and
would also know why.
Please direct further messages on the subject to me and not the list.
Thanks,
Nat
(list czar)
