Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 08:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 547061
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: unfair jab at Microsoft
by The1stImmortal on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 12:35
in reply to "RE[2]: unfair jab at Microsoft"
Actually it wasn't the "surveillance" part I was really disagreeing with. It was the "include" bit
Note I carefully avoided taking a personal stance on the "surveillance" angle.
Yes I'm being pedantic
Your original post looked just a bit too much like a shill or even a legal threat(which it's not, and I'm not saying you are, but it *looked* like that kind of post), to avoid me posting like I did 




Member since:
2005-11-05
It is clear that your definition of surveillance is quite different from the norm. No point arguing.