Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #25 Sun, 26 Mar 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (Marty)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Roger Blake)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Chris Lee)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Chris Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 03:53:32 GMT
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 02:19:35, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> |>
> |> On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 01:44:49, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> |>
> |> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> |> |>
> |> |> On Sun, 25 Mar 3900 06:43:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
> |> |> said:
> |> |>
> |> |> |>> It is a fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this
> |> |> |>> newsgroup that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
> |> |> |>> reprimanded for doing so.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |>I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
> |> |> |>and a claim of fact, Glatt.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |I just finished telling you that it is a fact that it has also been
> |> |> |mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you abused your
> |> |> |employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for doing so.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |>Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
> |> |> |>some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
> |> |> |
> |> |> |Prove it, if you think you can, loser.
> |> |>
> |> |> It is incumbent on the person leveling the charges to produce evidence
> |> |> and prove the claim Fatglatt.
> |> |
> |> |How ironic, coming from the person who (in his absurdly
> |> |long-to-the-point-of-rude signature) continues to foist a baseless, unproven
> |> |accusation of Sutherland attempting to get Tholen fired for using a word.
> |> |Will Bobo's hypocrisy never end?
> |
> |Note: no response. It continues still.
>
> My response is you get riled up regularly about Sutherlands own words.
On what basis do you claim that I am "riled up"? That notwithstanding, how
does that constitute "your response"? You'll stop at nothing to avoid
retracting an unsubstantiated claim, eh Bobo?
> In fact,
What does fact have to do with anything you have written?
> for my less than learned friend,
Who would that be? Germer perhaps?
> all I do post in my signature box is in fact the evidence
Liar. Your signature does not provide any evidence for your claim. Every
time I've asked you to demonstrate how it does, you have either ignored the
request or changed the subject. How transparent can you get?
> and I don't even post the claim,
Obviously not, as your signature has nothing to do with your claim, let alone
support it, in spite of what you attempt to lead others to believe. It is
quite obvious you'd like to bury your unsubstantiated claim in the depths of
history and lie about it rather than retract it. We all know the type of
person you are and this comes as no surprise.
> the evidence by itself is profound enough for people to come a
> conclusion,
So why have you "embellished" it with your misleading editorial comments? You
have yet to address this question each time I bring it up.
> in fact it is what gets you riled up.
You are erroneously presupposing that I am riled up, while simultaneously
attempting to draw attention away from your unsubstantiated claim. How
predictable.
> How cute, is all I have to say on the matter.
How hypocritical, "is all I have to say on the matter".
> |> |> The defense's job is to respond to evidence presented, and is not
> |> |> burdened with the proof that there is no evidence.
> |> |
> |> |So why have you failed to present evidence to back up your claim that
> |> |Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a particular word? Will
> |> |Bobo's hypocrisy never end?
> |
> |Note: no response. No evidence presented to substantiate his claim, proving
> |his hypocrisy yet again.
>
> Again you mistake the evidence for the claim.
Not at all. Again you miscomprehend what I wrote. I have noted your claim
("BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.") and
noted your lack of presentation of evidence to substantiate your claim. This
led me to (rightfully so) note your hypocrisy in stating:
BO> The defense's job is to respond to evidence presented, and is not
BO> burdened with the proof that there is no evidence.
Those are your own words to which you have not lived up. No surprise for
long-time Bobo fans, however.
> |> |> Of course there are exceptions to that rule. . . .
> |> |
> |> |Like you for example? How convenient.
> |
> |Note: no response. He obviously considers himself to be above his own words.
>
> Strange that you have turned around evidence versus claims. All I do
> present in my signature box is the evidence.
Still having reading comprehension problems? I've done no such thing. I've
pointed out your hypocrisy in not substantiating your own claim while
extolling the virtues of doing so to others (which reduces the act to so much
hot air on your part).
> |> |> like in Lewis Carrol's "Wonderland."
> |> |
> |> |Or Bobo's own line of home-brew fairy tales.
>
> You can claim all you wish that I made that stuff up Marty.
I made no claim that the quotes in your signature file were "made up". I was
referring to your lies and misinformation.
> But anybody who has any doubt about it can go to Deja News and see for
> himself.
But what they won't see, no matter how hard they look, is evidence to
substantiate your claim.
> All your clamouring is for naught.
How ironic, coming from someone whose verbal masturbation has involved (but is
not limited to) responding to articles removing the entire content save the
signature, and responding to articles as if they were written by another
person such as your referring to me as Glatt.
> |> |> And "loser"? Losers don't have jobs as a professor at a major
> |> |> university.
> |> |
> |> |I beg to differ (based on several examples).
> |> |
> |> |> Losers are unemployed bums or guys that can't hold a steady job.
> |> |
> |> |Being a loser has nothing to do with holding down a job. A loser can be a
> |> |bookkeeper, for example.
> |
> |Note: no response.
>
> Not withstanding exceptions to the rule, losers are good for nothings,
> bookkeepers that can hold a steady job are usually at a minimum good
> for bookkeeping.
As you mention, there are exceptions. Hence my point about employment being
irrelevant stands.
> |> |> When is the last steady job you had Fatglatt?
> |> |
> |> |Running interference through your verbal masturbation and inventing your own
> |> |topics again?
> |
> |Note: no response.
>
> My such a preoccupation on sexual stimulation Marty.
My such as misinterpretation of a metaphor, Bobo. Not surprising considering
the intelligence you've demonstrated thus far in this forum.
> Must be about the 1,000th time you have used that construction.
Try again. I've only used it when it fit the bill, so you've no one to blame
but yourself for its usage. If you'd like to see me stop using that phrase,
then stop posting in such a self-gratifying way, using your imagination to
fill in the pieces that don't exist.
> Is it really all that stimulating to you?
Stimulation is irrelevant. The appropriateness of the metaphor is relevant.
> |> |Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How
> |> |embarrassing! No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not
> |> |magically produce evidence that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired
> |> |for using a word, especially in light of Sutherland's reproduction of
> |> |the letter he actually sent to the U of H. I ask again (again noting
> |> |the lack of previous response), where is the part that proves that
> |> |Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find that
> |> |part, can you? Too bad.
> |>
> |> Hmmm, if you can't find it, then what is your objection to it? Do you
> |> see any claims there?
> |
> |How many times are you going to lie about not making this claim? Here it is
> |*AGAIN*. Ironically, it immediately followed the quote from me which you've
> |plastered all over your signature, yet you somehow neglected to include this
> |part in there:
> |
> |M> If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried to get someone fired for
> |M> using a particular word it is a despicable act.
> |
> |[How ironic that you have included this very line in your erroneous reasoning,
> |but "forgot" what your response was to it. How convenient.]
> |
> |BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.
>
> That wasn't in the post Marty.
<forehead smack> That's the point, Bobo.
> Still having a problem with last month's posts?
Still unable to substantiate your claim? I know you'd like to pretend you
hadn't made such an assinine statement, but you have and you can't change
history.
> |If that's not an unsubstantiated claim, then I don't know what is. How many
> |more times do you think you can get away with lying about it?
>
> How many times did I post it?
At least one too many times. How many times have you retracted it or admitted
that you can't substantiate it?
> |> Nope little guy,
> |
> |To whom are you referring, bookkeeper?
>
> Bookkeeper? Who is a bookkeeper? Is there something in your view
> wrong with being a bookkeeper?
Little guy? Who is a little guy? Is there something in your view wrong with
being a little guy?
Amazing how easy it is to turn your own idiocy back on you.
> |> there is only your statement and David's statements.
> |
> |Surely you are "forgetting" something. How convenient. (See above, you lying
> |hypocrite.)
>
> Well, you are the hypocrite
Typical, predictable, unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Back to your
"monkey see, monkey do" style of argumentation again I see.
> as you had to go back into historical posting to pull out "THE CLAIM".
This fails to make me a hypocrite.
> That was not posted in this thread.
This fails to make me a hypocrite. Not that it is at all relevant,
considering your new lie which I was refuting:
BO> there is only your statement and David's statements.
You have again conveniently glossed over your unsubstantiated claim. Now why
is that?
> |> If you see something there, then there indeed must be something there.
> |
> |Yes. There's your unsubstantiated claim, sitting there just where you left
> |it. I don't suppose you'd like to do something about that, now would you?
> |(other than lie about it and pretend it never existed)
>
> Where I left it? What date was it posted Marty?
Does the fact that it is a few months old magically make it a true,
substantiated claim? Of course not. It does, however, show your hypocrisy in
blowing your hot air extolling the virtues of backing up one's claims.
> |> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
> |> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
> |> act."
> |
> |to which Bobo responded:
> |BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.
>
> Just look at the signature box Marty. David's words are there.
Irrelevant, as the words there do nothing to prove your claim. They contain
no admission from Sutherland that he attempted to get Tholen fired for using a
particular word. I have challenged you time and again to show otherwise, and
as expected, you failed.
> As far as Fatglatt goes he doesn't deserve my efforts to look up his
> support, why don't you just ask him Marty?
Because he's not the one making the unsubstantiated claim that I am
addressing. Why should I ask him to prove what you've said against him?
BO> The defense's job is to respond to evidence presented, and is not
BO> burdened with the proof that there is no evidence.
Amazing how your own words debunk your continued idiocy, eh?
> Or hell Marty I will save you the trouble.
>
> Hey Jeff Fatglatt, did you support David Sutherland on his attack on
> Tholen? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Do you enjoy beating your wife, Bobo? A simple Yes or No will suffice.
You'll note that an erroneous presupposition was involved in at least one of
the above cases.
> |Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrassing!
> |No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
> |that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
> |light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
> |H. I ask again (again noting the lack of previous response), where is the
> |part that proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word?
> |Can't find that part, can you? Too bad.
>
> Hey, Marty, I am entitled to my opinions and you are entitled to
> yours.
You are even entitled to make unsubstantiated claims and I am entitled to call
you on them. You are even entitled to be a hypocrite and I am entitled to
call you on that as well.
> Some of yours are in fact so good it is memorialized in my
> signature box.
Some of yours are so idiotic that I've immortalized them in my signature.
> Of course, if my signature box reminds you of my opinion,
Your signature reminds me of your unsubstantiated claim, Bobo. It also
reminds me of someone so desperate to denigrate another person who has posted
in this group that he'll deliberately arrange information in a misleading
fashion and add editorial comments to quotes which he claimed "speak for
themselves".
> well I can't help that now can I?
I suppose it's in your nature to be a devious, lying hypocrite. Too bad
you're too transparent to get away with it.
> But you will have to just get over it Marty and live with yours and
> David's own words.
Translation: I can't substantiate my claim nor do I have any intention of
doing so. I will continue to present misleading, out of context quotes, and
pretend they prove my point.
> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
> act."
>
> David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
> Dejanews:
>
> If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
> particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
> anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
> and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
>
> If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
> *will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
> *will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
>
> I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
> Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
> certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
> admission to personal notification of employer]
>
> Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
> insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
> so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
> discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
> Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
> contacting employer]
>
> Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrassing!
No matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
H. I ask again (again noting the lack of previous response), where is the
part that proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word?
Can't find that part, can you? Too bad.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 04:14:48 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:52:38 -0800, jdaspinw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The simple truth is that Microsoft makes a damned fine
>operating system, and if you can't run Windows without
No they don't. I've used a large number of OSes in the last 20+ years,
and Microsoft's are the worst I've ever dealt with in terms of stability,
performance, and security.
--
Roger Blake
(remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: 26 Mar 2000 04:23:57 GMT
In article <8bj2hr$je1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
.
>
>> Actually, this is a very bad example. First of all, MSFT doesn't make IE
>> for unix systems. Second of all, what other major browsers besides
>
>Last summer, when I was doing Web development, one of the browsers
>I tested my code with was the Solaris version of IE. It ran quite nicely.
>
>Francis.
Why is it that the *ONLY* people who say Solaris version of IE runs nicely
are Microsoft advocates?
Most of the people who actually *USE* Solaris say the Solaris version of IE
is a pile of buggy shit.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 26 Mar 2000 04:44:07 GMT
In article <8bgnni$sb3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In comp.os.linux.development.apps Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <8bakec$vou$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>:>In that case you should. Goodness knows why redhat seem to think that
>:>you should work as root. It's incomprehensible.
>
>: I don't use sudo either. Why should I when I can just use su to do things
as
>: root from my user account on my personal machine? sudo is basically a
silly
>: pain-in-the-ass.
>
>Because it means you are encouraged to stay as root if you use su. And
>what's the PITA in typing sudo foo instead of su; foo ?? (or su -c foo,
>or whatever). The real benefit of sudo is:
>
> 1) you don't have to know the root password, only yours
Dumb reason. If I want to operate as the root user, I should *know* the root
password. Besides how am I encouraged to stay as root? I su, do whatever I
have to do as root,and then exit back to my user status.
> 2) you don't have to retype your blinking password every time
> (it's good for 5 mins of repeat uses, at least)
I think retyping the blinking password is a good idea, since it reminds you
that you are operating as root, so you had better be fucking careful about
what you are doing.
> 3) every command is logged, so you can check up
> 4) it's got a wonderful rant by RMS in the manoage
> 5) you can control capacities finely, if you feel like, not
> that I do.
Somehow this still doesn't inspire me to use sudo instead of su.....
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
