Linux-Advocacy Digest #815, Volume #25 Sun, 26 Mar 00 03:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Weak points (Arne Adolfsen)
Re: Weak points (Arne Adolfsen)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (David Goldstein)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:34:01 GMT
>>> Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>>> I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
>>> and a claim of fact, Glatt. Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>>> some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, 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.
>It's also a fact that it has been mentioned in this newsgroup that you
>are a liar, Glatt.
It is not a lie 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.
On the other hand, it has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup
that you are a fool who posts worthless nonsense and lies.
>The difference is that it's also been demonstrated
>in this newsgroup that you are a liar.
I see that you're pontificating with lies again.
>Meanwhile, you simply continue to pontificate.
How ironic, being that you're the one pontificating with lies.
>>>>> Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>>>>> some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
>>>> Prove it, if you think you can,
>>> Simple: you never produced a shred of evidence
>>Why should I produce evidence to support your erroneous claim that you
>>did not abuse your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded
>>for doing so.
>On what basis do you call it an erroneous claim, Glatt?
On the basis that it is erroneous.
>You made the
>accusation of abuse, therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>shoulders.
I made the accusation of abuse to the University of Hawaii, they
deemed that it had merit, and reprimanded you not to post your
nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities, which is why you
now have to use RoadRunner.
>> That's why you're posting from rr.com now instead of the
>> University of Hawaii's system.
>Incorrect, given that I post from both, Glatt
Nonsense. Your messages in the thread are posted from RoadRunner only.
>, and as I told Sutherland,
>I had requested cable modem service long before he registered any
>complaint with the University.
Irrelevant.
>Furthermore, the University's recommendation was that Sutherland be ignored.
Nonsense, they didn't ignore his request that you be reprimanded not
to post your nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities, which
is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
>>> to support your claims,
>> Nonsense. If you knew how to use dejanews, then you'd realize 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.
>I don't need to use DejaNews to realize that you've made unsubstantiated
>claims, Glatt.
It is not an unsubstantiated 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. You'd know that if you
knew how to use Dejanews.
>>> thus both are mere allegations.
>> Nonsense. If you knew how to use dejanews, then you'd realize 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.
>I don't need to use DejaNews to realize that you've made unsubstantiated
>claims, Glatt.
It is not an unsubstantiated 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. You'd know that if you
knew how to use Dejanews.
>>>> loser.
>
>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't presented any evidence.
>
>> Why should I produce evidence to support your erroneous claim that you
>> did not abuse your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded
>> for doing so.
>On what basis do you call it an erroneous claim, Glatt?
On the basis that it is erroneous.
>You made the
>accusation of abuse, therefore the burden of proof falls on your
>shoulders.
I made the accusation of abuse to the University of Hawaii, they
deemed that it had merit, and reprimanded you not to post your
nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities, which is why you
now have to use RoadRunner.
>> That's why you're posting from rr.com now instead of the
>> University of Hawaii's system.
>Incorrect, given that I post from both, Glatt
Nonsense. Your messages in the thread are posted from RoadRunner only.
>, and as I told Sutherland,
>I had requested cable modem service long before he registered any
>complaint with the University.
Irrelevant.
>Furthermore, the University's recommendation was that Sutherland be ignored.
Nonsense, they didn't ignore his request that you be reprimanded not
to post your nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities, which
is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
>>>>>> I suggest that you learn how to use dejanews
>>>>> How ironic
>>>> Yes, it is ironic that you suggested someone else use dejanews to
>>>> verify that something had been mentioned in this newsgroup,
>>> Illogical, given that there is a difference between someone who allows
>>> their postings to be archived at DejaNews and someone who does not,
>>> such as you.
>> Irrelevant. If you knew how to use dejanews, then you'd realize 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.
>I don't need to use DejaNews to realize that you've made unsubstantiated
>claims, Glatt.
It is not an unsubstantiated 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. You'd know that if you
knew how to use Dejanews.
>>>> when you are clearly unable to use dejanews to verify 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.
>>> 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.
>It's also a fact that it has been mentioned in this newsgroup that you
>are a liar, Glatt.
It is not a lie 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.
On the other hand, it has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup
that you are a fool who posts worthless nonsense and lies.
>The difference is that it's also been demonstrated
>in this newsgroup that you are a liar.
I see that you're pontificating with lies again.
>Meanwhile, you simply continue to pontificate.
How ironic, being that you're the one pontificating with lies.
>>> Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>>> some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
>> It is more than a claim. Dejanews clearly shows 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. Do you not know how to use Dejanews, loser?
>It's also a fact that it has been mentioned in this newsgroup that you
>are a liar, Glatt.
It is not a lie 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.
On the other hand, it has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup
that you are a fool who posts worthless nonsense and lies.
>The difference is that it's also been demonstrated
>in this newsgroup that you are a liar.
I see that you're pontificating with lies again.
>Meanwhile, you simply continue to pontificate.
How ironic, being that you're the one pontificating with lies.
>>>>> , coming from someone who sets the archive flag to "no" to
>>>>> prevent DejaNews from archiving his own unsubstantiated and libelous
>>>>> claims.
>>>> What alleged "unsubstantiated and libelous claims", loser?
>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Glatt? Consult borg.com
>>> for a copy of the formal complaint.
>> Having more reading comprehension problems,
>Obviously not, GLatt.
Obviously so, loser.
>> What didn't you understand about borg's rejection of your "formal
>> complaint" as lies and nonsense coming from a usenet kook
>What alleged rejection, Glatt? There has been no rejection of my
>formal complaint by borg.com.
Incorrect.
>> (versus the University of Hawaii's action to stop you from abusing
>> their facilities with your posting of nonsense to this newsgroup)?
>What allleged action, Glatt? What alleged abuse, Glatt?
The abuse that caused the university to reprimand you not to post your
nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities, which is why you
now have to use RoadRunner.
>Even more of your pontification.
How ironic, being that you're the person lying and pontificating.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:44:26 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Jeff Glatt writes:
>
>>> George Marengo writes:
>
>>>>> What I think is irrelevant; the facts are relevant. Do you have any?
>
>>>> What you think is irrelevant?
>
>>> Because the facts are relevant.
>> And what he thinks is always contrary to the facts,
>Liar.
Incorrect.
>Witness the article to which I referred George.
Irrelevant. The article doesn't indicate what you "think".
>>which is why what he thinks is therefore irrelevant.
>Incorrect.
Liar.
>I already explained why what I think is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant what you think is the explanation for why you think
that what you think is irrelevant.
>Having more reading comprehension problems, Glatt?
Telling more lies, loser?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:49:04 GMT
>Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[Tholen] is just being deliberately irksome because there's
>something about your opinion he doesn't like. You're certainly not the first
>person to which he has applied this treatment.
No, but he's one of the first people whom Tholen has applied this
treatment in COOA from RoadRunner, now that the University of Hawaii
reprimanded him to stop abusing their facilities to post his nonsense
to COOA
------------------------------
From: Arne Adolfsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:33:44 +0000
Miss NNTP AKA Herr Give me a choice wrote:
>
> > I, for one, don't ever want to own a combination
> > coffee-maker/toilet.
>
> > > > I haven't any idea what you're babbling about here. In 18
> > > > months I've never had a single window manager problem on Red
> > > > Hat 5.0, Red Hat 5.1, Red Hat 5.2, Linux-Mandrake 5.2,
> > > > Linux-Mandrake 6.0, or Linux-Mandrake 6.1.
>
> > > > I think Micros~1 Office is a bloated piece of crap -- lucky
> > > > me, I am forced to use it at work
>
> > I routinely reply to email formatted in Word97 with email
> > formatted in KLyX. For documents on diskettes, I ask that
> > they format the documents in some platform-independent
> > system. Most don't, but they soon learn. (I work in a
> > central office at a university, and there's no way anyone at
> > the university can get past me without my OK.)
>
> > I have no desire, let alone reason, to read Word documents.
>
> > > > I have less than no interest in computer games.
>
> > I have less than no interest in computer games.
>
> > I haven't felt a need to test either system, mostly because
> > it would have cost me beaucoup de bucks.
>
> > And there's really
> > no reason for me to switch to Microsoft products.
>
> > I'm
> > functioning at least as quickly on 3 year old hardware as
> > Winders 2000 users function on brand-new, state-of-the-art
> > hardware.
>
> > My download times at home via a 56K modem are as
> > fast, if not faster, than my downloads from work where I'm
> > ethernetted into a backbone site (usc.edu).
>
> > > > used Internet Explorer or Outlook Express, mostly because
> > > > I've never felt the need to do so.
>
> > My new boss uses IE and Outlook Express. The main
> > difference in my productivity and output from hers, so far
> > as I can tell, is that her print-outs are formatted
> > differently.
>
> > I've never used krn, but tin strikes me as more than
> > acceptable.
>
> > Give me a break. I've been using computers at work since at
> > least late 1985/early 1986. Shall I really list them out?
>
> > Buy me the hardware that even Microsoft claims is the
> > minimum and I'll try Windows 2000 out.
>
> > I'll hush up, Missy "SetMeUp", if you will.
>
> Yeah, it may seem incredible, but the above is a discussion
> about Windows v.s. Linux as desktop, although it could seem
> like he/she was telling about his/her life. I won't post in here any
> more reasons and facts, because it seems like if some people
> don't understand what are all about; besides I am not giving my
> name and email (I think that my genetic code identifies me enough),
> and that's very very important, what's more, if Newton of Leibnitz
> hadn't give their names, perhaps the theories they developed weren't
> as demonstrable by each person around the universe. You know what
> I want to say, don't you Mr GIVEMEYOURNAME ? Don't bother me
> with relativistic issues and things like that ...
------------------------------
From: Arne Adolfsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 07:40:34 +0000
The Winders-Lover-Who-Will-Not-Reveal-Her-Name typed:
> Yeah, it may seem incredible, but the above is a discussion
> about Windows v.s. Linux as desktop, although it could seem
> like he/she was telling about his/her life. I won't post in here any
> more reasons and facts, because it seems like if some people
> don't understand what are all about; besides I am not giving my
> name and email (I think that my genetic code identifies me enough),
> and that's very very important, what's more, if Newton of Leibnitz
> hadn't give their names, perhaps the theories they developed weren't
> as demonstrable by each person around the universe. You know what
> I want to say, don't you Mr GIVEMEYOURNAME ? Don't bother me
> with relativistic issues and things like that ...
"Newton of Leibnitz"?
Huh? And what was the rest of that rant about?
I can only hope that your mental health care providers are
nearby.
Arne Adolfsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 09:41:12 +0100
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> There should be a law that a customer must have a right to buy any PC
> without any operating system installed.
> This will give a customer choice of any OS, or if someone aleady have
> Win on desktop, why he/she have to pay to M$ an additional fee for OS
> on laptop?
We just had a discussion about this at work yesterday. My opinion was
pretty much the same as yours--do not allow companies to sell computers
with OS's preinstalled. This could actually benefit MS and the consumer
at the same time. Since MS would have to become competitive, they would
probably start giving away Office with the purchase of any Win OS--a
plus for consumers that have to pay a lot of money for that product.
Since they would be giving away the Office software, they would be able
to lock even more people in to their OS ;-0
> Zalek
David Goldstein
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:07:08 GMT
Jason Bowen writes:
>>>>>>> O.K., lets change the subject then. What do you think these numbers
>>>>>>> mean for OS/2?
>>>>>> Which numbers, Jason? You didn't retain any numbers in your follow-up.
>>>>> I'm sorry that you can't remember them
>>>> I can remember lots of numbers, Jason. Why do you think I asked about
>>>> which ones?
>>> The ones that followed from our thread.
>> There were none in your follow-up, Jason.
> So if we have a conversation about I have to bring up the item being
> talked about each time?
That's not even grammatical.
> It is never implicity referenced?
Depends on the number of options, Jason.
> The 92 million was added to IBM's bottom line from OS/2.
I already know that, Jason.
> The 92 million that we were talking about was part of IBM's revenue.
Actually, that was what George and I were talking about. As to what
you were talking about, you removed all the context.
> OS/2 contributed 92 million as I said in my previous statements,
I already know that, Jason.
> and I was wondering what you think that means for OS/2.
Why do you wonder about what I think, Jason?
> Would you like to talk about the 92 million IBM says OS/2 generated
> for it?
If that's what you wanted to talk about, Jason, why did you remove all
the context?
> That is an awkward way of communicating that you need, the inability
> to reference what is being talked about from previous statements.
Huh? What alleged inability, Jason?
>>> Do you have trouble following that?
>> Do you have trouble comprehending that there were no numbers in your
>> follow-up, Jason?
> You can't follow threads apparently,
What appears to you is irrelevant, Jason.
> I find that laughable for someone so vaunted in logic.
Is it logical to remove context from a discussion, Jason?
> The numbers would be implied from the previous posting in the thread.
Only if they were unique, Jason.
>>>>> since you provided a source.
>>>> You didn't specify any source when you asked your question, Jason.
>>> You can't follow a thread?
>> I followed exactly what you posted, Jason, which happened to not include
>> any previous text.
> You can't follow a conversation is what I am seeing,
Your eyes are deceiving you, Jason.
> or you are being confrontational.
You're the one who confronted me, Jason, not the other way around. I
was simply answering George's question.
> Maybe you enjoy it?
Illogical, given that you were the one who confronted me, Jason.
>>>>> According to the source that YOU provided OS/2 brought in $92 million
>>>>> towards IBM's bottom line.
>>>> Which directly answered George's question about where the numbers came
>>>> from. If only you could be as direct.
>>> If only you could follow a thread.
>> How do you think I managed to answer George's question directly, Jason?
> I asked a different question which you failed to answer, no surpise there.
Your question appeared without any context, Jason, hence I requested
clarification.
> Did I ask you how you answered Georges question?
You wrote:
JB] If only you could follow a thread.
Obviously I can follow a thread, given that I answered George's question,
Jason. You ignored that evidence. No surprise there.
>>>>> This is OS/2 advocacy isn't it.
>>>> Incorrect; it's answering a question directly.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> Wouldn't you like to talk about that?
>>>> I already accomplished what I set out to do, Jason, which was to
>>>> answer George's question. Was there something inadequate about
>>>> my answer that needs further discussion?
>>> So you don't want to talk about OS/2 in the OS/2 newsgroup?
>> Illogical, given that my response to George was about OS/2, Jason.
> You couldn't resond to my question though.
Your question appeared without any context, Jason, hence I requested
clarification.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
