Linux-Advocacy Digest #816, Volume #25 Sun, 26 Mar 00 05:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser. ("N. George")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 08:10:13 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
> He is here for the express purpose of attempting to harass people
> whose opinions he doesn't happen to like.
Yet another lie.
> It is precisely this which got him in trouble with the University
> of Hawaii for abusing their facilities
What alleged trouble, Glatt? What alleged abuse, Glatt?
Yet another example of your pontification.
------------------------------
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 08:12:55 GMT
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.
Yet another example of your pontification.
>> Witness the article to which I referred George.
> Irrelevant. The article doesn't indicate what you "think".
Hence one cannot conclude that what I think is contrary to those
facts.
>>> which is why what he thinks is therefore irrelevant.
>> Incorrect.
> Liar.
Yet another example of your pontification.
>> 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.
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim, Glatt?
>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Glatt?
> Telling more lies,
I see that you didn't answer my question. No surprise there.
> loser?
Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:20:11 GMT
Jason Bowen writes:
> I know from his inability to follow the the thread
What alleged inability, Jason? I answered George's question directly,
thus providing evidence that I am able to follow "the the" thread.
> that Dave is either mentally challenged,
Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument, and rather ironic, coming from someone who wrote "the the".
> he couldn't understand the implicit reference from the previous post
> in the thread,
You couldn't retain any context. Are you "context challenged", Jason?
> or antagonistic.
Need I remind you that you are the one who responded to me, Jason?
> He is one or the other.
That you cannot think of other possibilities shows that you are the
one "mentallly challenged", Jason.
> Of course I would have to say what one or the other was in that last
> sentence for Dave to understand what I am talking about heh?
How ironic, coming from the person who didn't understand that I am able
to follow "the the" thread.
> That is what he is claiming, he can't follow the implicit reference.
Where did I make that alleged claim, Jason?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:21:56 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
> 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
What alleged reprimand, Glatt? What alleged abuse, Glatt?
I wonder if borg.com would be interested to know that you've continued
making unsubstantiated claims?
------------------------------
From: "N. George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
rec.video.satellite.dbs,alt.satellite.tv,rec.video.satellite.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x,comp.infosystems.www.browsers,comp.infosystems.www.browswers.misc
Subject: Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser.
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 00:32:34 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============EC3DDFC7B9B2ABB94E8527A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I hate IE as well; I am running Netscape v4.72 in Win2k Pro and it
crashes me too... --Nat
Randy Crawford wrote:
> Simply amazing.
>
> I just tried to visit http://www.dishnetwork.com, but every
> time it crashed Netscape within visiting one, or at most two
> links off the main page. (I'm running Linux Redhat 6.0,
> Netscape 4.61, and I'm no newbie to Living Without Windows.)
>
> On the main page DN states that they DO NOT SUPPORT Netscape.
> Period. If you want to visit their site, "You should download
> Internet Explorer". They claim that it's Netscape's problem
> that their site crashes and burns and there's nothing they can
> do about it.
>
> UNbelievable. So much for selling Dish Network systems to
> all the AOL subscribers (who use Netscape).
>
> I bought a Dish Network system about a year ago. I *had*
> planned on renewing my subscription, and I wanted to see what
> their current services and hardware looked like.
>
> But I've changed my mind. If any vendor has the hubris to state
> that they won't serve me unless I CHANGE OPERATING SYSTEMS, or
> that they're unable to master the trivial technology of creating
> web pages that work with more than ONE browser, they clearly don't
> care if they lose millions of potential customers. And of course,
> they're incompetent idiots.
>
> Is Dish Network this clueless on other topics? I find this
> attitude to be incredibly self serving and short sighted. Do
> their stockholders know this? Does *Rupert Murdoch* know this?
>
> So... Anybody want to buy a Dish Network system? I'm switching to
> Direct TV.
>
> Randy
>
> --
> Randy Crawford
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.engin.umich.edu/labs/cpc
==============EC3DDFC7B9B2ABB94E8527A2
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="ngeorge.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for N. George
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="ngeorge.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:George;N. George
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:NGB Computers & Web Consulting
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
note:NGB Computers & Web Consulting can provide you or your company a comple computer
and/or web prescense solution! We can work with anything be it your old personal 286
that you want upgraded to the highest extent possible, or your corporate mega server
that you want upgraded to the capacity of Ebay. If we can't create, upgrade, or modify
it, we'll gladly refer you to someone who can at no extra charge!
x-mozilla-cpt:;-22224
fn:N. George
end:vcard
==============EC3DDFC7B9B2ABB94E8527A2==
------------------------------
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 09:54:39 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>>> 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.
Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
the truth, Glatt, especially considering your history of lies in this
newsgroup.
> On the other hand, it has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup
> that you are a fool who posts worthless nonsense and lies.
Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
the truth, Glatt, especially considering your history of lies in this
newsgroup.
>> 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.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
>> Meanwhile, you simply continue to pontificate.
> How ironic, being that you're the one pontificating with lies.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
>>>>>> 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.
Pontification is not the basis for a pontification, Glatt. Classic
illogical circular reasoning.
>> 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,
The same way you make accusations in this newsgroup, namely without
any supporting evidence?
> they deemed that it had merit,
Odd that nobody at the University said anything to me about your
alleged accusation of abuse, Glatt.
> and reprimanded you not to post your nonsense to COOA from the
> university's facilities,
Liar. Nobody at the University said anything to me about your
alleged accusation of abuse, Glatt.
> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
Liar. I don't have to use RoadRunner. Indeed, I continue to use my
University account.
>>> 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.
My messages in the newsgroup are from both, Glatt.
>> , and as I told Sutherland,
>> I had requested cable modem service long before he registered any
>> complaint with the University.
> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, the facts are relevant, Glatt.
>> Furthermore, the University's recommendation was that Sutherland be
>> ignored.
> Nonsense,
Liar. How would you know what the University told me in response to
Sutherland's complaint?
> they didn't ignore his request that you be reprimanded not
> to post your nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities,
What alleged request that I be reprimanded, Glatt?
> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
Liar. I don't have to use RoadRunner. Indeed, I continue to use my
University account.
>>>> 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.
It is not an unsubstantiated what, Glatt? Having more writing problems?
>>>> 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.
It is not an unsubstantiated what, Glatt? Having more writing problems?
>>>>> 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.
Pontification is not the basis for a pontification, Glatt. Classic
illogical circular reasoning.
>> 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,
The same way you make accusations in this newsgroup, namely without
any supporting evidence?
> they deemed that it had merit,
Odd that nobody at the University said anything to me about your
alleged accusation of abuse, Glatt.
> and reprimanded you not to post your nonsense to COOA from the
> university's facilities,
Liar. Nobody at the University said anything to me about your
alleged accusation of abuse, Glatt.
> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
Liar. I don't have to use RoadRunner. Indeed, I continue to use my
University account.
>>> 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.
My messages in the newsgroup are from both, Glatt.
>> , and as I told Sutherland,
>> I had requested cable modem service long before he registered any
>> complaint with the University.
> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, the facts are relevant, Glatt.
>> 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.
What alleged request that I be reprimanded, Glatt?
>>>>>>> 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.
It is not an unsubstantiated what, Glatt? Having more writing problems?
>>>>> 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.
Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
the truth, Glatt, especially considering your history of lies in this
newsgroup.
> On the other hand, it has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup
> that you are a fool who posts worthless nonsense and lies.
Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
the truth, Glatt, especially considering your history of lies in this
newsgroup.
>> 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.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
>> Meanwhile, you simply continue to pontificate.
> How ironic, being that you're the one pontificating with lies.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
>>>> 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.
Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
the truth, Glatt, especially considering your history of lies in this
newsgroup.
> On the other hand, it has been mentioned many times in this newsgroup
> that you are a fool who posts worthless nonsense and lies.
Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
the truth, Glatt, especially considering your history of lies in this
newsgroup.
>> 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.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
>> Meanwhile, you simply continue to pontificate.
> How ironic, being that you're the one pontificating with lies.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
>>>>>> , 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,
How is it allegedly obvious, Glatt?
> loser.
Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
>>> 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.
Prove it, if you think you can, Glatt.
>>> (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,
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
Liar. I don't have to use RoadRunner. Indeed, I continue to use my
University account.
>> Even more of your pontification.
> How ironic, being that you're the person lying and pontificating.
It is not a lie that the demonstration that you are a liar has been made
in this newsgroup.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
