Linux-Advocacy Digest #819, Volume #25 Sun, 26 Mar 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jason Bowen)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Iridium Tech Support ("bobsun")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:11:09 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.
>Just because you can mention something doesn't automatically make it
>the truth, Glatt
Just because you can insist that it isn't true doesn't automatically
make it false, loser.
>, especially considering your history of lies in this newsgroup.
That's ironic, being that you're a person with a 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
Just because you can insist that it isn't true doesn't automatically
make it false, loser.
>, especially considering your history of lies in this newsgroup.
That's ironic, being that you're a person with a 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated 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.
Reading comprehension problems? Where did I say that I have based it
upon pontification?
>Classic illogical circular reasoning.
Classic reading comprehension problems on your part.
>>> 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?
Nonsense. I sent supporting evidence which was used to help University
officials determine that you had abused their facilities.
>> they deemed that it had merit,
>
>Odd that nobody at the University said anything to me about your
>alleged accusation of abuse, Glatt.
Irrelevant. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
>> 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.
Irrelevant. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
>> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
>
>Liar.
Yet more pontification.
>I don't have to use RoadRunner.
You do have to use it when posting your nonsense to COOA.
>Indeed, I continue to use my University account.
Not to post your nonsense to COOA, you can't.
>>>> 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.
Not in this thread, they aren't. That is because you may not do so
because of your past abuse of the University's facilities.
>>> , 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.
That's why it's relevant to note that it has been mentioned several
times in this newsgroup that you were reprimanded for abusing the
University of Hawaii, your employer's, facilities due to what you've
posted in this newsgroup.
>>> Furthermore, the University's recommendation was that Sutherland be
>>> ignored.
>
>> Nonsense,
>Liar.
Yet more pontification on your part.
>How would you know what the University told me in response to
>Sutherland's complaint?
The same way that you pretend to know what the University told David
Sutherland, which contrary to your lies otherwise, was that the
University would "recommendation" that your abuse of their facilities
be stopped, which was David Sutherland's recommendation.
>> 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.
Yet more pontification.
>I don't have to use RoadRunner.
You do have to use it when posting your nonsense to COOA.
>Indeed, I continue to use my University account.
Not to post your nonsense to COOA, you can't.
>>>>> 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?
Not able to comprehend context, I see. I'm not surprised.
>Having more writing problems?
Having more reading comprehension 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?
Not able to comprehend context, I see. I'm not surprised.
>Having more writing problems?
Having more reading comprehension 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.
>Pontification is not the basis for a pontification, Glatt.
Reading comprehension problems, loser. Where did I say that I have
based it upon pontification?
>Classic illogical circular reasoning.
Classic reading comprehension problems on your part.
>>> 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
Incorrect. I did not make my accusation of abuse to the University of
Hawaii via this newsgroup. You'd know that if you were even aware of
what transpired. Obviously, you are not.
>, namely without any supporting evidence?
Incorrect. They had all of the evidence they needed to reprimand you
for abuse of their facilities.
>> they deemed that it had merit,
>
>Odd that nobody at the University said anything to me about your
>alleged accusation of abuse, Glatt.
Irrelevant. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
>> 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.
Irrelevant. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
>> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
>Liar.
Yet more pontification.
>I don't have to use RoadRunner.
You do have to use it when posting your nonsense to COOA.
>Indeed, I continue to use my University account.
Not to post your nonsense to COOA, you can't.
>>>> 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.
Not in this thread, they aren't. That is because you may not do so
because of your past abuse of the University's facilities.
>>> , 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.
That's why it's relevant to note that it has been mentioned several
times in this newsgroup that you were reprimanded for abusing the
University of Hawaii, your employer's, facilities due to what you've
posted in this newsgroup.
>>> 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?
Reading comprehension problems? The request made by David Sutherland
that you be reprimanded.
>>>>>>>> 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?
Not able to comprehend context, I see. I'm not surprised.
>Having more writing problems?
Having more reading comprehension 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
Just because you can insist that it isn't true doesn't automatically
make it false, loser.
>, especially considering your history of lies in this newsgroup.
That's ironic, being that you're a person with a 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
Just because you can insist that it isn't true doesn't automatically
make it false, loser.
>, especially considering your history of lies in this newsgroup.
That's ironic, being that you're a person with a 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated 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
Just because you can insist that it isn't true doesn't automatically
make it false, loser.
>, especially considering your history of lies in this newsgroup.
That's ironic, being that you're a person with a 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
Just because you can insist that it isn't true doesn't automatically
make it false, loser.
>, especially considering your history of lies in this newsgroup.
That's ironic, being that you're a person with a 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated 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?
By virtue of the fact that you have failed to understand that your
complaint was rejected upon the basis that it was obviously
groundless.
>>>> 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.
I'm still posting from borg.com to COOA. You on the other hand, are no
longer posting to COOA from the University of Hawaii's systems due to
your past abuse of facilities.
>>>> (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.
Classic pontification on your part.
>> 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.
That's ironic, being that your lies have been demonstrated in this
newsgroup.
------------------------------
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 16:13:33 GMT
>ian tholen
>I wonder if borg.com would be interested to know that you've continued
>making unsubstantiated claims?
I wonder if the University of Hawaii would be interested to know that
you're still maintaining that they did not regard your "kook and a
queer" comment as the least bit offensive?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 16:38:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:17:46 GMT <ereD4.411$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8b62hc$g8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> BTW, little known facts about penquins.
>>
>> Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
>>
>> But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
>>
>
>But in Linux, all penguins are lazy sitting with round belly.
>They cannot walk or fly. They cannot even stand up
>with fat belly. Linux penguins must have been eating
>too much "free" stuff.
>
>Totally amazing to see sitting penguins everywhere!
>
>Can Linxu penguins fly someday?
>
>It must be scary if those sitting penguins all suddenly
>stand up and walk. They'd better be sitting!
Yeah, we should just forget the penguin. Now everyone, gather
'round the .... hmmm, why are there holes in this flag,
and tatters trailing off? :-)
Is Microsoft's Metaphorical Waving Thing trying to tell us something? :-)
>
>> Totally amazing to see!
>>
>> 2 + 2
>>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- at least, one can cuddle a stuffed penguin :-)
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 26 Mar 2000 16:44:42 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 3900 01:01:40, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
|On 03/26/2000 at 02:14 AM,
| When in LA said:
|
|> If you tune into TV forecasters you will find a big falling off of
|> forecast accuracy from the real meteorologists who actually man the
|> weather stations, run the forecast models, etc. I dislike listening to
|> TV meteorologists except to see the latest pictures. Tuning in my
|> internet connection to the Oxnard weather service station though, I get
|> the good forecasts that hold up quite well when probabilities are
|> figured in.
|
|For the most part, I agree with you regarding talking heads at local TV
|outlets in many cities I have visited. However, here in the Philadelphia
|metropolitan area, we have a staff of very highly trained and qualified
|meteorogists with the very latest doppler radars at the NBC outlet. One of
|the team, Glenn Schwartz is known as Hurricane Schwartz because of the
|years he spent in the NOAA hurricane research center. The station sponsors
|more than 50 on-line remote reporting stations in Pennsylvania, New
|Jersey, and Delaware in conjunction with AMX in Maryland. They have, and
|use, at least a half dozen or more computer models and create their own
|forecasts which prove more accurate over a 6 or 12 hour period than the
|NOAA forecasts.
|
|Also, the ABC affiliate is tied in with Accuweather which is usually a bit
|more accurate than NOAA. Until recently the CBS outlet had as its chief
|met guy a former Navy pilot who was a trained meteorologist and also did
|extremely well day to day.
|
|Now, in the Washington and Baltimore markets, the locals are not so good.
|Ditto for New York with the exception of WNBC.
Very interesting Bob, have you actually done a rigorous test of your
hypothesis though? Advertising is a great way to tell the public all
you are doing, but often it is just fluff with no real substance.
For instance, a guy who used to be with NOAA, is in fact a guy that
used to be with NOAA. He now has a new job, and it is almost
certainly not a job to pour over the various weather products and come
up with a forecast. He is doing his joke rehearsals, he is in the
make-up room, he is getting his suit pressed, and when not at the
station he is out doing public appearances, sponsoring charities,
attending events, doing other reporting duties to promote the station.
I have never heard of a TV company actually giving the guy a full
lab.
Here I am certain the Doppler Radar images being used by the local
stations are government run. They have the radars on ridge tops
spaced so there is pretty good overlap around the region. Once you
have such an installation and you provide public access to it, why
bother building your own Doppler Radar net? Even Accuweather seems to
utilize NOAA inputs to create their forecasts. All Accuweather seems
to do is put it in a more user friendly format eliminating the weather
jargon, and making pretty pictures without all the details and
artifacts that you get from an unretouched satellite photo.
Additionally, NOAA sponsors hundreds of independent observation
stations around the area. My father operated one for years before his
death. NOAA even has a little newsletter from the Oxnard service
they distribute to their stations. These stations post their data
online and anybody can go look at the individual station reports.
Additionally, here in Socal most of the weather comes from the north
Pacific ocean, not many observation stations out there. NOAA
collects ship weather reports, has a weather station on the outer
island at a remote point on the heel of California (its remote mostly
because it is covered by military reservations), and has a bouy system
in place.
Some of the local stations also sponsor call ups by local observers.
However, such an observer can have maximum impact by hooking into the
local NOAA weather observation system and do the call ups too. For
the TV station that way they can get a little color commentary to go
with the weather data.
BobO
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: 26 Mar 2000 16:46:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > 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".
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who wrote "mentallly":
>
>DT> That you cannot think of other possibilities shows that you are the
>DT> one "mentallly challenged", Jason.
>
>If you're going to poke fun at someone's spelling/grammar mistakes, you would
>do well to double check your own to avoid looking like a fool.
He just likes to show that he is what he claims not to be.
>
>--
>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] (Jason Bowen)
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: 26 Mar 2000 16:48:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Is it logical to remove context from a discussion, Jason?
>
>That's something you need to ask yourself, hypocrite.
Don't you understand? Dave sets the context and decides the topic of
discussion.
>
>--
>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: "bobsun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Iridium Tech Support
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:01:07 GMT
Colin R. Day wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>ZnU wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry
>> McBride) wrote:
>
>The surface of the earth has an area of about 200 million square
>miles. As the total area of the world's cities is much more than 200
>square miles, the probability is greater than one in a million.
Greater Los Angeles has to cover several (5?) thousand square miles alone.
Phoenix is about 2000 sq miles.
bobsun
>> --
>> The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
>> -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
>>
>> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
