Linux-Advocacy Digest #823, Volume #25 Sun, 26 Mar 00 17:13:09 EST
Contents:
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 NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on Tholen (George Marengo)
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 NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:57:48 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>>>>>> Bob Germer wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is quite obvious that you are totally unable to comprehend the Findings
>>>>>>>> of Fact. They clearly, absolutely, unequivocally, without question, beyond
>>>>>>>> a shadow of a doubt contradict what you state above. That makes what you
>>>>>>>> said a lie. That makes you a liar.
>>>>>>> You were right the first time. I was unable to comprehend the
>>>>>>> Findings of Fact because I found them to uninteresting.
>>>>>> Just as I said: you're not interested in the facts but rather in what
>>>>>> someone thinks.
>>>>> The facts referred to are the legal opinion of a Judge.
>>>> On the contrary, there is a difference between facts and opinions.
>>> Of course.
>> So why did you call "facts" a "legal opinion"?
> Just because a Judge gives his legal opinion, it doesn't become fact.
So why did you call a "legal opinion" a "fact"?
>>>>> They happen to carry the weight of law, but it is essentially another
>>>>> persons opinion.
>>>> Are you saying that no facts were revealed during the course of the
>>>> investigation and subsequent trial?
>>> No, that's not what I'm saying. The fact is that MS broke the law.
>> Is that what you call a "legal opinion"?
> No, since the decision on record is that they violated U.S. law.
So why did you call that "fact" a "legal opinion"?
>>> That OS/2 is now largely relegated to the also rans being due to
>>> MS's actions isn't.
>> Isn't what?
> Isn't a fact -- please follow the thread.
I am following the thread, George. Your previous sentence involved the
breaking of the law, thus one could interpret "isn't" to refer to a
non-breaking of the law.
>>> In the Judges findings, that's what he opined.
>> Is that what you call a "fact"?
> It depends on the point of the opinion.
Consider the relevant point of the opinion: is it a fact?
>>>>>> Tell me, when you want to know whether it's going to rain tomorrow,
>>>>>> do you ask some random person what they think, or do you consult a
>>>>>> meteorologist for some facts?
>>>>> Actually, I generally just go outside and check for myself,
>>>> How can you determine by going outside right now whether it's going to
>>>> rain tomorrow?
>>> Very easily. The weather pattern for Southern California generally
>>> brings comes from the north west
>> I'm not familiar with "comes" used as a noun.
> That's your problem.
On what basis do you make that claim, George?
>>> -- what's out there today will shortly get to my house tomorrow.
>> Illogical, given that weather patterns tend to move something like
>> 30 mph, thus you'd need to be able to see 720 miles away. That's
>> over your horizon.
> You live where I live?
Try the past tense, George.
>>> I have, however, found that my local reports to be very inaccurate.
>> Compared to what some random person thinks?
> Compared to some random person? Yes.
Then I suggest you call the National Weather Service and report the
incompetence of their personnel, George.
------------------------------
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 21:00:20 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>> 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?
Where did I allegedly maintain that in the current discussion, Glatt?
Having more reading comprehension problems?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 21:00:22 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:48:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes [to Bob Germer]:
>
>> You're absolutely correct -- but what does that have to do with the
>> Judges opinion being just that, an opinion?
>
>You called that opinion a fact.
The Judge has opinions, just like I do. Whether MS's behavior caused
other fallout is an opinion he holds.
>> That's the problem... as well as the technology allows. I can see to
>> the coast, and if the coast is clear -- well, you tell me what today's
>> weather should be like, assuming a west to east pattern.
>
>I had asked you about tomorrow's qeather, George.
I go out in the morning for the day and the late afternoon for
tomorrow. Was that so hard to figure out?
>> I'm referring to a very specific case of the weather in my
>> neighborhood -- not the percentages for the county or area.
>
>And I referred to the weather tomorrow, not today.
See above.
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:01:28 GMT
> 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?
I do not believe laws are the solution to that. Would you like a law
saying that
let's say TV's could not include a let's say components from the company
GTEGRY ?
And I am not advocating Windows in here, just think a law is something very
complex to apply, the market decides, if you want the computers from shop A
with
no OS installed and this shop sells far less than shop B, with the HYHYH OS
preinstalled, be sure that shop B will stop doing it.
------------------------------
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 21:02:15 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.
> Yet another pontification.
Namely yours, given that you cannot read my mind.
>>> 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?
> The abuse that caused the university to reprimand you not to post your
> nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities,
What alleged abuse, Glatt? What alleged reprimand, Glatt? Classic
circular reasoning.
> which is why you now have to use RoadRunner.
Liar. I do not have to use RoadRunner.
>> Yet another example of your pontification.
> Yet another example of your lies.
What alleged lies, Glatt?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 21:05:12 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:45:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>> Here is an opportunity to clearly state what happened:
>
>I already have, George.
Great. I've done lots of things before but I'm always happy to set
the record straight when someone says something about me that's
not true.
>Nobody from the University contacted me about any complaint submitted
>by Jeff Glatt. I did not receive any reprimand from the University over some
>alleged complaint submitted by Jeff Glatt. Is that clear enough for you?
>Glatt is a liar.
Did you receive a reprimand from the University of Hawaii over an
alleged complaint submitted by someone other than Jeff Glatt?
------------------------------
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 21:06:37 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>> George Marengo writes [to Bob Germer]:
>>> You're absolutely correct -- but what does that have to do with the
>>> Judges opinion being just that, an opinion?
>> You called that opinion a fact.
> The Judge has opinions, just like I do.
Do you also call your opinions "facts"?
> Whether MS's behavior caused other fallout is an opinion he holds.
Are those the only opinions he holds?
>>> That's the problem... as well as the technology allows. I can see to
>>> the coast, and if the coast is clear -- well, you tell me what today's
>>> weather should be like, assuming a west to east pattern.
>> I had asked you about tomorrow's qeather, George.
> I go out in the morning for the day and the late afternoon for
> tomorrow. Was that so hard to figure out?
Yes, given how illogical it is.
>>> I'm referring to a very specific case of the weather in my
>>> neighborhood -- not the percentages for the county or area.
>> And I referred to the weather tomorrow, not today.
> See above.
See my response above.
------------------------------
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 21:09:49 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.
> Yet another example of your lies.
What alleged lies, Glatt?
>>>> 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.
> Nonsense. Your failure to get your facts right has no bearing upon the
> contents of that article.
What alleged failure, Glatt?
>>>>> which is why what he thinks is therefore irrelevant.
>>>> Incorrect.
>>> Liar.
>> Yet another example of your pontification.
> Yet another example of your lies.
What alleged lies, Glatt?
>>>> 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?
> On the basis that it is irrelevant what you think.
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Glatt?
>>> Telling more lies,
>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
> I see that you didn't deny my assertion that you're telling more lies.
You also see that I didn't confirm your assertion, Glatt. You're
simply evading my question.
> That's not surprising being that you are indeed telling more lies.
What alleged lies, Glatt?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 21:09:50 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:57:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>> Just because a Judge gives his legal opinion, it doesn't become fact.
>
>So why did you call a "legal opinion" a "fact"?
What is fact is whether MS was found guilty of violating the law.
The rest is the Judges opinion.
------------------------------
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 21:13:59 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>> Here is an opportunity to clearly state what happened:
>> I already have, George.
> Great. I've done lots of things before but I'm always happy to set
> the record straight when someone says something about me that's
> not true.
Which is why I set the record straight when Glatt said something about
me that isn't true. Is your memory that short?
>> Nobody from the University contacted me about any complaint submitted
>> by Jeff Glatt. I did not receive any reprimand from the University over some
>> alleged complaint submitted by Jeff Glatt. Is that clear enough for you?
>> Glatt is a liar.
> Did you receive a reprimand from the University of Hawaii over an
> alleged complaint submitted by someone other than Jeff Glatt?
Having reading comprehension problems, George? Glatt claimed that I was
reprimanded as the result of *his* complaint:
JG] I made the accusation of abuse to the University of Hawaii, they
JG] deemed that it had merit, and reprimanded you not to post your
JG] nonsense to COOA from the university's facilities, which is why you
JG] now have to use RoadRunner.
The above is a lie.
------------------------------
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 21:14:57 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>> Just because a Judge gives his legal opinion, it doesn't become fact.
>> So why did you call a "legal opinion" a "fact"?
> What is fact is whether MS was found guilty of violating the law.
That doesn't answer my question, George.
> The rest is the Judges opinion.
That still doesn't answer my question, George.
------------------------------
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)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:10:26 GMT
Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:24:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bob Germer wrote:
>> >> You were right the first time. I was unable to comprehend the
>> >> Findings of Fact because I found them to uninteresting.
>> >
>> >Just as I said: you're not interested in the facts but rather in what
>> >someone thinks.
>>
>> The facts referred to are the legal opinion of a Judge. They
>> happen to carry the weight of law, but it is essentially another
>> persons opinion.
>Rather misinformed and directed opinions I might add, too.
>He claimed that Apple, Linux, and several other competitors were not serious
>competitors in the marketplace, which is clearly incorrect.
>In cases like this where a Judge falls asleep alot.. er.. I mean when the
>Judge isn't an authority on the subject, he will formulate an opinion based
>on what seem to be some dumbed-down facts and then essentially copy-n'-paste
>his Findings of Fact directly from whichever sides he's currently siding
>with's fact submittal. This is common occurance and is usually a good thing,
>except in this case.
>It's unfortunate, because the Judge had his mind made up in the first place.
>I mean, the whole investigation was questionable from the day the FTC
>recommended
>the Justice Department (Janet "The Butcher of Waco" Reno's DOJ) not proceed
>with an investigation. But that's a-whole-nother story...
Everybody is stupid but you, right? Do you really believe that 19 states and
the DOJ really believed that there was no reason to go after M$?
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
