Linux-Advocacy Digest #835, Volume #25 Mon, 27 Mar 00 08:13:04 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) ([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])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (tholenbot)
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Artur Bartnicki)
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Eddie Dubourg")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Giving up on Tholen (and Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Joe
Malloy")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:37:21 GMT
>ian tholen
>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
Yet another pontification.
>, given that you cannot read my mind.
Irrelevant, I don't need to read your mind to note your agenda.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:34:02 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
> Yet another pontification.
Incorrect, considering the explanation that accompanied my response.
>>, given that you cannot read my mind.
> Irrelevant,
On the contrary, the explanation is quite relevant to proving that I
did not pontificate.
> I don't need to read your mind to note your agenda.
What is allegedly my agenda, 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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:35:01 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>>>>> That still doesn't answer my question, George.
>>>>> Then your question will go unanswered.
>>>> Unable to explain yourself, George?
>>> Characterize it however you wish.
>> Having deleted the evidence for what you actually wrote, I don't need
>> to characterize your action, George. It speaks for itself.
> As I said, characterize it however you wish.
As I said, watching you delete the evidence for what you actually wrote,
I don't need to characterize your action, George. It speaks for itself.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:38:34 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>> No David, I did not label those supporting opinions as fact.
>> GM] The facts referred to are the legal opinion of a Judge
> Yep -- the only fact is that Microsoft was found guilty.
On what basis do you call it the only fact, George, and how does that
apply to the fact that you did "label those supporting opinions as fact"?
> To support that position, in the opinion of the Judge, IBM and other
> companies were harmed by MS's actions.
How does that apply to the fact that you did "label those supporting
opinions as fact"?
>>>>>> Then why did you talk about the weather today in response to a question
>>>>>> about the weather tomorrow?
>>>>> It was a mistake which was later corrected.
>>>> Corrected by claiming that you can see tomorrow's weather today?
>>> No, corrected by claiming that I can do as well or better than my
>>> local weather reports in accessing whether it will rain or be sunny
>>> at my house tomorrow.
>> Prove it, if you think you can, George.
> Please suggest how I could possibly do that.
Start posting daily forecasts for tomorrow's weather, George.
> Either you believe me or you don't.
At the moment, all we have to go on is your pontification.
> If you don't, there's not much I can do about that.
On the contrary, there is plenty you can do about that. See above for
a suggestion.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 03:48:00 -0500
In article <e6FD4.13593$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What alleged "AntiSpam.ham", Dave?
--
Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:47:16 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> I am not having reading comprehension problems,
>>>> Then why did you ignore what was written, George?
>>> I didn't ignore what was written.
>> Then why are you evading the issue, George?
> I'm sure my memory isn't as good as yours -- what issue is it that
> I'm supposed to be evading?
Glatt's claim, George. When somebody mentioned 92 million, you were
quick to request evidence. But when Glatt mentioned the alleged
reprimand, did you request his evidence? Why no; you wanted a
denial. So much for innocent until proven guilty. You're evading
the fact that you haven't requested his evidence.
>>> You answered the first question that I had and I posed a second
>>> question.
>> What "first question" are you referring to, George? Where the
>> 92 million came from?
> The first question was whether you were reprimanded by the U of H
> for something that Jeff Glatt wrote.
Interesting that you didn't ask Glatt for his evidence, the way you
did after the 92 million claim. Why the inconsistency, George?
>>>>> but thanks for the concern.
>>>> What alleged concern, George?
>>> Never mind... it's clear you had no such concern.
>> Then why did you thank me for some alleged concern, George, if it's
>> so clear that I had no such concern?
> It is now clear. I am not used to dealing with people who have as
> large a chip on their shoulder as you do.
On what basis do you claim that I have a large chip on my shoulder,
George? You're the one who thinks he can forecast the weather
better than the professionals by just looking at the sky. How
ironic.
>>>> Having reading comprehension problems, George? Glatt claimed
>>>> that I was reprimanded as the result of *his* complaint:
>>> Yes, and you said it was a lie.
>> And have you challenged Glatt to present his evidence, or are you
>> content to take my word for it? Or is it sufficient that Glatt has
>> failed to produce any evidence of the alleged reprimand, George?
> I am content to take your word for it.
Odd that you weren't content to take someone else's word for it when
the 92 million figure was mentioned. Why the inconsistency, George?
>>> I then asked you a different question, which you see quoted above.
>> Thus evading the issue.
> Incorrect
Balderdash, George. Where have you requested Glatt's evidence the
way you did after the 92 million claim?
> -- I believe you when you said that Glatt lied about you
> being reprimanded by the U of H for a complaint that he lodged.
Odd that you weren't content to take someone else's word for it when
the 92 million figure was mentioned. Why the inconsistency, George?
> A separate question, and thus, a separate issue, is whether you
> were reprimanded by the U of H for something someone OTHER
> than Glatt wrote. Is the answer too embarrassing?
Why not ask for the evidence of the alleged reprimand, George? You
know, the way you did when the 92 million figure was mentioned.
If Glatt lied once, why shouldn't you think that he lied again?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:06:56 GMT
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 08:21:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>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?
>Here is an opportunity to clearly state what happened:
>For years you have posted from the University of Hawaii.
>Now you are posting from a Road Runner account.
That's because the University was sent a detailed synopsis of the
content of his posts here, along with comments of a wide demographic
of readers of this newsgroup, clearly showing Tholen's harassment of
others in the newsgroup, and they deemed his posts to be an abuse of
their facilities, and reprimanded him to stop that abuse.
>Why are you no longer posting from the University of Hawaii account
>and are instead posting from a Road Runner account?
He has no choice. For example, he will respond to yours and my posts
from rr.com instead of the University of Hawaii facilities because the
university does not want him using their facilities for harassment.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:13:33 GMT
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:04:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>George Marengo writes:
><snip>
>>> I am not having reading comprehension problems,
>>
>>Then why did you ignore what was written, George?
>
>I didn't ignore what was written. You answered the first question
>that I had and I posed a second question.
>
>>> but thanks for the concern.
>>
>>What alleged concern, George?
>
>Never mind... it's clear you had no such concern.
>
>>> The question, since you evaded it,
>>How ironic, coming from the person evading the issue,
>>namely Glatt's lie.
>I didn't evade it. Jeff Glatt lied.
Incorrect. Tholen is one lying.
>That's understood -- you were not reprimanded by the U of H based
>on a complaint by Jeff Glatt.
Incorrect. Some of material submitted to the U of H, which was used to
determine that Tholen abused their facilities, came from me. Of
course, I wasn't the only person who submitted material.
------------------------------
From: Artur Bartnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: 27 Mar 2000 12:10:04 +0200
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze, co nastêpuje:
[144 linii ciach - AB]
> I recently received a catalog which included Linux powered laptops
> from Dell, IBM, Compaq, and HP, among others. They even offered you
> your choice of Linux distributions. I was personally quite
> interested in the Thinkpad 600E.
Thinkpad 600E, being otherwise quite decent device, has one drawback
-- built-in modem is some sort of software-driven POS. As far as I
know no one managed to get it working under anything other than
Windows (and setting it up under Windows NT was not easy, too).
OTOH given the price of the box (ouch :->) adding a decent
Linux-compatible PC-Card modem should not be much of a problem.
--a
___ ___ -------------------------------------------------------
/ _ | _ ) Artur "Archie" Bartnicki tel: (0-71) 342 68 22
/ __ | _ \ (0-601) 79 88 72
/_/ |_|___/ -------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Free my mind. Right. No problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:00:33 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:17:46 GMT...
...and ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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.
Ever played "Tux the Penguin: A Quest For Herring"? The Linux penguin
can indeed run, jump and swim. Maybe even fly.
mawa
--
Paulg's Law:
In America, it's not how much an
item costs, it's how much you save.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:41:09 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Well, since you don't call partitioning/formatting the disk and
> >> installing drivers part of "installing an OS" I guess not.
> >With Windows installs, you don't _have_ to partition. I know people who
> >have installed Windows on a system with no OS who couldn't even define
> >partitioning, really.
> I know people who have installed Unix who couldn't define partitioning.
> That's irrelevant.
Sigh :-)
T., we're talking about whether paritioning is part of an OS install.
Hence, whether people can install an OS without partitioning isn't
irrelevant.
> >> So maybe I
> >> should just call it a "Procedure Guaranteed to Get My Computer to Work
> >> Again After Windows Corrupts It."
> >Well, "Procedure that will probably make Norm's computer work as he wants
it
> >to while taking a score of precautions that aren't necessary technically
to
> >install an OS" would be good :-)
> Maybe "Procedure that will guarantee to make Norm's computer work at all".
That wouldn't fit for all the steps he described.
> There certainly weren't a "score" of precautions.
Well, I'm not going to go back and count whether there were 20 or not, if
that's what you mean.
Is that the way that people actually use language now? That "there were a
score of such and such" means "There were 20" to them?
> I would agree with maybe
> three or four.
> Given the length of time necessary to do the whole thing over
> from scratch (the only way, based on experimentation and Gateway support)
to
> recover if something goes wrong during that install, to an extent that
even I
> would not have believed before I experienced it myself,
You still didn't say what machine you have, even.
> I would hesitate to
> call this "precautions that aren't necessary technically".
So hesitate. I don't see where your hesitation would be my problem there.
> This isn't voodoo;
> it is bizarre, but necessary.
Not to install an OS, it isn't. It is necessary perhaps, to completely
configure Norm's computer as he likes it.
> >> BTW Linux does include partitioning
> >> and formatting, all the way up to network setup and even installing the
> >> most common apps, as part of its OS installation.
> >Yes, which is one of the things that makes Linux installation more
difficult
> >for most newbies.
> Here I thought choosing "workstation" or "server" was a really difficult
> choice. I guess newbies don't know the difference, eh?
No.
> >> >There were a number of questions I asked you that I hope you answered
> >> >below, such as "Why no Gateway Rescue Disks?"
> >
> >> I don't know. Ask Gateway.
> >
> >I did. The reply I received is posted in an earlier post.
> I'm not interested in the reply you received; I want to know what they
said.
> Could you give us a hint?
Sometimes you seem coherent, and sometimes I start to think that you're that
guy Mahler from Massachusetts who used to post all that bizarre stuff on the
Van Halen and Kiss newsgroups.
You're not interested in the reply I received but you want to know what they
said?
> >I'd wait and pass judgment on that until we go through it.
> Save your time and your breath, Norman.
Wait a minute--I said the statement you're responding to there.
Get with the program! :-)
> Without passing judgement on
> Doc's
> technical expertise,
> he will learn more than you will.
> >> I have spent enough
> >> time with Gateway, who have more experience than you with this
> >> particular hardware/OS combination.
> >True, but the procedure they emailed to me sounds more realistic.
> Of course it does. Which is why the newest version of hardware and
> software
> has been modified to allow a less bizarre and difficult procedure.
Is the 2500 a new model?
Anyway, the 2300 procedure, as posted on the net, sounds more realistic,
too.
> It sure as
> hell won't work on my laptop; they stopped making "that" 2600 about two
> months
> after I got it.
They said that there never _was_ a 2600. Is it that the Gateway techs just
don't know what they're talking about?
> >My point was just that if you've ever installed with less than the
procedure
> >you mentioned (which I gathered _had_ to be the case since you mentioned
> >that you compiled the procedure after many instances) then the procedure
you
> >mentioned wasn't _all_ necessary to install Windows. After all, you'd
> >installed Windows with less than it yourself.
> This is correct only if you know in advance which steps can be skipped
under
> any specific circumstances.
It's not correct only in that case. The statement "x is necessary to
install windows" where x consists of a set of n statements is simply false
when n-1 statements could have described his installing windows in the past.
> If you don't, then all steps are necessary to
> ensure the install occurred,
That's not true because he skipped some of the steps--namely, the
precautionary ones, in previous installs. Since he skipped those steps, yet
still installed Windows, those steps aren't necessary to install Windows.
> whether they were all necessary for the attempt
> or not.
That's not true because they assume that things are wrong that there is no
reason to believe are wrong.
> This is the essential and important difference between a process and
> a procedure,
I'm starting to wonder if we speak the same language, since so many of these
examples come up in your responses.
> and why procedures are so much more difficult with modern
> software than most people are willing to admit.
Why would people not want to admit what is involved with a procedure? Is
this part of some conspiracy theory?
> [...]
> >> It omits everything except the basic Windows 95 installation itself,
> >Okay, hold on a second here. I was giving the general procedure for
> >_installing Windows_. You just now say "it omits everything except the
> >basic Win95 installation." Well, if it doesn't omit the basic Win95
> >installation, and that's what I'm relaying, how is it that it is
completely
> >incorrect for installing Windows?
> I've got an idea; why don't we all waste a couple weeks discussing whether
> "installing Windows" and "getting Windows to install" are synaptically
> identical?
Synaptically? Semantically, do you mean? Whatever is necessary to get
Windows to install would naturally be a part of installing Windows.
Again, you're going off on a tangent rather than defending or arguing with
the issue at hand.
> OTOH, I've done enough damage for this month. I'll see you around maybe.
Bye
> guys.
Okay, then.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Eddie Dubourg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:41:24 +0100
Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Some people still beleive that this is true! I recently got into a huge
> argument with a tech at a software store because he claimed that DOS 7
> was EMULATED. It amazes me how dullards like that can get jobs at
> computer stores.
Anyone who knows anything about computers would not work in a computer
store - posts there are reserved for tech wannabes.
E
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:47:41 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000
20:19:39 -0500
> >Two comments:
> >1. According to Gateway, no such model as the Gateway 2600 exists. I
also
> >searched the net for the model number just in case the tech I
corresponded
> >with didn't know what he was talking about, but I could find no mention
of a
> >Gateway 2600.
> Hardly a surprise. It may very well be possible I'm mis-remembering the
model
> (though I certainly recognized the convoluted install procedure). I
honestly
> don't think it matters.
LOL--the crux of your original point was "I know what he's saying is exactly
correct because I have this very model." Well, that wasn't the model he had
and the model that you kept saying you had is a model that Gateway says
doesn't exist. Now, all of a sudden, it doesn't matter.
> More probably, the Gateway 2600 doesn't "exist"
> because they don't sell it anymore, and it is more than two years old.
That's not what they said. They told me that there was never any such
model.
> Laptops which were manufactured more than two years prior cease to exist
in
> the minds and databases of the vendor.
Would you like to call Gateway with me on a conference call?
> >2. Is T. Max's posting style indicative of his general educational
style?
> >Does he walk up to students or lecture attendees and yell, "BZZZZT!
Wrong
> >answer, numbnuts!"
> >Just curious.
> That's not even my usual posting style; that's special treatment I reserve
for
> Roger and other trolls of his caliber.
What if you have a student in a class or a seminar attendee who you think is
trolling?
> I figure, part of the fun of being a
> troll is, I know, pretending to stay level headed while frustrating your
> victim into spewing obscenities.
On the other hand, maybe Roger has points contrary to yours, and you become
frustrated that a consensus isn't being reached. So, rather than trying to
defend your points through reasoned argument, you just start name calling?
A "troll" isn't simply someone who disagrees with you.
> So I just skip the middle parts, having gone
> through that often enough to find it boring, and go straight to the
> name-calling. That's the fun part for me. :-)
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:02:50 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :-) Sometimes, Roger, your ludicrous idiocy is actually very useful for
>pointing out why a shallow, simple view of the world is not appropriate for
>dealing with important and difficult issues.
You like characterizing disagreeing views as simple. But it's probably the
simpler view to dismiss them in that way.
> >>>Or did you miss the fact that the discussion was hardware
> >>>manufacturers in general?
> >>The discussion is Microsoft, specifically, and how they've fucked over
the
> >>hardware manufacturers in general, I would suspect.
> >And you would be wrong. Our regular viewers are once again not
> >surprized.
> >Free hint: try reading the thread for comprehension before you jump
> >in next time...
> Listen, jackoff;
Actually, after responding to you a number of times, he has a good point.
When you cut out earlier parts of the threads, I frequently haven't the
faintest idea what we were talking about, because you move further away from
the subject in each subsequent post. I would say that that is more
indicative of trolling.
And it's why I can't edit earlier responses in our posts--I need them to
remind me what we were talking about. You're the first person I've gone
back and forth with for whom I had to do that.
> either your a stupid useless troll that should stop wasting
> (WASTING) our time,
I think we can eliminate that option, unless you simply define troll as
"anyone who holds a view that disagrees with mine."
> or you are interested in discussion,
If you apply this to yourself, responding to a criticism that you don't
appear to be reading a post and contextualizing it with "listen jackoff"
seems more indicative of your former option.
> in which case you
> don't use "he didn't read every post in the thread" as an excuse for
failing
> to give any useful information or response.
If we're going to have any kind of focused discussion, which at least I
would prefer although I can do what we're doing now, too, it's necessary to
be familiar with the thread as much as is practically possible (that is, at
least the portions of the thread still on the news server) to really argue a
point.
You seem to choose "how can I disagree with this last statement in a way
that will hopefully ridicule this guy while derailing the point he wants to
make?" when you answer.
That's what Roger is complaining about, I think.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen (and Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:03:45 -0500
Well, Marty, Tholen tholened himself into another flub:
> > Having deleted the evidence for what you actually wrote, I don't need
> > to characterize your action, George. It speaks for itself.
>
> If it "speaks for itself" then why did you post this follow-up? Typical
> inconsistency.
You found the inconsistency -- now note how Tholen tries to wriggle out of
it!
- Joe
> --
> 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."
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
