Linux-Advocacy Digest #23, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 09:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Adam Schuetze)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640 (tholenbot)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (s. keeling)
Netscape 6.0 Linux version ("Jerry Wong")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("Jim Ross")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("Jim Ross")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Bobo has "issues" (Marty)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Adam Schuetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 06:30:39 GMT
John Hasler wrote:
> > As long as you are running text based stuff in xterms, you don't need a
> > massively powerful machine.
>
> I've got one, but I still use fvwm.
Well, then you have the best of both worlds. I envy you :).
I had a job last year where we used linux in the office. The IT boys came in
and installed brand new PIII-450's with 512MB of ram. I was drooling, let me
tell you.
Some guys were running windows, and getting -good- performance. I ran X and
twm with mostly text based apps, and had -fricking smoking- performance. I
made some converts, let me tell you.
Nothing showcases linux better than on high performance boxes. It lets you
show people how good it really can be.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 03:09:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Eric Bennett (little bot) wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
Evidence, please.
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > tholenbot wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >Today's Haakmat digest:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm so happy to see you're digesting me again. I was beginning
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> think you had become oblivious to all that is wonderful about
> > > > > >> our
> > > > > >> relationship.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Your entertainment is irrelevant, Pascal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Careful tholenbot, I'm going to crack you up ...
> > > >
> > > > What you are going to to is irrelevant. What you do is relevant.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur, as no one has mentioned what he is going to to.
> >
> > More reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> You are erroneously presupposing previous reading comprehension problems
> on my
> part, Bennett (little bot).
Incorrect.
> > Typical, coming from someone who fails to local the grasshopper.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Bennett (little bot).
See what I mean?
> I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot). No
> surprise
> there, Bennett (little bot).
You erroneously presuppose the existence of "the question".
> > > > > >> >> fl. 10 or fl. 15 if you star in it.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >And how many others would be willing to pay the same?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Just you and me, Dave.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Evidence, please. Did you ask all others?
> > > > >
> > > > > ... and hack you to pieces!
> > > >
> > > > Also illogical.
> > >
> > > Also pontification.
> >
> > Of what relevance is that remark?
>
> Weren't you paying attention, Bennett (little bot)?
I see you failed to answer the question. How predictable, coming from
someone who lacks asteroid comprehension skills.
> > > > Meanwhile, you fail to answer the question. Typical.
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from someone who typically fails to answer the
> > > question.
> >
> > Who is that, Marty?
>
> More evidence of your reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little
> bot).
How ironic, coming from someone who erroneously claimed that I
erroneously presupposed reading comprehension problems on your part.
> > > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> > >
> > > Don't you know?
> >
> > Don't you know?
>
> I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot). No
> surprise
> there, Bennett (little bot).
How ironic, coming from someone who failed to answer the question.
> > > --
> > > The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
> >
> > What is allegedly "infinite" about it?
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little bot)?
See above.
> > > So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
> >
> > Perhaps you should try asking that question in a post made in response
> > to Bobo, Marty.
>
> Aren't you sure, Bennett (little bot)?
Don't you know?
> > --
> > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
>
> I've already addressed this issue above, Bennett (little bot).
Reading comprehension problems again, Marty?
> [Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his usage of
> the
> words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they are derogatory
> terms.]
What alleged "we"?
--
The Dave Tholen Show Theme
(feel free to provide third verse; I wrote this back
in January and never got around to finishing it)
Oh this is a story 'bout a kook name Dave
And he lived in Manoa with that Bob-O knave
But the U-Hawaii workers really didn't approve
So he packed up his telescope lens and had to move
To a city in Ohio where he lived in a tree
And he worked in a telescope polishing factory
And he played on the company trolling team
And every single night he had a strange recurring dream
Where he was wearing dirty glasses in a vat of sour cream
But that's really not important to the story.
Well the very next year he met a bot named Eliza
With an asteroid tattooed on its arm
But he didn't keep in touch and he lost its number
The he got himself a job on a poppycock farm
And he spent his life savings on a telescope dome
Twenty miles below the surface of the earth
And he really makes a mighty fine invective and insult target
For what it's worth
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s. keeling)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: 08 Apr 2000 01:15:19 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) writes:
> >> What are the 10 things about Linux you wish you knew before you got a
> >> copy and started installing?
>
> The one and only single thing that I wish I knew about Linux before starting
> to use it, is that it was going to be so flipp'n EASY. If I knew that, I would
[snip]
> BTW:
> Anybody looking for some `free' WinDoS software at my expense? There is a box
I've a pile of QuickC books I'd be happy to part with. I miss 4dos,
but with bash, not much. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen) TopQuark Software & Serv. Enquire within.
[sed 's/NO@SPAM./@/g'] Contract programmer, server bum.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
------------------------------
From: "Jerry Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.windows98,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,hk.comp.pc,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Netscape 6.0 Linux version
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 15:44:58 +0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
=======_NextPart_000_000B_01BFA171.652A2360
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Linux netscape 6.0 can be download now.
ftp.netscape.com
=A6b pub/netscape6
http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124
(In Chinese Big 5)
http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm
(In English)
=======_NextPart_000_000B_01BFA171.652A2360
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dbig5 http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Linux netscape 6.0 can be download=20
now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ftp.netscape.com</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>=A6b pub/netscape6<BR><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124">http://members.hknet.com/~wo=
ng63124</A><BR>(In=20
Chinese Big 5)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm">http://members.hkn=
et.com/~wong63124/linux.htm</A><BR>(In=20
English)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
=======_NextPart_000_000B_01BFA171.652A2360==
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 03:36:09 -0400
CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >Yep. While most would agree MS's tactics were less than honorable, all
> >they care about is their software and business. Microsoft has made
> >this happen. Linux has not, and as far as the desktop at it's current
> >rate of improvement never will.
> >
>
> M$ has NOT made this happen. the thousands of companies that have
> developed windows software have made this happen. M$ has gone along
> for a free ride and made billions of dollars by just "being there."
> some of the more feeble brained give M$ the credit.
Actually it seems the natural evolution is a monopoly, through mergers and
one on one until all but one or
a few companies are left. Then prices jack up and government gets involved.
I can't think of how to prevent this in a competitive society without
blocking all mergers or something like that.
Basically MS became a monop. That must be corrected. We can afford to let
the Internet be
monoped by MS with half-open protocolos and MS-standards.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 03:44:31 -0400
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:06:58 -0600...
> ...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Of course that is not programming, not anymore that changing the
> > > content of a memory cell is programming.
> >
> > Ok, now I know what you believe . . . but I still don't know why. Why
> > is modifying the contents of a memory cell not-programming?
>
> Because it does not create the implementation of an algorithm
> anywhere. Sprinkling ink on paper isn't writing either, or is it in
> your opinion?
>
> > > HTML is not something
> > > that can be executed in a meaningful way, just parsed.
> >
> > Ok, so my browser isn't executing HTML? So just exactly how did the
> > HTML cause a different set of bits to be displayed on my screen?
>
> Your browser does not execute HTML. Execution involves concepts such
> as addresses and control flow. Your browser parses HTML, which is a
> data structure, not a program.
>
> > > > Ok, you are on the record: but you still haven't shown how writing
HTML
> > > > is not programming. When I program a computer, I say: do this, and
the
> > > > computer does what I tell it to do. When I tell the computer to
record,
> > > > transmit, then execute an HTML program . . . what am I doing that is
> > > > different from what I do when I program?
> > >
> > > HTML isn't Turing complete.
> >
> > You once again misunderstood my question: whether or not HTML is Turing
> > Complete is irrelevant, as the question was, how is the *ACT* of writing
> > an HTML document not-programming?
>
> The act of writing an HTML is not programming because the act does not
> involve implementing an algorithm in a programming language.
>
> mawa
> --
> If you like that sort of thing, it will be just the sort of thing
> you like.
> -- Bob Tennent
mawa, do you consider shell scripting to be programming (say in Bash) ?
Jim
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 07:57:19 GMT
"Jeremy Crabtree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Damien allegedly wrote:
> >On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:37:50 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> >fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >|
> >| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >| > I've already pointed this out, several times I might add. But let me
> >| > summarize. Because copyright laws limits what I can do with
> >| > my property, it is an infringement on my rights.
> >|
> >| I know you've pointed it out, but you haven't offered anything to
> >| substantiate your argument, except to say that it's an infringem,ent on
your
> >| rights. This is getting to be tiresome.
> >
> >You claim an innate right to limit what I do with my property. What
> >would you accept as evidence that that is a *bad* thing?
>
> Whoa! Watch yourself...he's trying to trap you. He /can't/ prove his
> point, so he's changing the argument, and now he's trying to force
> you to prove a negative...an impossible task if ever there was one.
>
Not to worry. I only get trapped in my own logic, although sometimes this
thread feels like an infinite loop. Actually, I've come up with another way
to look at this. Imagine this scenario, then feel free to comment:
There is a VAR reseller who owns a company which arkets turnkey computer
systems. He has the industry's best customer support policy, which is the
key to his success and the only way for him to compete against Dell and
Gateway. One of his people, a Linux engineer, suggests that they set up a
pre-installed Linux product line featuring GPL'd applications.
The owner doesn't know what a GPL is, but when he's told that it means free
software, it sounds like a winner, so he gives his approval to proceed.
The Linux guy goes right to work on the designs, paying meticulous attention
to the software configuration and tweaking everything until he has the best
performing, most stable Linux platform possible. Soon thereafter they start
shipping systems.
At first their customer support staff has no trouble handling problems with
the new line, but as time goes on the variety of new issues goes up over
time, not down as they expected. They soon discover the reason: their own
customers are creating the problems by changing source sode and
recompiling their GPL'd applications. Some of them are even making changes
to the Linux kernel itself.
The owner comes up with the solution immediately. Just get rid of that damn
source code. Who ever heard of shipping source code anyway? Then the Linux
engineer drops drops the bombshell; "You can't remove the source code from
the distribution. The GPL won't let you."
"What GPL? You said that meant the software was free." Then the engineer
explained what GPL meant and why they had to include the source code with
the distribution.
The owner looked at the engineer straight in the eye and said, "I'm not
interested in what that GPL has to say. As far as anyone is concerned we're
just sharing free programs with our customers, What right does the GPL have
to control what we put on our hard drives? It's not their property, is it?
We're doing them a favor by loading that stuff on our machines. It'll
improve the reputation of Linux. "
"Now, get to work.''
fmc
--
> "The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
> roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
> -- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bobo has "issues"
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 07:53:20 GMT
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 3900 22:49:09, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> |>
> |> On Sun, 7 Apr 3900 05:46:02, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> |>
> |> |Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> |> |>
> |> |> On Sun, 7 Apr 3900 03:59:30, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> |> |>
> |> |> |[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> |> |> |>
> |> |> |> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> |> |> |> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |> |> |> > you know what - I say bullshit. Bullshit to you Bob. I think you are
> |> |> |> lying.
> |> |> |>
> |> |> |> That's what I like about Drestin. Subtlety. Tact. And a willingness
> |> |> |> to compromise.
> |> |> |>
> |> |> |> _N_O_T_!
> |> |> |
> |> |> |Sorry dude, but look at who he's dealing with. Germer has earned quite a
> |> |> |"rep" for spreading misinformation and outright lying. Frankly I don't blame
> |> |> |anyone for questioning his words.
> |> |>
> |> |> You mean spreads misinformation or outright lying like you dude?
> |> |
> |> |You got that backwards. You're the proven liar. You can't even make your
> |> |case without spewing lies about what was and wasn't omitted from a given
> |> |post. Perhaps you should respond where I already debunked your idiocy rather
> |> |than spread it further to yet another unrelated thread.
> |> |
> |> |[verbal masturbation snipped]
> |> |
> |> |And just for laughs, why don't you now pipe up and defend Germer's idiocy
> |> |claiming that he has not lied about such topics as USB. We can all use a bit
> |> |more entertainment from that episode.
> |>
> |> Why should I defend Germer? He was proven wrong and he wouldn't admit
> |> it.
> |
> |You are kindred spirits.
Note: no response
> |> It is you that has a lot in common with Germer, not me.
> |
> |Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Note: no response
> |> I admit my errors.
> |
> |A blatant lie. Where's your admission to your error in the statement:
> |BO> Sutherland admitted to doing so and Glatt supported the attack.
> |
> |You have failed to produce evidence to back up this statement, hence it is a
> |falsehood.
>
> Typical moronic statement we have come to expect from you Marty.
I guess you consider the truth to be "moronic". So be it.
I'll ask again: Where is Sutherland's admission that he tried to get Tholen
fired for using a particular word?
Lacking that, where is your retraction of your unsubstantiated claim?
[verbal masturbation snipped]
> |You were also wrong on at least 3 occasions when you stated that I
> |had removed your inquiry on what could be changed in your sig.
>
> |You were also
> |wrong about what you claim I snipped in a given posting, and you "restored"
> |something from a completely different article. Where are your admissions to
> |these mistakes?
>
> Did I deny it?
Running away from them is worse than denial. At least with denial, you might
have convinced yourself that you are correct, but by running away, you show
how even you don't even believe the idiocy you are spewing enough to back it
up.
> If I made an error I admit it.
Incorrect. You just run away from them and invent your own irrelevancies to
harp on, usually pulling out a dictionary in the process.
> |.... And that's just off the top of my head.
>
> Yep, dude, its a yahoo bunny slope off your forehead.
Didn't see that one coming. You're so clever.
> |I don't even want to peak into
> |DejaNews to discover all of the other things you have been wrong about that
> |you've failed to admit.
>
> Hmmmm, then doesn't that fall under the category of, "You have failed
> to produce evidence to back up this statement, hence it is a
> falsehood."?. . . .guffffffffffffffawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!
Not at all, as I have already mentioned three particular mistakes you have
failed to admit above. Unlike you, I back up my statements as I state them.
As far as your assinine definition argument goes, I've already responded to
and debunked it in another article. If you wish to discuss it, respond to
it. I refuse to post the explanation to yet another thread.
[verbal masturbation snipped]
> 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.
Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrasing! No
matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
H. I ask again (noting the lack of previous response), where is the part that
proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find
that part, can you? Too bad.
I see your signature is unchanged. So much for:
BO> See I am not such an unreasonable guy Marty. I will work with you
BO> on this.
More hot air. How convenient that you lied about my response to this
statement.
--
The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
"It sounds as if you think somehow queers are better than morons and idiots
and we know that is not the case."
Jeff Glatt says:
"'Idiot' and 'moron' are not descriptive labels for people with learning
disabilities despite your own inability to grasp this very simple fact."
Bobo responds:
"I agree that it is not descriptive so why do you insist on using labels long
improperly attributed to the learning disabled?"
[Editorial: Note the admission that "idiot" and "moron" are derogatory in
nature and are not proper ways to refer to those with mental disabilities.]
Bobo says:
"I never suggested that it was proper to address a retarded person in this
way."
[Editorial: Re-affirming that referring to retarded persons as "idiots" and
"morons" is unacceptable.]
Regarding his position on the matter:
"My argument may not be of any importance to anybody, but at least it is
consistent"
[Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his usage of the
words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they are derogatory
terms.]
"It sounds as if you think somehow queers are better than morons and idiots
and we know that is not the case."
So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:09:55 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 05:52:42 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:37:50 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:11:06 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time
with
> | > | this.
> | > | > | > | > | Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property
have
> | > | been
> | > | > | > | > | common law for centuries.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Just because it's a law does not make it right.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Not THAT again. Go back and review chapter one.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > So you disagree? The law decides what rights you and I have?
> | That
> | > | > | > seems contradictory to what you said earlier. (Quoting from
> | memory)
> | > | > | > "my rights are not doled out by the government."
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Not at all. I was referring to your propensity for juvenile
> | rhetoric.
> | > | > | Copyright based on common law has been around for centuries, so
the
> | > | burden
> | > | > | of proof is on you to offer a more cogent arguments than "Just
> | because
> | > | it's
> | > | > | a law does not make it right". You're waiting to get hit by a
wild
> | > | pitch
> | > | > | when you should be trying to hit home run off an inside fast
ball.
> | > | >
> | > | > I've already pointed this out, several times I might add. But let
me
> | > | > summarize. Because copyright laws limits what I can do with
> | > | > my property, it is an infringement on my rights.
> | > |
> | > | I know you've pointed it out, but you haven't offered anything to
> | > | substantiate your argument, except to say that it's an infringem,ent
on
> | your
> | > | rights. This is getting to be tiresome.
> | >
> | > You claim an innate right to limit what I do with my property. What
> | > would you accept as evidence that that is a *bad* thing?
> |
> | I'm sorry, but you'll have to do your own homework here, or get someone
at
> | MIT to help you. All I'll say is that I claim no innate right to
interfer
> | with your property, and that you likewise have none with regard to mine.
>
> Yet you claim the right to limit what strings of ones and zeros I put
> one my property. You're being contradictory.
I claimed no such right; when did I say that? Please provide a reference.
Also, please make at least a cursory effort to come up with more
interesting things to say. You're boring me to distraction.
fmc
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
