Linux-Advocacy Digest #29, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (2:1)
Re: Be vs. Linux ("ax")
We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?)
(Damien)
Re: Be vs. Linux (2:1)
Re: A true story about benchmarks (2:1)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: RH linux stable?? (2:1)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X ("Jonathan Hendry")
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Ziya Oz)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Bobo has "issues" (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:12:15 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Interesting. I have not used Win 3.11 in a long time.
Me neither. I did this ages ago, shortly after the computer I was using was
upgraded from win311 to linux. I likes the old fiole manager, so I loaded it
up and ran it under win95. Under most circumstances, the performance is
better. Unser some, is is 2x as fast (as I remember), but at a few things is
is about 2/3 the speed. Hell, I used to have time to burn ;-)
As I said, these are figures I `remember' from years ago, so don't rely too
heavily on them...
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:03:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8cnn16$nl7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Personally, I'd ratter Linus own at least something.
> >
> > Whatever, history will examine or even testify Linus' choice.
> .
> .
> Not me, I would rather it be completly free. If Linus goes over the edge
> and starts including useless carbage to support some company or another,
> Others can pick up the code and start moving it in another direction.
> The strongest will servive...Or maybe 2 versions each meating DIFFERENT
> needs will evolve.
> .
Is it free for anyone to come up with DIFFERENT versions without any
consensus from Linus?
What about the name?
Will all the DIFFERENT versions have to be under the name of "LINUX"?
Is it copy left protected to replace the prefix "LIN" with whatever?
Will Linus be willing to give up control to allow the DIFFERENCEs?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do
you?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 18:08:24 GMT
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:05:56 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:8cllas$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > In article <8ckuqp$76u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| > doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Copyright laws are a
| > government-regulated form of suppression of freedom of speech, that
| > restrict the information you are allowed to communicate to others.
|
| Well, it roughly prohibits you from "saying" the exact same thing that
| someone else said and not giving them credit for it. I agree that you
| shouldn't be able to make a dub of a composition that I wrote, played and
| recorded for example then sell it to Sony as if it was yours, because it is
| my intellectual property. You can make similar stuff, though.
You can't own information. Once you let it out, it spreads like air
and very quickly become a part of all of mankind. To try and control
it after that is futile.
| > In
| > its natural state information "wants" to be free.
|
| Everything is natural--I do agree with Mill on this even if I don't agree
| about utilitarianism. So all "states of information" are natural.
| Secondly, information doesn't _want_ anything. That's just an
| anthropomorphism that you hope will rally emotional support for your side of
| the argument.
An anthropomorphism that's useful and accurate because of the
qualities of information I listed above.
| > if I share information with you I still possess it.
|
| Your ownership is of a particular arrangement, that you designed, of
| physical stuff. It took you a lot of work to create that arrangement of
| stuff, and protecting you from someone else selling an identical or nearly
| identical arrangement of stuff is a way that you can make money making those
| arrangements of stuff.
Who says I should be able make money selling a arrangement of stuff
that anyone can make? If something is as easy and cheap to produce as
a CD, the free market will generally put little value on it.
[big snip]
| On the other hand, if we realize that there aren't such things as "innate
| rights" then we probably won't think that's a good basis for laws and we'll
| have to approach law creation some other way.
Like utilitarianism.
| > Since IP monolopy (and MS's use of it) is an artificial privilege
| > created by government regulation,
|
| Again, there is no real difference between "right" and "privilege"
|
| > presumably for the public benefit,
|
| I don't get the constant utilitarian assumption in this newsgroup.
He's right. Copyright laws originated from utilitarian reasoning. At
least in the US.
| > Another matter that should concern you as a libertarian who presumably
| > values individual privacy
|
| I don't agree that any laws are needed for individual privacy beyond the two
| things I want to prohibit. (And by the way, just as a trivial note, my two
| biggest disagreements with other Libertarians were always (1) that I don't
| agree with laws prohibiting contractual fraud, and (2) it always seemed to
| me, although I could never figure out a way to support it so I agree my view
| was problematic, that there should be _some_ government owned roads and
| lands.)
Because toll road suck. A free road costs less is more useful.
(Yes, doc is utilitarian.)
| > what you do in your own home is your own
| > business - is that IP laws are in conflict with this concept.
|
| I don't support anyone coming into your home because you're making copies of
| software, no. That shouldn't be covered in copyright law, and in fact, in
| most instantiations of copyright law, it is specified that you can make
| copies for personal use.
Of course the DMCA disagrees.
| > Suppose you have 2
| > computers, yours and your wife's, and purchased one copy of the
| > software.
|
| All my computers have multiple installations of software that were loaded
| from one copy.
How very illegal. Do you think you should be able to do this without
incurring the wrath of the government?
[snip]
| > Unlike physical property,
|
| All property is physical, in my view. The distinction here is that not all
| property has to be in your immediate posession, and I agree.
How is a copyright physical?
[snip]
| interested), I would say that I also don't think that you'd have to never
| behave in a way that you think should be prohibited in order to advocate
| prohibiting what you advocate.
I think if you do not actively practice what you profess to believe,
you must not believe it very much. (Although I've done the same, I
still hold this view.)
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:26:09 +0100
> So, Red Hat has no control of the goods they distribute. Good or bad?
No, no, no, no,no!
They have the sources, so they can do what they want to all the GPL software (as
long as they distribute the sources as well)
> Any information on how to escape GPL?
The GPL has eared the name GPV (GP virus) beacuse once you're GPLed, there's no
way of going back.
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A true story about benchmarks
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:27:59 +0100
> Moral of the story is, the only true benchmark is running the
> applications YOU intend to run on a given system.
So, why were you slammin Linux for that find `benchmark'?
-Ed
>
> Steve
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
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.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 08 Apr 2000 18:16:05 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 17:54:11 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| They can go to Dell and choose between Windows and Linux on selected models.
| "Lack of choice" is no longer a valid argument.
|
| http://commerce.us.dell.com/welcome/minicat.asp?brand_id=INSP&customer_id=04
It's good to see a government agency competently perform their task.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:46:13 +0100
> Now, have you considered spending $20 to $100 for some commercial
> software like Applix, StarOffice, or Corel Office? The demo versions
> are nice, but the commercial versions have the nice wizards, helps,
> templates, and "Glitz". I got commercial copies of all three for
> less than the price of an Excel "Upgrade".
You could pay for Straoffice, or you could download it for free.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 8 Apr 2000 18:33:03 GMT
Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: This is a huge mindset change on John's part since wading through
: endless rants that the future revolves around Linux.
I don't think so. Feel free to deja-news me.
In fact, until you do I don't feel any need to respond to you further.
John
------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Hendry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 13:48:46 -0500
Ted Brown wrote in message ...
>In article <8cni90$pb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think this is it all over. Linux needs competition from within, as well
>> as from things like MacOS X. I think Linux suffers from years of
>> competing with bad UNIX examples. We need to see a rich, integrated, and
>> consistent UI on MacOS X, so that Linux hackers can see it ... and then
>> try for something better.
>>
>> John
>
>
>I can't agree more. And if Linux steps up to the plate, it will only make
>MacOS X better as well.
>
>The biggest shame right now is that Linux seems to copy either from bad unix
>examples or windows.
Linux's UI reminds me of the old 'kit cars' I used to see advertised
in car magazines in the 80's. (Note: this is a flawed analogy) They were
flashy-looking bodies that would fit on the chassis of a Pontiac Fiero or
similar cheap cars. The bodies looked cool in the advertisements, but
the only time I saw one in 'real life', it looked really cheap. I expect
that the fit and finish weren't very good either if you got up close.
Likewise, Linux, especially with Enlightenment, looks really cool. It's
easy to create a flashy environment and make good screenshots. Unfortunately,
the 'fit and finish' aren't so good when I actually get down to using it,
rather than just looking at it. (Note the 'I'. Your Mileage May Vary)
The flaw in this analogy is that it compares Linux's UI to a flawed,
flashy, fiberglass body plopped on a wimpy little car with a reputation
for bursting in flames (the Fiero). The Fiero bit doesn't quite fit,
but I'm not aware of any fiberglass body kits being sold for Hummvees,
so I'm forced to fall back on what I remember.
On the other hand, I hope the Gnome people don't go overboard and
decide to switch to some flashy-but-unusable UI metaphor, such as
3D navigation.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
From: Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:00:55 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
> We need to see a rich, integrated, and consistent UI on MacOS X, so that Linux
> hackers can see it ... and then try for something better.
or simply and wantonly copy.
This assumes exposure = capability. By this logic, Windows which came after
Macintosh (and therefore had an example in front of it) should have easily
equaled and surpassed it in terms of "rich, integrated, and consistent UI."
Did it?
It's a fallacy that hackers can (or are motivated to) produce a "rich,
integrated, and consistent UI." Can the Eazel team do so? I don't know. But
perhaps the more interesting question is, even if they did, will it be
accepted and adopted by a crowd that has so far been oblivious to the
subtleties of "rich, integrated, and consistent UI."
****
Ziya
------------------------------
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 19:01:16 GMT
"Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> fmc wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > 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.
>
> Put a clause in the support contract that says they'll only support
> unmodified software? After all, if they can modify it, they can fix it
> when they break it.
Yes, they could do that, but that's not what happens in this instance.
Is he free to make his own decision, even though it might be wrong from your
POV? Sure, the owner could disclaim responsibility , but HE believes it
will hurt the company's reputation as a builder of quality platforms. It's
no comfort being right if you lose money on account of customers telling
other people that you caused their problems.
> > 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."
>
> Then the engineer drops the bombshell; "You can't remove the source
> code from the distribution. Word will get around that you don't give
> the customers something that your rival does. The customers will go to
> your competition."
He said "You can't remove the source code", not "You don't want to remove
the source". The engineer could raise that issue, but the owner of THIS
company doesn't think that's going to happen. So he makes another decision,
even though it might be wrong in the opinion of the engineer.
>
> > "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. "
>
> IMO, the GPL is there because the BSD/X-style licenses don't take human
> nature into account.
Let's keep it simple. This is about the GPL.
> Here, the owner is limiting what the customers can
> do with the code. It won't improve the reputation of Linux, because the
> end-users won't have the degree of flexibility they would have with the
> source code. It won't improve his business' reputation, because
> something that can be included for no cost is not being included. It's
> like shipping half a book. "It'll improve the reputation of the author"
> won't cut it, because it's an incomplete work.
Let's say the engineer brings those points up. The owner is again free to
ignore his advice, and decides to ship w/o source code in spite of what the
engineer says.
The real challenge is to RS. Will he defend the owner's decision to ship
GPL'd programs w/o source code, based on his statement that he's "just
sharing free programs with our customers"? That' equivalent to RS saying
that piracy is "just sharing information with your neighbors", isn't it?.
fmc
>
> Jim
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bobo has "issues"
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:02:24 GMT
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 8 Apr 3900 07:53:20, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> |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
>
> No need for a response in your own words: You have failed to produce
> evidence to back up this statement, hence it is a
> falsehood.
I have shown you both to be bigots who do their damndest to wriggle away from
the facts by posting irrelevancies and lies, thus you are kindred spirits.
> |> |> It is you that has a lot in common with Germer, not me.
> |> |
> |> |Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> |
> |Note: no response
>
> No need for a response in your own words: You have failed to produce
> evidence to back up this statement, hence it is a
> falsehood.
You're the one making the claim, jackass. You failed to back it up. Where's
your evidence?
> |> |> 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.
>
> Heeheehee
Interesting response.
> |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 missed a thousand of your moronic replies, I will admit it with a
> blanket statement Marty.
That's not what I'm asking you to admit. Still having reading comprehension
problems?
> You are way too prolific with moronic prattle for me to even bother to keep
> up with.
I'm meerly responding to your articles, thus it is you how are "way too
prolific" for you to even bother to keep up with. Can't keep up with
yourself?
> |> 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.
>
> Sorry Marty, it appears to be an admission.
And this make sense how? Am I to take your lack of response to mean agreement
and admission on your part? Illogical, and quite convenient, as that neatly
absolves you from retracting all the falsehoods you've stated.
> Like I said, if I missed one or more of your moronic replies it is
> because you are simply not interesting enough to read thoroughly.
Interesting how you'll take a few statements embedded deeply into one of my
articles, take them out of context and harp on them in multiple unrelated
threads, yet when you ask me about them repeatedly, you find my responses "not
interesting enough to read thoroughly". If you were not interested, then why
did you ask the question, jackass?
> |> |.... 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.
>
> You didn't see it coming because your forehead slopes so far back
> behind your eyes. I forgive you.
Better write that one down. It's so clever I would have never come up with it
on my own.
> |> |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.
>
> Oh, I see Marty so the things you already presented "is" all the
> other stuff you could find in DejaNews?
More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> Anyway I admitted to them if indeed they were errors.
Where is your admission? This seems to be a recurring theme with you.
> Like I said Marty, I am going to make errors of omission on your posts,
Those aren't the errors to which I'm referring. Please learn to comprehend
what you read.
> but that is because your posts are pedantic and not worth reading
> thoroughly.
Then why request responses when you're not willing to read 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.
>
> I restored it for you Marty:
No need. I've already addressed this. If you want your answer, it's been
waiting for you at:
http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=606912668&hitnum=0
> Note no response.
Liar. http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=606912668&hitnum=0
> Note no response.
Liar. http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=606912668&hitnum=0
Just because you're too lazy or afraid to read the truth does not mean you
didn't receive an answer, jackass.
[verbal masturbation snipped]
Hmm... you seem to have taken issue with my signature, Bobo. Don't worry.
I'm not such an unreasonable guy. I will work with you on this. Just tell me
which statements you'd like me to reorder to satisfy you.
> 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?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
