Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Courageous)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Courageous)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (sandrews)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: God damm Microsoft (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Nevin Liber)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 20:30:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:13:32 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:15:00 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Perry Pip wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 22:07:39 -0400,
>> >> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Which presumes that the government would have acted with
>> >> >foresight, rather than pursuing the immediate, selfish goals of
>> >> >government officials.
>> >>
>> >> Did it ever occur to you that those two don't necessarily have to
>> >> conflict one another? Government officials have to answer to voters,
>> >> not stockholders.
>> >
>> >Wrong.
>>
>> Really?? First of all, even if it is, it does not disprove your
>> persumption that forsight and short term selfish goal necessarily
>> conflict each other in every single case.
>>
>
>I wasn't saying that, you were. I was criticizing your claim that
>government officials would have more foresight.
So then you are saying it is 100% impossible for them to do so? If so,
prove it. If not, my claim that sometimes they may more foresight is
reasonable.
>>
>> >Most government officials are civil servants, not politicians.
>> >And civil servants don't have to answer to voters.
>>
>> Civil servants have to answer to elected officials, which have to
>> answer to voters. So ultimately government officials have to answer to
>> voters.
>>
>
>Ever try to fire a civil servant?
You have never seen on the news civil servants lose their jobs due to
congressional funding cuts? Or a high Government official being
"asked" to resign? Or civil servants fired due to a scandal? High
level civil servants (SES level) can be fired without question. Most
commonly though, they are "asked" to resign. Lower level (GS,GM) civil
servants have more protections but still can easily be fired (and
soemtimes prosecuted) for direct insubordination or ethics
violations. I've seen that happen on numerous occasions. Also,
whenever there is a funding cut, Reductions in Force, or RIF's as they
are called are quite common. Firing a lower level civil servant for
"poor performance" is a completely different issue, that takes about a
year or more of meticulous documentation, counseling, reviews,
etc. etc. and thus rarely happens.
Generaly in the Federal Government, agencies want to get continued
funding, so they won't have to go thru a RIF. So the highest agency
officials have to brown-nose the Congressmen. Then they pass it down
hill, to the lower level civil servants. If anyone along the way
doesn't want to play the game, they can easily get "transferred" to a
less desirable job where they won't be in the way. So civil servants
ultimately have to follow their superiors, who follow the
Congress. But whether or not Congress answers to the voters is
ultimately up to the voters. And whether or not the voters have
forsight is also ultimately up to the voters. The weakest link in
Goverment today is the voters, not civil servants.
Also consider that in Japan, industry workers are guaranteed a job for
life when they are hired. The rationale behind this is that they will
be more devoted, and will not be working in constant fear. If a worker
has a job that is not going to change for 10 or 20 years, there no
longer is any short term goal, so why not act with forsight?? Compare
that to private businesses in the U.S., where they want you to put in
20 hours per week overtime without pay, take no more the one week
vacation, and as soon as they don't need you, you're out the
door. It's quite obvious why American workers are not committed to the
employers: their employers (who lack the forsight themselves) are not
committed to them. Some U.S. Government agencies have caught onto this
problem in U.S. industry and are looking at more intelligable
approaches to human resources. Hence you will find some civil servants
who are more committed to their jobs and have more forsight than thier
private industry counterparts.
>
>>
>> >Nor, for that
>> >matter, do federal judges.
>>
>> Federal Judges have little influence of Government investments in
>> technology. Nice try.
>
>Really? Thomas Jackson and Microsoft might disagree there.
How so? How is the MS trial effecting Government investments
(Congressional appropriations) in technology areas, i.e., NSF, DOE,
NASA, NOAA, research grants, etc. etc.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:32:16 GMT
> I'd like to know where you live.
San Diego. I'm a software engineer.
> I'm a woefully out-of-date 26 year old living in a state that is at
> least 20 years behind the rest of the world in trends. I already know
> that. But until I make enough money to get out of this state (South
> Dakota), I'm stuck here.
Well, that's demographic. Technically saavy zones are different.
> Although I will agree with you that the computer field is the best place
> to be for job security at the moment. It's the field with the most
> potential for future employment as well.
Echo that, Ghost Rider. By some estimates there will be over 1,000,000
new IT jobs in the next 5 years. And the industry is already horribly
understaffed.
C/
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:33:26 GMT
> > Your lack of exposure to this particular usage is your particular
> > lack. The usage human beings put words to frequently precedes
> > definition in textbooks, which, after all, are populated by stodgy
> > old academicians who struggle very hard indeed to keep up with
> > a highly dynamic language.
>
> If there is a positive definition for the word, post it. including the
> source of the definition.
I suspect you didn't quite grok what I wrote, otherwise you
wouldn't be asking me for a textbook definition.
C/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 20:33:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:21:27 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >But if enough people did want to travel to California by rail, then why
>> >weren't the railroads privately financed,
>>
>> Because the 16 year research, surveying, design and delopment period
>> was to long a payback time for the short-term oriented private
>> financers. Didn't I already explain that elsewhere??
>>
>
>And you conveniently snipped my original question, so I'll rephrase it:
I snip stuff to save bandwidth. Sorry if I snipped something you felt
was important.
>If the return was such that private investors would not have done it
>of their own accord, then should government have done it at all?
The way you have it phrased here I would say it boils down to a matter
of opinion, i.e. what you think is important. I think most people at
the time felt technological progress was important. Of course, some
poeple back in 1862 still thought slavery was important. Did they have
much forsight??
>> >Remeber Credit Mobilier?
>> >
>>
>> This was several years after the Transcontinental Railroad and not
>> directly connected to it. Furthermore, the fact that people got caught
>> and politicians careers were destroyed is an attest to the checks and
>> balances in the system working. I never said everything the Government
>> does is good. You seem to make the presumption that everything the
>> Government does is bad. That's as foolish as the reverse presumption
>> that everything the Government does is good.
>>
>
>But you haven't stated why building the transcontinental railroad
>with government financing was better than the alternatives. You
>say that the first transcontinental railroad would not have been
>built without government support, and for the sake of argument,
>I'll agree. However, would alternate uses of resources have been
>better?
Again, here "better" would be a matter of opinion. No matter how
better it might be in the eyes of many, one could always find
something not better in it.
>
>
>>
>> Remember the Donner Party??
>
>No, I wasn't invited :-).
I would beg to say that the people who were invited to the Donner
Party and survived it to see the railroad completed some 22 years
later were quite pleased to see that event so what happened to them
might not happen to others.`-)
Perry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:32:39 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > > and remove the trailing ")" after the "S" and ";" does work as a
> remark code
> > ^
> >
> > Ooooooooooh, a fucking typo at 3:00 in the morning.
> > Spare me, loser.
>
> Computers don't forgive typos. Why should *he* forgive you, then?
>
> BTW... aren't you the one who programs in 15 languages? This puts me
> in mind of a musician I knew, who, when someone else said "I can play
> 10 instruments" responded "Fine, but which one can you play?"
>
> Do you consider C among those? Try documenting the errors,
> portability issues and poor coding practices in this... without
> resorting to a compiler, lint tool or similar. For sake of
> discussion, C89/90 applies, rather than C99, if only because C99
> conformant compilers are hard to come by.
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> void main()
^^^^
This is plain wrong main always returns an int by the standard!
fix you broken code, sonny.
> {
> double *ptr;
> int i;
> ptr = (double *)malloc(100 * sizeof(double) );
>
> if ( ptr = NULL )
^^^^^^
Ahh, 1st year programmer here I see. Still using crutches
> {
> printf( "Can't allocate memory!" );
> return 1;
^^^^^^^^
Well you defined main as not returning a value
now you try to return one here, interesting!
> }
>
> for ( i = 0; i <= 500; i++ )
^^^^^^^^
Wow you only have room for 100 yet you punch it 500
Yea that work real good.
> *ptr++ = 100.0;
>
> printf( "Press any key to continue." );
> getchar();
>
> free( ptr );
> printf( "Done!" );
> }
Gee I hope you don`t program for a living, well maybe for ms.
--
M$ Windows is aptly named, after all, it's easily broken, and
offers little
security, just like the glass ones...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 20:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:29:37 GMT,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 27 Jul 2000 14:35:31 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 09:09:33 -0500,
>>Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>>>Well no, you just currently lack the imagination to stand on a
>>>chair and view the room from a different angle.
>>
>>No. My imagination is not stuck in utterly simplistic teenage idealisms.
>
>That was thoughtful ... really it just shows your cynicism and nothing
>more.
You're the one who took a cheap shot at me with your remark above,
claiming I "lack the imagination". Can't take your own medicine? I'm
not being cynical at all. I had ideas much like yours when I was a
teenager and I've grown out of them.
>>>I do not think government is neccessary at all.
>
>>Really?? Name one society in the history of world that did not have
>>any form of government or leadership. Even ancient tribes and races
>>had leadership.
>
>Like I said you lack imagination.
No, you lack the ability to distinguish between idealisms and realities.
>>Every society needs some sort of shared values with which to
>>define its coextistance. For this, communication channels are needed
>>to exchange those values. and the more loosely knit (i.e. the more
>>democratically anarchous) those channels are the more fragile they
>>are. Pure anarchy sounds nice in theory, but all human beings would
>>have to be perfect and harmoneous to achieve the perfect anarchy you
>>are looking for. And we are far from perfect, you included. And we
>>have a long way to go...
>
>This is not true. Anarchists have never said anarchy - a society with
>no government - would be a perfect utopia - that is Marxism. Rather
>all it depends on is how free people really want to be, whether they
>are willing to sustain the intense political activity neccessary to
>keep it going, and realize that their interests are bound up in the
>interests of others.
And how free do people want to be?? Maybe they feel they are already
free enough. And maybe they don't want to sustain the intense
political activity neccessary to keep it going because they rather go
out and enjoy their lives?? You can't make people do what you want,
Tim. Is that your idea of democracy?? Everybody does what Tim wants??
>
>At the core it is simply an acknowledgement that power inevitably
>corrupts people, and the best society would therefore be one where
>power is as dissoluted as possible. The mistake many people make is
>that anarchism would be chaos due to no social organization, when just
>the opposite is the case. It is what we have *now* that is
>disorganized - we want society to be *more* organized and active.
>Democracy is the best process to achieve this organization.
And we have a psuedo-democracy today that tries to achieve that. But
it is limited by the willingness of the people to sustain the intense
political activity. When people have wanted change bad enough to
really get involved, they've gotten involved and influenced
government. Problem is people don't want what Tim wants, isn't it??
>>>A healthy society is perfectly capable of self government;
>
>>But society has to be healthy first. You just can't wish yourself
>>healthy. There is always healing process involved when you are wounded
>>or ill.
>Well, I would say a society with rulers is not healthy: it promotes
>and encourages apathy and inactivity. All people need do is stop
>thinking that obedience is virtuous; all else eventually follows.
People believe obedience is virtuous because the church teaches them
that. And for whatever reason, they choose to go to church. Now you
may think that is ignorant, but it's their freedom to do so. And as
long as you don't accept their freedom to do so, then your the one who
is not free. I really don't think your attitude of self-righteous
defiance is virtuous either. Communication and mutual agreed upon
cooperation is virtuous.
>>Nonsense. The *idea* of democracy is alive and well. But no democracy
>>is a perfect democracy. Nobody in todays world is going to get
>>everything they want out of a democracy, as there are two many
>>conflicting values, material wants, and miscommunications among
>>members of society. You seem to want perfection, which is impossible
>>among humans in their present state, including yourself.
>
>Where is this democracy then?
Democracy is where the people are. Did it ever occur to you that just
maybe the people are not for whatever reason ready for the society
that you want. Why should they change for you??
>>>Government is a perversion of of society.
>>
>>Not at all. The perversion is innate to human nature in it's current
>>state, inlcuding yourself. Deal with it in yourself.
>
>So you're the one who figured out what human nature is? I do not
>believe there is anything "innate" about human nature.
Ok, it's not innate. And I will rephrase what I said above to "The
pervision is manifest in current day human behavior" Now you tell us
in a *pratical* way how get human behavior to change so that we can
have the society you wish for. You can't even get the perversion out
of your own behavior, can you?? Why don't you start there first.
>>Think of government as a covering over a wound. It's undesirable but
>>if you take it off you have a wound open to dirt and infection. Now
>>the human race is very wounded, wounded from thousands of years of war
>>and bloodshed, and deep seated hatred.
>
>I am quite familiar with your argument, I just don't buy into it.
And I am familiar with with your argument, and I think it's a total
cop out.
>A
>state is not healthy or strong unless it is in a state of perpetual
>war. If it is not at war with other states, it must be at war with
>its own citizens. That is the price of the states existence. Not
>only is government not neccessary, it is immoral.
>
A total cop out. Blame everything on "the state", instead of looking
at yourself. It was *you* who said I lack imagination. How do you know
everything I imagine?? Do you read my mind?? How are we going make a
better society out of disdainful attitudes like yours?? Fix the
immorality in yourself, before you try to change society.
>
>http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/index.html
Uh...hum. Is that your Society-HOWTO?? Worker class overthrowing the
Bourgeoisie?? ROFLMAO!!! Looks like some kind of hybrid of Marxism to
me. You probably say it's not Marxism, but it is definitely derived from
Marxism. And it is still just an ideology, totally lacking in
praticality, and full of hypocracy. I love they way they claim in that
in anarchy no social hierarchy exists whatsoever (A.2), but then thy
talk about congresses, confederal councils and commitees, delagates,
voting, etc., etc. (I.5). Sounds like beaurocratic and corrupt
government as usual to me. And then there's militant nature of your
"movement". You accuse the state of cuasing violence but you want to
inflict it yourselves. And the (totally distorted) historical examples
(A.5) of your anarchism they provide show nothing but failure, becuase
the leaders of those movements, like the leaders of any movement, were
on power hungry ego-trips, and becuase the entire philosophy behind it
is a failure. Actually, there was one movement back then that did
succeed in getting power, and the examples conveniently left it
out. They called themselves Bolsheviks. And once they got into power,
their ideolegy *totally* changed. And why should anyone believe you
are any different. You have made it quite clear above that you don't
respect peoples freedoms and you would like to control them.
No thanks, Tim. Your "anarchy" looks like a far worse Government then
what we already have. We actually have good enough democracy. People
just don't want *your* deranged ideas.
Perry
P.S. I take back what I said about having ideas like yours when I was
a teenager. I certainly wasn't *that* stupid.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: 28 Jul 2000 20:40:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:38:17 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ls76f$2b3k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Untrue. You only need to shutdown and reboot (on Win9x machines) when a
>> >file is in use when you try to patch it or replace it. If the file is
>not
>> >in use, replacing it does not require a reboot.
>>
>> How do you know whether the patch includes a dll that is in
>> use by the system or not?
>
>Ideally the install program will know and tell you when to reboot.
>Unfortunately, most install programs take the approach of forcing a reboot
>even when unneccessary "just to be safe".
>
>The reason for this is, unlike Linux, Windows uses a paging system for
>executables. Windows treats an executable as a small (or not so small in
>some cases) extra paging file. This allows the OS to simply discard
>infrequently used pages without having to first page them to disk. Since
>the executable image is a paging file, Window need only use the same
>mechanism it uses for it's general paging file to reload a page when a
>paging fault occurs.
Linux does basically the same thing. It's called a demand paged and
loaded executable.
>This however, has the drawback that files that are loaded in memory are also
>locked on disk.
Which is stupid. Linux will copy the pages into memory if the file is
deleted or overwritten.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 17:48:04 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:05:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >> ...depends on what sort of network effects are involved.
> >> KDE has been dragging their feet getting Xdnd support in,
> >> so that is one network effect to deal with already.
> >
> >And you say *I* misrepresent stuff. Amazing.
> >You know, Jedi, every time you say this kind of crap, I will
> >post to correct you.
> >
> >* There are already three KDE beta releases that use Xdnd.
> >
> >* There has not been a release that used anything else for over a year.
> >
> >* There has been ongoing work on Xdnd and not on the other protocol
> > for over a year.
>
> Then I should be able to grab a year old copy of Redhat or Suse
> and use KDE and GNOME components as if they came from one desktop.
What is the connection between that and what I said?
You should be able to get the version of KDE where development was being
made a year ago, and drag and drop stuff from/to GNOME, modulo bugs.
If that is enough for you to say "use KDE and GNOME components as if
they
came from one desktop", then sure.
> Mind pointing out a few examples of how I might go about doing this?
Well, you can use cvs, get the version from july 1999 (KDE2 branch),
and compile it.
> Those that actually use KDE around here seem to have a different
> impression of the situation than you do.
Who would "those" be, and where have they expressed that "impression"?
Care to quote?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:45:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>(Without Linux, Unix would be perceived as a no-future OS by now, and Sun
>would be really struggling).
>From the perspective of the Linux advocate this might seem true, but it
is definitely not. Sun sells hardware, not Unix, and has always sold
pretty good hardware. Large businesses which need a large number of
engineering workstations are more than happy and willing to invest in a
proprietary system (as long as it runs Unix, even if it is a "flavorful"
Unix, for both capabilities and interoperability; it is *just* the OS,
not the product). Sun is only really impacted by Microsoft's monopoly
in two ways; it keeps them out of the low end, and MS keeps insisting
that NT on a PC is good enough. NT certainly slowed down Sun
workstation sales (and in that way helped the market prompt Sun to go
even higher into the enterprise server end), but it isn't really making
Sun struggle for the most part.
[...]
>Quite possibly (unless MS is split up). OTOH, there's MS's .NET idea, which
>like Sun's plans for Star Office involves running the software as an Internet
>application. Am I the only person who odesn't much see the point of this?
No.
>I suppose it might make sense when everyone has fast, reliable links, but it
>doesn't make much sense now.
The idea that there will be such a someday is a mirage, I think, nothing
more. Our concept of "fast" and "reliable" (and maybe even "link")
might change, but we'll always want to use it for incredibly much more
than it rightfully makes possible. And, yes, that's the fundamental
flaw which has always made "centralized computing with remote access" a
silly idea. Decentralized and interoperable autonomous systems are the
only way to go, in the end.
>>Hell, how many people went out and got Office 2000, just because it's
>>the "new thing"?
>
>MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came up
>with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they thinking of?
They were, in fact, "thinking of" a good idea. But they were
*implementing* a stupid idea.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nevin Liber)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 28 Jul 2000 20:49:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Close. That's the "Set User ID" bit
>> why this information seems to have been lost in the mists of time: its a
>> horrendous security problem if not watched extremely carefully. Common
>It's still in VERY heavy use in Unix.
>Example: you can't PROPERLY implement mkdir without it.
You can't properly implement mkdir (as in /bin/mkdir) with it either, which
is why most versions of Unix implement it as a system call these days.
The last time I heard of this being attempted was back in AT&T System
V Release 2, circa late 80s. Is there someone in the modern world still
doing this?
It isn't sufficent to just have permission to "edit" directory files that
you don't have write permission for; you also need to guarantee that
mkdir is an atomic operation, or you risk corrupting your filesystem.
The way that one makes operations atomic under Unix is to make them a
system call.
><confusion snippped>
If you have a counterexample, I'd be more than interested in seeing it.
There are uses for the setuid bit, but this isn't one of them.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (773) 961-1620
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:51:50 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >AFDC
> >> >Social Security
> >> >WIC
> >> >HUD
> >> >Dairy price supports
> >> >Food Stamps
> [Me:]
> >> I'm sure that the real reason Mr. Kulkis objects is a lack of
> >> virility in this stuff.
>
> >The above programs constitute SLAVERY...as the productive
> >people in society are forced to support the lazy and
> >unproductive.
>
> So the government is the big exploiter of labor and your elderly
> relatives bloodsucking parasites?
>
YEP. I would much rather take care of my grandmother myself,
than to send my money off to washington, where they take 20%
off the top in the process of sending the money back.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
