Linux-Advocacy Digest #84, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Slipping on the pantload. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen) (tholenbot)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Slipping on the pantload.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:12:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >It's been pretty well known, for the last couple of years, that
>> >FreeBSD is probably the fastest
>> >server OS there is. Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD. NT
>> >was just about tied
>> >with Linux 2.2 kernels, falling behind only a slight measure. Then
>> >slightly trailing or leading
>> >were the other OS's. Mostly trailing.
>>
>> Here you say NT is similar in performance to Linux 2.2, falling behind
>> slightly. In other posts you've proclaimed Linux to be three times
>> faster than Windows.
>
>Yeah, they are behind Linux. As far as our tests showed, it's three
>times slower
>than Linux. That's correct.
Charlie, you said "NT was just about tied with Linux 2.2 kernels".
Now you're saying Linux is three times faster than Linux. Which is it? The
same or not?
>Have I ever said Windows was faster? If so, where?
You said Linux and NT were about the same speed.
>> "Poor reliability"? Based on what?
>
>Based on that great big blue screen you get the next day you forget
>to recycle the machine with a re-boot.
You guaranteeing that every NT box everywhere will BSOD 24 hours after
switching it on? If that's what you're saying, you're dead wrong.
>> The court case still has another court to go through yet. Nothing is
>> certain.
>
>Do you really believe nothing is certain Pete. HA.
Well, I've heard that politics enters into the process. I only get to hear
about this third hand, I don't live in America. Some politics wants to keep
Microsoft, others don't. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the way I
understand it is. BTW, I'd rather see Microsoft be split up.
>> "Total lack of security"? Care to justify that - you're implying there
>> is no security, which simply isn't true!
>
>Oh Pete. You god damn idiot. Why do you do this all the time.
>It's like you have your head crammed permanently up you ass 100%
>of the time.
8)
>Where were you when ILOVEYOU came to town? OR how about
>the other 5,000 some odd viruses before it since the late 80's!
I wasn't running Outlook, dummy. ccMail and "the Bat" displayed the text
but did not run it.
I thought there were in excess of 70,000 viruses recorded for Windows.
>But, let's not talk about viruses! How about the FACT that any
>common USER can just DELETE the SYSTEM32 directory with
>total immunity!
On a FAT32 system, yes, on a default NT system, yes. But if you set it up
correctly, you can't. That's what I meant.
>Pete! Your problem is you've had your head up your ass all your life.
>That's your problem.
Try reading what I said Charlie. Oh yeah, you can't can you, you've got
your head stuck up your own anal orifice.
>Your not PRO Windows. Your Anti Linux.
I'm not pro Windows, or pro Linux actually.
>And your a fruit basket of a personality to boot.
Since my personality can hardly come across a textual interface, what does
that say about you?
>> Can't say I've noticed Windows 2000 being slower. Comparing it to
>> Windows 98 SE it holds up better.
>
>NT is faster than 2000. NT is slower than 2.2 kernel Linux.
>Neither statement has ever been contradicted in the countless magazines
>on the net since 2000 came out.
Uhuh, here you say NT is slower than Linux 2.2
>> Which Linux are we talking about here? 2.2? 2.4? You've already stated
>> Linux 2.2 and Windows NT are similar in performance. You've asserted
>> Windows 2000 is slower than NT. How much slower?
>
>For the desktop user, NT and Linux 2.2 are comparable.
Now here you say NT and Linux 2.2 are comparable.
>For a server, Linux 2.2 will either edge ahead or just walk away
>from it depending on what you are doing.
That's not the same as three times faster!
>Name something which is not a WIN modem like product and
>show me. Show me what is not supported Pete.
Let me see... my latest Sound Card, an Allegro (S100), created by ESS and
packaged by Diamond.
My HP 4200C USB Scanner.
>Show me a driver for any Microsoft product which will allow
>you to use an ATA100 drive?
So there is hardware that Windows doesn't support. Which has the bigger
list of supported hardware, Windows or Linux?
>> Where did you get the 0% figure?
>
>Yet another magazine article. Same ones which were reporting on the
>Red Hat stock market losses. They also say that Sun is experiencing 41%
>growth since January.
>
>But again. I'm not giving you a link. You just use your search engine
>and find it. Or bitch until some other person posts the link for you.
I heard it was worse than 0% Charlie. Care to go and find that article?
>> You make up facts like nobody's business, Charlie, and you never quote
>> your sources. That's why I think your posts are nothing but a troll.
>
>No your wrong Pete. I have quoted to you some web sources.
>I have. You just refuse to read them. I've done it again to
>another man's article down below this list. And you will refuse
>to read or refute them also. It's in your nature to be an asshole.
You never quoted any articles when asked, and you never posted any in your
original posts. You're a damn liar Charlie.
>Why can't we have a WIN TROLL who can advocate Windows by
>toughing it's functionality, memory handling, disk IO, TCPIP stack.
Why can't we have a LINUX TROLL who can answer the questions about hardware
support on various devices that Linux doesn't support yet?
>You know! Some good good technical bullshit! The Linux people
>seem to have little problem pointing out all their resources and what
>they are for.
Like no HP 4200C USB support?
Like no S100 sound card support?
>Why do we NEVER see a Win troll pump the Win tech stuff????
Because you pick and chose what you read Charlie.
>Why is it always some 5 year old with a pant load here to support
>the Windows community?
Why do certain Linux advocates feel the need to insult and call names?
Why? Why? Why?
>Pete proclaims to be a .dll writer for Windows. He's supposed to
>be very intelligent with writing code and using ALL the features
>of Windows. He knows everything. He's a really really bright boy!
I write DLLs, I write device drivers. I don't think I use all the features
of Windows and I certainly don't know everything.
>Pete has NEVER talked about the superior technical aspects of
>Windows over Linux. Not one time has he ever spoke his technical
>opinion. Pete doesn't seem to have one.
You mean you missed my stuff about device drivers? Were you asleep at the
time?
>Now... Let us reason why Pete never does this. Pete's refusal to
>talk about Windows in a positive light. It's always Neutral with
>Pete. And it's always NEGATIVE about Linux.
As I said before, I don't think Windows is particularly that brilliant as a
desktop GUI machine. I've seen better.
>Now Pete. You be a big boy and highlight for us all the more
>technical aspects of Windows so we can read the wisdom.
>
>What is SUPERIOR about Windows which makes it the
>SUPER OS of the MASSES over Linux.
>
>What do they get in return for their performance hit!
What? So you can take pot shots and throw more insults and abuse! I've got
better use of my time than that! You're trying to pick a fight, Charlie,
and I'm not interested.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 04:21:15 -0400
In article <Mssg5.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, lies at least
> 12 times, and repeatedly denies the truth, while continuing to engage
> in pontification while hypocritically claiming that I do.
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> The thread branched in two, Eric. I merged the two branches, Eric.
> >
> > Illogical,
>
> Why?
"Restoring" more context, eh Slava? See immediately below.
> > given that you admit both branches were part of the same
> > thread.
>
> Correct.
Your use of redundancy is unnecessary.
> > Therefore, your action was not a "merging of the two threads".
>
> Incorrect.
Liar.
> > Liar.
>
> How predictable you resort to invective when faced with a logical
> argument.
It's the truth, Slava. You lied.
> >> Typical invective.
> >
> > Incorrect. See above.
>
> More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric?
If you had seen above, you would already know the answer to that
question, Slava.
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> Why?
Irrelevant.
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> How ironic.
Incorrect.
> > Where is your substantiation? Why, nowhere to
> > be seen!
>
> My substantiation was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
> Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
What substantiation did I allegedly "snip"?
> >> How typical you resort to invective when faced with a logical
> >> argument.
> >
> > Non sequitur, given the absence of a logical argument on your part.
>
> My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
> Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
More redundancy. How predictable. Don't you have anything novel to
say, Slava?
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> Why?
Even more redundancy. See above.
> >> Irrelevant, given that none of the material was relevant to proving
> >> the
> >> claim in question.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
The burden of proof is yours, Slava, since you made the incorrect claim
that "none of the material was relevant to proving the claim in
question".
> >> I see you still haven't noted the difference between implication and
> >> inferrence.
> >
> > Illogical. It is because I recognize the difference that I asked the
> > question, Slava.
>
> What alleged "question"?
Haven't you been paying attention?
> How ironic.
What is "ironic"?
> >> > The proof is your claim that my answer was incorrect.
> >
> > Note: no logical response.
>
> My logical response was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
> Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
Prove it.
> >> Still unable to answer a simple question logically, Eric?
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Irrelevant. Meanwhile, where is your logical answer? Why? Nowhere to be
> seen!
Illogical.
> >> On the contrary, my claim is quite correct. Of course, anyone with
> >> open
> >> eyes would recognize that fact.
> >
> > On the contrary, many people worldwide have their eyes open and do not
> > recognize this fact.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
After you prove your claim that "anyone with open eyes would recognize
that fact", I will do so.
> >> How ironic, coming from someone who routines fails to pay attention.
> >
> > "routines fails to pay attention"? How rich!
>
> It was a typo, Eric.
Irrelevant.
> >> Feldercarb.
> >
> > Typical invective.
>
> The truth is not invective, Eric.
Irrelevant, given that "Feldercarb" is not "the truth".
> >> My eyes are already open, Eric. How predictable you fail to comprehend
> >> that fact.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> See what I mean?
Enlightenment comes from within, grasshopper.
> >> More lies.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> You claimed:
>
> EB] I made no illogical claim.
What alleged "EB"?
> When in fact, you did:
>
> EB] The context is your entertainment, Slava.
>
> Hence the lie.
Impossible, given that I am not "EB". Your own statement is therefore a
lie. Hypocrite.
> >> On the contrary.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> More lies.
Yes, coming from you.
> You claimed:
See what I mean? More lies.
> EB] Seeing things that aren't there again, Slava?
>
> To which I replied:
>
> SP] On the contrary.
>
> Which is not illogical at all, given that you haven't provided any
> evidence that I am seeing things that aren't there.
See what I mean? More lies.
> >> Do you always get your enlightenment from illogic, Eric?
> >
> > Also illogical.
>
> How ironic, given that I have already proven two of your lies, Eric.
On the contrary, you lied twice, and this is a third lie. Trying to
beat Chris Pott's amazing number of lies in a single post, Slava?
> >> Incorrect. It is evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Where?
See what I mean?
> >> On the contrary, quite logical. Of course, someone who takes logic
> >> lessons from Ian "master of illogic" Haakmat would not know that.
> >
> > Typical invective. Does the use of incorrect names "entertain" you,
> > Slava? Taking posting lessons from Mark Kelley again, Slava?
>
> Typical invective. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't noted the logic
> of my statement. How predictable.
I see you didn't answer either of my questions. Of course, that is to
be expected from you.
> >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
> >
> > Obviously not, Slava.
>
> More lies. Now you're up to 3 lies in a single post. Here is the
> proof of your lie:
A fourth lie.
> You made the following claim:
>
> EB] Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> To which I replied:
>
> SP] On the contrary.
>
> Your illogical response demostrates your reading comprehension
> problems, given that I never made this alleged "admission":
>
> EB] So, you admit you haven't been paying attention.
Unable to curb your tendency to lie, eh Slava "Master of Lies" Pestov?
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> > Why?
>
> You made the following claim:
>
> EB] Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
Liar. I am not "EB". Five lies so far, Slava.
> Which is irrelevant, given that you made it on an incorrect
> basis. For proof, see above.
>
> >> Illogical, given that you haven't identified the "claim".
> >
> > Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
>
> I see you still haven't identified this alleged "claim", Eric.
> No surprise there.
Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
> >> Illogical.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> No.
Illogical.
> >> I cannot answer an illogical question, Eric.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> So you admit your question was non sequitur, Eric?
I cannot answer an illogical question, Slava.
> >> I wasn't trying to surprise you, Eric.
> >
> > I never claimed that you were, Slava.
>
> A fourth lie. Your remark:
How ironic, coming from someone who has now lied six times in a single
post.
> EB] No surpise there.
>
> Indicates that you were expecting to be surprised.
On the contrary, your statement indicates the increasing severity of
your reading comprehension problems.
> >> You just replied to the evidence. How predictable you fail to see that
> >> fact.
> >
> > Impossible, given that you never provided any evidence.
>
> A fifth lie. The evidence was the following admission:
>
> SP] It was a typo, Eric.
>
> Because I typed "fact" instead of "claim" in the following statement:
>
> SP] Prove that this fact exists, if you think you can.
Seven lies.
> >> See above.
> >
> > Hypocrite.
> >
> > "Classical circular reasoning. I have already seen the above, and it
> > contains nothing of relevence to the current argument."
>
> I only say "see above" when the above material is indeed relevant to
> the discussion; unlike you, who seems to use it every time you want
> to avoid substantating an erronous claim.
See above.
> >> More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric? How typical.
> >
> > See above.
>
> See what I mean?
I see you failed to see above.
> >> You, Eric. How ironic you fail to recognize that fact.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> A sixth lie. I made the following claim:
On the contrary, this is your eighth lie.
> SP] How ironic, coming from someone who routinely fails to use the
> SP] scientific method.
>
> And I implied that the "someone" was you, given that you do indeed
> routinely fail to use the scientific method.
Typical unsubstantiated argument based on an erroneous presumption.
> >> Where?
> >
> > "Your continuing illogic is indeed predictable, Eric."
>
> On the contrary, that claim was quite substantiated.
Where?
> > Having reading comprehension problems again?
>
> No.
Evidence, please.
> >> How predictable you answered the question incorrectly, given your lack
> >> of basic logic and relevacy skills.
> >
> > It's too bad you still fail to recognize how your behavior is
> > perceived,
> > Slava.
>
> What alleged "behaviour"?
That's not what I wrote, Slava. Having trouble figuring out how to cut
and paste properly?
> >> No.
> >
> > How predictable.
>
> Common sense makes a cameo appearance. It is indeed predictable that I
> fail to subscribe to incorrect beleifs.
What allegedly "incorrect" beliefs?
> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in typical
> Eric "master of deletion" fashion.
Illogical.
> >> Incorrect, given that I have not "deleted" anything.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Then where is your evidence of this alleged "deletion"? Why, nowhere to
> be seen!
Comprehend context.
> >> What you think is shameful is irrelevant, Eric.
> >
> > I see you finally admit that you are irrelevant, given that I think you
> > are shameful. Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
> More illogic.
Prove it.
> Taking logic lessons from Eric "master of illogic" Pott,
> Eric?
Still strolling down irrelevancy lane?
> >> 20 lines above, Eric. You made the following claim:
> >>
> >> EB] Illogical.
> >
> > Irrelevant to your claim, Slava, as you made an illogical statement.
> > There was no logic to recognize.
>
> A seventh lie. My statement:
On the contrary, it is your ninth.
> SP] See what I mean?
>
> Was quite logical and unsubstantiated, given that you made the following
> claim:
It's about time you admitted that your statement was unsubstantiated.
How long will it take you to recognize that it was also illogical?
> EB] Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>
> Which further illustrates my point, namely:
>
> SP] How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when you
> SP] have just made one yourself.
You admit that your claim was unsubstantiated, Slava. How do
unsubstantiated claims illustrate your point?
> An eighth lie. My statement was quite correct, given that I did, in fact,
> "cite a specific example", unlike what you attempted to prove by
> proclamation:
On the contrary, you have lied more than eight times.
> EB] I see you failed to cite a specific example,
>
> My "specific example" was as follows:
That was not an example of an unsubstantiated claim, Slava. If you want
an example, see your own claim above, which you admit was
unsubstantiated.
> SP] 20 lines above, Eric. You made the following claim:
> SP] EB] Illogical.
> SP] Which is a perfect demonstration of your inability to recognize
> logic,
> SP] given my claim above was completely logical.
I already responded to that incorrect argument, Slava. How predictable
that you continue to engage in argument by redundancy.
> >> What you think is vague is irrelevant.
> >
> > On the contrary. What you think is irrelevant is irrelevant.
>
> Irrelevant.
See what I mean?
> >> How predictable, coming from someone with serious logic recognition
> >> deficencies.
> >
> > Who?
>
> You, Eric, as my proofs above demonstrate.
Incorrect.
> >> Illogical, given that my claim was quite correct.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> A ninth lie. You made the following claim:
On the contrary, it is your eleventh lie, Slava.
> EB] Typical circular reasoning.
>
> To which I, quite correctly, replied:
>
> SP] Incorrect.
>
> Given that my above remark:
>
> SP] See above.
>
> Is not "circular reasoning", since at the time the above was
> very relevant to the dicussion.
It referred back to a previous point in the discussion, Slava. The
reader who followed the discussion from that point would again arrive at
your admonition to "see above". Thus, you have engaged in circular
reasoning, regardless of the relevance or irrelevance of "the above".
> > Taking posting lessons from Chris "Roscoe and Flash" Pott?
Note: no response.
> >> What's so obvious about it, Eric?
> >
> > Self-evident, by definition, Slava.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Self-evident, by definition, Slava.
> >> How ironic, coming from the one exhibiting reading comprehension
> >> problems.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
What alleged "that hole"? Having more specificity problems, I see.
> >> Illogical, given your remark above.
> >
> > What alleged "remark"?
>
> Reading comprehension problems, Eric? The remark was:
>
> EB] No surprise there.
>
> That implies you were expecting a surprise (otherwise you wouldn't
> point out that there wasn't one).
Incorrect, and also illogical. The earth did not crash into the sun
yesterday, Slava, but my pointing out this fact does not mean that I
expected the contrary.
> Hence, it was very illogical
> of you to claim that the following remark was irrelevant:
The continuation of your argument is build on the illogical foundation
above, and hence ineffective, Slava.
> > Circular reasoning is not part of the scientific method.
>
> Correct. Now apply that to the current situation.
I do not apply circular reasoning, Slava. That I leave to you.
> >> Who is this "someone", Eric? It isn't me.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> A tenth lie.
Your twelfth, Slava.
>I asked you to prove yet another one of your erronous
> claims:
>
> SP] Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> To which you replied
>
> EB] How ironic, coming from someone who fails to offer proof.
>
> However, I do provide proof; the proof of your ten (and counting) lies
> in this post is ample evidence.
You haven't proven even a single lie on my part, Slava.
> Since me and you are the only people
> in this dicussion, the only logical conclusion, given that you are
> the only possible "someone", is that you, in fact, are the one who
> fails to provide proof.
I see you failed to observe that Marty Amodeo is also posting in this
thread, Slava, and therefore is part of the discussion. Of course, it
takes decent usenet comprehension skills to recognize this fact.
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > The proof is in three parts. First, if I'm not who I say I am, what am
> > I doing here, what can I possibly hope to gain? The rescue of an
> > imposter, the exposure of three spies? Who to? To the very people
> > this
> > was to have been working for. I have nothing to gain.
>
> What alleged "spies"?
Welcome to American culture, circa 1968.
> >> On the contrary.
> >
> > Argument by repetition, Slava?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who routinely engages in argument by
> repetition.
How ironic, coming from Slava "Master of Redundancy" Pestov.
> >> Unlike you, Eric, I only write 'see above' when the material above is
> >> relevant.
> >
> > Obviously not.
>
> An eleventh lie. For proof, carefully inspect all the instances when
> I write "see above", and note how in all those instances, the material
> above is indeed relevant.
On the contrary, this your thirteenth lie, given that even if your
assertions here are true, you have still engaged in circular reasoning.
> >> How typical, coming from someone with serious logic recognition
> >> deficencies.
> >
> > Who?
>
> You, Eric.
Liar.
> >> The fact that my remark was logical.
> >
> > Balderdash, Slava.
>
> A twelth lie. My remark:
>
> SP] How ironic, coming from someone who has serious context
> SP] comprehension deficencies.
>
> Was very logical, given that you claimed that I have difficulty
> comprehending context:
>
> EB] Comprehend context, Slava.
I see you still aren't able to distinguish between actors and
characters, Slava.
> When in fact I comprehended the context, being your entertainment,
> quite correctly, as evidenced by the following remark:
>
> SP] Illogical, as I have no mentor, and I am not a grasshopper.
I already replied to that remark, Slava, despite your fourteenth lie.
> >> What alleged "Curtis Bass"?
> >
> > The one you obviously fail to recognize, Slava.
>
> Typical non-answer.
Still pontificating? How predictable.
> >> Incorrect. See
> >>
> >> http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=650187557&CONTEXT
> >>=964791392.1436352594&hitnum=0
> >>
> >>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=
> >>964791392.1436352594&hitnum
> >>
> >>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=964791392.
> >>1436352594&hitnum=1=1
> >
> > Illogical, given that in those posts Eric Bennett was posting as Eric
> > Bennett, as clearly show in the headers. Have you ever seen Batman
> > pose
> > as Michael Keaton, Slava?
>
> On the contrary, Eric Bennett was posting as tholenbot, given the
> clearly recognizable Dave Tholen emulation present in those posts.
I see you failed to answer my question about Michael Keaton and Batman,
instead resorting to diversionary tactics. For shame, Slava.
Dave Tholen emulation is also clearly recognizable in Chris Pott's
posts. Do you think Eric Bennett is Chris Pott? Illogical.
> >> Illogical, given I proved otherwise above.
> >
> > Incorrect, as shown above.
>
> Incorrect, as shown above.
Illogical, given I proved otherwise above.
> >> More evidence of your hypocrisy.
> >
> > Impossible.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
More evidence of your hypocrisy.
> >> I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news of your allegation
> >> that
> >> his "reactions" are "irrelevant", Eric.
> >
> > What you wonder is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
>
> Irrelevant. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided a logical response to
> my remark.
I wonder how Joe Malloy would react to the news of your allegation that
I haven't provided a logical response, Slava.
--
<Mssg5.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 08:22:10 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> Say, how much does M$ pay you to be here -- or are you just psychotic and
> >> looking for someone to listen to your drivel?
> >
> > Oh I've got it! It's an automatically generated TAGLINE!
>
> Chris seems to have shown his hand by jumping in to try to deflect this
> once too often. It appears that he and JS/PL may very well be the
> official COLA astroturfers.
Way off the mark. Look at Ed's posting history and see if you notice a
theme. While you're doing so, note any points of importance he makes in these
same posts. He has been a broken record, adding next to nothing to any
discussion into which he inserts himself. Chris is sick of it and so are a
lot of other folks here (in COOA).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
