Linux-Advocacy Digest #205, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Win xx (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:20:08 -0400
Steve Chaney wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 03:30:31 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Steve Chaney wrote:
> >
> >> Let me introduce you to TheJungle.
> >> In TheJungle calling for help is for wimps.
> >
> >Wrong. Being a lazy ass bastard and whining because you don't have
> >an infinite supply of snacky cakes for sufficient grounds for
> >a boot in the face.
>
> If I decided to eat a snacky cake would you care to try and come and
> provide the boot to the face?
are you a whining lazy-ass bastard?
>
> Bwahhahahahahahah.
>
> good one matey
>
> -- Steve
> kulky yer gonna get rolled up into a bowling ball and used as
> ammunition in a war against some tenpins.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win xx
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:23:19 -0500
Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
> Why is it that, when talking about consumer OSes, I kept hearing that NT/Win2K was
> not a consumer OS, so I shouldn't try to compare it to x? Now we hear that the future
> is an NT-based consumer OS, so we shouldn't try to compare Win 9X to x.
>
> The tune changes at a whim.
>
> 9x is for consumers, so don't expect the robustness of Solaris. NT/Win2K isn't for
> consumers, so don't expect it to...
>
> The latest little mantra is that the future consumer OS will be NT-based. It seems to
> be the answer to all the ills of the world. :-)
>
> Pardon me, but I've heard this before. MS was flapping their gums about a real 32-bit
> OS back in '93 or '94. Cairo or Win 4 or whatever was supposed to be a consumer OS
> with robust underpinnings. Just like Whistler or whatever they're calling it.
> Instead, we got Win 95. And they didn't even include any lubricant with it. Ouch!
>
> They then took NT 3.x and grafted on features from their consumer-grade OS. I
> remember people complaining that MS had ruined NT. :-)
>
> Now we've got the all-singing, all-dancing Win 2K. It's closer in some ways to what
> they promised so long ago, but at the cost of being a huge complex beast.
>
> Windows also tends to be very fragile. You need to run MS software to get all the
> features, and it's all interwoven into the OS. Things break for no explainable reason
> and nobody seems to have a clue why they break or how to fix it. Just reinstall and
> maybe it will be all better.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Win 2K _is_ an improvement in some ways. If you have the
> horsepower to run it, it is a better desktop machine than NT 4 or Win 9X. I use it
> for some things and am, overall, pleased with it. But I still have my doubts about
> its being ready to run a business on. Unix is better in many ways for that type of
> use.
>
> --
>
> Stuart Krivis
>
> *remove the mongo for a valid e-mail address*
I seriously doubt that this belongs in what is essentially a *nix
group. While your final statement mentions *nix as a better solution
for businesses, I believe the entire rest of the post would be suited to
a Windows or Microsoft advocacy group.
I'm not bashing you, I'm just asking: does this have anything to do with
Linux advocacy, or any sort of *nix advocacy?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:35:29 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >>
> Aaron> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Stock is nothing more than Pokemon cards unless one is both able
> >>
> Aaron> Pokemon cards pay dividends????
> >>
> >> Owning dividend paying stocks is dumb.
>
> Aaron> Depends on the size of the divedend, and the nature of the business.
>
> It is incredibly tax inefficient. I suppose if you truly
> expect the growth to overcome the large tax disadvantage
> it is OK.
>
> But I would be very suspicious of any management team that
> set itself up for double taxation, and traded my 20% cap
> gains tax for my ~50% income tax rate. (Plus paid the corporate
> rate on the same earnings!).
Depends on what your needs are.
For example, if you are a retiree who wants INCOME, then you want
dividends.
Similarly, if you are an electric power company, there is no point
in needless investments in capital that won't produce additional
revenue (i.e. excess capacity for which there is no market).
Thus, there are investors for whom it makes sense to want dividends,
and there are companies for which it makes sense to pay dividends
rather than plowing profits into capital purchases.
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:36:51 -0400
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Is it just me, or is Aaron, a confirmed MS hater posting from Windows 98?
I munge the headers using SED.
Keeps the hackers confused.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:46:11 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:59:41 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
>> >and what laws are not. If there is still any confusion, then the
>> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
>> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
>>
>> There isn't anything in the Constitution that specifies the use
>> of the Federalist Papers for clarification of its contents.
>
>The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers are a series
>of letters published in the various newspapers (of Philadelphia,
>New York, and others), under pseudonyms, as a public debate as
>to whether the Constitution should be adopted.
>
>John Jay and James Madison were two of the men involved.
>One of the authors remains anonymous to this day (Publius, I believe)
They were all signed "Publius". And BTW, the "anonymous" author you
didn't know about was Alexander Hamilton, but don't tell anybody -
he's still anonymous.
<chuckle>
But then what do you expect from someone who still thinks Unix is
cool.
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:43:00 -0500
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 04:00:09 GMT, Sean LeBlanc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> On 2 Aug 2000 20:53:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>Every entry level windows user I've seen learned how to reboot
>> >>>>right away. I think most could handle making one extra choice
>> >>>>there.
>> >>>
>> >>> No, there would merely be a default configuration so that the
>> >>> end user wouldn't have to strain their brain.
>> >>>
>> >>> Unix has been automating these sorts of things before DOS existed,
>> >>> nevermind Windows.
>> >>
>> >>Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>> >>machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>> >
>> >Customers hardly ever want an OS. They want apps that are
>> >good enough and don't cost much. Windows gained it's popularity
>> >by being cheaper that the competition. Now it isn't, and
>> >with StarOffice the Linux apps are good enough.
>>
>> Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
>
>Erm, they ARE. All the big boys now seem to offer Linux as an OS
>that can come with a box when you order it. And last survey I saw
>on these kinds of things, the only two OS's to gain market share were
>Windows (NT 4 and/or NT 5, I think) and Linux. I'd say that's shooting up
>in popularity. Not to mention that every IPO that has any Linux
>involvement whatsoever has prices going off the map at opening.
C'mon Sean - it's obvious we're talking about desktops here,
specificly desktop boxes bought by novices. And in that market, Linux
is a nonissue.
>Linux is here to stay, love it, hate it, or don't care...it won't
>change that fact. Best to embrace it, and add it to your bag of
>tricks, just like any other OS or tool. And yes, Windows NT is
>here to stay, too, at least as long as M$ is supporting it.
Another non-argument.
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:43:45 -0500
On 3 Aug 2000 00:01:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>>>>machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>>>
>>>Customers hardly ever want an OS. They want apps that are
>>>good enough and don't cost much. Windows gained it's popularity
>>>by being cheaper that the competition. Now it isn't, and
>>>with StarOffice the Linux apps are good enough.
>>
>>Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
>
>I guess you aren't looking...
I'm looking at CUSA, BB, and the other local stores where people
commonly shop. Perhaps you can direct me to someone selling Linux
boxes there?
>But so far I don't know if
>anyone can preload StarOffice. When OpenOffice gets up
>to speed that will take care of itself. Add a few more
>pretty fonts and you are all set.
When ? 2001? 2002? 2003?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:56:16 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:03:37 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:26:06 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >CompleteDolt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:58:54 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
>>
>> >> Who decides which laws are unconstitutional?
>> >
>> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
>> >and what laws are not.
>>
>> <guffaw> Right - that's why there are so many different opinions
>> about those things - and that's why all Supreme Court decisions about
>> the constitutionality of a particular law are unanimous. Yeah,
>> right.
>>
>> >If there is still any confusion, then the
>> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
>> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
>>
>> Bzzzzt. Sorry, that is incorrect. The answer: the Supreme Court
>> decides, and has the last word. Thanks for playing, and please enjoy
>> the home version of our game...
>
>If that were the case, then how did the Supreme Court rule
>that the earlier Dred Scott ruling was unConstitutional????
Beg pardon? You're asking how the SC decided the constitutionality of
an issue in an attempt to show that the SC doesn't decide those
issues?
Besides, what do you mean the SC ruled that the Dred Scott ruling was
unconstitutional? Which ruling was that, exactly?
>
>Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>The Supreme Court is just a collection of people,
"Just a collection of people"? <guffaw!>
> some of whom
>care not the slightest for what the Constitution means,
LOL!!! No matter what you might think about any of them, that
statement is not likely to have any truth at all in it.
> in
>preference for how they can distort the words to their own
>statist ideals.
ROTFL!!!
>
>If the Supreme Court rules that "The pursuit of happiness" justifies
>rape, would that make it so?
Legally, sure. If they decided that the Mickey Mouse could be
president, we could be listening to the band playing Hail To The
Mouse.
>
>Obviously not.
Think again.
Just because you can come up with some stupid decision that would not
make sense doesn't mean anything - they have not actually (and would
not) made such a decision. But each and every decision they HAVE made
IS the law, yup. That is the way it works, whether you like it or
not.
>
>Thus, it is evident that the SC is not the ultimate bearer of truth,
Nobody said they were. But they ARE the ultimate (aside from the US
citizenry) arbiters of the law.
>but merely yet another political body,
No - they are not political. That's why they are appointed for life.
> which can hand down any
>sort of nonsense which they so choose.
And it has the full force of the Law of the Land.
You are in some serious need of education.
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:58:32 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:47:13 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:41:08 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Retard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:34:50 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Retard wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:07:11 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >> >> Steve Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On 1 Aug 2000 06:12:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >How good does a power mac work with Linux? That processor should be
>> >> >> >> >screaming without the limitations of (pick your Apple OS of the day).
>> >> >> >> >It sure turns out x86 screams without the limitations of Windows,
>> >> >> >> >that's for sure!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It performs excellently under the BeOS, though I haven't tried a
>> >> >> >> PowerPC flavor of Linux yet.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Apple is still too slow with MacOS X :-(
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Well, maybe if you got some hardware that wasn't stuck in the 1980's....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ROTFL!!! This from a "Unix Systems Engineer"?? Hahhahahahahah!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Unix was a good idea. ... ... in 1969
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you think a G4 is a 1980's processor? LOL!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Unix had windows before Microsoft even wrote MS-DOS.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> LOL!
>> >
>> >It's TRUE, it's TRUE!
>>
>> Details, details. I was _there_ back then, and I don't remember no
>> steenking "windows".
>
>Hiding in the closet doesn't count, asshole.
???
I'm still waiting for the name of the "windows" system used by Unix
before 1980. And BTW - Microsoft didn't write MS-DOS.
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
