Linux-Advocacy Digest #316, Volume #28 Tue, 8 Aug 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which newsreader is used by who more? [was: can Linux use be so low? I do not
believe it. web traffic. (J. B. Moreno)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Marty)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451765 (Marty)
Re: Paging BIG DON ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. B. Moreno)
Crossposted-To: gnu.emacs.gnus,news.software.readers
Subject: Re: Which newsreader is used by who more? [was: can Linux use be so low? I do
not believe it. web traffic.
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:59:39 -0400
Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, by the way, here's a plan dudes,
>
> for each newsgroup do
> for each article do
> check the X-mailer or X-newsreader header etc., [or lack of]
> and produce an analysis of which newsreader software is used (posted with)
> overall, by hierarchy, and by newsgroup, etc. Sure hope somebody will do
> that and post the results... if not already.
Something like that used to be done, apparently Kjell has stopped, Lars
mentioned doing something like it but I don't know what (if anything
came of it), I did a bit but ran aground of low bandwidth and
connections timing out (and never posted anything).
--
JBM (that's me) thinks that Mark Twain said "The difference between the
right word and the almost right word is like the difference between
lightning and a lightning bug."?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 01:04:01 GMT
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Are you really claiming that Windows is the highest quality operating
> > > system out there?
> >
> > Well... I just finished a two day exploration of Mandrake 7.1 (Linux),
> > needless to say...it's got nothing on the elegance and speed of MS Win2k.
>
> Given the level of intelligence of your other posts in this group, you
> probably spent two days staring at the CD-ROMs, wondering what you were
> supposed to do with them.
>
> Here's a clue: It's not a cup holder.
Whoa, Karel... where did those balls come from? Are you borrowing them from a
friend?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451765
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 01:05:45 GMT
tholenbot wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
> >
> > "Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
> > --Joe Malloy
> >
> > "It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
> > of the clergy..."
> > --Eric Bennett
>
> Maybe it's because I have trouble seeing; without corrective lenses, I
> am legally blind. :-)
Not only that, but you have presented a great deal of evidence that your
glasses are frequently very dirty.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Paging BIG DON
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:08:19 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:52:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >"My theory" is not my theory at all, but instead, the commonly held
> >views among several defectors.
>
> Do you have any supporting evidence ? And do they ? I mean, if they're
> defectors, they obviously would have had access to some fairly impressive
> evidence samples. As defectors who were probably seeking residence, they'd
> hardly be considered impartial sources, though certainly well informed.
>
> IOW, I wouldn't take their word at face value, but they certainly would
> be able to bring some real evidence to the table ( if that indeed existed ).
>
> Even if there really is such a "conspiracy", you also need to show that
> they've had some success.
Would you be willing to accept the opinion Thomas Sowell?
here is a snippet discussing Thomas Sowell's opinion of the book.
> >Ethnicity and IQ.
> >
> >by Thomas Sowell, Vol. 28, American Spectator, 02-01-1995, pp 32.
> >
> >The Bell Curve is a very sober, very thorough, and very honest book (1.) -
> >on a subject where sobriety, thoroughness, and honesty are only likely to
> >provoke cries of outrage. Its authors, Charles Murray and the late Professor
> >Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard, must have known that writing about
> >differences in intelligence would provoke shrill denunciations from some
> >quarters. But they may not have expected quite so many, quite so loudly or
> >venomously, and from such a wide spectrum of people who should know better.
> >
> True. They completely underestimated the degree to which otherwise "reasonable"
> people can jump on a modern day Witch-Hunt bandwagon...especially if it is
> wrapped up in the moral mantra of "how dare you say that about a "protected'
> minority!"...
The Bell Curve is not the opinions of just two authors.
It is the sum total of every piece of relevant research
by over 1000 experts in the field of cognitive science.
Over 50 pages of bilbliography. Murray and Herrnstein
merely pulled it all together and published it in an easily
understood form for the layman.
Bet you haven't even read it.....
> --
> Donovan
> >Ethnicity and IQ.
> >
> >by Thomas Sowell, Vol. 28, American Spectator, 02-01-1995, pp 32.
> >
> >The Bell Curve is a very sober, very thorough, and very honest book (1.) -
> >on a subject where sobriety, thoroughness, and honesty are only likely to
> >provoke cries of outrage. Its authors, Charles Murray and the late Professor
> >Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard, must have known that writing about
> >differences in intelligence would provoke shrill denunciations from some
> >quarters. But they may not have expected quite so many, quite so loudly or
> >venomously, and from such a wide spectrum of people who should know better.
> >
> True. They completely underestimated the degree to which otherwise "reasonable"
> people can jump on a modern day Witch-Hunt bandwagon...especially if it is
> wrapped up in the moral mantra of "how dare you say that about a "protected'
> minority!"...
The Bell Curve is not the opinions of just two authors.
It is the sum total of every piece of relevant research
by over 1000 experts in the field of cognitive science.
Over 50 pages of bilbliography. Murray and Herrnstein
merely pulled it all together and published it in an easily
understood form for the layman.
Bet you haven't even read it.....
Complete text is below
http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/sowell.html
The Bell Curve is a very sober, very thorough, and very honest book (1.)
-
on a subject where sobriety, thoroughness, and honesty are only likely
to
provoke cries of outrage. Its authors, Charles Murray and the late
Professor Richard J. Herrnstein of Harvard, must have known that writing
about differences in intelligence would provoke shrill denunciations
from
some quarters. But they may not have expected quite so many, quite so
loudly or venomously, and from such a wide spectrum of people who
should know better.
The great danger in this emotional atmosphere is that there will develop
a
two-tiered set of reactions--violent public outcries against the message
of
The Bell Curve by some, and uncritical private acceptance of it by many
others, who hear no rational arguments being used against it. Both
reactions
are unwarranted, but not unprecedented, in the over-heated environment
surrounding so many touchy social issues today.
The predictive validity and social implications of intelligence test
results are
carefully explored by Herrnstein and Murray in more than 500 pages of
text with another 300 pages of appendices, footnotes, and an index. The
Bell Curve is an education on the whole subject, including the evidence
pro
and con on a wide variety of controversial issues. Even where the
authors
clearly come down on one side of a given issue, they usually present the
case for believing otherwise. In such candor, as well as in the clarity
with
which technical issues are discussed without needless jargon, this book
is a
model that others might well emulate.
Contrary to much hysteria in the media, this is not a book about race,
nor is
it trying to prove that blacks are capable only of being hewers of wood
and
drawers of water. The first 12 chapters of the book deal solely with
data
from all-white samples, so as to be rid of the distracting issue of
racial
differences in IQ scores. In these chapters, Herrnstein and Murray
establish
their basic case that intelligence test scores are highly correlated
with
important social phenomena from academic success to infant mortality,
which is far higher among babies whose mothers are in the bottom quarter
of the IQ distribution.
Empirical data from a wide variety of sources establish that even the
differing educational backgrounds or socioeconomic levels of families in
which individuals were raised are not as good predictors of future
income,
academic success, job performance ratings, or even divorce rates, as IQ
scores are. It is not that IQ results are infallible, or even that
correlations
between IQ and these other social phenomena are high. Rather, the
correlations simply tend to be higher than correlations involving other
factors that might seem more relevant on the surface. Even in
non-intellectual occupations, pen-and-paper tests of general mental
ability
produce higher correlations with future job performance than do
"practical"
tests of the particular skills involved in those jobs.
In such a comprehensive study of IQ scores and their social
implications,
there is no way to leave out questions of intergroup differences in IQ
without the absence of such a discussion being glaring evidence of moral
cowardice. After ignoring this issue for the first 12 chapters,
Herrnstein and
Murray enter into a discussion of it in Chapter 13 ("Ethnic Differences
in
Cognitive Ability"), not as zealots making a case but as researchers
laying
out the issues and reaching the conclusions that seem to them most
consistent with the facts--while also presenting alternative
explanations.
They seem to conclude, however tentatively, that the apparent influence
of
biological inheritance on IQ score differences among members of the
general society may also explain IQ differences between different racial
and
ethnic groups.
This is what set off the name-calling and mud-slinging with which so
many
critics of The Bell Curve have responded. Such responses, especially
among black intellectuals and "leaders," are only likely to provoke
others to
conclude that they protesteth too much, lending more credence to the
conclusion that genetics determines intelligence. Such a conclusion goes
beyond what Herrnstein and Murray say, and much beyond what the facts
will support.
First of all, Herrnstein and Murray make a clear distinction between
saying
that IQ is genetically inheritable among individuals in general and
saying that
the differences among particular groups are due to different genetic
inheritances. They say further that the whole issue is "still riddled
with more
questions than answers." They caution against "taking the current ethnic
differences as etched in stone." But none of this saves them from the
wrath
of those who promote the more "politically correct" view that the tests
are
culturally biased and lack predictive validity for non-white minorities.
It is an anomaly that there exists a controversy over the predictive
validity
of tests. This is ultimately an empirical question, one for which there
is a
vast amount of data going back many years. Herrnstein and Murray are
only summarizing these data when they shoot down the arguments and
evasions by which the conventional wisdom says that these tests do not
accurately predict future performance. Long before The Bell Curve was
published, the empirical literature showed repeatedly that IQ and other
mental tests do not predict a lower subsequent performance for
minorities
than the performance that in fact emerges. In terms of logic and
evidence,
the predictive validity of mental tests is the issue least open to
debate. On
this question, Murray and Herrnstein are most clearly and completely
correct.
In thus demolishing the foundation underlying such practices as
double-standards in college admissions and "race-norming" of employment
tests, The Bell Curve threatens both a whole generation of social
policies
and the careers of those who promote them. To those committed to such
policies, this may be at least as bad as the authors remaining
"agnostic" (as
Herrnstein and Murray put it) on the question as to whether black- white
IQ differences are genetic in origin.
On some other issues, however, the arguments and conclusions of The Bell
Curve are much more open to dispute. Yet critics have largely overlooked
these disputable points, while concentrating their attacks on either the
unassailable conclusions of the book or the presumed bad intentions of
the
authors.
While Herrnstein and Murray do an excellent job of exposing the flaws in
the argument that tests are culturally biased by showing that the
greatest
black-white differences are not on the questions which presuppose
middle-class vocabulary or experiences, but on abstract questions such
as
spatial perceptual ability, their conclusion that this "phenomenon seems
peculiarly concentrated in comparisons of ethnic groups" is simply
wrong.
When European immigrant groups in the United States scored below the
national average on mental tests, they scored lowest on the abstract
parts
of those tests. So did white mountaineer children in the United States
tested
back in the early 1930s. So did canal boat children in Britain, and so
did
rural British children compared to their urban counterparts, at a time
before
Britain had any significant non-white population. So did Gaelic-speaking
children as compared to English-speaking children in the Hebrides
Islands.
This is neither a racial nor an ethnic peculiarity. It is a
characteristic found
among low-scoring groups of European as well as African ancestry.
In short, groups outside the cultural mainstream of contemporary Western
society tend to do their worst on abstract questions, whatever their
race
might be. But to call this cultural "bias" is misleading, particularly
if it
suggests that these groups' "real" ability will produce better results
than their
test scores would indicate. That non sequitur was destroyed empirically
long before Herrnstein and Murray sat down to write The Bell Curve.
Whatever innate potential various groups may have, what they actually do
will be done within some particular culture. That intractable reality
cannot
be circumvented by devising "culture-free" tests, for such tests would
also
be purpose-free in a world where there is no culture-free society.
Perhaps the strongest evidence against a genetic basis for intergroup
differences in IQ is that the average level of mental test performance
has
changed very significantly for whole populations over time and,
moreover,
particular ethnic groups within the population have changed their
relative
positions during a period when there was very little intermarriage to
change
the genetic makeup of these groups.
While The Bell Curve cites the work of James R. Flynn, who found
substantial increases in mental test performances from one generation to
the
next in a number of countries around the world, the authors seem not to
acknowledge the devastating implications of that finding for the genetic
theory of intergroup differences, or for their own reiteration of
long-standing claims that the higher fertility of low-IQ groups implies
a
declining national IQ level. This latter claim is indeed logically
consistent
with the assumption that genetics is a major factor in interracial
differences
in IQ scores. But ultimately this too is an empirical issue--and
empirical
evidence has likewise refuted the claim that IQ test performance would
decline over time.
Even before Professor Flynn's studies, mental test results from American
soldiers tested in World War II showed that their performances on these
tests were higher than the performances of American soldiers in World
War I by the equivalent of about 12 IQ points. Perhaps the most dramatic
changes were those in the mental test performances of Jews in the United
States. The results of World War I mental tests conducted among
American soldiers born in Russia--the great majority of whom were
Jews--showed such low scores as to cause Carl Brigham, creator of the
Scholastic Aptitude Test, to declare that these results "disprove the
popular
belief that the Jew is highly intelligent." Within a decade, however,
Jews in
the United States were scoring above the national average on mental
tests,
and the data in The Bell Curve indicate that they are now far above the
national average in IQ.
Strangely, Herrnstein and Murray refer to "folklore" that "Jews and
other
immigrant groups were thought to be below average in intelligence. " It
was
neither folklore nor anything as subjective as thoughts. It was based on
hard data, as hard as any data in The Bell Curve. These groups
repeatedly
tested below average on the mental tests of the World War I era, both in
the army and in civilian life. For Jews, it is clear that later tests
showed
radically different results--during an era when there was very little
intermarriage to change the genetic makeup of American Jews.
My own research of twenty years ago showed that the IQs of both
Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans also rose substantially over a
period of decades. Unfortunately, there are many statistical problems
with
these particular data, growing out of the conditions under which they
were
collected. However, while my data could never be used to compare the
IQs of Polish and Italian children, whose IQ scores came from different
schools, nevertheless the close similarity of their general patterns of
IQ
scores rising over time seems indicative--especially since it follows
the
rising patterns found among Jews and among American soldiers in general
between the two world wars, as well as rising IQ scores in other
countries
around the world.
The implications of such rising patterns of mental test performance is
devastating to the central hypothesis of those who have long expressed
the
same fear as Herrnstein and Murray, that the greater fertility of low-IQ
groups would lower the national (and international) IQ over time. The
logic
of their argument seems so clear and compelling that the opposite
empirical
result should be considered a refutation of the assumptions behind that
logic.
One of the reasons why widespread improvements in results on IQ tests
have received such little attention is that these tests have been normed
to
produce an average IQ of 100, regardless of how many questions are
answered correctly. Like "race-norming" today, such generation-norming,
as it were, produces a wholly fictitious equality concealing very real
and
very consequential differences. If a man who scores 100 on an IQ test
today is answering more questions correctly than his grandfather with
the
same IQ answered two-generations ago, then someone else who answers
the same number of questions correctly today as this man's grandfather
answered two generations ago may have an IQ of 85.
Herrnstein and Murray openly acknowledge such rises in IQ and christen
them "the Flynn effect," in honor of Professor Flynn who discovered it.
But
they seem not to see how crucially it undermines the case for a genetic
explanation of interracial IQ differences. They say:
The national averages have in fact changed by amounts that are
comparable
to the fifteen or so IQ points separating blacks and whites in America.
To
put it another way, on the average, whites today differ from whites,
say,
two generations ago as much as whites today differ from blacks today.
Given their size and speed, the shifts in time necessarily have been due
more to changes in the environment than to changes in the genes.
While this open presentation of evidence against the genetic basis of
interracial IQ differences is admirable, the failure to draw the logical
inference seems puzzling. Blacks today are just as racially different
from
whites of two generations ago as they are from whites today. Yet the
data
suggest that the number of questions that blacks answer correctly on IQ
tests today is very similar to the number answered correctly by past
generations of whites. If race A differs from race B in IQ, and two
generations of race A differ from each other by the same amount, where
is
the logic in suggesting that the IQ differences are even partly racial?
Herrnstein and Murray do not address this question, but instead shift to
a
discussion of public policy:
Couldn't the mean of blacks move 15 points as well through environmental
changes? There seems no reason why not--but also no reason to believe
that white and Asian means can be made to stand still while the Flynn
effect
works its magic.
But the issue is not solely one of either predicting or controlling the
future. It
is a question of the validity of the conclusion that differences between
genetically different groups are due to those genetic differences,
whether in
whole or in part. When any factor differs as much from Al to A2 as it
does
from A2 to B2, why should one conclude that this factor is due to the
difference between A in general and B in general? That possibility is
not
precluded by the evidence, but neither does the evidence point in that
direction.(2.)
A remarkable phenomenon commented on in the Moynihan report of thirty
years ago goes unnoticed in The Bell Curve--the prevalence of females
among blacks who score high on mental tests. Others who have done
studies of high- IQ blacks have found several times as many females as
males above the 120 IQ level. Since black males and black females have
the same genetic inheritance, this substantial disparity must have some
other
roots, especially since it is not found in studies of high-IQ
individuals in the
general society, such as the famous Terman studies, which followed
high-IQ children into adulthood and later life. If IQ differences of
this
magnitude can occur with no genetic difference at all, then it is more
than
mere speculation to say that some unusual environmental effects must be
at
work among blacks. However, these environmental effects need not be
limited to blacks, for other low-IQ groups of European or other
ancestries
have likewise tended to have females over-represented among their higher
scorers, even though the Terman studies of the general population found
no
such patterns.
One possibility is that females are more resistant to bad environmental
conditions, as some other studies suggest. In any event, large sexual
disparities in high-IQ individuals where there are no genetic or
socioeconomic differences present a challenge to both the Herrnstein-
Murray thesis and most of their critics.
Black males and black females are not the only groups to have
significant
IQ differences without any genetic differences. Identical twins with
significantly different birthweights also have IQ differences, with the
heavier
twin averaging nearly 9 points higher IQ than the lighter one.(3.) This
effect
is not found where the lighter twin weighs at least six and a half
pounds,
suggesting that deprivation of nutrition must reach some threshold level
before it has a permanent effect on the brain during its crucial early
development.
Perhaps the most intellectually troubling aspect of The Bell Curve is
the
authors' uncritical approach to statistical correlations. One of the
first things
taught in introductory statistics is that correlation is not causation.
It is also
one of the first things forgotten, and one of the most widely ignored
facts in
public policy research. The statistical term "multicollinearity,"
dealing with
spurious correlations, appears only once in this massive book.
Multicollinearity refers to the fact that many variables are highly
correlated
with one another, so that it is very easy to believe that a certain
result
comes from variable A, when in fact it is due to variable Z, with which
A
happens to be correlated. In real life, innumerable factors go together.
An
example I liked to use in class when teaching economics involved a study
showing that economists with only a bachelor's degree had higher incomes
than economists with a master's degree and that these in turn had higher
incomes than economists with Ph.D.'s. The implication that more
education
in economics leads to lower incomes would lead me to speculate as to how
much money it was costing a student just to be enrolled in my course. In
this case, when other variables were taken into account, these spurious
correlations disappeared.(4.) In many other cases, however, variables
such
as cultural influences cannot even be quantified, much less have their
effects
tested statistically.
The Bell Curve is really three books in one. It is a study of the
general
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
effects of IQ levels on the behavior and performance of people in
general in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a wide range of endeavors. Here it is on its most solid ground. It is
also an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
attempt to understand the causes and social implications of IQ
differences
among ethnic groups. Here it is much more successful in analyzing the
social
implications where, as the authors say, "it matters little whether the
genes
are involved at all." Finally, it is a statement of grave concerns for
the future
of American society and a set of proposals as to how public policy
should
proceed in matters of education and social welfare programs. These
concerns need voicing, even if they are not always compelling. One
chance
in five of disaster is not to be ignored. That is, after all, greater
than the
chance of disaster in playing Russian roulette.
In one sense, the issues are too important to ignore. In another sense
the
differences between what Herrnstein and Murray said and what others
believe is much smaller than the latter seem to think. The notion that
"genes
are destiny" is one found among some of the more shrill critics, but not
in
The Bell Curve itself. Nor is race a kind of intellectual glass ceiling
for
individuals. As the authors write:
It should be no surprise to see (as one does every day) blacks
functioning
at high levels in every intellectually challenging field.
Critics who insist on arguing that we are talking about an intellectual
glass
ceiling should recognize that this is their own straw man, not something
from
The Bell Curve. And if they refuse to recognize this, then we should
recognize these critics as demagogues in the business of scavenging for
grievances. The Bell Curve deserves critical attention, not public
smearing
or uncritical private acceptance.
(1.) Editor's note: Our own review of The Bell Curve, by Christopher
Caldwell, appeared last month.
(2.) It is widely acknowledged that height is heavily influenced by
genes,
and it is not controversial that races differ in height because of these
genetic
differences. Yet predictions of a decline in national height over time,
because of a greater fertility in groups of shorter stature, were
likewise
confounded by an increase in the national height. Yet, rightly, no one
regards this as a refutation of the belief that height is greatly
influenced by
genes and differs from race to race for genetic reasons. Similarly,
rising IQs
over time do not refute the belief that races differ in IQ for genetic
reasons,
though it ought to at least raise a question about that belief. The
parallel
breaks down when we realize that height can be measured directly, as
innate potential cannot be, but is wholly dependent on inferences about
what would have happened in the absence of environmental differences.
(3.) Miles D. Storfer, Intelligence and Giftedness: The Contributions of
Heredity and Early Environment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1990), p. 13.
(4.) Because a postgraduate degree was usually required to be an
economist, those economists with only a bachelor's degree tended to have
entered the profession before this requirement became common. That is,
they tended to be older and have more experience, with this experience
being more likely to have been in the more lucrative business world
rather
than in academia.
--
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 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
