Linux-Advocacy Digest #380, Volume #28 Sun, 13 Aug 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gutenberg (Arthur Frain)
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Bob B.)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating
Re: Gutenberg
Re: Gutenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:47:54 -0700
Richard wrote:
>
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > Richard wrote:
> > > Instead of publishing useless crap like Gutenberg did, Aldus published
> > > philosophical texts and those were infinitely more useful (no matter
> > > how backwards) than bibles and indulgences. I would consider even a
>
> > So your definition of a "book" is normative
> > and not descriptive. Books then are moral
> > constructs, not physical objects with common
> > characteristics.
> At last a thoughtful response! Apparently from someone with the rare
> ability to cut right to the heart of the problem.
Thanks, but I would appreciate a little
more enlightenment, because I find that
a dangerous stance. A modern Gutenberg
with that attitude would license movable
type to the Church, and Aldus would be
in the position of the DeCSS authors or
Napster. The disadvantage in assigning
morality to an object is that it may
not be *your* morality that ends up
attached to the thing.
> > And yet a common term for a Bible is
> > "the Good Book".
> > And from what era does that expression date? Bibles are freely available
> in 'modern book form' nowadays.
Don't know when "Good Book" came into modern
use, but similarly 'Bible' derives from
'biblio-' which relates to books. 'bibliotek'
(sp?) in German means library.
> > It took me a lot of time and effort to
> > acquire an engineering mindset, and it's
> > one of the things I'm proudest of.
> I wouldn't. The world is FULL of engineers, it doesn't need another one.
> What it does need is people who can apply technology to the needs of
> human beings /without/ trying to exploit them (ie, someone other than
> a fucking marketroid or manager or ...).
Gee, you must be trying to get on my good side,
because I have been an engineer, marketdroid
(on the distribution end) and manager :)
Unfortunately there are bad engineers who get
to call themselves that by virtue of a diploma
or job title, and good engineers who may not
even have the title, but still produce good
engineering.
> Technology does not have any inherent moral value. It's how you use it
> that matters.
But the very fact that "how you use it matters" gives
technologists a moral responsibility, and technology
(unlike science) doesn't seem to be able to exist without
an end use. That's as much or more a societal problem
than an engineering problem, but it's still a problem.
I'm usually an 'ends' oriented person (which makes me
uncomfortable defending 'engineering' as a process),
but I do believe the specification of 'ends' includes
restrictions on the 'means'. Nevertheless, I still
find your example (which I snipped) of good and bad
uses of TV to be problematical. The bad uses of TV
make it economically feasible for us to have this
discussion using CRT's instead of TTY's for example,
or make things like cardiac catheterization (and
therefore pacemakers) possible, yet the technology
was developed with almost exclusively the 'bad' uses
in mind. I don't find it a simple issue.
> Richard Stallman is a perfect example of the type of innovator I'm
> talking about. He figured out how to turn an existing technology to
> the advantage of human beings. He was capable of rationally thinking
> about human needs and desires, like the desire to share with friends
> and the need to form communities. RMS is the kind of innovator that
> I admire.
> Compared to RMS, Linus did nothing special; all he did was implement
> another fucking Unix. For every person like RMS there are hundreds or
> even thousands of Linus Torvalds.
> People admire Torvalds more than Stallman because what RMS did requires
> an advanced personality, one capable of rationally thinking through
> things that other people automatically suppress from their consciousness.
> And most people don't have anything resembling an advanced personality.
> They can think rationally about emotionless physical objects that are
> "out there" but they can't, they don't *want to*, think rationally about
> their own emotionally-loaded needs and desires. That's simply too
> threatening to them.
I think in large part it's simpler than that.
Torvalds is admired more because he's attractive,
engaging, a "nice guy', *and* a good coder and
project manager. Stallman OTOH is abrasive and
somewhat unattractive. Since (to use your earlier
hyperbole) both are icons *perceived* as
representing approximately the same ideology,
it's not surprising that Torvalds gets more
"admiration" points. The fact is too that Torvalds
produced a usable product even admitting that in
part RMS enabled that product. The 'product' is an
OS and a development model.
> Well, it's not threatening to me. I *can*, and have, done the kind of
> thing that RMS did. I can appreciate and understand what he did. And
> I can admire it.
> > When you state it that way, you're creating
> > a false dichotomy - both examples are highly
> > utilitarian. The "physical world/human needs"
> > dichotomy is completely in error - you simply
> > don't seem to know much about engineering.
> >
> > In a utilitarian realm (at least from an
> > engineer's perspective), there is no
> > difference between a new process and
> > something new. The purpose of engineering
> > is to solve problems.
> >
> > A good example is one from my "Engineering
> > Design" course - poptops on beer cans. The
> > idea of a poptop is to eliminate the can
> > opener, which is strictly about human needs.
> No, it's not.
Yes it is.
> Maybe you can already see it with RMS versus Torvalds, but engineering
> is about solving *known* human needs.
It's difficult to solve unknown human needs.
Nobody does that much. :)
> It's about finding a better way
> to do what you've /already accepted/ that you can, should and have a
> right to do. What RMS and Aldus did isn't that at all. What they did
> was accept that they can, should, and have a right to do something
> completely new (that you have a right to free software and that you
> have a right to genuinely useful, enlightening and meaningful books).
I don't have much info about Aldus, but
RMS was directly responding to a known human
need - his and his associates (if I remember
correctly the story about the printer software
he couldn't fix because he didn't have the
source). The fact that RMS' body of work
ultimately transcended the initial problem
that motivated him is part of the point I
was trying to make wrt an 'inflection
point' earlier - pardigm shifts or inflection
points always seem to have the property of
extensibility - movable type to books,
telephones to cell phones and electronic
switches, transistors to a host of devices
which could hardly be conceived in 1948.
(That borders on question-begging, but I
don't think it is - people knew in the
early 50's that transistors would be
world-changing)
RMS largely recontextualized the immediate
problem he was facing - he got to redefine
the problem, which is also something
engineers are (in my case anyway) or should
be taught to do. Mostly we get to see
the result of the process, but rarely
the process itself - it only appears
to be magic.
> > There are a number of ways to do this:
> > corks, rubber stoppers, screw tops. The
> > solution chosen was (tada) "something new"
> > which involved (tada) a "new process"
> > (pre-stressing a section of the can lid
> > and adding a pull tab). The result is
> > a combination of evaluating human needs
> > and meeting them through physical properties.
> > That would be a fairly good definition
> > of engineering.
> It's easier if you understand some psychology because then you can
> appreciate how very hard it is for human beings to accept the idea
> that they are worthy of things; that they are worthy of free software,
> et cetera. There's a lot of mental and emotional stress involved.
I don't agree here. Paradigm shifts are
hard to accept because of cognitive dissonance
or lack of a suitable cognitive framework
("why the hell would I want free software?"
"why would I want to put all of these little
letters together when I can just engrave the
text on a single plate?"), as well as
vested interest.
> > If you want another example, consider
> > Frank Lloyd Wright's "mushroom" columns
> > (actually they look like engine valves)
> > used in the Johnson Wax building in
> > Racine, WI. They're both something new
> > and a new process.
> And that's a perfect example of human need type innovation. Wright
> accepted the idea that humans are entitled to beauty, elegance and
> serenity. He figured out ways to fill needs that *nobody else gave
> a shit about*. In that way, Wright was the antithesis of an engineer.
> He even explicitly stated that "If you're a draftsman, then you'll
> never be an architect".
But his solution would have lacked beauty
elegance and serenity had it ultimately
been displayed with crushed bodies and
debris because the ceiling it was supposed
to support fell in.
Whether it was Wright or some very good
structural engineer, the solution not only
succeeded on an aesthetic level, but when
Wright was forced to test a prototype by
the state, it failed at 3X or 4X the load
it was required to carry.
Wright is (or should be) archetypical of
what a good engineer is - able to provide
a solution that satisfies a problem with
multiple constraints (in this case,
aesthetic, novel, structurally sound, and
almost economical).
Contrast your calling this a human need
type innovation with the example about
chocolate ice cream.
> > But not all problems require "something
> > new" as a solution. Plastic soda bottles
> > for example use screw tops (slightly
> > modified).
> > Engineering being largely pragmatic,
> > the emphasis is on solving problems,
> > not doing "new" things for their own
> > sake. In that sense (new for new's
> > sake) why attach any value to it in
> > a utilitarian realm (eg "human needs")?
> I hope you can understand my viewpoint much better now. Being able
> to open a bottle is not a /fundamental human need/. In fact, it
> doesn't even qualify as a desire, let alone a need.
If the History Channel is to be believed, cans
were a lot less popular before the invention
of can openers. Packaging and preserving food
is a fundamental human need, and could be
interestingly viewed from the perspective of
"how you get the bottle open". Ever try to
open a bottle of wine without a corkscrew?
I won't disagree that a lot engineering is
mundane. It can still be done well or poorly.
> The fact that
> you consider engineering to be utilitarian is a dead give-away;
> Utilitarianism is dead among philosophers, and it never even existed
> as far as psychologists are concerned.
I just read a philosophy book written within
the last two years (Richard Rorty - not sure
which one, but good engineers are ironists
according to Rorty's defintion) which leaned
pretty heavily on Utilitarianism - depends on
which philospher you pick (or like). A lot of
people still quote Bentham and Mill. I'm not
sure why psychologists' attitude toward utility
or Utilitarianism would be important.
At any rate I meant utilitarian as "useful",
not the "greatest good for the greatest number"
although I meant to imply optimality too.
We seem to be in the realm of the useful
as opposed to the purely theoretical here.
> Saying that engineers concern themselves with human needs is like
> saying that people "love" chocolate ice cream or that people "clamour"
> for a computer game. Does anyone seriously think that people give a
> shit about ice cream when compared with the way they care about their
> children or spouse? Or that people vocally demand computer games the
> way that starving people clamour for food from humanitarian aid workers?
The fact is it takes a lot of engineering to
get food to starving people, and a fair amount
of engineering to satisfy a child's needs.
You're comparing affiliative or physical needs
to higher needs like knowledge or achievement
or aesthetics. Human beings have both types
of needs and it isn't a stretch to find that
people's intensity of desire wrt to higher
needs is sometimes comparable to their desire
for basic needs if those basic needs have
already been satisfied.
I'd still contrast 'all engineers' with
'engineering'. I did have a roommate who
used to engineer machines that made ice
cream, and I know engineers who have worked
on equipment that saved the lives of people's
spouses and kids. IMHO, there is room in the
world for both chocolate ice cream and
defibrillators, and chocolate ice cream
can be one of the nicer things about having
a kid.
> Saying that engineering concerns itself with human needs is just
> another example of contemptible self-promotion. The reality is that
> engineering doesn't matter that much at all.
More hyperbole or do you seriously believe
that? I obviously don't agree.
> > "New for new's sake" may be appealing
> > from the standpoint of aesthetics,
> > achievement, knowledge, and Maslow
> > would recognize those as human needs,
> > but so would engineering (the Wright
> > example above).
> Except that Wright was /not/ an engineer.
'Engineer' is denotive. Wright did
engineering, regardless of what he
called himself.
> Most architects only
> concerned themselves with stacking the most boxes into a small
> space. THAT is the engineering attitude, an attitude I generally
> detest.
That was *one* engineering attitude, and
it was directed at *one* set of needs.
> Wright was completely different.
(Actually Wright began a similar project
in Madison, WI - forgotten the name -
something-topian houses?)
Different in attitude, but not in the use
of the engineering process. The Imperial
Hotel in Tokyo was almost all engineering
and very little new of anything else that
composes "architecture' as distinct
from 'engineering'.
The fact that none of Wright's buildings
collapsed, even after a major earthquake
in one case, demonstrates that he was a
good engineer or at least included good
enginering in his work. Other positive
labels you might want to attach to him
are not mutually exclusive to "good
engineer".
> >If "new for new's sake"
> > is a parameter of the problem, than a
> > good engineer would address it. Most
> > problems don't require that; some
> > problems obviate that.
> This perfectly exemplifies what I'm saying. An engineer addresses
> the parameters of a problem, he doesn't come up with the parameters
> by himself.
Not always true. In large organizations,
engineers get handed the parameters; in
startups or research organizations (say
Xerox PARC), engineers get to define the
problem and the solution. That ability,
IMHO produces the best engineering. The
history of the semiconductor industry is
the history of engineers redefining the
problem and producing solutions (Si instead
of Ge, IC's, uP's and a host of process
improvements and clever designs).
> > Gutenberg and Aldus solved different
> > problems. Aldus' solution was not
> > likely without Gutenberg's, and in
> > fact may have been easier ("Hey!
> > What if I assemble Plato's Dialogs
> > just like the books of the Bible?")
> > Difficulty/ease don't seem important
> > factors in "innovation" - I don't
> > recall even Marx asserting the "Labor
> > Theory of Innovation Value".
> Difficulty is a factor since discoveries obvious to everyone at the
> time are not innovations.
Nope. On a personal basis, I know the
personal computer was obvious to me and
people I worked with, and I assume must
have been to a lot of engineers similarly
situated. It's a long story, but a friend
and I almost went in to the PC business
in 1974 - you can take that to mean it was
*really* obvious. The fact is that people like
Wozniak and Kildall actually did the
innovation and get (and deserve) credit
as the innovators.
I can tell similar stories about spreadsheets,
dBase, and word processing, but the fact is
I didn't invent any of them. My reaction over
the years to a lot of new developments in
computing has been "well, somebody finally
did that" combined with "why didn't I think
of that last little bit?".
> > Perhaps Aldus deserves as much
> > reverence as Gutenberg - the fact
> > that he doesn't get it is a problem
> > to discuss with historians and
> > similar types of people, not with
> > engineers.
>
> It's far more general than Gutenberg vs. Aldus. It's all about innovation
> in physical objects/processes versus innovation in human needs (the
> identification of previously unrecognized, and hence "new", human needs).
I guess I'd view it as problems whose
solution spaces were commonly assumed
to be empty, but that physical objects
or processes or "new" ideas are all
just points in the real solution space.
I'll admit the distinctions you're
drawing - I just don't think they have
the importance you're attaching to them.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:17:41 GMT
Arthur Frain wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > My plea was meant as hyperbole.
>
> I wondered about that. It can be hard to tell
> on Usenet.
I've been noticing tone (and lack of it) a lot lately. I've always known it
intellectually but I just didn't care until now.
> It's a less than perfect analogy, but I
> think it's still workable to say that
> RMS == Gutenberg and Linus == Aldus, on
> the level of actual product (RMS produced
> useful tools similar to Gutenberg; Linus
> produced a workable whole with broader
> application), or on the level of process
Yes, you can look at it that way. I don't know if it's important though.
> (RMS codified open source, Linus made the
> process work to produce a workable OS).
> Personally I'd rather have lunch with
> Einsteing than Newton, but Newton's
> influence (technologically) is more
> pervasive.
I second that. I've never had idols but Einstein came close.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
From: Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 15:00:58 -0700
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob B." wrote:
>
>> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>> >>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >>> So far W2K hasn't proven itself. That's not MS bashing -
>> it's really pro
>> >>MS to
>> >>> be honest about W2K! If you really knew about W2K you'd
>> argue about it's
>> >>> benefits and tone down the nonsense.
>>
>> <snip>
>> >You don't understand the word PROVEN.
>> >
>> >A PROVEN technology is one that has proven itself. W2K is
NOT
>> proven reliable
>> >by default -- unless one is irrational.
>>
>> One might argue its irrational to define a word by using that
>> same word - a proven technology is one that has proven
itself ??
>
>Well I didn't try to define the word proven.
Funny, it sure looks like you did.
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/99/05/03/990503pigartne
r.xml
>
>Tom Bittman, the analyst house's director of research, opened
the
>organization's NT in the Enterprise conference with a
prediction that
>although Windows 2000 will have its benefits, it will not be as
reliable
>as NT 4.0 is now. Microsoft will catch up only in following
releases, he
>said.
>
>
>
>When Microsoft executives call Windows 2000 "reliable,"
potential users
>should view that in comparison to NT 4.0 and the Windows 9x
consumer
>line, not operating systems such as Unix, Linux, or AS/400,
Bittman
>said.
>
>
>
>"This is going to be the killer on the first release," Bittman
said of
>Windows 2000's reliability. "The beta program is only going to
catch the
>easy ones."
>
>
>
>Bittman also said the skills costs associated with a major
project such
>as deploying Windows 2000 -- according to the Gartner Group, NT-
skilled
>professionals have been seeking raises of some 25 percent since
early
>1998, with the option of "walking across the street," he said --
could
>be daunting.
>
>
>
>The warning did not fall on deaf ears.
>
>
>
>"I'm concerned about the skills resources," said John
Camarillo, vice
>president of operations at one of Chase Manhattan Bank's four
call
>centers, in Tempe, Arizona.
>
>
>
>Tom Bittman, the analyst house's director of research, opened
the
>organization's NT in the Enterprise conference with a
prediction that
>although Windows 2000 will have its benefits, it will not be as
reliable
>as NT 4.0 is now. Microsoft will catch up only in following
releases, he
>said.
>
>When Microsoft executives call Windows 2000 "reliable,"
potential users
>should view that in comparison to NT 4.0 and the Windows 9x
consumer
>line, not operating systems such as Unix, Linux, or AS/400,
Bittman
>said.
>
>"This is going to be the killer on the first release," Bittman
said of
>Windows 2000's reliability. "The beta program is only going to
catch the
>easy ones."
>
>Bittman also said the skills costs associated with a major
project such
>as deploying Windows 2000 -- according to the Gartner Group, NT-
skilled
>professionals have been seeking raises of some 25 percent since
early
>1998, with the option of "walking across the street," he said --
could
>be daunting.
>
>The warning did not fall on deaf ears.
>
>"I'm concerned about the skills resources," said John
Camarillo, vice
>president of operations at one of Chase Manhattan Bank's four
call
>centers, in Tempe, Arizona.
>
>
>> >You guys RUINED the NT Brand by over promising and giving it
a
>> bad reputation
>> >as it was evaluated by standards to which it could not
>> achieve. NT was a good
>> >PC OS but boy was it over sold and MS had to dump the NT
Brand
>> to be taken
>> >seriously --
>>
>> Yes, NT was a failure in the marketplace and they had to
change
>> the name. Just like Apple OS 9 is a failure and they had to
>> introduce OS X.
>>
>> Since you don't define how one "proves" a technology, you can
>> forever keep repeating that W2K is unproven. Yet hundreds of
>> companies, like Dell, Merrill Lynch, Sprint, etc. are using
it.
>> Obviously it was in beta for a long time, installed at
customer
>> sites, for this very reason - to let customers "prove" to
their
>> satisfaction that it was something they wanted to deploy.
>>
>> The same thing is happening with W2K DataCenter. Its not used
>> for the first time by someone outside of Microsoft when its
>> released to the pubic.
>>
>> So who should we trust to judge the quality of W2K - the IT
>> department at Merrill Lynch, or some rude, name calling guy
>> posting on the internet ?
>>
>
Well its good to see you are no longer arguing that MS changed
the name of NT to be "taken seriously".
>Read.
>There are a lot of news stories about waiting after Release
1.0 -- GIGA
>and FORRESTER and GARTNER all share the same opinion -- if you
know what
>they are and what they sell.
Wow, you think its notable that you know who Gartner is ?
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/99/05/03/990503pigartne
r.xml
>Tom Bittman, the analyst house's director of research, opened
the
>organization's NT in the Enterprise conference with a
prediction that
>although Windows 2000 will have its benefits, it will not be as
reliable
>as NT 4.0 is now. Microsoft will catch up only in following
releases, he
>said.
Well at least you found someone who somewhat backs you up. But
note that Bittman is described as "always cynical about NT", so
its not like he is an unbiased source. And much of his concern
is regarding "skills cost", which you have never said was a
concern, and certainly has nothing to do with W2K
being "proven". Bittman thinks W2K will be unreliable compared
to Unix (which I can believe), though he doesn't cite any
evidence of that. He even thinks it will be less reliable than
NT (which seems a bit of a stretch), though he doesn't cite any
evidence for that, either. So you found a biased source who
doesn't like W2K. Of course I could find positive comments to
match every negative comment you post. But I'm less interested
in what reviewers or consultants have to say than I am in what
users do - and many big IT shops are deploying W2K. They are
satisfied that it is "proven", contrary to what you have been
saying.
>> >
>> >DO MS a favor - shut up.
>>
>> Apple might ask the same of you.
>
>Yeah, right.
>Ask for help reading news headers so you don't embarrass
yourself next
>time.
Uh, talk about embarassment and not knowing how to use news
groups - why post the same link twice, not to mention posting
much of the article twice, as well.
>
>
>
Bob B.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:43:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is not obvious where the burden of proof resides in this.
>
> Certainly none of the "WinTrolls" have been documenting proof that
> they are _not_ on the "Microsoft payroll," but it is as fair for them
> to demand that _you_ demonstrate proof of your claims as it is for you
> to demand proof of theirs.
>
> I would think it entirely _possible_ that some of them own a bunch of
> MSFT stock that they may have bought on their own. For someone that is
> ticked off about MSFT stock price declines, and looking for a scapegoat,
> Linux looks pretty good as a "would-be punching bag."
>
> I would think it quite unlikely that any of the visible names represent
> people formally (or informally) on the Microsoft payroll as "Internet
> AntiLinux Evangelists." They're generally not "professional" enough;
> to the contrary, some, if associated with Microsoft, would outright make
> Microsoft look bad.
I agree that there seems some motivating factor beyond just advocacy of an
OS they use and appriciate. I don't claim to know what the motivating
factor is, but it does seem to exist.
Some could be:
Being employed to be winvocate/wintroll.
Employees of the firm perform the action on their own.
Having a position in the ownership of the manufacturer of the OS.
Having a fear that they can not adapt to another OS if theirs fades away.
Wanting revenge on the OS that caused their employment to be terminated when
they were found to not be able to adapt to it.
Fear that their investment in becoming a MCSE won't be recovered.
and many other possibilities.
Don't dismiss the possibility of being paid to be a winvocate or a wintroll.
I would not be too supprised of that possibility since Microsoft has already
done worse than that and through use of thier resources, they have been able
to avoid paying the price for their actions.
Sometimes one of the best ways to avoid being implicated in an action is by
making it appear that it would be against your best interest to take the
action. I am not saying it is the case, but that it could be the case that
Microsoft is paying the some of the winvocates/wintrolls to post, and the
over-the-top styles on purpose to deflect suspicion away from Microsoft's
complicity.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:10:08 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> Of course, I have to trash the contribution of the "physical innovator"
> just to provide some balance to an incredibly UNbalanced situation.
No, you not *have to* trash the contribution of the "physical innovator",
you do it out of choice alone. There is no valid reason to trash one
person's achievments in order to promote the achivements of someone else,
unless you have some malicious motive.
> And from what era does that expression date? Bibles are freely available
> in 'modern book form' nowadays.
Then you agree that Bibles qualify as books? You are contradicting your own
prior statements. Which is not supprising since you have already all but
admitted that you don't believe what you have been saying, it was just a
part of a ploy to support your agenda.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:56:48 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > (Unless I misunderstood your reference.)
> >
> > You sure have missunderstood,
> [snip]
>
> Thank you for the history lesson. It seems I understood perfectly.
>
> > I don't see any icons of Gutenberg any where around here. Have you seen
> > any? You are familiar with what a "religious icon" really is? I guess
not,
> > since it would invalidate the above quoted paragraph written by you.
>
> Let me guess, you've never heard of hyperbole before?
Yes, I have both the mathematical and linguistic version of it. But your
depending on it to extracate you from this kind of error is an all too often
used ploy when the facts don't fit your statements.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
