Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:57:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> [...]
>> >The mere declaration of an action as universally wrong is the telltale
>> >sign of the moral absolutist, because otherwise, what is the meaning
>> >of "doing wrong"?
>>
>> The meaning of "doing wrong" is ethical and local, even if the
>> terminology used might seem to transcend that scope.
>
>Then fix your terminology. How do you expect to communicate when you
>abuse terms?
You're rapidly making it to the top of my "probably a troll" list,
Roberto. My terminology is "fixed", as in unchanging, because I use
these terms consistently from day to day. I do not abuse terms. I
don't accuse others who use conflicting or even contradictory
definitions for some terms of "abusing terms". I accuse them of being
mistaken, and explain the reason why I think so, and my suggestion for
an alternative which is accurate, consistent, and practical.
The response I get is mindless insinuation indicating you've gotten your
panties in a bunch. If you can't keep up, just say so, and I'll try to
go slower.
>> One tell-tale sign
>> of the post-modernist is when they gratuitously insist that somebody
>> (besides themselves) have made reference to something being "universally
>> wrong" merely because they aren't deferring to wholesale cultural
>> relativism.
>
>Pfft.
About the response I would expect from someone who isn't being critical
enough of post-modern rhetoric. Somebody taught you "we are not any
more ethical than slave holders", and you believed them. They were
wrong, and so are you.
[...]
>Always.
>
>> but not to recognize that we merely
>> inhabit reality, we do not literally create it?
>
>We inhabit reality, and we create small chunks of it.
You're going to have to be quite a bit more explicit what you mean by
"create" if you expect that to be a reasonable statement. In essence,
you're going to have to define it as something other than "create". We
perceive reality, we do not create it.
>> You seem to feel quite
>> insecure with the idea that we do create and are entirely limited by our
>> perception of reality, but we do not create the universe by merely
>> thinking that it exists.
>
>I have never claimed to be a solipsist. Since solipsism produces
>no practical effects, I have decided to ignore it.
Solipsism is the belief that we create reality. You seem to only ignore
it insofar as you add the qualifier 'small chunks of', whatever that is
supposed to mean.
>> The sentence "It is wrong" is semantically
>> identical to "I believe it is wrong",
>
>No. "it is wrong" can mean:
>
>a) I believe it is wrong compared to my standards of correctness.
>b) I believe it is wrong when compared to some universal standard
> of correctness.
Since there is no universal standard of correctness, these are
semantically identical, as I've stated.
>In a discussion like this, it is very important to know which one,
>because b) implies the existence of such a standard, and the possibility
>of applying it to any action performed by anyone, thus opening the
>door to moral absolutism, which in the end leads to religion.
But you are the only one who has ever mentioned any moral absolutes.
The problem isn't *whether you think it is wrong*, but "what you think
'wrong' means". BTW, religion leads to moral absolutism, not the other
way around, IMO.
[...]
>> but for the unstated delusion
>> (which nobody I've seen post here seems to hold) that the concept
>> 'wrong' somehow transcends morality or ethics and has physical influence
>> on reality.
>
>Who would believe such a strange and unnecessary thing?
That isn't the point, Roberto; you're trying to distract the discussion
and don't seem to be reading what I wrote in context. To answer your
question: anyone who believes in a moral absolute, generally.
>> >> From "their"
>> >> view, the moral question has no meaning; the church gets to "redefine
>> >> the standard", as it were, of what is right or wrong.
>> >
>> >Yup. That makes it specially hard for them.
>>
>> No, it shows that they have no moral or ethical grounding by nature.
>> What they do is right or wrong based on the action itself and its affect
>> on others. "Noble intent" is only a qualifier when one is being
>> consistent with ones ideals. If you are willing to change your ideals
>> to whatever is most convenient for justifying your most self-serving
>> actions, then you are merely paying lip service to morality and ethics,
>> and have little chance of being either moral or ethical in the end.
>
>And here you implicitly say that the church is/was willing to do that.
Yes, which is why the church is ultimately not a moral or ethical
organization, but a political one.
>> >> That you can
>> >> 'reverse engineer' it into some noble social responsibility is rather
>> >> unnerving.
>> >
>> >It would be, if I did.
>>
>> You have.
>
>No.
Yes, you did. You stated that the church was acting to maintain social
cohesion when they persecuted heretics.
>> Your argument that the church evidenced some social justice
>> in preventing "heretics" from disseminating scientific ideas is just
>> that.
>
>Oh, my goodness. You have not understood a word I said :-P
>I have never said such a thing.
No, you never meant to say such a thing. You certainly did, however,
and continue to do so with this pedantic trolling about it.
>From <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===========================================================
>It was the commonly accepted position at the time that such was the
>church's job. Since it was divine right that validated secular
>authority, it was all pretty coherent.
===========================================================
If you want to state for the record that you are not defending this
position, then I suggest you stop defending it. 'Torture was considered
OK, so there wasn't anything wrong with the church using it.' That kind
of mindless post-modern pablum. You may not wish to be held responsible
for the positions which you defend, but I'm afraid you're going to have
to. From what I have read, you are saying that the church could not be
considered unethical for torturing people because torture was common and
there are no moral absolutes. I am saying that moral absolutes are not
necessary in order to recognize, regardless of social construction, that
torture is wrong.
>> >> Although it is certainly not inappropriate as a line of
>> >> reasoning, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
>> >
>> >This is an experiment in thought. Think. Don't be afraid.
>>
>> Ha. That's positively ironic. I thought I was clear from the way I
>> phrased it that it is not fear, but boredom, which prevents me from
>> pursuing such a line of reasoning.
>
>After what I just read, I would blame incomprehension.
Perhaps on your part, certainly not on mine.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:57:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>[snip]
>
>> I had said
>> >Well, let's apply the standard you expect of others, for a change.
>> >Explain me! Tell me! What? You don't explain the way I like?
>> >Fool!
>>
>> What the hell are you talking about?
>
>Well, that is the general attitude you have. Remember chmod?
>You ask people to explain, and when you fail to understand,
>you insult. Well, moron, explain again! better!
No, I asked for an explanation of the permissions, not chmod, the
command used to modify them. I didn't fail to understand; I was not
understood. I don't hesitate to take my share of responsibility for
that (I have little; my request was misinterpreted), nor am I irate in
assigning blame to others (it is a common conceptual glitch to confuse
the process with the result, and I asked for an explanation of the
result, not the process). But people got very defensive, I pointed out
that people who don't already know the answer need to see the results,
not just an explanation of the process, and finally one lone genius
(besides myself) figured out that showing the visual representation of
the bits was what was called for, while several others continued to
simply repost "chmod +s" as if that was useful (or unknown) information.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:57:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> >Why are you ethically superior to a cannibal?
>>
>> Which cannibal? I'm not going to put my real ethical judgement up
>> against an abstraction. All else being equal, I would be less ethical
>> if I considered it was my right to kill and eat other people.
>
>A cannibal that is basically just like you, except that if he happened
>to be hungry, and a dead person is for sale at the butcher's, (dead
>person who died of natural causes), he would buy and eat that dead
>person.
>
>Now, are you ethically superior? Why?
That depends on whether he still beats his wife.
I knew that sooner or later this would come down to a definition of
"cannibal". Cannibalism as an ethical dilemma is a wide and sordid
topic. I was referring, to simplify the discussion, to people who kill
other people in order to eat them. Personally, I don't think there's
any ethical dilemma in the "Soylent Green" approach you described,
though its obvious that this is distasteful to the vast majority of
people. Partially because of "slippery slope"-type ethical arguments,
but probably mostly due to some other, non-ethical, issues.
[...]
>> >No "more ability to learn", but simply more to learn from.
>>
>> Correct. Do I *blame* the cannibal for being less ethical? Of course
>> not. Does that mean they are not less ethical? Perhaps to a
>> relativist, perhaps not to an absolutist. Being a realist, I'd have to
>> say it isn't that simple.
>
>You said you were not going to judge an abstract cannibal, please don't.
You're not paying attention. I never said any such thing. You are
probably confusing my explanation of why an inability to distinguish
between an abstraction (such as a society) and an individual (such as 'a
cannibal'), which you have yet again illustrated in your remark, with my
insistence that "second-guessing" other's actions is not appropriate or
productive. I never said that I would refrain from judging either
societies or individuals.
[...]
>> In all likelihood, if I had your DNA, and precisely your experience, I
>> would be you. Does that worry you?
>
>No. What is the connection with the current argument?
It is your current argument, vis-a-vis "they were acting ethically
according to their social context".
[...]
>> So are you willing to argue that humans don't have free will, yet?
>
>Individually, yes, statistically, not.
That doesn't make any sense. If they have individual free will, why
wouldn't they show the application of free will statistically? Just
what is "statistical free will", or lack there of?
[...]
>> Unfortunately, I'm afraid we'd have to say "everyone who accepted that
>> they were aware of the will of God". Seeing as how there isn't a God,
>
>Bzzt, proof by assertion, the rest is discarded for starting from
>a flawed premise. You are not doing it any better, by asserting the
>nonexistance of God, than they did by asserting the opposite.
That's a troll tactic, not an argument. My argument does not rest on
whether I can prove the nonexistence of God. Neither does my
philosophy, which recognizes that without any necessity for or physical
indication that there is a God, it means there is not one. If you wish
to try to prove there is a God, feel free. You'll find that assertion
is the only possible mechanism, in the end. Which means there is no
God.
But if you wish to take the easy way out and refuse to consider my
statements because I'm an atheist, that is your right.
[...]
>> So why are you arguing against this, if you are so willing to agree to
>> it?
>
>Think hard.
Ha. I have, and apparently more than you. So are you going to answer
my question now, or continue to avoid the issue in order to preserve
your delusional idea that your moral relativism is somehow superior to
the opposite extreme?
[...]
>The point you miss is the "than they had available to them easily.".
>We just learned more, and it was not our merit at all.
Again, you want to characterize the issue as some sort of
self-aggrandizing hubris. I didn't say it was to our merit that we
learned more. I did say, and will continue to do so because it is true,
even if your partial understanding of ethics prevents you from
understanding it, that it makes us more ethical than they.
[...]
>> BTW, how would you define post-modernist, and where did you learn of it?
>
>This is as good a definition as I have seen (in a perverted way):
>
>http://www.ukans.edu/~medieval/melcher/matthias/t70/0028.html
I've seen much better. Try this article, titled "Postmodernism and
Universal Human Rights", by Xiaorong Li, for a less concise but less
explicit view.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/li_18_4.html
>Basically, I just read an awful lot.
You ought to read Free Inquiry, then. Check the home page of the link
above; I'm sure you'll find it fascinating, if your thoughts run to this
kind of thing. You'll be abandoning your "postmodern relativism" stance
in short order, I think.
[...]
>> There's every possibility, in fact, that we agree almost entirely. If
>> you hadn't jumped in to prevent what you saw as social relativism, I
>> might have done so myself (but for the fact that this is all rather
>> grossly off-topic). I'm quite fond of pointing out that were we in
>> someone else's shoes, we might well make the same "wrong" choices they
>> make, and that may be all you meant to do.
>
>That was the main point, really.
Then you should have stuck to it, I think. But I'm only comfortable
saying something like that because I don't believe in 'free will'.
>> But I'm not going to claim that no ethical judgements can be made,
>
>Throw a "universal" in there, and you will be closer to what I
>say.
I know. But you'll notice that not only didn't I "throw it in there",
but I stated that I'm *don't* make such a claim.
>> or that whether something is wrong is entirely and solely a matter of
>> whether it matches one person's moral or ethical values.
>
>Since I consider the concept itself of unqualified "wrong" to be
>problematic, I won't discuss its application to actions.
The fact that it is problematic is the only reason to discuss it to
begin with. But consider that this statement was in most ways identical
to my previous insistence that we can't make ethical judgements about
individuals without knowing all the relevant and cogent circumstances.
I'll now go further and point out that only the one who actually made
the decision can be considered to be in that position; such is the
nature (and quite problematic it is) of ethics. This might also be what
led to your [postmodern relativist] claim that we cannot judge the
ethics of historical societies.
'Moral absolute' or 'moral relativism 'is a false dichotomy. Ethical
judgement through knowledgable reasoning is the moderate position.
[...]
>> So you aren't afraid to retroactively redefine morality (or whether
>> someone is a martyr, at least),
>
>I don't redefine retroactively. I redefine from now on, and apply
>my morality to events of the past.
That *is* a retroactive redefinition.
>What I don't do is assume that
>because i redefined my morality everyone else should have had
>that new definition since the dawn of time. That is the sin of
>the moral absolutist, really.
You're still confusing morality with ethics. Not your fault, not your
fault. The classical descriptions of either confabulates the two. I
believe that is primarily, however, to account for dualism.
>> but you find a utilitarian explanation for oppression to be
>> objectionable?
>
>Indeed.
But you have used such a position; the original "the church was
preserving social order [or their own power; it makes no difference]"
argument you proffered is nothing more than a utilitarian explanation
for oppression.
>> You can stomach the idea of a mass-murderer being a martyr for
>> cruel and unusual punishment,[...]
>> but the idea that the church was acting correctly when they
>> persecuted Galileo is repugnant? But, weren't you the one who
>> said almost precisely that?
>
>I never said correctly. Please abstain from putting words in my
>posts.
Oh, Christ. Get your head out of my ass. We're finally getting
somewhere, and you want to quibble. You're just trying to back out of
your own argument; without the word 'correctly', the statement would
simply be "the church acted", and that's rather obvious, wouldn't you
say?
[...]
>> Only if you pay any attention at all to 'doctrine', which seems
>> self-defeating to me. When there are inner contradictions, then the
>> doctrine is flawed and unsupportable. No problem.
>
>Well, sometimes, depending on why you adopted the doctrine in
>the first place, you can't just throw it away.
The inability to recognize the future impact of your current actions is
a dubious defense of unethical behavior. You adopted the doctrine; if
supporting it causes you to act unethically, than your adoption of it
may well have been unethical to begin with.
If you do not question whether what you do is ethical, then you are not
being ethical.
[...]
>> What was the empirical knowledge that there was an immortal soul?
>
>According to the historical record accepted at the time, a man of
>superhuman powers said it existed.
Which is to say "there was none". Are you perhaps pre-supposing that
there were no humanists, or even atheists, at the time, who recognized
that this "historical record" was not merely hearsay, but patently false
(rife with apparent and substantial contradictions, at least) and that
no real evidence of the existence of anyone with superhuman powers is or
was available?
Certainly, the majority of peasants wouldn't have had the education or
the luxury needed to contemplate these things, perhaps. But some did.
And they were persecuted for it. The potentially unpleasant results of
acting ethically, however, are not an excuse for acting unethically.
[...]
>> Quite so. And so, in stating that we are "on ethically higher ground"
>> than barbarians is not prideful relativism, but enlightened observation,
>
>Well, prideful relativism it sure isn't. It reeks of crypto absolutism,
>looked from here.
That is due to your perception, not the statement itself. You really
want to think that people apply their own value structure to other
cultures too much. Since they do, you are unable to see the line where
this is no longer appropriate. Read that Xiaorong Li article, it makes
the case quite plainly, in my perspective.
>> and encourages ethical behavior, rather than encourages believing that
>> we can blindly follow what we believe is good.
>
>You have a serious problem with this position. You say you are on
>ethically higher ground from anyone else. EVERYONE thinks the same thing! You are
>avoiding the dangers of blindingly following the beliefs of others, only
>to blindly follow your own belief.
I also think I'm right, and EVERYONE thinks the same thing. I also
think I'm pretty smart, and EVERYONE thinks the same thing. You are
assuming that because it is possible that I'm blindly following my own
beliefs, that I am doing so, and wish to refute all my statements
intended to dissuade you of this notion.
In other words, you're doing the same thing. You read some postmodern
relativist philosophy, and now you're blindly following the belief that
it is not possible to transcend your social context in observing,
perceiving, interpreting, or making judgements about other social
contexts. This is the self-referential flaw in postmodernism. In order
to be a valid position, it must itself be false.
>Let's put it this way: no moral relativist ever bothered enough about
>other's beliefs to start a religious war.
I wouldn't bet on that. But no moral relativist ever did anything at
all, quite possibly. It wouldn't make any sense, would it? You've
already claimed that relativism can 'accommodate' those who believe in a
moral absolute. So the relativist stand by while the absolutist start
wars, and that is unethical behavior. You see what I'm saying?
[...]
>> Again, you wish to ignore knowledge; you know very well you may hurt me,
>> and so it is unethical for you to shoot me. Now if you can show such a
>> straightforward causal link between social actions and future harm, you
>> will have the "ethical high ground" in arguing against or for social
>> actions which you wish to support.
>
>Cool. Since two years ago, sunbathing south of Bahía Blanca (and that
>is not very south) is way too dangerous because of UV radiation.
>That is causally connected to CFC emmissions. We dumped the CFC.
>
>Now, according to you, we are now guilty even if we didn't believe
>at the time to be doing wrong (for a large part of the time, we did
>not).
Which court is trying this "guilt"? Were we being unethical in not
considering that CFC may harm the environment? Of course we were.
Being ethical isn't merely a question of "believing" or even "knowing"
that you are being ethical. It requires that you constantly *question*
whether you are being ethical, and if the answer is "yes", not being
satisfied with that answer and continuing to question it.
[...]
>> >I never said "good".
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>Because the word didn't express what I wanted to say.
But it did express what I wanted to say, because it expressed what you
*said*, whether you wanted to or not. Why are you quibbling about it?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:58:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>You know, it's funny, with all the idiots in this group, you are the
>only one I have a personal problem with. I wonder why that is?
Because the other idiots don't make telling points which lead you to
self-examination, perhaps?
>This is the point of my previous post. If I'm in a crowded room and see
>someone coming that I know I'm going to punch in face if they get too
>close, I can walk away. Here, I don't have that choice. I'm either
>forced to put up with your shit, or not 'talk' with anyone. Ah, very
>'funny' isn't it?
But perhaps they deserve that punch in the face, eh? You don't have to
respond to my posts simply because I respond to yours, BTW. I know
where you're coming from, though. There's this troll named 'Roger' who
hounded me constantly in alt.destroy.microsoft for months, years even.
Still shows up now and again. I found myself incapable of ignoring him.
But I think the situations are a bit different. 'Roger' *literally*
said the same things over and over again; I merely *seem* to say the
same things all the time. 'Roger' intentionally and avidly attempted to
discredit me; I merely respond in a generally reasonable [if possibly
arrogant or even passive-aggressive] manner to what you've posted. I
couldn't ignore Roger because I was afraid someone would believe his
lies; you can't ignore me (I believe) because I'm not really trolling.
>I think I have a pretty good sense of humor. But I fail to find the
>humor in any of your posts. You say you don't like ad hominem attacks,
>yet that seems to be your modus oporandia. Yet another of your little
>hypocracies. In fact, that's where my original disagreement with you
>started. And I have yet to find out (from you) what the hell you meant
>by the attacks you initiated. And until I do, I can only assume you
>truly believe I'm a lazy, stupid, incompetent, poor troubleshooting,
>moron.
See, the problem you've got in finding out "what the hell [I] meant by
the attacks [I] initiated" is due to the fact that they weren't attacks.
You're still misinterpreting my insistent remarks concerning Windows and
troubleshooting to be some indication you are lazy, stupid, incompetent,
a poor troubleshooter, or a moron. Why are you insisting that this is
what I said, when I never used any words even *close* to that affect? I
though I was quite pointed in illustrating how your "good
troubleshooting" is what leads you astray when you assume that Windows
problems can be dealt with in the same way you are used to dealing with
software designed to *function*, rather than merely to be *profitable*.
>You are right about one thing though. If I had met you in real life and
>had the same conversation we had here, I would have been extremely
>tempted to sock you in the gut. But, as is my nature, I probably would
>have just walked away. You're not worth the jail time.
The fact that some people may 'deserve' to be punched aside, I can
guarantee we wouldn't have gotten to that point had our conversation not
been virtual. You wouldn't have been mislead into concluding that I was
trying to insult you to begin with.
OTOH, it may have been I that would have walked away or eventually
succumbed to a violent reaction, as it might be the case that you get
too defensive when someone points out that you are mistaken on some
miscellaneous but relevant point.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:59:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> An interesting nit to pick, I'd guess. Still, the point is that BASIC
>> is much closer to human languages than most other programming languages
>> are, by design.
>
>Have you seen a COBOL program?
Yes, and I mentioned COBOL as well in another post. But the topic of
discussion is BASIC, and I am not familiar enough with the details of
any COBOL or most BASIC to compare and contrast the two.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
