Linux-Advocacy Digest #535, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: seeking advice in distribution choice
Re: Global / Usefull feature from XTREE
Re: Whats a usenet troll?
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Craig Kelley)
Re: Switch to NT? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Re: seeking advice in distribution choice (Craig Kelley)
Re: can't activate netcfg.. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: seeking advice in distribution choice (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Aug 2000 08:51:38 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >I can see how you might feel that way morally or something like that,
> >but let's please limit this to a discussion of regular law.
>
> The term is 'ethically'; my morals have little to do with it. And my
> position is that what is ethical is lawful. The point is that this is
> the way copyright law deals with protected works; the fact that it is
> counter-intuitive and counter-productive for functional software is not
> my doing. So the question becomes not if something is infringement, but
> if the author would ever bother suing for infringement. I'm not sure
> how I feel about that, but I'd like to get to the point where someone
> here understands it sufficiently to discuss it.
It would help get to that point, now that you've thoroughly thrashed
things around, to write up a treatise on the subject. After you write
it, let it sit a few days and work it over again fixing the kinds of
things that confuse people. Use lots of words and references and few
shortcuts. Define your terms and use them consistently. Organize it so
people can easily comment on small parts. Post it on a web site or
comp.software.licensing.
If I'm begining to understand that what you're trying to say is
something beyond the statutes and court findings then you're going to
have the problem that people are not going to WANT to discuss it with
you as it would be irrelevant to software licensing.
BTW, my dictionary has, in the primary entry for "ethics", "The moral
sciences as a whole, including moral philosophy and customary, civil,
and riligious law." and "the philosophy of morals". I guess that's
why I can never remember which to use and left myself an "out" with
"something like that". That should have been a hint not to jump on
me with your own nonsensical use of ambiguous words. It doesn't help.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: seeking advice in distribution choice
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:45:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Zsolt Zsoldos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> First of all let me declare, that I do not want to start an all-out
> flame-war about what is the best distribution. I know different ones
> have different pros and cons and each shines best in certain nische.
> What I'd like to decide is: which one is best for my particular case?
>
......
>
> Which one do you think is the best distribution for us and why?
> So the candidates again:
>
> Caldera 2.4, RedHat 6.2, SuSE 6.4, Mandrake 7.1 and Corel 1.0.
First off, avoid Corel Linux like the plauge, it will not do what you
require to have done without heavy alteration by you or your staff. Since
you require XFree86 4.0, go with the distribution that contains it, unless
you are willing to compile it yourself. I am not certain which of these
distributions may come with support SMP compiled into their kernels, so
reguarless of your choice you may have to recompile the kernel to include
support for your dual processors hosts, otherwise only one processors on
each of them will be used.
About the issue of the availability of the tools, you should be able to take
software from almost any distribution and use it on another. This is true
at the source code level and less so at the precomiled binaries level. But
since performance is important to you, your should consider recompiling your
performance critical software, optimized to the individual hosts anyway.
While on the subject of performance, consider custom configuring and
optimizing the kernel to the particular hosts and compiling a unique kernel
for each host. You may lose the ability to use the kernel of one host on
another host, but it will increase performance and reduce the kernel's
memory overhead. as well as the disk storage overhead.
I would say overall your choice could come down to the distribution that you
and your staff like the best, so long as it supports your needs.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Global / Usefull feature from XTREE
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:14:54 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8nr9rq$8u0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In the "old" DOS Filemanager XTREE (or Ztree on win32) there is a nice
> feature using the key G (like global).
>
> Using this feature you are able to view all files in a partition (like
> on D:) in one scrolling window regardless of their directory sorted by
> Name or creation Date or Size.
>
>
> This nice feature is very usefull if you look for recent/old files or
> for smallest/largest files in a whole partition, or if you need to
> locate duplicate files (having either same name or same size).
>
> Is there a similar feature in one of the many filemanagers (mc, KDE,
> gnome, etc... ?
I am not saying that it should not be or has not been implemented in a unix
filemanager. In fact that is or was a filemanager called Ltree which is a
Linux clone of Xtree, so there is a good chance that it would have that
feature.
I am saying I don't know how practical that feature would be in the
Linux/unix environment. Using the G key with Xtree did not show all the
files in a partition, it showed all the files in a given directory tree.
There was not practical difference between listing files in a partition or
listing files in a directory tree under Dos, so long as the directory tree
was on a local DASD, but on a network drive that difference was often
important.
In the Linux / unix environment all mounted local partitions and all network
mounted volumes would have to be transvered. For a small host that might
not be too much of a problem. However, consider the situation for a large
host containing up to sixteen large harddrives, and possibly other local
DASD's as well, with access to multiple large network mounted volumes.
Thanks to symlinks targeting directories, many files could appear as
duplicates even when all the duplicates are the same file. Overall, in such
an environment you could end up with a single on screen listing of millions
or perhaps even billions of files. Depending on your circumstance it could
take hours to generate your on screen listing as well.
There are ways that these problems could be handled in programing the
feature, but then it would no longer be the global file manager listing,
that you are asking for.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats a usenet troll?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:22:04 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nquce$9kr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I haven't but the Scandinavian trolls aren't usually connected to bridges
> and although they made trouble, a great deal of it was limited to altering
> local geography. Trolls in Scandinavian mythology are sort of demigods,
> mostly mischievous or chaotic. So, although the Usenet trolls might have
> some charasteristics of them, they're much closer to the trolls of British
> mythology.
The connection to bridges was not really the issue. It was meant as and
extra side fact tossed into the mix, mentioning explaining the source of
"toll bridge". I never ment for that to be part of the main discussion.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Aug 2000 10:06:10 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:05:38 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
> hunt) wrote:
>
> >Some recent events:
>
> You realize for each one of these events are are probably 1,000 closed
> source programs being released?
... and another 1000 that die, never to be seen from again; the source
code lost to the world.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:02:44 GMT
>
> >It may be silly but what do you do if your computer is linux based
and
> >someone sends you a msaccess database file?
>
> The same thing you do if you have one of the versions of Office that
> does not include Access. Tell the person you can't read it.
>
> I must live a sheltered life. In the last 15 years, I have had
exactly
> zero MS Access databases emailed to me unsolicited. And no Oracle,
> MySQL, or DB2 databases either.
>
> On the other hand, I get Word documents daily and Excel spreadsheets
> once a month or so. People tend to not mail Access files much because
> even most Office users don't have Access. If you get a lot of Access
> databases in email, I would suggest that your situation is unusual.
>
We have the same situation with other agencies using Access. Once in a
while some one asks if we could use Access since that's what other's are
using. However, it's not as much of an issue since we'd be keeping
close tabs on data received from others, either converting them or
making arrangements for them to be used somehow. This would be very
infrequent. MS Word docs come in daily, and while most are converted
easily, the ones that don't always end up on my desk.
We are playing around with Star. I have WP Office 2000 for Linux at
home.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:02:38 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Do you think every DnD operation on every computer should look exactly
> the same to every user? Do you think all the APIs should be identical?
It should not be so even on one OS that supports multiple desktop
environments. It is debateable if DnD should even be implemented in Linux
at all, however, that is another discussion. Multiple desktop environments
should not try to be too standard amoung each other. Too much
standardization tends to prevent inovation. If a vulnerability is
discovered in the DnD implementation of one environment and all the
enviroments share common procedures or libraries or are otherwise designed
to interoperate, they could all be comprimised but that single
vulnerability. Have we learned nothing from the errors of Microsoft?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: seeking advice in distribution choice
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Aug 2000 10:11:17 -0600
Zsolt Zsoldos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> For hystorical reasons, we currently have 4 different Linux
> distributions installed: Caldera 2.2, Red Hat 6.0, SuSE 6.4 and
> Mandrake 7.1. However, I hate to keep up with the maintenance
> nightmare of the mixed environments (which gets tricky when users
> use their NFS mounted home directories under different versions),
> therefore I'd like to switch to a single distribution.
Good idea.
> I now have Caldera 2.4, Red Hat 6.2 and Corel Linux CDs at hand as
> well.
>
> From the installation point of view, I liked Caldera the most - it
> is neat and robust as well in my experience (been using it for 2
> years now). SuSE seems to provide the largest software tool set in
> its 6 CDs - although it is questionable how much of that we really
> need. RedHat is the most widely supported and widespread as far as
> commercial backing goes (IBM, Intel, SGI and other big names).
> Mandrake is the only one with X4.0 on the install set (and I need
> 4.0 to be able to benefit from hardware accelerated 3D on the nVidia
> and ATI chipsets).
>
> Which one do you think is the best distribution for us and why?
> So the candidates again:
>
> Caldera 2.4, RedHat 6.2, SuSE 6.4, Mandrake 7.1 and Corel 1.0.
RedHat 6.9 (pinstripe; 7.0 beta) includes XFree86 4.0.1, but if
Mandrake is the only one that supports it today, then your choice is
fairly obvious: go with Mandrake.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: can't activate netcfg..
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:17:10 GMT
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:37:19 +0200, Elhanan Maayan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>tclError: no display name and no $DISPLAY Envioment variable.
Try running it from within an X session. And if you have more
questions it would be better to post to comp.os.linux.setup or
something, *.advocacy is for flamewars.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:32:09 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps you need to stop thinking so highly of yourself. Even with
>>all your blowhard posturing and shithead attitude you can't hide the
>>fact that you know squat about how IE works and how it's used by
>>Windows and its applications.
>
>You are suggesting that a piece of software cannot be written
>differently than it already is.
>
Huh? Where did I say that?
>
>This is a ludicrous proposition,
>
As it isn't *MY* proposition, it is most certainly a strawman.
>
>self-evidently false if you understand the concept of *soft*ware.
>
Since you admit that you're not a software developer, I'd say that I
understand the concept much better than you do. One of your
misconceptions seems to be that software can be redesigned and
reimplemented at no cost to its vendor, its users, and the vendors of
dependent software. Another misconception seems to be that letting the
government design software is somehow less undesirable than letting
the government design cars or other "solidware" products.
>>
>>Poor Max can't deal with reality.
>
>IE was not documented in the original Win95 "Windows Platform SDK",
>
That's right. So what? Does the Java SDK of today look exactly like
the original? The X Window System Programmer's Reference? Since when
is it surprising that system software and middleware evolves, amassing
more and more functionality?
>
>if
>that is the official name of whatever magical document provides what
>both Microsoft and their competitors readily point out is not available
>to anyone outside Microsoft.
>
Oh, that's right. Microsoft doesn't document anything. It's just a
miracle that any third party Windows software exists at all.
>
>I would expect that "a long time" would
>have to predate the Win98 tying in order to be a point worth considering
>in suggesting that IE is some sort of "open" product.
>
It does, but you'd have no point even if it didn't. You see, the world
isn't always as you would expect. There's no rule anywhere requiring
that middleware be documented before being released.
>>
>>You have no point. All you have is the desire to seem intelligent by
>>wrapping mindless Microsoft bashing in layer after layer of
>>pseudo-intellectual drivel that bores the reader into skipping to the
>>next paragraph. Anyone bothering to peel away the layers can see that
>>there's no substance underneath.
>
>You've got to be pretty intent on refusing to learn anything to come up
>with that assessment, but my opinion on the matter is obviously
>irrelevant given your basis of argument is ad hominem attack.
>
You're not going to believe this, but after reading your comments
about the design of software and the empty space between my ears, I
was thinking exactly the same thing about you.
>
>Which
>lack of substance accounts for the Findings of Fact. And is that the
>same layer as the Conclusions of Law?
>
Are you now taking credit for these documents?
>>
>>Look Max, your worthless skepticism is a joke compared to having used
>>IE in my own projects (lopping man-years off the development times),
>>and understanding the way it's used by so many other third-party
>>products. Have you even bothered taking a look at IE's design and the
>>way it's componentized? Nah, why bother when you find it so
>>therapeutic to simply dismiss it. You're a phony, Mr. Devlin.
>
>What on earth ever gave you the impression that the internal design of
>IE is at all of concern to either myself, the market, or the courts?
>
Perhaps the fact that the majority of the evidence in this case was
technical in nature?
>
>We
>are examining its representation as a product, not a code base. If I
>indicated I was a developer of software, you would certainly be right in
>accusing me of being a phony, since I'm not. But that's probably why I
>don't indicate or even suggest that I am.
>
You could have fooled me, given your strong reaction to the claim that
taking IE out of Windows at this point would severely damage the
product.
>
>Merely that I'm not a
>shrinking violet when it comes to differing with any developers
>experience or knowledge, or the industry's conventional wisdom, in
>believing that IE's "componentized design" is at all beneficial to IE's
>consumers.
>
I appreciate that you question the industry's conventional wisdom,
although your kneejerk anti-Microsoft reactions make it look more like
you're just following the current trend. But how can you possibly
evaluate the benefits of IE's componentized design if you don't
understand it and wish to make no effort to do so?
>>
>>IE certainly was a separate product - until it was redesigned from the
>>ground up as a set of reusable components and integrated into the
>>Windows desktop shell.
>
>And then, poof, like magic, huh?
>
Not like magic. It took a lot of time and money.
>
>Answer me something, then. If they
>entirely redesigned it from the ground up, and integrated a web browser
>with a desktop shell, and this is so innovative and valuable, why didn't
>they try to make a profit on the product?
>
No offense, but that's a stupid question. Platform components are
designed specifically to add value to the platform, not to act as
independent revenue sources. They're there to entice developers to
target the platform when creating new applications.
The dumbest thing you can do is design a piece of software as a
platform component and then charge extra for it. If you do that,
developers will have every incentive *NOT* to reuse your component. It
will have added no value to the platform, and the effort to design and
implement it will have been a total waste.
>
>One might suggest that a large,
>perhaps even overwhelming number, of Windows and/or IE consumers
>welcomed the combination, but to say that there is no apparent and
>persistent evidence of a desire to be able to continue to get IE or
>Windows as their formerly separate and independent products is simply a
>lie.
>
OK, I'll bite. Where exactly is this "apparent and persistent
evidence"?
By the way, where did I say that *NOBODY* wants Windows and IE to be
separate? You're making another logic error here. The claim that the
integration carries benefits doesn't imply that everybody wants it.
You can't please everybody, nor can you always get what you want.
>
>The very fact that we're still discussing it, when Win98 is all
>but anachronistic, is simple, if somewhat tentative, evidence of that.
>
I disagree. We're discussing it because the DoJ and Judge Jackson
believe that it's illegal, not because any significant portion of
Microsoft's customers complained about it.
>
>Feel free to speculate, as I have, why Microsoft called their great new
>product "IE",
>
Because it's a replacement for the old IE?
>
>instead of just including the reusable components and
>shell modifications you mentioned as a valuable enhancement of Windows?
>
They do that now.
>
>Why furiously change all references to IE on their web sites so that it
>is no longer identified as a web browser?
>
Because it is no longer just a Web browser in the traditional sense.
>
>Why continue to internally
>identify the web browser user application interface in Win98 as IE?
>
I really don't understand your objection. Why *NOT* still call it IE?
By the time they decided to redesign it as a system component, IE was
already an established brand. Would it really make you happy if they'd
called it something else? What difference would that have made,
especially with respect to the legality of the integration?
>
>Actually, I'm an incredibly gentle and generally nice person.
>
Well, for an incredibly gentle and generally nice person, you seem to
be extremely arrogant, presumptuous, self-righteous, sarcastic,
closed-minded, and insulting.
>
>I just
>have lost all patience with Usenet trolls of all persuasions, and
>Microsoft trolls in particular. I'm sick of having to apologize for
>your lack of intellectual capacity and make accommodations for your
>refusal to accept facts which reveal your position to literally be
>nothing but empty posturing.
>
See what I mean?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: seeking advice in distribution choice
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:36:01 GMT
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 08:45:45 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Zsolt Zsoldos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Caldera 2.4, RedHat 6.2, SuSE 6.4, Mandrake 7.1 and Corel 1.0.
>First off, avoid Corel Linux like the plauge, it will not do what you
>require to have done without heavy alteration by you or your staff. Since
>you require XFree86 4.0, go with the distribution that contains it, unless
>you are willing to compile it yourself.
>I am not certain which of these distributions may come with support
>SMP compiled into their kernels,
Caldera does.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:37:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
>> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <399f0303$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel
>> > > >along
>> > > >the
>> > > >lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
>> > > >your
>> > > >meaningless word).
>> > >
>> > > The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
>> > > people's
>> > > representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
>> >
>> > Where has the U.S. Congress stated that companies shouldn't be allowed
>> > to protect their own intellectual property and should face civil
>> > injunctions for charging too much (both of these are positions you've
>> > taken).
>>
>> Actually, it is quite within the power of the courts of confiscate
>> private property (intellectual or otherwise) and place it in the public
>> domain if such an action should be essential to the public interest or
>> to national security.
>
>
>Of course.
>
>But letour and T.Max are arguing that merely charging more than they
>think is acceptable is sufficient ground for confiscating intellectual
>property.
Listen, asshole, I don't really mind if your going to stump around being
clueless. But this repeated "let's *lie* about what other people are
saying so that I don't have to consider their actual arguments, since
the lies can be as extreme and inaccurate as I want" is getting pretty
annoying. Its one thing to misconstrue someone's statements or
misrepresent their arguments, like Christopher Smith and JS/PL do,
that's just a rhetorical device which helps them avoid having to present
a refutable position. But you are simply being entirely dishonest and
*lying* about *everything* that letour or I have said on the matter in
order to fit some unreasoning fantasy you have that you know what your
position doesn't need defending.
You are *LYING*, being completely DISHONEST, you are SAYING THINGS THAT
ARE ENTIRELY UNTRUE, and you are attributing them to others. Lord
knows, we've got nice week libel laws in the U.S., and this is on
Usenet, so I doubt there's ever going to be any legal action. But you'd
certainly be liable if there were STOP SAYING COMPLETELY UNTRUTHFULL
THINGS about me just to avoid arguing with me. If you want to avoid
arguing with me, just go away.
--
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,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:40:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >> Deal with it. Don't come back until you have a point.
>> >
>> >You'll have to ...how you say.... "kill_me" to keep me out of
>> >comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy. Maybe I should make a newsgroup about
>your
>> >insane and murderous ramblings.
>> >What should I call it? alt.timothy.devlin.the.wannabe.killer ?
>> >
>> >Let me know, it can be created in minutes (really).
>>
>> You know, if you posted with a real name, the fact that you seem to have
>> uncovered my real first name, which I haven't used, generally, in years,
>> along with the fact that you have threatened some sort of social
>> ridicule, might be enough to concern or even offend some people. But
>> you don't post with a real name; you might as well be a nine year old
>> child, for all the seriousness that anyone's going to give you.
>>
>> You apparently have put some effort into finding out who I am, even
>> though I post with my real identity, while I haven't even briefly
>> contemplated bothering to try to find out who "JS/PL" is. Though I did
>> think it might be fun to see what you did when I said I want to kill
>> whatever that is after your so pathetically obvious attempt to get Aaron
>> to threaten the life of Bill Gates. I must say that the results are far
>> beyond what I could have hoped for. But I think its pretty obvious who
>> the psychopath here is, 'J'. Best you chill out now, before you get
>> yourself into trouble.
>
>No, when someone puts out a death threat against me, I do the opposite of
>"chill out" I find them and turn them in to the authorities.
LOL! Still working really hard to miss the point, aren't you, 'JS/PL'.
>Now that I have
>fired off a complaint to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation in Scranton,
>PA as of today, they now know a whole lot about you.
Yea, they know I attract flakes who'd seriously like to pretend that I'm
somehow out to get them.
> More than you could
>fathom. If they choose NOT to do anything about it whatever, I believe it is
>very important to begin a paper trail immediately on you due to the fact
>that you have committed a crime by issuing a death threat against me. It is
>psychopaths like you which cause me to mask my identity online, although it
>would take minimal investigation on your part to identify and make good on
>your wish to kill me.
You're pathetically silly.
>P.S. You really SHOULD watch those outgoing packets. :-)
You should really take your medication.
--
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
******************************
