Linux-Advocacy Digest #596, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee escribió:
>> It isn't as 'extremely unlikely to happen' when we have a
>> lot of coders working for companies.
>
>Find me a company that wants to take care of converting
>every program that stores configuration on /etc to work
>on a registry, and I'll show you a company that's driven by
>nutcases and will never release anything.
Yeah, I hope you are right on that count.
>
>> As this is already happening to some extent, and it will
>> continue to happen,
>
>To what extent has /etc changed to a binary registry?
I meant the 'programmers/coders working for companies' is
already starting to happen.
>
>> there is a chance that 'management' in the said companies
>> will decide it is a good idea, contrary to what those that
>> have a clue as to what they are talking about. I think
>> this is where our original disagreement stemmed from. You
>> agree that the idea I've stated are silly (which was my
>> point) and you don't think it could happen because of how
>> silly it is. The problem I see with that is, we should at
>> least say they are silly ideas, so that those thinking it
>> isn't silly have a more informed position in the future
>> (and stating it here probably isn't going to matter over
>> all, but....).
>
>Ok, I will also state that eating rat poison for breakfast
>while running around the pool is a bad idea.
Fair enough, and I doubt you will get anyone saying, "Shut
up moron" when you do because it is a valid position.
>> No one in XFree that I'm aware of has said it, but it is
>> where the original conversation started. There are those
>> that want 'full graphical integration' in the kernel.
>
>Could you be a bit more specific? It would help me
>take this more seriously.
Well, our original conversation stemmed from a thread
where someone was involved with a conversation (in real
life) with a group of people that were all fired up
because the 'geeks' were ruining Linux for the 'real
people' that had made investments in it. It stemmed from
an article that said 'geeks' are fighting to keep the GUI
from being fully integrated in the kernel and the 'real
people' are saying that is the only way to 'fight'
Windows. And the 'real people' want the geeks to leave
Linux alone and let these 'real people' make their
investments back on Linux. (see why the whole thing kind
of fired us up?)
>
>> TUX is extremely fast. TUX is also a security risk (that
>> I don't consider worthwhile.
>
>That's your decision. Allow those willing to take the risk
>to have TUX, as well.
>
>> Again, as I said before, as
>> long as this remains 'optional' and does not become the
>> 'standard' then I have no problem with it.
>
>Optional it will always be, I guess, simply because I
>see no way anyone can make a kernel option mandatory.
>
>As for standard, standard declared by who?
That's just it, we don't know 'who' is in charge of the
'standard'. At the moment it is us 'non-real people'
called geeks. But we see more and more business interest
in Linux, and we all know that businesses aren't real good
at making positive technical decisions (especially when
people are clamouring for bad technical decisions).
>
>> I was
>> originally speaking out against those the ask for 'full
>> system integration' through kernelspace the way Windows
>> does things, expecting everything to be in kernelspace,
>> and leaving you no option of anything else. After all (as
>> they argue) this is what makes Windows 'so good'. I
>> realize that this position is usually taken by those that
>> are totally ignorant of good system design, and those that
>> don't code, but I also want them to understand why it
>> isn't good design practice. And that is where my original
>> statements came from.
>
>Ok, as long as it's for educational purposes ;-)
Which is where we started. :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:02:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>
> Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs are
> cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
>
> > OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying
> > workers.
>
> Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a general
> sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
>
The truth is somewhere in between.
Sure, owners sometimes lay off employees even when the company is
profitable.
But, essentially, an employee gets paid regardless of company profits
while an owner's compensation is completely dependent on company
profits. There are many, many, many examples where (at least for the
short term), employees continue to draw a salary when the owner doesn't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:50:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Was NFS userspace and is going kernelspace, or viceversa?
>> >Because what linux used to have really sucked.
>>
>> I thought userspace NFS came first. I used the old
>> userspace version, and some of them were a joke, but
>> currently the userspace version are very stable, and very
>> usuable (performance wise). I've tried the kernelspace
>> versions, and thus far have had nothing but problems with
>> it. Anyway, as long as it is optional (and remains
>> optional) then I have no problem with it.
>
>In other unix platforms NFS servers were kernel based with userspace
>programs to control them. The idea of userspace NFS servers came latter.
>Linux on the other hand started out with no kernel based NFS server or any
>at all. For this unix platform, unfs was the first NFS server available for
>it, the kernel based server came latter. My Linux NFS servers have been in
>operation long before the Linux kernel NFS server came along in the form of
>a kernel patch with the knfs package and after more than a year latter
>became a part of the standard kernel sources. I still use the userspace NFS
>server since the kernel based one too often turns flaky and I have not been
>able to locate why. When the kernel based server becomes flaky and it is
>compiled as a module it can be deactivated and be unloaded and it sometime
>works again afterwords. If compiled in the kernel when it become flakey
>often the only solution is a reboot. If using unfs something goes flakey,
>just kill the process and restart it. I have never once had to reboot a
>host to fix a problem in unfs. I am calling the userland nfs server by its
>original name of unfs since by the time that its name was changed to what it
>is today, it was already rock solid and has given be no grief. I am waiting
>to test the 2.4.x kernels to see if the kernel NFS server is servicable and
>reliable.
Your story is about the same as mine. I've never had luck
with the kernel based NFS server, and more often than not
when it screwed up or got flaky, a reboot was the only
recourse. Which is why i say integration with the kernel
is not the ultimate answer to some of the so called
'problems'. If it's done properly, maybe. But at the
moment, I have yet to see that happen.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 17:59:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why
> > > are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> >
> > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > USENET?
>
> Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or
> significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even
> farther.
When did you get it into your head that having a surplus indicates
having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or deficit, the
budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when expenditures equal
revenues.
If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I sure as
hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest free. I'd
rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting Dems spend it for
me.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> But why did they have to start by pulling the rug out from under the
>> consumer? Monkeying around with the method of setting market rates for
>> kilowatts, suppliers (and, eventually, consumers) have had to pay up to
>> 1000% increases on electrical rates. The whole "crisis" that afflicted
>> the west coast last month wasn't because there wasn't enough
>> electricity; it was because somebody figured out how to profiteer on it.
>
>Actually, it was *exactly* because there wasn't enough electricity.
>
>How did you manage to miss all of the "California is on the razor's edge
>of blacking out" stories in July and early August?
I didn't, that's the point. The numbers don't add up, and the
information I read recently on the problems with the pricing mechanisms
for electricity seems to show that it wasn't that there not enough
electricity; its that the electricity was too expensive. Supply and
demand, you know? I'm quite sure that the popular media described this
as "a shortage", but that seems simply unlikely. I have no fact backing
up this conclusion, however, other than those I've provided. California
might have had a greater demand in July and early August than at any
other time in history, and that demand may have been greater than the
supply on local systems than it had ever been, but it is likely that the
"shortage" was actually due to the *price* of electricity restricting
the supply, not the *generation* of electricity restricting the supply.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >OK. Let's make it very simple.
>>
>> If only that were possible. It is an abstraction; you cannot simplify
>> an abstraction unless it is a simple abstraction. And "the market" is
>> not a simple abstraction.
>>
>> >Answer the following questions in a few
>> >words (none of your usual posting of 1000 lines of response so the
>> >readers fall asleep).
>>
>> I'll try to stay terse. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and
>> the reminder.
>>
>> >1. Should my company be able to charge whatever it wants for products
>> >developed here?
>>
>> Define 'able to'. My preference is that only the market should control
>> what you charge.
>
>You didn't answer my question. Should I be able to put any price tag on
>my product that I want?
Still a trick question. Quit posturing and admit that the market limits
what price you can place on your products, and if it doesn't, then you
are monopolizing.
>> >2. Should there be action taken against companies who "profiteer"?
>>
>> Yes; they should be prevented from profiteering, minimally.
>
>IOW, you don't believe that I should be able to charge whatever I want.
Of course not. Competition should limit what you can charge, and if it
doesn't, then you're monopolizing.
>That's exactly what I said and you're merely confirming the way I quoted
>you.
You're quibbling to try to get out from under the losing side of an
argument. Monopolization is a crime; just because you don't understand
what monopolization is doesn't mean you are free to ignore the law. If
you want to engage in commerce, you better get a lawyer to explain it to
you, if you're too dumb to figure it out yourself.
>> >3. Just what is "profiteering", anyway? Specifically, what level of
>> >profitiability do you consider acceptable (and how is it determined) and
>> >what dividing line does a company have to cross before it's
>> >"profiteering"?
>>
>> It is not a specific price at which it becomes "profiteering", just as
>> it is not a specific market share at which it becomes "monopolization".
>> The dividing line is whether the company is investing in producing their
>> products, or investing in restricting access to the market to raise the
>> price they can demand.
>
>IOW, you don't believe in a free market at all. You believe that someone
>should determine what a company is hoping to achieve and restrict their
>ability to profit from their own products.
Some "one"? No; some *thing*. The competition in the marketplace.
>Again, that's exactly what I said when I quoted you.
No, you're full of shit, and anyone reading this knows it. You're "I
can charge anything I want" charade is meaningless prattle, and has
nothing to do with real life.
>> Forgive a brief expansion. If a company managed to have a ten day
>> window on the market, so that during that ten days, they could charge
>> anything they want, but after that, competition catching up will force
>> them to lower their prices, is it ethical for them to take the great
>> amount of outrageous profits they make in the first ten days to erecting
>> barriers to prevent the competition from forcing their prices down? If
>
>IOW, you don't have a rational point so you come up with a meaningless,
>impossible example to prove the point that you can't make.
I'll assume that means that you were unable to follow my comments. Your
reading comprehension, like your prices, are *your* problem. Go improve
them if they're not giving you enough of a return.
>> the price does come down after that, but doesn't come down as low as
>> some producers could manage with (providing the most efficient
>> production, the purpose of competition from the market's perspective),
>> is the continued profit the company makes to be considered "honest
>> profit" derived from their ability to compete? Or is it 'profiteering',
>> and restraint of trade or monopolization?
>
>Perhaps if you come up with a real example you might be able to prove
>your point -- if you had one.
Ummm... Microsoft? http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
A college economics textbook would probably fill in a lot of the gaps
you seem to have, as well.
>> >4. Is a company entitled to take advantage of both trade secret and
>> >copyright laws?
>>
>> Not on the exact same capital, no, not in my opinion, not ethically and
>> potentially not according to the courts, which have found that
>> restrictions contrary to the nature of copyright (which give free use to
>> the owner of a copy to use that copy in any way they wish which is not
>> restricted by copyright) are not enforceable licensing terms.
>
>Where have the courts found that you can't use both trade secret and
>copyright laws?
Lasercomb America v. Reynolds.
>From http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html :
38} Lasercomb brought an action for copyright infringement, breach of
contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secret,
unfair competition and false designation of origin.[65] The district
court found for the plaintiff on all counts.[66] One of the
defendant's contentions on appeal was that it was error for the district
court to reject their copyright misuse defense.[67]
{39} On appeal, the Fourth Circuit decided that the non-compete clause
of the license agreement was anti-competitive and
contrary to public policy.[68] The court upheld the defendant's
copyright misuse defense and held that the plaintiff's copyright,
as well as the license agreement, were unenforceable.[69]
>And why is it that you're saying that a company shouldn't be able to
>defend their property with all the means available to them? You're
>advocating that they should be limited and should only be able to defend
>their property with half the laws available.
OK, if that's the way you want to say it.
>> >5. Are trade secrets intellectual property?
>>
>> Yes. The nature of that intellectual property, however, is different,
>> as it is for other forms of intellectual property, such as copyright,
>> patent, and trademark. Their common element is that they have no
>> physical substance; merely a fixed form of expression.
>
>So you admit that you were wrong when you said that trade secrets are
>not intellectual property?
I'll point out that I never said that trade secrets were not
intellectual property.
>And just how are trade secrets conceptually different than the others?
>Trade secrets also have no physical substance.
They are not protected by statute, that's how. They are protected by
contract. When contract (trade secret) conflicts with statute
(copyright), guess which wins?
>> >6. Has the U.S. Congress spoken out against profiteering? Where is your
>> >reference?
>>
>> Essentially, the popular wisdom that the danger of monopolization is
>> that they can raise prices to exorbitant levels is the same thing. I'm
>> not the one that claimed that the Congress had made specific reference
>> to profiteering, though it certainly seems likely its been 'spoken'. It
>> is certainly not directly transcribed in law. The laws say "you cannot
>> monopolize" and "you cannot restrain trade", not "you cannot charge
>> exorbitant profits because you are monopolizing or restraining trade."
>
>I'll take that as a recantation of your earlier position.
Well, its not, but whatever floats your boat, at this point.
>> The fact that you haven't heard others refer to it as profiteering is
>> not a measure of how valid the term is, merely how familiar it is.
>
>IOW, it's meaningless.
In those specific words, its unfamiliar, but valid.
>> >I've quoted you accurately on all of your answers in your previous
>> >rambling posts, but just to make sure, go ahead and answer those.
>>
>> You may have quoted me accurately when you quoted me, but you entirely
>> misrepresented my position every other time.
>
>And as you've shown above, all my posts represented your position
>accurately.
Yet another misrepresentation. You're on a roll, Joe.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>No, they should be regulated *by* ethics, and minimized by competition.
>> >>Anything else truly is a foolish idea.
>> >Wrong. If you believed in a free market (as you pretend to), you'd
>> >realize that companies are driven by obtaining the maximum profit
>> >possible without breaking the law.
>>
>> Maximum over which timeframe? One fiscal year? Two years? Ten? Thirty?
>> Fifty?
>
>There's no definite answer and securities laws do have some flexibility.
Securities laws have nothing to do with it, and while I'm absolutely
sure you will not understand why, perhaps that knowledge may help some
more intelligent reader.
>However, sacrificing most of your profits for the next 20 years to
>obtain a possibly greater product in 30 years would almost certainly be
>going too far.
>
>The point is that the laws require the board of directors to act in the
>financial interest of the shareholders. Ethics is not an acceptable
>reason (except, of course, where an unethical action will cost
>shareholders money).
Sounds like you're due for a cranial rectumotomy.
>The actual interpretation of that is somewhat subjective. The fact that
>the board has to maximize shareholder value is not.
The interpretation is entirely subjective, and your 'popular wisdom'
understanding is grossly inadequate. The fact is, the board gets to
determine what "maximize value" means. They aren't allowed to lose
money on purpose, and that's about all you can say.
[...]
>But there should be no question at all that the board's objective is to
>maximize shareholder value--not to meet someone's concept of what's
>ethical.
But that wasn't the question. The question was about maximizing
*profits*, not shareholder "value". When "someone's concept of what's
ethical" includes following the law, it takes precedent over shareholder
value, to be sure.
--
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
>> >> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
>> >> overly-dramatic concern.
>> >
>> >Oh yes.. I'm a real person. But I do realize murderers have trouble
>> >recognizing humans to be different from objects.
>>
>> You're a pseudonym, 'JS/PL', and nothing more. From the information we
>> have available, you are more likely to be a murderer than I.
>
>That's possibly true.
>
>But that doesn't support your position that he's not real. Unless you
>believe he's a bot, then he's a real person.
>
>You don't know _who_ he is, but that doesn't make him any less real.
I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other than
as a pseudonym.
--
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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:23:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
[...]
>I didn't see him asking someone to make a death threat.
Oh, well, then suddenly I'm very worried. Heh.
>The laws and facts are very, very simple. Even you should be able to
>understand them.
>
>It's illegal to make death threats. Whether someone made a death threat
>would presumably be decided by a jury which means (in theory) "would an
>average person consider this to be a death threat?".
>
>HOWEVER, under U.S. law, if a person feels threatened, he has a legal
>right to make a charge against the person who made the threat. He might
>or might not be found to be guilty, but the "victim" has every legal
>right to make a charge if he feels threatened. Of course, you'd then
>have a legal right to claim that no one in their right mind would have
>considered it a credible threat and his response damaged you (you'd
>lose, btw).
>
>Unless you want to rewrite those laws, as well.
Believe me, I would love nothing more than for JS/PL to engage in legal
action on this issue. It would open up a nice big counter-suit that I
have far more chance of winning than he would of convincing anyone that
I threatened him.
>> Recognizing that 'JS/PL' isn't a real person, I "spoke into the mike"
>> for him, and am well within the bounds of reason for ridiculing his
>> overly-dramatic concern.
>
>Actually, JS/PL presumably _is_ a real person. The fact that you don't
>know his real name is completely irrelevant.
Well, if I'm supposed to be making death threats, I'd say it was a
relevant detail.
[...]
>He didn't harrass you.
Your claim is meaningless.
>You made a death threat. It's there for anyone to see. His forwarding
>that [public] message to your ISP isn't harrassment by any rational
>definition.
Well, if it comes to it, we'll see if a jury or judge disagree with you.
>As I said, I think they're going to just laugh because I didn't think it
>was a very plausible threat. But what I think isn't relevant unless I'm
>asked to sit on a jury. He felt threatened and had every right to send
>your message to your ISP.
Purposeful cluelessness is the only support you (or JS/PL) have, and
that's pretty relevant whether you have a legal requirement to judge, or
a Usenet desire to do so.
--
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
******************************
