Linux-Advocacy Digest #611, Volume #28 Thu, 24 Aug 00 06:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451781 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Eric
Bennett)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just converted ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Chris Lee)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft Linux: what if? (Truckasaurus)
Re: (GNOME RULES) (Truckasaurus)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Truckasaurus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451781
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:22:51 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the
evidence for his reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain
why he's ignored Slava's question. And he's still plagued with
"parrot" syndrome, as well as his illogical conclusion regarding
misattributions.
174> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
174> fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
174> reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain why he's assuming Slava's
174> question [who is this "Slava," Tholen, one of your sock puppets?]. And he's
174> still plagued by the logical conclusion that a response to someone who used
174> an incorrect attribution means that the attribution was correct enough for
174> the culprit at whom it was directed to recognize himself. Figures.
174>
174> To the digest improper!
174>
174> [Tholen huffs n' puffs but doesn't say anything that bears repeating.]
174>
174> Thanks for reading!
175> Tholen tholes:
175>
175> [As if that's something to be proud of!]
175>
175> You're the last person anyone trusts, Tholen, right or wrong though you
175> might be.
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:41:47 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bush apparently pays that waitress $114 more.
Ha.
> > Of *course* the absolute dollar amounts saved by the wealthy are
> > higher,
> > but that's only because they're paying a hell of a lot more in absolute
> > terms in the first place.
>
> But they can afford a hell of a lot more in absolute terms. The rich are
> doing quite well in this country. They don't need any tax breaks. I
> won't support a tax break that gives 60% of the money to the top 5% of
> the population. Especially not if the guy proposing it claims it
> primarily benefits the working class.
If six million families will no longer have to pay federal income tax,
that seems like a pretty good benefit to me.
> It means something a bit loony is going on. But that's usually the case
> with the government <g>
So, the Democrats' criticism of the Bush plan doesn't make sense.
> The problem is that with the growing aging population, social security
> funds won't be enough to keep Social Security going.
Gee, what a surprise... a ponzi scheme eventually falls apart. Who
would have thought.
It should be blatantly obvious that something is going to have to give
as life spans get longer and longer. What happens when the average life
expectancy reaches, say, 90 and only half the population is in the work
force?
> > Not that I would blame him for wanting social security to dry up, of
> > course.
>
> If social security dries up, people who've been paying into it for years
> aren't going to get anything out of it. Even if you want to end social
> security, it's obvious you can't do it like that.
No, I recognize that. I think it would have to be phased out over 50
years or so at least. We could let inflation eat away at it until it's
gone.
I don't expect to ever get a dime of my payments into the fund back.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 07:49:50 GMT
> "Server" now means "driver" ...
You are referring to the X-Server. What the manual may not
have explained to you is that yes, indeed, the X-Server is
actually a server. If you set up the right permissions, you
can display X programs, running on remote machines, back to
your desktop. This is achieved because the remote program
opens up a TCP/IP socket on a known port, connects back to
your machine, authenticates itself (yes, boys and girls, just
like any client talking to a server), and then gets permission
to begin drawing windows on your desktop.
It happens to be a solidly proven technology.
C//
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 03:52:51 -0400
In article <Az%o5.250$v3.3240@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
> >Of *course* the absolute dollar amounts saved by the wealthy are higher,
> >but that's only because they're paying a hell of a lot more in absolute
> >terms in the first place.
>
> First off, are you really so certain that "the dollar amounts.. [paid]
> by the wealthy are a hell of a lot more"?
Well then, if Bush's plan *isn't* going to give tons of money to the
wealthy, what is Znu complaining about?
> I have no problem at all paying people a tax refund even if they paid
> no taxes, if they are working and trying to support a family.
I do. If you can't afford to raise a family, then you don't raise one.
If you can afford it and then all of a sudden you lose your job, that's
one thing. But you don't intentionally take on obligations that you
*know* you can't cover. It's no different than somebody charging tons
of stuff to their credit card and then having to declare bankruptcy.
Make the minimum wage high enough to raise a child. Get the states to
lower their tax rates on the lower class. But don't go handing out
money to people who have a job and yet aren't paying any tax.
> Would you
> rather they started robbing banks? Robbing *you*?
I would rather they not take on financial burdens they can't handle and
then expect me, the taxpayer, to pay for it.
> Are you opposed to
> welfare in all its forms? Try doing without it...
I expect people to live a lifestyle that matches their level income, and
not go running to the government to pay them for things they can't
afford.
Welfare should be a work insurance policy. We should not take the
position that if somebody who can't afford to pay to raise two children
has a family with six of them, the government will happily pay for it
all. People need to exercise more responsibility.
> Apologies for an off-topic post.
What is off-topic about it?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:03:05 -0400
DES wrote:
>
> I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give Linux a
> try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat for
> their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days. Yes I
> did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!! For
> those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now means
> "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy for
> us!
Actually, the Linux terminology is correct within the field of Computer
Science.
> Give me a break, keep yor eye on your objective instead of trying to spite
> MS. Make it easy for Joe Public.
There is no substitute for education....unless you want to remain a
slave to people like Gates, who only blow sunshine up your ass...
> Dave
> PS I hope someone from XFree86 Org reads this, their installation
> instructions are no help to me. What ever happened to step#1, step#2,.......
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:05:13 -0400
Glitch wrote:
>
> Is there an equivalent in the Windows world to an X server? Just so
Hummingbird X server.
> that users coming from a background of Windows (like myself) can grasp
> the idea little better.
>
> Thanks
> Brandon
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ryan Walberg (MCSD) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > By "server" == "driver", he was probably talking about his X server.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is what I was assuming that he meant, but as we know that is not a
> > > > valid description.
> > >
> > > Actually it is a very valid description. Although it behaves like a
> > > driver with regards to hardware and privileges, it is, none the less, a
> > > TCP/IP server which provides a service via TCP/IP. Simply because
> > > Windows does not have an adequate analogy, does not mean the words are
> > > incorrect.
> >
> > Some X servers contains drivers but the servers are not drivers. In general
> > X server use the system drivers. But even for those that contian driver, it
> > provides much more than just a driver or drivers. An X server coordinates
> > the various terminal input devices as well as well as many other non-driver
> > functions. By the way an X server provides network access not only by
> > internet domain networking but also unix domain netowrking--possibly many
> > other networking domains.
> >
> > There are X servers that run on Windows and and of course they are not
> > drivers, they use the various system drivers. There are also X servers for
> > Dos and other OS's as well
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:08:30 GMT
> While the Windows 9x TCP/IP stack is a poor performer, it has no
problems
> with 1Mb/s. My old cable modem under 98 routinely pushed 1.5-3Mb's
without
> blinking an eye. Internally, I've gotten as much as 50Mb/s on a 100bT
> network. (I'm not bragging about anything here, these are poor
numbers, but
> nowhere near as poor as you claim).
>
> There must be some other issue here if this is true.
>
No other issues - Linux performs better on networks right through the
bank. I have plenty examples on site.
>
> The only reason why this might be true is if you are using some kind
of
> firewall that is sensitive to Windows generated packets.
>
>
You will be amazed at the speed difference in dial-up access between
Windows and Linux boxes. The past weekend a budy and me tried it out -
a Windows 98 box with 550MHz AMD and 128MB RAM vs a Linux box with
400MHz AMD and 64MB RAM. We first connected with the Windows machine
and checked how long it took to download the Norton Antivirus Update
Files (each about 2.5MB). We then did exactly the same on the Linux
box. In both instances we used the command line FTP applications. Linux
performed very roughly 166% faster.
Now, I know this was not very scientific (we only had one tel. line to
start with, so the connection was not simultanious). But still - after
a whole weekend of experimenting the Linux box was consistantly faster
then the the Windows box.
We are now trying to org. a better benchmark run. Two tel. line for
example will be a must! I will keep this ng updated...
See you...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 08:59:52 GMT
I can only agree to the fullest, this smells redmond all over it!
/IL
> What you are suggesting is nothing new, it has been around since the first
> timeshare systems. My interpretation of your article is that you will be
> reintroducing the old timeshare system that have overall been rejected
> because of serious issues of security, privacy, and reliability. Not to
> mention the performance bottle neck at centeral unit.
>
> It seems that your have read avout Microsoft.NET and you suggesting a form
a
> Linux.NET. Microsoft.NET has too many issues for it to work, without one
> hell of an expensive advertising campain directed to form clueless
userbase
> that are unwilling or unable to realize the problems with Microsoft.NET
are
> indemic with it core to the point that it cannot be fixed with todays
> network bandwidths.
>
> How are your planning to handle the bandwidth problem? How are you
planning
> to get the OS and libraries and other software on a host that is needed to
> handle XML without having to install it? Who is going to run the servers?
> Were is that data going to be stored? Who will guarentee that one day's
> data files will be readable by the programs available the next day? Who
is
> going to defray the cost of running the servers? etc.
>
> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3q1p5.14319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here is a few observations:
> >
> > Linux on the desktop (and as a server) requires it to beat Windows XXX
> hands
> > down for ease of configuration, security, and management.
> >
> > Installing software is simply the act of constructing in storage a
proper
> > representation of the software. In other words, our talking about
> > installing software on a computer is like a painter insisting she is
> > installing a picture of a duck onto her painting. It doesn't matter how
> she
> > does it, she is rendering the duck, not installing it.
> >
> > We need to get rid of install programs, on all platforms. There isn't
> > another single thing we do on computers that causes more in dollars and
> time
> > (Solitaire *is* a close second, however ;-).
> >
> > XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
> > Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract
form
> in
> > XML and render it to the target computer system.
> >
> > XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
> >
> > XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and
> their
> > options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be
> expressed
> > in different ways on different computer systems to construct an
> operational,
> > distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every
> web
> > server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch,
with
> > one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
> >
> > This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a
> new
> > concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and
the
> > know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side
> and
> > view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely
change
> > the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you
can
> > make it happen.
> >
> > http://www.egroups.com/group/xmlos/
> > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xmlos/
> >
> > Paul Snow
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: 24 Aug 2000 09:10:51 GMT
In article <3q1p5.14319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>
>This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a
new
>concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
>know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side and
>view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
>the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
>make it happen.
XML is bullshit. Go Away.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:27:23 +1000
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> > Was it perhaps the Transformer called Jetfire? It was white with red
> > stripes on it and had 'battle armor' that was red and black. I had that
> > particular toy, plus about fifteen of the really little ones that they
> > released as actual Robotech toys. I don't remember any Robotech toys
> > that were of that size, but Jetfire was huge. And he's still my
> > favorite toy:-). It took my months to save up the $35 I needed to buy
> > him back then. Ah, for the good old days.
>
> Might've been.
>
> BTW, found a site that has all Robotech episodes in Real Vid format. I've
> been running a wget on the site since Saturday and am just now getting the
> last episode of the first season (site is hammered).
URL please :).
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:28:48 +1000
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > [...]
> > > >> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced
them
> > > >> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
> > > >> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
> > > >
> > > >*sigh*. You're missing the point.
> > >
> > > I know it will do no good to point out to Christopher Smith that, no,
it
> > > is he that is missing that point. The point is *not* whether there
have
> > > been any compelling alternatives to Windows. In fact, the point is
that
> > > there have *not* been any compelling alternatives, or even available
> > > alternatives, to Windows.
> >
> > There haven't been any particularly compelling alternatives. There have
> > been numerous alternatives.
>
> Baloney. How "compelling" a given alternative is entirely depends on its
> application. What may be a compelling solution for one problem may be a
> worthless solution for another. To generalize and state that there
haven't
> been any compelling alternatives for any task is highly inaccurate.
*sigh*
I meant compelling alternatives for the majority. Obviously if you're
involved in something like DTP then, say, MacOS has been a compelling
alternative for years (indeed, it would be the paltform for which there
haven't been any compelling alternatives).
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Linux: what if?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:39:52 GMT
In article <8o0ps8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just reading in
> http://www.gnulinux.com/interviews/stallman_part1.shtml where it says
>
> Stallman: Well, I have concerns in that certain things could happen,
which
> we must avoid. Having companies interested is, not in itself, a bad
thing.
> There's a potential for them to contribute. There's also a potential
for
> them to exploit the community and lead it in the wrong direction.
Which
> one will happen will be determined ultimately by the values of the
users.
>
> This got me thinking what if (Psst, nobody tell BillG) Microsoft
were to
> release and promote their
> own distribution of Linux, in an effort to do the usual
> drag-it-down-the-path-of-locking-you-in-to-the-Microsoft-world
thing...
> Anyways, it seems they could easily come up with Microsoft Linux,
> Microsoft Linux Extensions, Microsoft Linux Plus, Microsoft Linux
Plus,
> Microsoft Linux II,
> Microsoft Linux 2002, Microsoft Linux Applications Kit, Microsoft
Linux
> Explorer, MS Linux Express, etc. etc., indeed they could just take the
> guts [for free], paste some glitz on it, box it, sell and be the new
> "trendsetter"... Anyway, have some more names:
> Microsoft Linux Home, Microsoft Linux Office, Microsoft Linux Pro,
> Microsoft Linux Junior, Microsot Linux Family...
> Indeed, they could just paste a windows directory explorer front end
on
> it, not worry about maintaining the guts... let their proprietary
> 'extensions' creep in and see if they can lock in some users...
Yes, MS could do that. What's your point?
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (GNOME RULES)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:46:50 GMT
In article <DNbn5.247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What "stuff" ?
Internet, Office,... stuff!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:54:24 GMT
In article <8njlen$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II) wrote:
> I didn't say that the Linux kernel will get less popular.
I never said that you said that. I only negated the statement, that
you felt was not necessarily true:
"Linux will get more popular" negated gives
"Linux will get less popular, or maintain current popularity".
Since I do not believe the negated statement, the original has some
truth value from my point of view.
> I said that your contention that because GNOME is getting
> lots of attention, that such attention will be paralleled
> for Linux. That is not necessarily true.
See above.
> GNOME runs under several UNIX-like OSen. GNOME's acceptance
> will help _GNOME_ first and foremost. Yes, Linux will
> benefit from this, but not directly.
How will Linux benefit, without this benefit increasing Linux
popularity? What do you call a benefit?
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
