Linux-Advocacy Digest #694, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Double standard? (mlw)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Gary Hallock)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Chad
Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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, 28 Aug 2000 02:38:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [...]
> >> >> >No. You just give money away without doing anything about the real
> >> >> >problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> What real problem would that be, Joe?
> >> >
> >> >Lots of things. Lack of discipline. Lack of expectations. Lack of
> >> >parent
> >> >involvement. And so on.
> >>
> >> And how do you personally expect to tackle these 'problems' without
> >> paying someone to deal with them?
> >
> >
> >HINT FUCKING HINT: ***NONE**** of those things cost money, Max.
>
> ANSWER INVECTIVE ANSWER: That's because none of them are valuable all by
> themselves. You don't expect to pay teachers from public funds, then
> the public won't have teachers, and we'll churn out more idiots like you
> and JS/PL and Joe and Christopher Smith. You guys might think you have
> the ability to engage in intellectual investigation, but while you might
> have been taught that its important to do so, you obviously never
> learned how to do it.
ROTFLMAO.
Considering that:
1. You've admitted you're an expert in only one thing--ignorance.
2. You've admitted that you don't use the definitions that everyone else
uses -- you merely change meanings to fit your purposes.
3. You have not provided a single reference to back up a single post
you've made.
4. You've admitted that you raise "feelings" the the level of facts.
You're hardly one to talk.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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, 28 Aug 2000 02:40:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...endless ad hominem and style over substance arguments deleted...]
> >OK. Then where's the factual evidence to back up your position. You
> >don't have any. You merely assume that it's true.
>
> I presume it is true, as it fits all of the available evidence, so far
> as I am aware. I have justified my position through reason and evidence
That's only because you haven't looked for any evidence and blatantly
ignore all the evidence you've been presented with.
> (you might not have realized what all that "quoting from precedent" was
> all about, but that's called 'backing up your position' among those less
If you had done it, it might be relevant.
All you seem to want to do is change the meaning of words and phrases
and restate your feelings over and over again with no factual support.
> prone to heated squabbling and more interested in reasoned discussion
> than yourself), and still await any attempt to confront, let alone
> refute, that position. Your protests that no argument against my
> position is necessary is simply yet another of your logical failures.
Nope. It's because you keep changing your position and haven't provided
a shred of evidence to support it.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:41:35 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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?
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
>
> Really? Count your standard deduction and personal exemption and that's
> $7000 tax free. If you make $21,000 and have no dependents, a third of
> your income is tax-free right off the bat. Now let's say you make
> $80,000... where do you come up with $24,000 in itemized deductions?
You're joking, right? $24,000 in itemized deductions is not difficult to
hit if you own a home with a mortgage and live in NY - state taxes are
deductable as are school and property taxes.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:43:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <39a920af$13$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > In article
> >> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and
> >> >> > > > I
> >> >> > > > don't get back all that money in the form of government
> >> >> > > > services?
> >> >> > > > If so, then we have a society Robin Hood would be quite
> >> >> > > > proud
> >> >> > > > of.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The more fortunate are paying for the benefit of not having the
> >> >> > > less fortunate starving in the streets.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now, isn't that exactly an argument I could use to say that even
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > you never get paid social security benefits, they payroll tax
> >> >> > wasn't
> >> >> > stolen from you, because you got the benefit of not having the
> >> >> > less
> >> >> > fortunate starving in the streets?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. But what comes along with the idea of preventing people from
> >> >> starving in the streets in the assumption that you yourself won't
> >> >> be
> >> >> allowed to starve if it ever comes down to that. If you eliminate
> >> >> social
> >> >> security you eliminate that safety net.
> >>
> >> >There are several problems with that.
> >>
> >> >1. A "safety net" can mean a lot of different things. For some
> >> >people,
> >> >it's
> >> >only meant to cover the most dire emergencies. For others, it's
> >> >meant
> >> >to
> >> >cover every little thing that could go wrong -- and ends up being a
> >> >way
> >> >of
> >> >life.
> >>
> >> >2. I have sufficient savings and insurance to provide my own safety
> >> >net.
> >> >Barring that, I have a family. Then a church. The argument you're
> >> >facing
> >> > is
> >> >that people should rely on their own resources _first_. What's
> >> >happening is
> >> >that they're relying on the government first.
> >>
> >> You can't get enough government assistance to live, if you have your
> >> own
> >> resources. Those who do are about as far down the ladder as a person
> >> can
> >> be
> >> in this society.
> >
> >Wrong. The government "poverty levels" are too high.
> >
> >I earned far less than the poverty level (not much more than half) when
> >I was in graduate school and I did just fine. Even had some money for
> >luxuries.
>
> You were a single person with no major expenses outside of school, you
> idiot. "Poverty levels" are defined for working people, not students.
Yet another case where you're obviously incapable of using facts.
I was self-sufficient. I worked to pay my way through school. I had an
apartment and had to buy food just like everyone else.
My college picked up the tuition expense and nothing else. I was
therefore left with an income of $5 K to cover books ($1 K) as well as
every normal living expense that your hypothetical "working" person
would pay.
Just why would the poverty level apply to someone else but not to me?
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:45:17 GMT
In article <39a9793d$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <39a920af$13$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > In article
> >> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > > > Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and
> >> >> > > > I
> >> >> > > > don't get back all that money in the form of government
> >> >> > > > services?
> >> >> > > > If so, then we have a society Robin Hood would be quite
> >> >> > > > proud
> >> >> > > > of.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The more fortunate are paying for the benefit of not having the
> >> >> > > less fortunate starving in the streets.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now, isn't that exactly an argument I could use to say that even
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > you never get paid social security benefits, they payroll tax
> >> >> > wasn't
> >> >> > stolen from you, because you got the benefit of not having the
> >> >> > less
> >> >> > fortunate starving in the streets?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. But what comes along with the idea of preventing people from
> >> >> starving in the streets in the assumption that you yourself won't
> >> >> be
> >> >> allowed to starve if it ever comes down to that. If you eliminate
> >> >> social
> >> >> security you eliminate that safety net.
> >>
> >> >There are several problems with that.
> >>
> >> >1. A "safety net" can mean a lot of different things. For some
> >> >people,
> >> >it's
> >> >only meant to cover the most dire emergencies. For others, it's
> >> >meant
> >> >to
> >> >cover every little thing that could go wrong -- and ends up being a
> >> >way
> >> >of
> >> >life.
> >>
> >> >2. I have sufficient savings and insurance to provide my own safety
> >> >net.
> >> >Barring that, I have a family. Then a church. The argument you're
> >> >facing
> >> > is
> >> >that people should rely on their own resources _first_. What's
> >> >happening is
> >> >that they're relying on the government first.
> >>
> >> You can't get enough government assistance to live, if you have your
> >> own
> >> resources. Those who do are about as far down the ladder as a person
> >> can
> >> be
> >> in this society.
>
> >Wrong. The government "poverty levels" are too high.
>
> >I earned far less than the poverty level (not much more than half) when
> >I
> >was in graduate school and I did just fine. Even had some money for
> >luxuries.
>
> You are full of you own biased bullshit -- that you are using as a
> substitute
> for real knowledge about people and their lives.
Really?
Then what part of my statement is false?
You're the one spewing bullshit. You don't have any facts but your rabid
left-wing fantasies and refuse to accept facts presented to you.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:52:20 -0700
From: josco <[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?
ZnU wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:04:00 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Bob Hauck wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:35:31 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good.
> > >> >
> > >> > The major problems with missle defense are:
> >
> > >> So...then, your idea is...
> > >>
> > >> Expand the number of ICBM's in the American arsenal, AND
> > >> build large numbers of decoys, and blast China to hell if
> > >> they launch even one missile.
> >
> > I think that is basically the current policy, isn't it, minus the
> > decoys? Anyway, Aaron, the only reason I saw this is because JS/PL
> > replied and quoted it. You are in my kill file.
> >
> >
> > >Now if there was a way to stop missiles immediately after launch.....
> >
> > Yes, IF there were a way, that would be really cool. A lot of other
> > things would be really cool IF there were a way to do them. I think
> > non-technological solutions (i.e. arms reduction and a posture of
> > reduced readiness to launch on all sides) are both less costly and more
> > likely to actually work than SDI.
>
> The Russians have proposed a joint ship-based system to intercept
> missiles immediately after launch (before they leave the atmosphere). It
> would be dramatically cheaper and more realistic.
>
Baloney. I don't have the hard data on hand but it only takes MINUTES for a
larger rocket with a heavy payload to leave the atmosphere. Monitor, detect,
identify, target and intercept a hostile missile shot from a mobile launcher -
impossible.
>
> The US won't hear of it, of course, because this SDI thing is really
> just an excuse to give billions to dollars to the defense contractors
> for the next few decades. A system that was cheap and could actually be
> built in a reasonable period of time wouldn't allow for that.
The Russian Idea is just a make work program for them so they can get some of
the SDI defense dollars. SDI was and still is an improbable concept that can
be easily and cheaply overhwhelmed - bankrupting anyone who tries to maintain
the system. A "cheap system" is a contradiction.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Double standard?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:16:30 -0400
Which is more important?
A user interface issue or an OS stability issue?
What do you think?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:24:13 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> LET THEIR PARENTS FEED THEM
>
> And if their parents let them starve to death, then throw those
> same parents in the clink for child neglect.
>
> Why do you think *I* have any responsibility for some teenage slut
> and her litter of criminals-in-training.
>
And who is going to pay for the jails. Surely not you! Face it, you have
such a warped sense of values. You should just openly admit what you really
want to do - gas them all.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:24:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> It's simple: FUCK THEM!
>
> They had their chance to avail themselves to an
> education...AND THEY ****CHOSE**** not to partake.
As easy as it sounds, that's not America. America was
built by successful, hard-working, independant people.
Up until the socialist democrats came into power, is
continuing in that fashion.
Now we have career welfare familys and single-parent
households whose only source of income is having
more children and slinging dope to buy that cadillac
while their children starve (yes, I've seen this happen
with my own eyes. I've seen families appear before court
who wouldn't pay their bills, their children had been
starving and were seized by Child Services but they had
two pedigree dogs that they fed gourmet dog food to)
They've created a society of incompetent, uneducated,
worthless voters with which they can manipulate into
voting for them every election because "those mean
spirited Republicans" want to take everything away
and actually make them productive and self-reliant
again.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:22:02 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This is fairly common, however many bothered not to get an education
> > > (despite the billions of dollars in social funding for poor or
> > > minority education grants and scholarships) and don't see the necessity,
> > > yet they complain that they can't make more money and they're stuck
> > > flipping burgers.
> >
> > It's simple: FUCK THEM!
>
> Wouldn't that lead to more "inferior" children?
YOu know what I mean.
--
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]>
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:22:55 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Arthur Frain wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have
> > > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > disagreements with their religious dogma.
> > > > >
> > > > > > However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic
> > > > > > school
> > > > > > before sending them to a public school.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
> > > > > nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
> > > >
> > > > 1. I'm talking about K-12 education.
> > >
> > > We're talking about education, period. If public schools can do a good
> > > job at the college level, what is the reason you think they couldn't do
> > > well elsewhere?
> >
> > While I agree that public schools can do OK at any level (and they do,
> > at least some of the time), there are some significant differences
> > between K-12 and college that might make the situation different.
> >
> > The biggest one is that people have to be there in K-12 whether they
> > want to or not. No one's making them go to college.
>
> But that doesn't explain why a private school would have more luck than
> a public school when it comes to teaching someone who doesn't want to be
> there.
Simple. Private schools aren't afraid of providing
whatever...motivation
is necessary.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:47:53 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Actually, netcrafts survey is not a very accurate representation. Since
the
> >advent of "domain squating", there are companies that own literally 10's
of
> >thousands of domains that all point to the same "You can buy this domain"
> >page on the same server. This really skews the statistics.
> >
> >The number of IIS servers being installed are still growing. And it
seems
> >to be growing at a fairly regular rate. The Apache servers are growing
at a
> >faster rate, which increases overall marketshare, causing it to appear
that
> >IIS's market share is going down, when it's growing at the same rate it
was
> >the previous month.
>
> Which, since the market is growing faster, means that IIS's market share
> _IS_ going down.
That depends on what you mean by market share. When I say market share, I
mean the number of servers that have IIS on them, versus the number of
servers that have Apache on them. Not the number of domains that are hosted
by each server application.
Netcrafts survey does not show that information.
> >No, not really. If you look at it the correct way, you see that Linux is
> >not the dominant OS platform. Most IIS sites are single user sites
(though
> >there are a few big multi-host sites on IIS). We don't know how many of
> >those Linux sites are really the same site with a different domain. *IF*
> >(and i'm making these number up obviously), the average number of sites
per
> >server is 3 for Linux, and the average for IIS is 1.5, then there are
half
> >as many Linux servers as there are NT servers. But since we don't know
this
> >information (Netcraft doesn't break out unique IP's, just Unique domain
> >names... and even if they did it wouldn't prove much since you can have
> >multiple IP's on the same server) it's hard for these numbers to really
mean
> >anything.
>
> Go visit netcraft, and look for their comparison when taking into account
> the size of the site. Not just wethere there is a web page there holding
> place.
Netcrafts survey does not differentiate between them. It does differentiate
between "active" and "inactive" domains. "inactive" by their definition
appears to mean that more than one domain points to the same page, however
most of those domain squating services use dynamic content to list the
domain you came to them from on their page, making the pages different for
each domain, thus making it appear "active".
> >> Don't you people find this funny?
> >
> >Yes, but not in the same way you do.
>
> What I find amusing, is that no matter how you play with the numbers, 2
facts
> remain, IIS is losing marketshare (yes, absolute numbers are increasing,
> but market share is down) and Apache is increasing market share, and this
> is a trend that is least 1 year old.
Only when you define "market share" as "percentage of hosted domains".
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:36:03 GMT
Jesus, too much wine. Sorry for the pour speeling
ands grammars. <grin>
Speaking of poorly educated American children... =)
Of course, this is USENET, not one of the most
highly respected grammar societies, so I suppose
I shouldn't worry about it too much.
-Chad
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fYkq5.20221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > It's simple: FUCK THEM!
> >
> > They had their chance to avail themselves to an
> > education...AND THEY ****CHOSE**** not to partake.
>
> As easy as it sounds, that's not America. America was
> built by successful, hard-working, independant people.
>
> Up until the socialist democrats came into power, is
> continuing in that fashion.
>
> Now we have career welfare familys and single-parent
> households whose only source of income is having
> more children and slinging dope to buy that cadillac
> while their children starve (yes, I've seen this happen
> with my own eyes. I've seen families appear before court
> who wouldn't pay their bills, their children had been
> starving and were seized by Child Services but they had
> two pedigree dogs that they fed gourmet dog food to)
>
> They've created a society of incompetent, uneducated,
> worthless voters with which they can manipulate into
> voting for them every election because "those mean
> spirited Republicans" want to take everything away
> and actually make them productive and self-reliant
> again.
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
