Linux-Advocacy Digest #847, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:11:28 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >They do allow them to use them on alternative platforms... it is
> >> >called a license. What part of that do you not understand?
> >> The part that allows for a licence on something that by all
> >> rights, and even by recent law should be free to be reverse
> >> engineered.
> >So no technical reasons - just moral ones.
> No technical reasons. Legal ones.
What legal reasons do you have for not being able to create
DVD software for, say, Linux? The legal issues are that
you have to license to stuff and keep it closed source.
> >> Nothing in DVD warrants intellectual property protection.
> >I am not commenting on that... I thought I made that part clear.
> Yes, you are. That is only partially clear, I'll admit. Would you like
> to hear more?
On why it doesn't warrent protection? No because I agree that it
does not.
..darcy
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 03:11:18 GMT
On 09/02/2000 at 05:59 PM,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> that you are a liar.
You are wrong. I speak from personal experience about ONE district. You
cannot apply national averages to ANY specific district. Unlike some
states, we have a surplus of qualified teachers seeking positions in New
Jersey as a whole. Some inner cities such as Camden, Trenton, Newark, and
a couple of others cannot attract teachers, but on the whole, suburban and
smaller city boards have dozens of applicants for every opening.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:15:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
>> >You're way out of line on this, Max. They didn't loudly say "we can't
>>
>> Actually there was a quote floating around where they alluded
>> to situations where a commercially supported Harmony might
>> come under attack for merely being successful.
>
>You are probably referring to this (why must i provide the context
>for your attacks, Jedi?), and you are tergiversing it:
The better construct is "you are tergiversating", but obviously the
phrase "tergiversing it" is comprehensible, if not very correct.
[see http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-freeqt&m=91244219105556&w=2]
>Notice how Eirik specifically doesn't say they would sue for "merely
>being successful", but that if someone tried to "embrace and extend"
>Qt they MIGHT CONSIDER suing.
>
>Totally different things. What you just did, Jedi, was mudslinging.
>
>> Max is not out of line at all.
>
>He is.
You're confabulating, as Eirik did, the idea of TT suing on anti-trust
grounds, and whether or not they consider cloning QT to be infringement,
which was the question. The fact that he didn't answer the question
about intellectual property concerns at all is most probably why there's
still so much debate on the subject. I figure as long as there's
debate, I can't be out of line in debating it.
[...]
>Allow me to threat you: I can not guarantee I will not
>sue you. Scary, ah? And if you say you are not scared
>because I am not a company: I can not guarantee AOL
>will not sue you.
How moronic. How are your children doing, Roberto? If you had
children, would you feel threatened by my asking? What, do you suppose,
does *context* have to do with whether something is perceived, or
intended, as an actual threat?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:25:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just for fun...
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 19:44:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Actually there was a quote floating around where they alluded
>> to situations where a commercially supported Harmony might
>> come under attack for merely being successful.
>
>Where ? Not in this thread, there wasn't.
Obviously, a question of interpretation of the quote we've all been
discussing. Feigned ignorance is intellectual dishonesty.
>> Max is not out of line at all.
>
>Yes he is. His allegations have no substance.
Perhaps you might easily refute them, then, rather than presuming that
you have all the answers yourself and keeping them private.
>However, I'd have to concede that Max's credibility is so low that it
>tends to minimise the damage done when he posts his fiction.
I take it you mean, "I really can't comprehend most of it, so I
certainly couldn't possibly refute it, but perhaps if I ignore it, he
will go away."
>> They made a veiled threat by stating that which need not have
>> been stated.
>
>It had to be stated to answer the question.
There were less threatening answers which would have been both smarter
and easier. The appropriate one, of course, when asked if they would
sue, in retrospect, was "Not for infringement, though we would sue for
anti-trust grounds if someone tried to 'embrace and extend' the API a la
Redmond." I'm not faulting the guy for not putting it well enough, mind
you. I'm just asking why he didn't think to put it that way to begin
with; the questioner was clearly asking about intellectual property
issues, not monopolization attempts.
The question, unfortunately, thus remains, "Would Troll Tech sue someone
for cloning QT [presuming they did so without obvious infringement on
QT's code]?" And a yes or no answer is necessary, I'm afraid, to put
the matter at rest.
If I'm not mistaken, the Harmony project is proceeding as a "clean room"
effort. Is this correct?
--
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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:18:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
> >
> >There is the ever popular "no comment".
>
> Yea, but, c'mon. You know that would have been even worse, in this
> situation. The only appropriate response was "No." They didn't say
> "Yes." Had they said, "no comment" to a question over whether they
> would sue, they would have been saying "yes", effectively, don't you
> think?
A "no comment" is just that, "no comment" a refusal to address the subject
or a dismissal of it. Since, Roberto was asking "What should they do?
Ignore the question?", I was saying to him that was an option via the
invocation of "no comment"--although I would have expected it to be worded
more tactifuly.
I agree about how the "no comment" would be interpreted. But then, is that
not what has happened anyway? In effect was not Eirik's answer a variation
on the "no comment" theme?
> Yes, but we also must admit that their lawyers may not be capable of
> even comprehending, let alone avoiding, FUD. The lawyers certainly
> wouldn't have wanted to say "We heartily encourage any competitive
> attempt to develop alternatives to our software and have no intention of
> suing Harmony for infringement." But that's what they should have said,
> I think. Merely asking the lawyers could well be evidence of
> anti-competitive intent, I think, but I'm a fanatic. I think the
> network effect makes any attempt to maintain an API as 'proprietary',
> even failing to accommodate would-be cloners, is monopolization.
Unless Troll Tech is very careful here they may end up controlling an API
that may becode an "also ran". Remember the MCA bus the IBM used in the
highend PS/2's? It was superior to the ISA bus, but because of IBM's
handling of the MCA it has been barely more than an also ran.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:24:55 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8orgba$oml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Then maybe you should read about it, this is a case of false memory,
> > > Microsoft never exclusively sold per processor licenses to oem's. Some
> > oems
> > > went for that particular deal, but none were ever forced to do it, it
> was
> > > one of three options OEM's could choose to negotiate.
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the
> late
> > > 1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration
> of
> > > their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97;
> Hosogi
> > > Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
> > > 103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less
> > frequently
> > > than they change other components of their systems, a per processor
> > license
> > > decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary
> under
> > a
> > > per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9)
> > at
> > > 96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
> > > </quote>
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/caldera/licensing.asp
> > >
> >
> > That IS a joke. Microsoft creates the requirement for unneeded record
> > keeping, then it is solved starting "a make them all pay and let God sort
> > them out" style policy.
> >
> > There was no real need to renegotiate anything when the computers are
> > redesigned. All that Microsoft should have done was license the hardware
> > firms to permit them to ship MS software whith their equipment. Then to
> > collect a royality for each copy shipped. It is that simple, the rest was
> > all just mechinations.
>
> And that was one option that's always been available, but about 60% of the
At a prohibitive price per license.
> OEM's chose to negotiate on a per processor agreement. What's the problem?
> And what does OEM's deal with Microsoft have anything to do with you? Do you
> really care? I don't go into Mc Donalds and ask to see all the contracts
> with suppliers before ordering a #5, do you?
--
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: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:32:02 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8osedu$1fa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > The freedom to select any computer hardware that fits their needs
> without
> > > having to pay for preloaded software that they not need or use.
> >
> > This freedom already exists.
>
> Without having to pay for the preloaded software?
>
> This is not possilbe at this time. You can avoid paying for preload by
> building you own computers (as I do), or go to some specality distributer
to
> purchase the system. But what about the consumer who go the the local
major
> computer dealer to say, CompUSA, to purchase a prebuilt computer. They
> locate the "perfect" computer but it comes with preloaded software. You
see
> the key term in my earlier post was "any computer".
>
> > > It provides the consumer the freedom to use whatever OS they want that
> is
> > > compatible with their choice of hardware.
> >
> > This freedom already exists.
>
> With out paying for preload software for "their choice of hardware".
>
>
> > > It would provide more freedom for other OS devlopers to compete on the
> > same
> > > footing as those that are now having their products preloaded on most
of
> > > today's computers.
> >
> > We're talking about consumers....
>
> You really can't see the benefit for the consumer of having more
competition
> in the OS market?
No.
>Fine, in that case I will spell it out. More developers
> providing more competing OS would cause the customers loyality to not be
> taken for granted by the devlopers. More competitiion (discounting
> collusion) would lead to low prices and better quality products.
>
> > But the software industry has about the
> > lowest barrier to entry of any product in existence.
>
> Tell that to DRI.
Tell it to the thousands of developers thriving by only having to create
products for the Windows Operating System. How many would be out of business
if faced with the task of designing for 100 operating systems each with 1%
of the market.
Tell it to the developers showcased here: http://download.cnet.com/ who are
thriving BECAUSE there's one main standard.
>
> > > It would mean lower costs for those who have no need for preloaded
> > software
> > > without having to build their own systems or going to some alternate
> > > distributer.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It might mean higher costs when the OEM suddenly has to
> > provide support for 100 different operating systems.
>
> Support for the software should be supported by the company or
organization
> that writes it or integrates it into a distribution, not the OEM.
No it shouldn't
Support rests with the company selling the final package. When I take my
Ford in to the dealer to fix a faulty chip I don't expect them to give me
the support phone number of the chip manufacturer.
If I bought an OEM computer (which I wouldn't) I'd expect them to back up
the whole package and not pass the support for that product on to the 100 or
so manufacturers which provided the components of the computer. For
example - If the monitor would start flickering for no reason on the second
day of ownership, I wouldn't expect to get a huge list of phone numbers from
the OEM on who to call about it to track down who's responsible for fixing
it. I would expect them to fix it. If they suddenly had the burden of
supporting 100 different operating systems, prices would go UP, not down.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:28:49 -0400
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Simon Cooke wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be
> sold
> > > with
> > > > > a
> > > > > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or making
> > > CompUSA
> > > > > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> > > >
> > > > No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
> > >
> > > And this benefits consumers.....how?
> >
> > It makes them aware that there are multiple choices.
>
> And this benefits consumers.....how?
Forget it, you're too stupid to participate in this conversation.
--
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: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:31:07 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said josco01 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sat, 02 Sep 2000, JS/PL wrote:
> >>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >>> All I want to know is, if its illegal to *monopolize*, and its illegal
> >>> to *attempt to monopolize*, just how is it legal to have a monopoly?
> >>
> >>Read up on the subject Max
> >>Monopolies
> >>http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/monopolies.htm
> >>Antiu-Trust
> >>http://www.capitalism.org/capitalism/faq/antitrust.htm.
> >
> >I wouldn't rely on unaccredited sites.
> >
> >Yes Monopolies are legal and trying to aquire one is legal if one doesn't
> >break the laws - including anti-trust laws.
>
> One cannot acquire a monopoly without breaking anti-trust laws, as
> attempting to monopolize is as illegal as monopolizing.
Wrong.
The Patent System SPECIFICALLY ENDORSES legal monopolies for innovators.
Microsoft's problem is they can't innovate a hole into a wet paper bag.
--
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: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 23:36:09 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8orgba$oml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Then maybe you should read about it, this is a case of false memory,
> > > > Microsoft never exclusively sold per processor licenses to oem's.
Some
> > > oems
> > > > went for that particular deal, but none were ever forced to do it,
it
> > was
> > > > one of three options OEM's could choose to negotiate.
> > > >
> > > > <quote>
> > > > Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the
> > late
> > > > 1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the
administration
> > of
> > > > their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97;
> > Hosogi
> > > > Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7)
at
> > > > 103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less
> > > frequently
> > > > than they change other components of their systems, a per processor
> > > license
> > > > decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary
> > under
> > > a
> > > > per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony
(Exh. 9)
> > > at
> > > > 96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
> > > > </quote>
> > > > http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/caldera/licensing.asp
> > > >
> > >
> > > That IS a joke. Microsoft creates the requirement for unneeded record
> > > keeping, then it is solved starting "a make them all pay and let God
sort
> > > them out" style policy.
> > >
> > > There was no real need to renegotiate anything when the computers are
> > > redesigned. All that Microsoft should have done was license the
hardware
> > > firms to permit them to ship MS software whith their equipment. Then
to
> > > collect a royality for each copy shipped. It is that simple, the rest
was
> > > all just mechinations.
> >
> > And that was one option that's always been available, but about 60% of
the
>
> At a prohibitive price per license.
You have two choices, well...three:
1.) List the price difference between the different options.
2.) Admit you just pulled that statement out of your ass with no facts (see
1.) to back it up.
3.) Ignore this reply (your usual tactic when pressed for facts to back up
your assinine claims)
>
> > OEM's chose to negotiate on a per processor agreement. What's the
problem?
> > And what does OEM's deal with Microsoft have anything to do with you? Do
you
> > really care? I don't go into Mc Donalds and ask to see all the contracts
> > with suppliers before ordering a #5, do you?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:33:24 -0400
Rick wrote:
>
>
> If you served onthe school board, then you should know most public
> school shave those clerical workers ....
Are you implying that the clerical workers are too hairy?
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:35:07 -0400
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/02/2000 at 05:59 PM,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> > that you are a liar.
>
> You are wrong. I speak from personal experience about ONE district. You
> cannot apply national averages to ANY specific district. Unlike some
Bob... almost every district is like your district.
> states, we have a surplus of qualified teachers seeking positions in New
> Jersey as a whole. Some inner cities such as Camden, Trenton, Newark, and
> a couple of others cannot attract teachers, but on the whole, suburban and
> smaller city boards have dozens of applicants for every opening.
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
