Linux-Advocacy Digest #998, Volume #28 Fri, 8 Sep 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
End-User Alternative to Windows ("Lina")
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Computer and memory (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Computer and memory (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Computer and memory (Chris Street - remove antispam in email)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Metcalfe on Linux (Ian Davey)
Re: Computer and memory (Chris Street - remove antispam in email)
Re: Computer and memory (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:18:43 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Yes, but I'm getting tired of being questioned constantly by you.
>
> Then you have the options of not responding.
And then it will probably be held against me in the future.
I have the choice of answering and whining, too ;-)
> > I'm sure you can answer SOME questions by yourself. Nothing
> > personal, but really, this sort of police interrogation is
> > not worth the effort.
>
> By the way, SOME of the questions have been either to confirm what I already
> knew as well as test your integrity and credibility. Which has caused me to
> dig all the more at times when you were, shall we say, less than
> forthcomming.
I am in no obligation to be forthcoming, am I?
> Such as you have been in reguards to the connections between KDE.org and the
> KDE Project.
You have never asked me about the connections between KDE.org and the
KDE project! How could I be anything about that?
> I am certain that you know there is another connection that
> you have not yet admitted to. Hint, does the KDE project gain any service
> not yet stated in this thread from KDE.org?
I have no idea what you are talking about? What *is* this KDE.org?
Our website??? Our connection to our website is that it's
ours!
> By having you answering question that I have independently already learned
> the answers to is a valid technique to getting to the truth in this
> discussion. If I introduce a fact that would be counter to you position you
> could again attack the true facts as being false; which would only add to
> that noise level of this discussion. If I ask you a question for which an
> honet answer is the offered that introduces the fact into the conversation
> then it will not a side contention causing a digression.
Then I would be lying, and I would be proven a liar easily.
> > > Has the usage of Qt with KDE, including the discussions reguarding it
> usage,
> > > led more programmers and orther in software development to be familiar
> with
> > > the existance and the capabilities of Qt?
> >
> > Yes. And this was obvious.
>
> Correct.
Oh, thanks.
> > > Has to usage of Qt with KDE lead more programmers to being familiar with
> Qt
> > > and its API?
> >
> > Yes. And this was obvious.
>
> Correct.
Oh, thanks.
> Both of these amount to alot of free advertising and promotion of
> Trolltech's product commercial versions of Qt. Someone who becomes familiar
> with free unix version of Qt is more lible to recommends or or specify the
> use of the non-free versions of Qt when developing software in an
> environment or situation where the free version is not useable.
>
> Which is a motive for Trolltech to influence the choice for the selection of
> Qt to be used with KDE, as well as a motive to take actions to retain the
> KDE Project as a "client".
And why are Troll Tech's motives being questioned?
> > > Would the porting of unix software to non-unix platforms always qualify
> for
> > > the use of the free version(s) of Qt?
> >
> > I don't understand the question. What platform are you talking about?
> > What software is being ported? Is the software originally using Qt?
>
> Restated:
>
> If someone ported unix software that uses Qt to a non-unix platform could
> that person always use free versions of QT for the ported software.
Yes. He might have to port Qt free edition itself sometimes, though.
Depending on the situation, he may decide it's not worth the trouble,
and pay for the professional edition, as long as the target
platform is windows. In all other platforms, it doesn't matter.
For example, ViewML uses a partial port of Qt to microwindows, in
order to use khtml. microwindows is (roughly) a non-unix
platform.
> > If it's an absolute: there surely is some software that when ported
> > to some platform may require access to a non-free version of
> > Qt to be compiled.
>
> I will that that as an agreement the act of porting software as described
> above, would (or could) require a commercial version of Qt.
I can't parse that.
> > However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a *new* license
> > of Qt has to be obtained. You can just ask someone to compile
> > it for you. Just like you need someone who has a decent
> > windows compiler to build it
>
> That is an evasion of the question.
No, it's an add-on.
> > (and they are all commercial).
>
> Are you certain of that?
Decent compilers for windows? All commercial, AFAIK.
> > If you are trying to imply that KDE provides TT with
> > business, just ask, and the answer is probably yes.
>
> Please don't waffle, the answer is yes.
I have actually seen noone buy Qt saying "it's because KDE
uses it". Lacking evidence, I guess the answer is yes, but
it's not a fact.
> All this are additional reasons that the difference between KDE devlopers
> working for Trolltech and the other examples presented a few messages back
> in this thread are critical and as well as prove that the other examples are
> not valid for comparison purposes.
And yet, you don't say what exactly is their conflict of interest.
They have two interests: KDE and Qt. Where do they conflict?
To me it seems more like synergy!
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:20:15 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Yes, but I'm getting tired of being questioned constantly by you.
> >Then you have the options of not responding.
> >
> >> I'm sure you can answer SOME questions by yourself. Nothing
> >> personal, but really, this sort of police interrogation is
> >> not worth the effort.
> >
> >By the way, SOME of the questions have been either to confirm what I already
> >knew as well as test your integrity and credibility. Which has caused me to
> >dig all the more at times when you were, shall we say, less than
> >forthcomming.
> >
> >Such as you have been in reguards to the connections between KDE.org and the
> >KDE Project. I am certain that you know there is another connection that
> >you have not yet admitted to. Hint, does the KDE project gain any service
> >not yet stated in this thread from KDE.org?
>
> Hmmm. The situation gets intriguing, again. Forget what I said in my
> last post. Roberto, you don't *have* to answer his questions, or even
> respond, you know. I'll mention, just for formalities sake, that if
> you're going to respond at all, you ought to try to answer his
> questions, as anything you say could be held against KDE in the court of
> public opinion.
Max Devlin judge, jury and executioner, right? After all, you are
the public, as you said before.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:14:24 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8pabel$4hg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad, you are as ignorant as you are stupid.
Judging by this post, you are the ignorant one.
Case in point:
=================
> The USA came in to the war after they were attacked. It was to help
> themselves, when they realised they were under threat. Not to help the
> europeans.
=================
Oh, so we just decided that, since we got hit by the Japs, that we'd
embark on one of the largest military campaigns ever to liberate
western Europe?
That doesn't strike you at all odd?
Britain begged for our help because they couldn't hold out much longer.
Their air force was left in tatters, they didn't have a large enough
ground force to invade mainland Europe, the situation as bleek.
The US was hesitant, the population unwilling to engage in yet
ANOTHER World War just to save the ungrateful Brits and Francs, who
STILL TO THIS DAY, don't realize let alone thank us for saving their
asses TWICE within 50 years! We still get this kind of attitude...
>
> And as for this communist `threat'. They were your bloody allies in
> WWII.
An enemy of an enemy is not an ally. The Soviets had committed their
fair share of attrocities in the war and were no friend of the US.
This non-friendship was evident in the negotiations for splitting up
Germany. It's effects are still apparent today.
> If they didn't sacrifice 20 million people against the Nazis and
> stop them in their tracks, then the allies might never had won the war.
> Some threat. Had that heppened, the US would have been attacked sooner
> or later. Would you have won or lost? who knows...
We would've saved ourselves, that was never in question. The question
was, should we aide the helpless Brits and Francs. Hindsight, since you're
so insolent, we probably have shouldn't. We probably should've taught
the Japs a lesson and then let things be.
> Let me reiterate, if the COMMUNISTS didn't stand up to the nazis, they
> all in your precious Americs (as well as europe) might be goos-stepping
> too. Secondly, the behaviour of many people in the 50's communist witch
> hunts in the US was quite frnakly appauling. Free country, eh? As long
> as you have the /right/ political beliefs.
The problem is, the Communists WANTED to be goos-stepping. Lest you not
forget that the USSR was allied with the Axis up until Hitlers blunder.
The 50's were a sad time in the US, no one denies this. It was a travesty
of Justice. However, it's actually somewhat of a testament of the will of
the American people that they can decide their own future. They wanted
blood of Communists and elected officials to every branch of government
to make sure it was taken care of. It shows you that our government is
for the people, by the people and even if the situation gets bleak,
the people can decide their future: good or bad.
> The reason the world (the US and UK included) turned againt Saddam was
> for OIL. Who helped many of the other contries that have been invaded,
> such as Tibet? Noone.
No one could stop China at the time. Tibet will be free eventually.
Besides, the US was strung thin coming out of WWII and battling Korea,
we couldn't have done anything to stop it. Not even the U.S. can
tell China what to do.
> So don't go banging on aboput the Americans
> helping out the little guy. They're just as bad as the rest of the world
> at only helping who they wish for personal gain.
Europe (twice), Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, shall I go on?
What possible monetary gain could've come out of Bosnia or Kosovo?
Re: OIL
It wasn't about money, it was about protecting the little guy as much
as it was about protecting our interests and the interests of the world.
If the flow of oil stops, so does the world.
>
> <shipped patriotic, xenophobic bullshit>
Heh.. just showing your ignorance. Perhaps you should plug your ears/
ignore less and read more.
>
> Oh, have you ever heard of the UN?
What a joke.
The UN should just be called the U.S. because we do everything
for the U.N. Without the US, the UN is nothing.
> You're precious America is no better than the rest of us. How on earth
> you think you are superior and that Americans are better people is
> beyond me. If you truly think that then I hope you never visit this
> country.
You seem to confuse ethnic culture with superiority. Granted, Americans
don't have as rich culture as most Europeans, but then, that's about
the only redeeming quality most Europeans have.
Need I remind you that you wouldn't be writing any of these words
had it not have been for American's superiority in both technology
(the Internet) and in military might (WWI and WWII). You'd
probably be speaking German too.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:16:12 GMT
"Chris Street - remove antispam in email"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I suggest you take the time and trouble to actually learn a little
> history. Also if you want to try flims like Private Ryan as reliable
> sources of evidence, fine. Just don't wonder why everyone is killing
> themselves laughing.
Private Ryan was fairly accurate. I figured Nathaniel was devoid of
any intelligence or culture, so the only way to reach him would be a
movie, since the word "books" isn't in his vocabulary.
> For the record, I am a Briton. Fortunatly I know that most Americans
> are not like you, otherwise you would all be banned from entering the
> country.
Doesn't seem it's in yours, either. Typical British arrogance. You
probably didn't read one line I wrote. Typical.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Lina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:16:30 GMT
Hi,
I'm a Linux newbie. What is the percentage of computers and servers running
Linux now. Will an end-user alternative similar to Linux appear anytime
soon?
Thanks,
Lina
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:18:16 GMT
"Chris Street - remove antispam in email"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I think you will find most of the native americans were wiped out in
> the 19th century. That's after the the declaration of independance
> that treats all except Indians and black slaves equally.
What about the entire Aztec, Mayan, and Inca populations? Or do they
not count as native americans?
The French, Brits, and Spanards killed more than there fair share of
Indians.
The American's campaign to rid itself of the N.A.s was simply a cleanup
effort, the damage had already been wraught by the French, Spanish, and
British.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 10:29:08 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >> >Ok, but you do realize that as long as you just define things to mean
> >> >whatever they want, you can say anything is true, right?
> >>
> >> No, I don't realize that, I don't even agree with it. Its post-modern
> >> claptrap. I am not defining, nor re-defining, what 'commercial' means.
> >> I'm telling you what I would consider merits the term 'commercial
> >> enterprise' within the discussion we're having. Feel free to argue
> >> against it, but save your 'dictionary quibbling' for the after-hours
> >> crowd.
> >
> >Oh, so to avoid postmodernism's 'everyone can define', ONLY YOU
> >can define now. What an ass.
>
> What are you talking about? I never said ONLY I can define now,
> whatever that means. I told you this discussion was beyond you.
You are saying that KDE is a commercial enterprise because it fits
your definition of a "commercial enterprise". Therefore, you are
the one who defines "commercial enterprise", and the only
judge of accuracy. And then you even refuse to share
this definition we are being measured against. That prevents any
honest debate.
I can just as easily say that it doesn't fit mine, and this whole
argument becomes pointless. I think I also have a fair chance
at saying that it doesn't fit the most usual definitions, and
if you share your definition, I can see if you are, indeed,
using an unusual one.
> >Hey, I'll repeat my offer: tell me what you mean by "commercial
> >enterprise"and I may even agree that according to that definition
> >KDE is one.
>
> A ruse to encourage people to put themselves in a position where they
> will want to pay Troll Tech money. Would KDE satisfy that particular
> definition of 'commercial' that I'm using right now?
That is not a definition, that's specific to this case.
Tell me what a "commercial enterprise" is, not why you say we
are one.
> >However: notice that your definition of commercial enterprises
> >must allow for a group of unpaid volunteers that write code in
> >their free time and give it away.
>
> Sure, I never said they got paid to do it. But since several of them
> are TT employees, they do make money on it.
It's not like TT pays them to work on KDE, AFAIK.
> So what is that 'additional service' that 'mjcr' was asking about?
I have no idea.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:33:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>: >Hey listen you communist moron, we are not all the same not even on the
>: >country level, much less on the individual basis. Tell that to the
>Europian
>: >countries not to handle their neighbors as enemies and stop figthing each
>: >other. People in the US can't tolerate it anymore, cost too much to
>settle
>: >their differences.
>:
>: And who exactly made the US the babysitter of the world?
>: Would that be THE UNITED STATES? Our government is so
>: worried that we won't keep our goddamned strangle-hold on
>: other countries that we forget about any problems we have
>: within our own borders in favor of pointing a finger
>: elsewhere and saying, "Oh look, they are bad, we are good
>: because we see they are bad!" Which is basically what you
>: are doing here. Brilliant.
>
>As opposing what you are doing here, where you call everyone guilty. Now
>that's an interesting concept to mask other countries problems.....
Like it or not we live in a world where most nations are
'guilty' of some things. Looking at the world and somehow
declaring that the US is 'better' than all others is just
a gigantic crock of shit. And if you lived elsewhere, you
would be forced to recognize how often the US goes out of
its way to wipe out, bomb, or otherwise destroy people and
nations that 'get in the way'. If you think that proves
superiority, then we are using two different definitions
of superior.
>
>: >There is nothing wrong in believing that the US is superior when compared
>to
>: >other countries. Not to the level of "Uber alles Deutch", but just a
>healthy
>: >national pride. Seeing what you posted make me wish that you do shut up.
>:
>: Well, you seem a little too puffed up to see reality
>: anytime soon. Let me just point out that we aren't
>: 'superior' to other countries. We're bigger than some.
>: We're stronger than some. And we do it by being the blood
>: sucking leaches that we are. Yeah, that's being superior.
>
>So much for wishing, anyway.... Let me just point out that US is superior to
>other countries in many ways, like it or not. There is a long list on the
>topic and I'm very tempted to post it just to piss you off.
The US is superior to 'SOME' countries I am sure. But we
are not superior to ALL countries as you are implying.
And your list more than likely won't piss me off unless it
is full of lies and pure political bullshit. But making a
list of ways we are 'superior' is not the same as showing
how other nations are not superior. Each nation has its
strong points. There is absolutely no reason to say that
we are 'the greatest' when there is no proof that we are.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:42:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grega Bremec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>...and Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>
>>>> And BTW Chad, I'm not a whiny Brit. I'm a whiny American,
>>>> sick of seeing other Americans act like assholes just
>>>> because they are part of the 'Great United States'.
>>>
>>>I'm affraid you're talking to a brick wall
>>>
>>>BTW, i'm not a brit neighter :)
>>>
>>>Amon_Re
>
>While speaking of it, neither am I. I am European though, I live in a
>former communist country (nine years since, which you'll all admit is
>not a long period for a country to grow up), and I _DO_ _HAVE_ a fast
>cable connection, where transfer speeds rarely fall under 30Kbps on
>trans-continental links, not to mention local ones (150+).
>
>So, there, Chad.
>
>>Well, actually, I killfiled him already. That's why it
>>was attached to your post (which quoted him). But I had
>>to say something.
>
>Your instinct had proven to be correct. Chad killed this thread a few
>articles above by starting a debate on how the US proved their
>superiority over Europeans in WW2 by kicking you-know-whos ass.
>
>This thread can hence be officially considered dead according to the
>Godwin's Law and Chad is, ironically, the official winner.
>
>Only, not. :-)
>
I noticed that from the replies that quoted him. Very
interesting how the most arrogant people are usually the
ones to bring up the topic of the 'regime' (if you know
what I'm sayin' ;-).
This thread is kind of one of those that could have gone
on for weeks and weeks if someone hadn't flubbed and
brought up the no-no topic. Kind of makes me wonder why
we are all in tech oriented groups, and talking about
politics. Amazing where the conversations go.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street - remove antispam in
email)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Reply-To: chrisngfb@mithrandir-DOT-demon-DOT-co-DOT-uk
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:44:13 GMT
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:16:12 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Street - remove antispam in email"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I suggest you take the time and trouble to actually learn a little
>> history. Also if you want to try flims like Private Ryan as reliable
>> sources of evidence, fine. Just don't wonder why everyone is killing
>> themselves laughing.
>
>Private Ryan was fairly accurate. I figured Nathaniel was devoid of
>any intelligence or culture, so the only way to reach him would be a
>movie, since the word "books" isn't in his vocabulary.
>
He that lives in glass houses etc....
>> For the record, I am a Briton. Fortunatly I know that most Americans
>> are not like you, otherwise you would all be banned from entering the
>> country.
>
>Doesn't seem it's in yours, either.
Sorry, was this meant to maek sense??
>Typical British arrogance. You
>probably didn't read one line I wrote. Typical.
>
>-Chad
>
>
You obviously have a different definitition to arrogance to the rest
of us.
I should know - after all us Britons did invent the language.
Now that's typical British arrogance - just so you know.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:49:13 GMT
0.0001% and No!
/IL
"Lina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:OE5u5.20452$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
> I'm a Linux newbie. What is the percentage of computers and servers
running
> Linux now. Will an end-user alternative similar to Linux appear anytime
> soon?
>
> Thanks,
> Lina
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Metcalfe on Linux
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:47:37 GMT
In article <8pa4a2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marshall Price) wrote:
> I know I won't be satisfied remaining at the dummy novice level, but
>this is one field where I could never be much of an expert, as I can
>aspire to be in a few others. My hardware is pretty much limited to what
>I (or my dumpster-diving friend) can find in the trash -- at present a 500
>MB hard drive with a 66 MHz 486, SVGA, 24 MB RAM, 24x CD -- no chance to
>serve the net.
That machine would be more than good enough to use the net, up until last week
I was accessing it from a 66 MHz 486, with 32MB Ram, a 2xCD and 500MB hard
drive. It wasn't solely my machine so Win3.1 had to stay on it, but I had a
perfectly usable Linux system in a 125MB partition. I could even run the
Win3.1 versions of Netscape and IE using WinE (there wasn't room in the
partition for a graphical Linux browser, though Lynx was sufficient most of
the time).
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street - remove antispam in
email)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Reply-To: chrisngfb@mithrandir-DOT-demon-DOT-co-DOT-uk
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:47:34 GMT
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:18:16 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Street - remove antispam in email"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I think you will find most of the native americans were wiped out in
>> the 19th century. That's after the the declaration of independance
>> that treats all except Indians and black slaves equally.
>
>What about the entire Aztec, Mayan, and Inca populations? Or do they
>not count as native americans?
>
>The French, Brits, and Spanards killed more than there fair share of
>Indians.
>
>The American's campaign to rid itself of the N.A.s was simply a cleanup
>effort, the damage had already been wraught by the French, Spanish, and
>British.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Go read some books. When you have a better idea about history you can
spout more knowledgably.
Up until the Lousiania purchase, the settlers had co-existed with the
native americans quite happily. Only then when Americas expansionistic
ambitions grew did there come a pressure on the land which resulted in
large numbers of deaths.
I didn't deal with the Southern American native as I assumed that you
would only be limiting discussions to those in the area covered by the
USA.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 13:50:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>y5Yt5.38861$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><cut>
>
>> The hills of Bravaria are world renound and the Alps are breathtaking,
>> so I hear.
>>
>> Many Europeans are very nice, tolerant and pleasant. Unfortunatley,
>> none of them have modems and it seems the European population is
>> tainted by the ignorant and seemingly oblivious words of arrogant
>> pricks like you.
>
>Erm, i have a modem, and so do alot of other Europeans, we even have cable
>& adsl, but not everyone is eighter willing to make the investment, or is in
>a location where these are available, you still don't get it do you?
>
>You're claim shows you don't know that much about Europe's economy, and no,
>cheap internet connections have *nothing* to do with politics
>
>BTW, i see you're calmed down abit? Maybe we'll be able to sort out this
>mess after all
>
>As for being a prick, i couldn't care less what you call me
>
>Amon_Re
>
>
Funny how he says the Europeans are 'tainted' by ignorant
and oblivious words. Jesus, I wonder if that guy is
reading a different USENET than the rest of us? I seem to
see more blathering and totally idiotic statements out of
US connected people than out of the European connected
people.
I also find it humorous that the most arrogant people are
always the ones claiming that 'the other guy' is the
arrogant one. This conversation wouldn't have even taken
place if it wasn't for the arrogance of the two that throw
the word about as if it were some sort of religious epitaph.
God, if I was into studying psychology I could make quite
a study on the 'idiocy of USENET'. Hmm, that might be
kind of fun. Or it might depress me so much I wouldn't
ever want to 'be here' again.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
