Linux-Advocacy Digest #178, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Ingemar
Lundin")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joe R.")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("JS/PL")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Mark Kelley)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jack Troughton)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jack Troughton)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jack Troughton)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Jim Naylor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: 18 Sep 2000 13:13:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : In comp.os.linux.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : : But the really sad part is that it doesn't even really give it to
: : : you, it takes them away from you as well because the GPL is a double
: : : edged sward. -Now with my code mixed with your code, "we've" lost
: : : any and all "right" or "freedom" to use our own code as we see fit.
: :
: : : We are now BOTH hostages of the GPL, our code forever infested with
: : : the GPL.
: :
: : Uh, no. The code is copyrighted to both authors and released under the
: : GPL license. Assuming no other code is present, if both (all) authors
: : agree to change the license, they're free to do so.
: Iff both authors agree.
: If you have only two authors, it's annoying. If you have ten+
: authors (as most GPL projects of any real size do), it's impractical
: to the point of impossible.
: So... "Uh, yes"
If the majority of the authors agree to change the license, the minority
code can be replaced by new code in order to make the new work not
derived from theirs, and thus not copyrighted by them, and thus no
longer bound by the GPL.
If a minority of the authors agree to change the license, they have a
lot of re-coding to do.
: : The GPL removes the freedom of the extender to release the extendee's code
: : under a more restrictive license without getting permission. If the
: : extender doesn't like it, he is still free to extract the GPL'ed code and
: : replace it with his own, thus taking copyright on the whole work.
: Great choice. So much for any ideas about being "free".
Spare me the hypocrisy. You want to be free to release your
precious code in any way you choose, but those with code you want
to take apparently shouldn't have the same freedoms because
you need their code so badly. Well that's tough shit for you
because if you want to use GPL'd code, you'd better be prepared
to abide by it. And if not, quit being lazy and code it yourself.
: : Asserting that the GPL is stripping away freedoms is pure FUD since coders
: : are always free to not use code released under the GPL and release it (or
: : not) under any license they want.
: The GPL is all about stripping away freedoms, both of the "extender"
: AND of the original author. The FUD is entirely on the part of the
: FSF using the GPL as a tool.
More like: The GPL strips away your freedom to steal GPL'd code without
having to worry about those pesky copyrights of the original authors
whose work you'd very much like to use in any way you please.
And the notion that the GPL is a FSF world-domination plot is even
more laughable, given the fact that escaping the oh-so-terrible
GPL is as easy as coding something from scratch and using a new
license.
: If you want to lie and claim it has anything remotely to do with
: "freedom" in the slightest, that's something else entirely.
Of course the GPL is about freedom. It's about the original author
making sure you don't have the freedom to make *HIS* code less
free to everyone else than when it was first released. And it's
about your freedom to not use his code if you don't like that
arrangement.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:36:15 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:07:56 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > How about all of the Windoze users out there that have (and continue) to
: > fall prey to Netbus|BO|SubSeven|remote access trojan du jour? My firewall
: > and IDS logs here at home can attest to the widespread use of those. My
: > machines get scanned ALL THE TIME.
:
: You're comparing users and supposedly supperiorly intelligent Unix sysadmins?
:
: The patches exist, but has anyone used them? Apparently not as it's becoming
: an issue now.
Oh, you want to compare admins? You DID read the advisories on NT-Bugtraq
about all of the (many) IIS vulnerabilities that are fixable that remain
unfixed on over 85% of the machines they tested?
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:18:09 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [headers trimmed]
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
> > support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
> > bitch because it's gone.
>
> No, we *laughed* because MS said Win95 *wasn't* built on DOS anymore, and
> then people discovered that it *was* still built on top of DOS.
>
> I've never heard anyone complain that Win 9x *supported* DOS. The
complaints
> are about MS's manipulativeness.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
manipulativeness?...because of ...what?
that windows me didnt (supposedly) find a third ide bus?
jezus!!...you hardcore linux users do really crack me up :-)
/IL
>
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:17:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that is rich.
>
> Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in the
> atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun watching you
> dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
> Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
>
>
>
Actually, temperature _does_ have an impact on CO2 levels.
Within normal limits, higher temperatures tend to increase plant growth.
That means more CO2 is tied up in the plant.
Of course, that's only one of several thousand things that affect CO2
levels, though.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:18:12 -0400
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> That's right. All those things are in the NT 5 kernel, aka Win2K. Which
> is exactly what Chad and Alan have been saying.
No such thing as an NT 5 kernel.
Why don't we just make up personalized names for everything? That will
surely be of benefit to all wont it?
Boy I saw (aka heard) that Rhapsody (aka OSX) sure is doing bad (aka good)
in its retail release (aka beta release)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:24:15 GMT
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh, you want to compare admins? You DID read the advisories on NT-Bugtraq
> about all of the (many) IIS vulnerabilities that are fixable that remain
> unfixed on over 85% of the machines they tested?
No one was saying anything about NT/IIS. Many were claiming that Unix didn't
have this problem, which is simply a lie.
Quit changing the subject.
Try to stay focused... I know it's difficult.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:25:33 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 02:32:15 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches available for
: : quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
:
: Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with old
: exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It doesn't
: really matter how quickly the patch is available, if people don't use them
: anyway. All CERT did is, issued a warning about widespread use of old
: exploits.
So, obviously, it's the operating system's fault. Let's get real here.
: That's kind of interesting how a not so good news about Linux can turn out
: to be really bad news for Windows (correct spelling). Let's forget the
: rpc.statd problem and focus on Windows exploits. Linux computers will still
: continue to fall pray to old exploits, but that's ok, as long as you can
: show that Windows OSs are more vulnerable. What a great argument....
My machines most certainly are NOT vulnerable. Kind of a bit of a hole
in your argument...
: Every PC on the web gets scanned all the time, regardless of the OS. In case
: you didn't know it's done by scripts and the results are recorded for later
: use. The IDS is great to indentify the source, but that's about it.
Obviously you don't know anything about modern network intrusion detection
systems. The better ones not only have attack recognition built in, but
also can "respond". In other words, not only can the IDS *detect* an
attack, but it can also *respond*, abating the attack condition. For
example, you can configure an IDS to nuke a syn flood by sending the
appropriate packets to the machine that's under attack. OR, you can even
set up an IDS to take a retaliatory stance, such as ping flooding someone
who starts port-scanning you, probably not advisable, but possible.
: Here's a dime, go call yourself....
No thanks, I saved my dime when I got Linux instead of Windows. :)
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:28:39 GMT
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So far, you've told us that NT 5, which was released as Windows 2000,
> has many features that Windows NT *4* didn't have (noe that 4 and 5 are
> different numbers). When are you going to address the fact that
> "Windows 2000" and "Windows NT 5" are the exact same product in a
> different box?
No one said they weren't. I don't know what you're talking about, perhaps
you should take a valium.
What we're arguing is that... damn I forget his name... implied that
Win2K is just "NT 5", however, he implied that there's nothing new
and that they just relabelled NT4 to be NT5/Win2K, which is not true.
Yes, Win2K is NT version 5.0 but there are tons of product enhancements
and it's not "just the NT 4 kernel relabelled" as was implied earlier.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 07:32:37 -0600
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that is rich.
> >
> > Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in the
> > atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun watching you
> > dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
> > Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Actually, temperature _does_ have an impact on CO2 levels.
>
> Within normal limits, higher temperatures tend to increase plant growth.
> That means more CO2 is tied up in the plant.
>
> Of course, that's only one of several thousand things that affect CO2
> levels, though.
You're not helping Aaron though. If more plants grow at a higher
temperature than they use more CO2. Where is the CO2 coming from????
Lets increase the average daytime temperature to 110F and then again
tell me about the plants. I'd watch most everthing around here wither.
Plants thrive because of a variety of factors. You can have a lush
forest in a cool place and rising temperatures there would kill th
forest off.
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:43:06 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mark Kelley writes:
>
> >> Meanwhile, you're not trying to provide substantiation, Mark.
>
> > Would you care if I did?
>
> The key word here is "if". The real question is "can you?"
Incorrect. The real question is whether you would accept proof as
proof. You have already shown that you will not. So why should I
bother?
> > I've seen you stare at incontrovertible proof before and deny
> > its existence.
>
> Yet another example of your pontification.
No ... it is, rather, a statement of reality.
> > You are not intellectually honest.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who just made yet another
> unsubstantiated claim.
I see you're still out of ammo. Well ... at least you're doing the best
you can.
> > It's a game I won't play with you.
>
> Then why did you start, Mark? The above unsubstantiated claims are
> just that: your game.
Why I started is my own business. Why you started, and continue, is
evidence of mental illness.
--
Mark Kelley
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:51:12 GMT
Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Where did that come from, Marty?
The previous attribution in this thread.
> >> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> > The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
> >>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
> > You never asked.
>
> Incorrect, given that I've been asking all along, but you've relied
> on illogical circular responses.
You didn't ask the first time it was used.
> >>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >> You were just being evasive, Marty.
>
> > Did you expect me to read your mind?
>
> Unnecessary, Marty.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>>>> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>
> >>>> Typical evasion.
>
> >>> On your part.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Classic pontification.
>
> How ironic.
Pointing out your pontification is not pontification, Dave.
> >>> I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
> >>> that you meant.
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I wasn't clear, Marty,
> >> using it as an excuse to continue your evasiveness.
>
> > I see you're expecting me to read your mind again.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.
Then how do you expect me to interpret your made-up words?
> > Why not just correct your error and remove the ambiguity?
>
> What alleged error, Marty?
DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
> > How ironic, coming from someone complaining about alleged
> > "evasiveness".
>
> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
Witness your evasiveness.
> >>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>
> >>>>>> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>
> >>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>
> >>>> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
>
> >>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty, given that I identified your consistent lack of an
> >> explanation.
>
> > That doesn't say anything good about your reading comprehension.
>
> It doesn't say anything bad about it, Marty.
On the contrary.
> >>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>
> >>>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>
> >>>>>>> Incorrect.
>
> >>>>>> Tyopical pontification.
>
> >>>>> What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>
> >>>> Typical evasion.
>
> >>> On your part.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Classic pontification.
>
> How ironic.
Where is the alleged irony?
> >>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>
> I see you failed to answer the question again.
How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
> >>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>
> >>>>>>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>
> >>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>
> >>>>> See above.
>
> >>>> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
>
> >>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> >> Yes, which is why I know there isn't an answer above, Marty.
>
> > Obviously not, considering the answer above.
>
> What alleged answer, Marty?
The one above, Dave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>>>> Because I would like that.
>
> >>>>>> Why?
>
> >>>>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>
> >>>> Why?
>
> >>> Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Because I would find it enjoyable.
>
> Why?
Because it would be something that I would like.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Aren't you sure?
>
> >>>>>>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>
> >>>>>>> Not surprising.
>
> >>>>>> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> >>>>> What alleged "inconsistency"?
>
> >>>> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
>
> >>> You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
>
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
>
> > Even more classic pontification.
>
> How ironic.
Where is the irony?
> >>>>> I see you failed to note my consistent use of
> >>>>> the attribution in this thread.
>
> >>>> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
> >>>> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
>
> >>> I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument.
> >>> No surprise there.
>
> >> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
> >> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>
> > I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
> > argument. No surprise there.
>
> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
> inconsistency. No surprise there.
I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
argument. No surprise there.
> >>>>>>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>
> >>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
> >>>>>>> this thread.
>
> >>>>>> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>
> >>>>> The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
> >>>>> Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>
> >>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>
> >>> Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider
> >>> "this thread".
>
> >> Considering "this thread" to be "this thread" is classic illogical
> >> circular reasoning, Marty.
>
> > That depends on your definition of the first "this thread".
>
> No it doesn't, Marty.
Classic pontification.
> >>> It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
> >>> precisely the ones to which I was referring.
>
> >> All threads have a finite number of postings, Marty, but they don't all
> >> have the same subject line.
>
> > Of what relevance is this remark?
>
> The same as yours, Marty.
Even more pontification.
> >>> There's nothing illogical about being self-referential when we are
> >>> still contributing to what I consider "this thread".
>
> >> There is something illogical about using circular reasoning, Marty.
>
> > Glad I haven't done such a thing.
>
> Incorrect, Marty.
Prove that I'm not glad, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:31:07 -0400
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/15/2000 at 04:45 PM,
> Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Go look up the deserts of Northern Africa. In the time of Rome, they
> > weren't deserts. They are now. It is generally accepted in the
> > scientific community that the use of slash-and-burn agriculture was a
> > major if not the determining factor in causing this change, and
> > certainly accelerated it a great deal.
>
> Funny, I checked with the Egyptian Museum at the University of
> Pennsylania. They told me that this theory is NOT generally accepted.
Go ask them about Libya... actually, find someone who knows about
Libya; the Egyptologists probably won't be able to help you. I'm
speaking specifically of Carthage, which at the time of Rome was a
green and fertile land. The long destructive war with Rome which
ended with the razing of Carthage and the destruction of its arable
land by the Romans via the simple expedient of plowing salt into the
ground greatly damaged the local ecosystem and definitely hastened
the encroachment of the Sahara into the region.
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:35:26 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > In article <39c5a0bf$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On 09/18/2000 at 01:48 AM,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >
> > >> I have proof for the levels of CFC's leveling off, any study on cfc's
> > >> proves it and lo and behold it coincides with the banning of the said
> > >> products.
> > >
> > >You are a liar. You have some measurements which MAY POSSIBLY indicate
> > >that. However, only several centuriy's worth of measurement can prove it.
> >
> > Like I said they are theories and you are to ignorant to look at them
> > because you have a belief system that you don't want to challenge. You
> > are a hollow shell of a man.
>
> SIT DOWN and SHUT THE FUCK UP...you control-freak asshole.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:38:44 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Jason Bowen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <39c5a0bf$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >On 09/18/2000 at 01:48 AM,
> > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >> >
> > >> >> I have proof for the levels of CFC's leveling off, any study on cfc's
> > >> >> proves it and lo and behold it coincides with the banning of the said
> > >> >> products.
> > >> >
> > >> >You are a liar. You have some measurements which MAY POSSIBLY indicate
> > >> >that. However, only several centuriy's worth of measurement can prove it.
> > >>
> > >> Like I said they are theories and you are to ignorant to look at them
> > >> because you have a belief system that you don't want to challenge. You
> > >> are a hollow shell of a man.
> > >
> > >SIT DOWN and SHUT THE FUCK UP...you control-freak asshole.
> >
> > I'm saying here are some ideas to think about and you'd rather just think
> > you own way. Your the asshole. Who is wanting to control? You're
> > fucking scared of thinking that maybe something might be different.
> >
>
> You are a brainwashed stupid fuck propagating lies and propaganda.
>
> Sit down and shut the fuck up.
There we have it folks; proof that Aaron doesn't believe in the free
expression of ideas.
Your solution to disagreement is to enforce silence.
That's called fascism.
Jack
Montreal PQ
CANADA
------------------------------
From: Jim Naylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:00:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > But he also said "-- same kernel, same overall features" which is
> > > > incorrect.
> > >
> > > So tell us.. what differences are there between the NT 5 kernel and
> > > the
> > > Windows 2000 kernel?
>
> List of Windows 2000 (aka Windows 5) features and improvements over
> Windows NT 4 deleted...
>
> > > Keep in mind that they're the same product, with different names.
> >
> > Obviously you had no idea what the hell you're talking about, so why
> > do I even bother trying to educate you?
>
> So far, you've told us that NT 5, which was released as Windows 2000,
> has many features that Windows NT *4* didn't have (noe that 4 and 5 are
> different numbers). When are you going to address the fact that
> "Windows 2000" and "Windows NT 5" are the exact same product in a
> different box?
>
> IT"S THE SAME GODDAMNED PRODUCT! All they did was change the name
> before they released it.
>
> Please note that Windows NT 4, which was released, was a *different*
> product than NT 5, which was released under the name Windows 2000 so
> Microsoft could have a cool-sounding product name.
Like "Windows Me," which nicely creates a new verb (a synonym to
"Buggers Me") for what they've been doing to you windoids all along. For
corroboration, see Walter Mossberg's (!) column on "Windos ME" in the
Wall Street Journal.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
