Linux-Advocacy Digest #192, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: partitioning my hard drive ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
angry programmers (Richard)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:11:39 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> =
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >Max, care to post the proof that AOL is still contractually obligated =
to use IE
> >even though Gecko won't work with AOL client yet? Wake up. What litt=
le
> >credibility you have left is on the line.
> =
> I don't work like that. If you try real hard, you might be able to
> learn how to think well enough that you aren't entirely convinced that
> the real world is defined by press releases.
You don't work like that? What, you won't provide proof of your
assertions? I wasn't asking for a press release, Max. I just don't
believe that AOL would allow themselves to be roped into a long range
binding contract with Microsoft when they had plans to buy Netscape to
replace that technology. I don't think that AOL is contractually
obligated to use Windows Internet technologies any more than the next
developer who does. I cannot find any evidence to prove that they are
at least. I think they are just using the only component internet
technology worth using until they can get their own running.
> [...]
> >Please explain where a rendering surface is a new concept. Almost eve=
ry
> >rendering engine uses a canvas or surface paradigm. I don't love your=
shit :-)
> [...]
> >News Flash: Erik Funkenbusch forces people to use "monopolistic crap" =
by simple
> >USENET posting! What a phenomenon! ;-)
> [...]
> >Nope. Neoplanet is it's own completely separate browser. Iexplore.ex=
e does not
> >need to be present at all. In fact you could run Neoplanet on Judge J=
ackson's
> >"IE free machine" and it would still run just peachy. Try it. I can =
post
> >instructions for you if you want.
> =
> LOL. I was just using Neoplanet again on my friend's PC. Yes, its IE
> under the covers; they're relying entirely on whatever 'IE/Win' DLLs
> they need to provide functionality on top of a fancy skin, and that's
> about all. Iexplorer.exe has nothing to do with it.
Exactly, Max. You're coming along. In fact you've proven your previous
assertion that Neoplanet was just a skin for Internet Explorer to be
wrong. Now you assert that "Iexplore.exe as nothing to do with it". =
That is correct. Neoplanet is it's own executable, it's own process and
it's own product. It leverages Windows Internet technologies to acquire
and render HTML on it's own drawing surface in it's own application. =
You can completely delete all traces of Internet Explorer from the
Program Files folder and Neoplanet would work just peachy. The only
thing you got wrong was that it is "IE" under the covers. It's not. =
It's a generic HTML renderer called Mshtml.dll. It cannot browse the
web at all. It just paints a web page on whatever surface you tell it
to. You have to provide the HTML. This is the same HTML viewer that
Windows uses in many other places like help, web views of folders, and
active desktop items.
> >> They'd probably provide skins for any other browser, too,
> >> if they could.
> >
> >Why when skins are what differentiates their browser that uses Windows=
internet
> >technologies from IE and Netscape?
> =
> Hardly. There's shared libraries underneath all software;
No. There's not. Sorry to burst your bubble.
> it doesn't
> make moving shared libraries for a browser that a consumer wants to
> acquire separately from shared libraries for an OS into the OS in order=
> to prevent competition any less a federal offense. Thanks for clearing=
> us up on that point.
You call what you wrote clarifying? What's your address? I've got an
extra Chicago Manual around here somewhere... Apart from the fact that
I can only guess what you meant by that "language", I think it's
becoming clear that an operating system that integrates document
rendering capability is a great move -- one that other OSs are already
starting to follow. Witness Apple's OS X -- they tout their ability to
integrate PDF rendering in the OS. I don't see that as any different
than integrating HTML rendering other than the document format. If you
consider Mandrake Linux to be an OS (the whole thing with KDE and all)
then Linux is doing the same thing as Windows and it continues to be one
of the most popular distributions.
> >> But Microsoft has (illegally) prevented them from having
> >> a wider market.
> >
> >Document please? Again that sterling Devlin credibility is put to the=
test :-)
> =
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
I grepped for your specific references -- no dice Max. Perhaps you'd
like to remind us who the "them" reference refers to, Max. Hint -- it
wasn't Netscape :-)
> >> >Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of dollars
> >> >being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
> >>
> >> And more billions to be lost by buying in to monopoly crapware.
> >
> >Where are those numbers Max?
> =
> They're projected, Mike.
Sorry, Max. I don't trust your projections. I feel that you are far to
biased to be accurate.
> Kind of like the ones you read in Microsoft
> press releases, only they're more reasoned and reasonable.
So using eloquent terms like "crapware" and projecting from that result
in a well reasoned argument from Max? Microsoft press releases at least
put a spin on something that once was a fact. You're putting a spin on
your own opinions.
> I'd step you
> through them,
And I'd step right along with you until there weren't any left. You
see, Max, the reason I even got involved with this advocacy thing was
because I was tired of listening to all the "well reasoned arguments" of
the anti-Microsoft movement. I realized that as many as 2/3 of
Americans feel that the Microsoft trial is purely politically motivated
and a waste of their tax dollars (Newsweek). I'm glad I've found someone
like you who's showing so well just how right those 183 million people
are. It's catharsis for the soul.
> but you're just ankle-biting,
Oh, yes, Max. Chomp, chomp. How petty I am. :-\
> since you can't reasonable
> disagree with any of the underlying facts and maintain any supposed
> credibility which you're supposed to have on the matter.
I can reasonably disagree with what I choose. I can unreasonably
disagree as well. I choose to disagree with some of the "findings of
fact" and moreover with Jackson's ruling. He has quite the record of
overstepping his bounds and getting overturned. I think this trend will
continue.
> [...]
> >Au contrair. If IE did suck so "entirely" then it would not be able t=
o be
> >chosen to include in these other independant products.
> =
> Still in full 'denial of reality' mode, eh?
How's that Max? If there were nothing redeeming about the Windows
Internet technologies that are used by the Internet Explorer browser
then no one would have bothered to use them. Intuit used them in a
_financial_ application because their market data indicated that people
like web interfaces. If the Windows Internet technologies "sucked
entirely" they would not or could not have done with them what they
have.
> If there were a free
> market, we'd be able to tell how badly is sucks.
That's supposing that we don't. Look at Gecko -- I know it's pretty
early to judge but it looks damn competitive to me!
> 'Entirely' is the only
> reasonable approximation I can think of, since they have 'entirely' the=
> Win98 built-in market.
Max, you need to pick a market and stick to it. Sometimes you talk
about the browser market, sometimes the OS market, sometimes the Windows
market. You just switch markets as convenient to your "argument". Now
you talk about the "Windows 98 built in browser market" -- how
ludicrous. That's like saying the "Ford Thunderbird tachometer
market". Not too hard to monopolize.
> >Even if it's only
> >redeeming feature was it's beautiful modern component architecture it =
most
> >probably would not be in the position it is in today.
> =
> So why is it?
Because it's beautiful modern component architecture is only a small
part of what it has going for it. It's fast, memory efficient and
renders lots of different flavors of HTML well. It's Java support is
very good and it has a nice simple UI.
> I think you're begging the question, literally. Read
> through those two sentences again. "If it sucked so much, it wouldn't
> be used, even if it didn't suck in the way it is supposedly useful?"
Your paraphrases are inaccurate. I think you need to reread what I
wrote -- feel free to ask questions if you don't understand.
> You're chasing your tail, and trying to say that if it works at all, it=
> can't be crap.
That's not what I said at all. I'd be happy to reiterate my points if
you'd like.
> >I fail to see how
> >Microsoft forced Intiut and Neoplanet and all the others to implement =
their
> >technologies?
> =
> By ensuring there were no other alternatives.
Microsoft prevented Netscape from writing a publicly available HTML
rendering library? I don't see that proven anywhere.
> You don't seem to
> recognize why Microsoft was convicted because of their response to a
> 'middleware threat'. The 'componentized browser' which Netscape was
> planning to develop
I've never seen such plans documented. It appears from the Netscape 3
through 4.75 version that Netscape's aim was to become more monolithic. =
> in response to customer requests became technically
> unfeasible and then commercially impossible, because of Microsoft's
> efforts to 'cut off their air supply'.
I can see an argument about comercial success with regard to market
pressures. I cannot see how market pressures can make something
"technically unfeasible". You'll have to provide some background
explanation as to the mechanism here. Oh, yeah. Don't forget so cite
those sources! The "Book of Max" is getting pretty worn in these parts
;-)
> >Maybe because they realize that these services really are built
> >in to the OS and being that they are freely available there's little r=
eason not
> >to use them especially in light of the fact that no competitor does th=
e same.
> =
> The market is free to choose what is built into what, in a free market.=
It's not free to choose what it built into what when the parts getting
built in don't exist.
> If not for monopolizing, all this techno-miracle stuff you fantasize
> works all the time
I'm not fantasizing, Max. It does work. As for the techno-miracle
stuff I've heard it said that technology sufficiently advanced would be
indistinguishable from magic. In that I think the term "advanced" is
comparative. What's advanced to you might not be that advanced to me.
> might or might not be worth considering as anything
> more than crap. Until the monopoly is gone and forgotten, however, thi=
s
> simply cannot be the case. Lack of competition doesn't mean Win32 is
> the best thing, it means it is the worst thing.
I disagree. This monopoly diatribe is getting thin. Look at Mac OS X,
look at Mandrake Linux. These are two real competitors. As for Win32,
the web itself has made programming to it kinda pass=E9.
> >Maybe you need to produce some documents that show how AOL, Intuit, Ne=
oplanet
> >and the rest have all been forced to use Windows Internet technologies=
?
> =
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
It's not in there Max.
> [...]
> >> >Hack? What are you talking about? IE is provided via COM. COM is=
not a
> >> >hack, nor is it "low level"
> >>
> >> It is both low level and a hack.
> >
> >OK Max. This is a whole new can of worms. New topic of conversation.=
> =
> No its not. Its continued ankle-biting.
Whatever, Max. Chomp, chomp. That's me :-\
> >(D)COM
> >is a low level hack. Proof by T. Max Devlin. Pony up, boy.
> =
> Okay: DCOM is a low-level hack. It is krufty and unreliable and too lo=
w
> level to be easily ignored if you want to try to write Windows software=
> that isn't hopelessly crippled by the expense of trying to ignore
> monopoly crap.
You can write Windows software all day long that doesn't use COM or
DCOM. It tends to make things easier if you choose to though. So many
things are already done for you -- just an QueryInterface away. You can
ignore what OS services you want -- look at Netscape.
> >> Although, to be honest, it isn't a
> >> hack, as hacking requires elegance and usefulness,
> >
> >My definition of hack in this context comes from Webster and reads "4 =
a : to
> >write computer programs for enjoyment b : to gain access to a computer=
> >illegally". I see nothing of elegance or usefulness defined. But I c=
an tell
> >you that from a production Windows programmer's viewpoint (mine and th=
e folks
> >I've worked with) it is both elegant, efficient and VERY useful.
> =
> Well, they're a bunch of inexperienced clods like yourself, then.
It crossed my mind for about a millisecond to return that ad hominem but
I'd like to think I'm above that. =
> My
> definition of hack in this context comes from The Jargon File, and
> reads:
> =
> "1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not
> well. "
> =
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/The-Jargon-Lexicon-framed.html
Then it most certainly is NOT a hack. It's the opposite. It's been
known to be able to produce things that are not need, rather slowly, but
very, very well :-)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:19:08 GMT
Larry R wrote:
> Actually, I just tried that and it does work (surprise ;-0 )
> C:\docs>test.doc opened up word with the file so it can "execute" a doc file
> from a DOS window. (I know it isn't the same as booting DOS and doing this)
>
> But I still hate WinNT.
You're in good company.
> >>haven't even seen associations in Unix.
>
> In Solaris (CDE) they are called "actions" and you can "associate" types.
> In CDE files are actually "objects" that have attributes which specify what to
> do with the file (or object).
But this is a kludge since it makes it harder to change the type of
a file (which is a perfectly legitimate and common operation) and
it hides the type from users for no good reason. In fact, type info
should be just as easy to access by users as actions/associations
and it only makes sense to access it the same way. Making type
information have its own special accessor functions despite the
fact that the protection scheme for names and associations is
identical (ie, the same users who can legitimately change a file's
name should also be able to change its associations) is ludicrous
and unnecessarily complicates the system. And the final killer is
that actions are not an object property but a link property; they
don't belong in class File but in class HardLink. AND, actions are
not proper abstractions of links (links don't behave in different
ways depending on what extension they store). IOW, at the
abstraction level where actions belong, they /shouldn't/ be a
separate entity and they certainly don't need to be separate.
In fact, the name of a link isn't a property of that link. It's a
key in a dictionary (directory) that is associated with the link
object. So if actions belong at the same abstraction level as
filenames then they can't even be part of links, let alone files.
Note especially the meshing of abstraction and actual practice;
what abstraction level typing information is found in determines
how, and whether, actual users will use it. It's only programmers
who care neither for theory nor practice that believe that it
doesn't matter where and how typing information is found.
> >You haven't looked very hard. In KDE, files are automatically opened
> >with the correct program. You can right click and modify the types
> >if you like. I believe GNOME has the same kind of functionality.
> >
> >There is no such functionality in the command shell -- again, I
> >suspect that this is because no one cares.
>
> True, who cares. As long as my desktop GUI takes care of it.
I care. I use Xterms all the time.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:22:01 GMT
FM wrote:
> Of course, his complete disregard for facts should
> be apparent to all by now.
>
> Damn I so should've resisted the urge to reply to a
> troll.
Does that mean that I can expect you to go away?
Please say yes!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:28:30 GMT
In article <8q61qj$9r2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
That never happens unless you've violated one of the following rules:
1. Never ever install any system-level software not from Microsoft.
This includes all vendor-written device drivers. Use only Microsoft
developed drivers that were included in the original Windows 98 CD.
2. Don't install any after-market hardware, memory, or peripherals.
Adding hardware to an empty motherboard is risky business. Besides,
these may require you to install "questionable" drivers (see above).
3. Never remove or rearrange any hardware for the same reason. Windows
is like a mother hawk to its IRQs; if you pluck an IRQ from its nest and
then try to put it back, Windows will detect your scent on the IRQ. It
could likely abandon the nest, and all the IRQs will starve and die.
4. It is important to remember that only the original configuration of
your system is the one that is "certified for Microsoft Windows 98".
Once you start fiddling about with all those switches and cables and
such, you've introduced significant instability in Windows. Merely
toggling the "0" and "1" switchy thingamajig to the "1" position can
wreak pure havoc. Leave it where the manufacturer had it set; they know
better than you do what works and what doesn't.
5. Avoid running any "applications". Even software from Microsoft has
been known to occasionally cause lockup problems, so it is best if you
simply avoid running any applications whatsoever. If the system
manufacturer had wanted their box to run applications, then they would
have pasted stickers all over it that said "certified for Microsoft
Flight Simulator 2000" and so on and so forth. The "official" Microsoft
certification sticker is your friend; heed its advice.
I do hope this helps somewhat.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: partitioning my hard drive
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:27:25 GMT
Also since this message can get burried quite quickly would you pleae
send comments/aswers to my email at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8q62pc$h0b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am in the process of partitioning my hard drive on
> my desktop computer for the installation of Linux 6.2. I ran the
Defrag
> program and I ran the Scan Disk. All went well up to this point. I
> created the book disk with all the necessary files
> copied over from the Linux disk. When I run fips.exe from my bootable
> disk it eventually says:
> >
> > "Error: Last cylinder is not free"
> >
> >
> This is after I looked for swapfile and other hidden files via:
> >
> > attrib -r -s -h image.idx
> >
> > and
> >
> > attrib -r -s -h image.idx
> >
> both result in file not found(ex image.idx not found as in the first
> case).When I do dir /a:h /s or dir /a:s /s a large
> number of listing come up and I am not sure what do at this point.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: angry programmers
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:50:43 GMT
FM wrote:
> have this new vision of computing. Hell, NONE of the new features
> you elaborated failed to come up within 2 hours of my initial
> brainstorming for a new design, and that was way back in high
> school (or was that a middleschool). That you're so in love of
Is THAT what this is all about? Sour grapes that someone is
actually doing something while you're just a dried up bitter old
geezer? Resentment at idealism because you've had to "learn
better" and can't share it anymore?
You don't know me. You don't know anything about me. You
don't know anything about what I have in mind, what I'm doing
or what I've done. So from where are you pulling all these wild
accusations if not from your own personal experience? What
makes you so compelled to bash someone you don't know
anything about for doing you-don't-know-what?
Buddy, your outbursts have nothing to do with me and everything
to do with you. I think you have some serious emotional problems.
Visit a therapist sometime, or go meditate or whatever, but as it
is you aren't contributing anything to the discussion.
------------------------------
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] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:41:46 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote in part:
>
> : The Earth is a system of balances. If one thing gets out of whack,
> : 10 other things compensate to restore the balance.
>
> This is true of market economies also.
>
> The problem is that it can take a really long time (from our
> perspective at least) for the damage to be corrected.
>
> : This has been happening over billions of years. Many more catastrophic
> : things have happened to the ecosystem that Humans could ever cook up
> : and the ecosystem restored itself in a geological second. The amount
> : of data we, as humans, have collected scientifically over the past
> : 1-200 years is nothing. It's not even a nano-second in geological
> : terms. To conclude or attempt to draw anything from these statistics
> : is meaningless and absurd to say the least.
>
> We've collected substantial evidence of the earth's geological
> history.
>
> The catastrophes of earlier geological ages did not destroy the earth,
> nor will our activities, but they *did* change the climate in ways
> that would have been horribly destructive to human civilization had it
> existed at the time. The fear is that our far smaller, but still
> potentially significant, activities might similarly cause destruction
> to human (and other) habitats in the relatively near future.
>
> I'm not convinced that it will. I'm convinced that it might, though,
> and that the chance that it might is sufficient reason for us to
> continue to study and to evaluate our activities to make sure that we
> aren't creating any potentially avoidable problems.
>
> : Dinosaur populations excreted more methane and CO/2 than humans
> : could ever hope to generate.
>
> Yep. But most of the sites of today's cities were under water then.
> Later, most of today's lakes and straits and mountains were under
> thousands of feet of ice. Neither of those outcomes would be
> particularly desirable today.
>
> : It's rather arrogant and self-important
> : to think that humans are so powerful that we could permanently change
> : or destroy the ecosystem and have it stay permanently dead.
>
> I don't think anyone is alleging that we could permanently destroy the
> Earth. Only that our activities, if continued unchecked, could alter
> climate substantially enough, and for long enough, to have a
> detrimental impact on human and other habitats.
>
> : We will
> : kill ourselves with war or accidentally releasing a deadly virus
> : into the world before we'll ever hope to destroy this planet.
>
> Very possible. We've come damn close, more than once. Closer than
> most people are willing to believe.
>
> : Granted, we shouldn't try, I agree we need to control ourselves
>
> That's all I'm saying. It's all that responsible environmentalists
> are saying too. (There are a lot of very *irresponsible* folks
> pretending to be environmentalists that are saying a lot more.
> Mostly, those are folks with political agendas, usually of a leftist
> variety, who *use* well-meaning but naive environmental activists to
> promote that agenda.)
>
> , but
> : this world has been through huge floods, all sorts of geological
> : disasters (giant earthquakes, massive volcanoes spewing millions of
> : tons of CO/2, methane, and all other sorts of noxious gasses into
> : the atmosphere) and look where we are today, paradise.
>
> We have an environment that is in many respects better than it ever
> has been (more free from infectious disease, for example).
>
> The challenge is keeping it that way.
>
> And in spite of the progress we've made, there still are serious
> problems such as air pollution in large cities, both air and water
> pollution behind the former Iron Curtain, rapid deforestation in
> certain areas (mostly South America and Latin America), and, to be
> blunt, unsustainable development in certain parts of the world where
> there simply is not enough guaranteed fresh water to sustain life.
> (The wealthy oil states of the Middle East, and the urban areas of the
> southwestern U.S., are prime examples of this).
>
> Preventable diseases still kill tens of millions in the poorest
> countries. Wars and famines caused mostly by statist political
> ideologies claim many more.
>
> We're doing better than we did in the past in many ways, but there is
> still much work left to be done.
>
> As a libertarian I hope it can be done the way it should be, namely,
> by voluntary cooperation and consent.
>
> But it does need to be done.
>
> I don't know if global warming is something we can control, or should
> attempt to. But I certainly would like to know. And I certainly
> suggest caution in the meantime.
>
> : We're do for
> : another ice age here in about 25-50,000 years or so, we're probably
> : just seeing the cycle repeat itself and seeing the ecosystem building
> : up and building up for the next ice age when it'll all start over
> : again and the same thing will happen 100,000 years after that like
> : it's done for the past several million years.
>
> Probably.
>
> But in the meantime I'd like those who will come after me to be able
> to enjoy the same, or better, environmental AND economic conditions
> that we have today.
>
> To ensure this, we must avoid both extremes. We must not destroy
> people's livelihoods in a vain attempt to meet arbitrary or
> unrealistic goals that might not be necessary or even worthwhile. At
> the same time, we must not ignore the mounting evidence that warming
> *is* occurring, that human activities *may* be contributing to it, and
> that the costs for dealing with it *will* be staggering.
>
> : Humanity is not even a blink of an eye in the Earth's history and
> : it's not about to be destroyed by us.
>
> Unlike some of my more left-leaning peers, I'm not concerned about the
> destruction of Earth, so much as I am about the destruction of human
> (and other) life on it.
>
> Joe
Paging Chicken Little
Paging Chicken Little
The Sky is Falling!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: 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
******************************
