Linux-Advocacy Digest #406, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 19:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 02 Oct 2000 18:42:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[T. Max:]
>> He was within his rights to get enraged; his rights don't extend to
>> satisfying that rage. He might be wrong to get upset that someone in
>> a mask calls him a racist. How absurd was the accusation?
>
>Let me tell you something. When people hear such accusations made about
>others, they don't really spend the time figuring out whether it's true
>or not. In fact, the way most people work is that if they take the
>accusation out of context they will probably think the accusation is
>true. That might sound sinister but that's the reality. That's why such
>accusations are vicious to the extreme, because they *will* damage
>someone's good name. They are very effective in that respect.
>Otherwise, why would there be laws against libel/slander?
To substitute government intrusion for free speech and personal
responsibility, which is why I don't like them. It isn't the personal
responsibility of the accuser I'm interested in; its the personal
responsibility of the people viewing the accusation which gets
circumvented.
I don't believe you have any grounds at all for assuming that "they will
probably think the accusation is true." You'd have to provide some
evidence that someone's real 'good name' can actually be damaged by some
*anonymous* person on Usenet calling them a racist, an alcoholic, or a
pedophile. I don't know of anyone with a good name that would be
damaged by such obviously absurd accusations.
[...]
>Considering that I evolve in a small community, where my participation
>could elicit interests and even job offers (that happened in the past),
>I could not turn the other cheek when libeled by an anonymous person
>and I had every damned right to rip that person's mask off.
The smaller the community, the less harm such absurd claims would be.
I've had it occur on several occasions that someone tried to harass me
for what I'd posted to Usenet. I don't usually post anonymously (years
ago, I did, for private reasons I feel entirely comfortable with) but I
can understand the argument of those who do that it is to avoid just
such harassment that they use an alias or even bogus return address. I
don't agree with such arguments, as I've said, but I can see the reason
in them. However, I've never had a problem where harassment by an
anonymous person caused me any great grief. I merely asked the person
relating the accusation to consider the fact that the accuser remained
anonymous, and review the context of the exchange, and they would be
convinced that the source is not to be trusted on even trivial facts. I
feel comfortable doing this without great fear of a 'sinister' world
screwing me over some day (or, at least, minimal belief that I could
avoid it by changing my opinions or actions) by publishing that I'm a
drug addict homosexual pedophile racist communist schizophrenic Luddite.
>Note that he was not able to repeat the most outrageous of his
>accusations under his real name.
Well, like I said, I don't support posting anonymously to begin with.
But I can't prevent it (you can always use a believable fake identity)
so there's no reason to say it can't be tolerated. Believing bullshit
is, however, something that can't be tolerated. It might seem
idealistic, but that's reality. You are responsible for evaluating what
you hear and read: nobody else can judge whether something is true for
you. If you can't pick up the clues that an accusation is false, and
can't verify whether the accusation is true yourself, you've gotta ask
yourself, when faced with an anonymous poster saying outrageous things
about someone else, "Am I stupid enough to believe that?" And you're
going to have to rely on all the other monkeys doing the same thing.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:46:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
[...]
>>I didn't threaten to kill anyone I disagreed with, 'JS/PL'. I
>>threatened to destroy an anonymous identity which posts false statements
>>and lots of bullshit to Usenet.
>
>No you made a pussy attempt at harrasment and threats. Because pussy is your
>nature. It shows in every one of your posts.
You're such a child.
[...]
>>If only I had ever investigated, or pointedly posted, as you did,
>>personal information about you, as you have done again with James.
>
>You can't because your too stupid. Meanwhile every time you post you
>broadcast the IP of that incredibly un-secure windows box to the entire
>world you inept clod.
I'm far more familiar with tracing Internet messages than you are,
JS/PL, I am quite sure of that. I simply haven't bothered.
>>You're really digging yourself a big hole here, 'JS/PL'. If I actually
>>thought you were anything but a half-rational idiot, I'd post the
>>entirety of the relevant messages to your ISP, and have you cut off.
>>(You've specifically included personal information in a threatening
>>manner on Usenet about someone who posted something you disagreed with.)
>
>Unlike you, I haven't done anything illegal , so just dial waa waa waa - waa
>waa waa waaaaaa
Well, you've made another veiled threat, and I've certainly got enough
that if it was worth the time, I can drag your butt into court. Don't
keep digging yourself in deeper. Friendly and hopeful advice.
>>But I'd prefer you simply post with your real identity, so I didn't have
>>to bother with such childish games. I figure the reality of the idiocy
>>you pretend to support would be too much for you to sign your real name
>>to, knowing that potentially millions of people might see and recognize
>>what you've posted. You're a clod. Go away.
>
>I told you - my name is John Smith, the patent lawyer, Your Dimness.
I couldn't care less, and I still don't believe you.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:49:11 GMT
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:30:49 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Listen close Jackass: Al Gore is more of a RICH oilman then GWB!!!
>> (at least GWB had to go and work)
>
> Pure projection. GWBush has had to be bailed out of every one of his
>business ventures -- it certainly helps to have rich friends.
>
> Al Gore, however, has been much more forward-looking. Though he
>certainly did not invent the Internet, he had been a major sponsor of
>it in the years before it was privatized, and he even wrote a nice
>book, "Earth in the Balance".
>
> Can GWBush point to anything similar? Admittedly, Clinton also loses
>there, it must be said.
Al gore's great achievement his book OF NONSENSE. forward thinking my
ass!!! The only thing he looks forward to is spending my money.
You did however momentarily dodge the FACt that RICH ole gore got all
his money from his dady and that he has not held a private sector job.
Can you SAY: Career Politician. i.e. polished,practiced LIAR..
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[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, 02 Oct 2000 22:41:33 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
<very big snip because I've addressed most of these points in the past
and I'm tired now>
>
> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >And yes, I'd like the whole bunch of them to disappear. I think it's
> >worse when they hide who they are, because they are always reserving the
> >right to come back under a different identity. Also, for at least 99% of
> >people, the fact of signing their own name introduces some inhibitions;
> >once there's not even the minimal accountability, then some of these
> >jerks are always just testing the limits of what they can get away with
> >in the medium. So I think there have to be real-world consequences
> >somewhere down the line.
>
> Well, you face me with an interesting conundrum, as I have long and
> often, separately, held that anonymous posting, particularly on
> technical forums, is base silliness to begin with, and indicative,
> without evidence to the contrary, of a lack of integrity and sincerity.
> But yet I have always known of the complexity of the 'anonymous' issue.
> Separate from whether it should be condoned at all, I can't see
> reporting someone posting something I don't like to their employer
> unless I believe their posts are at the behest of that employer, or
> somehow otherwise professional in nature. I'll call my lawyer, their
> NNTP service (if that was their employer, that's an entirely different
> situation than I've understood so far), or the police, if they are
> posting malicious lies and slanderous statements, but there's no reason
> to involve the employer unless you were seeking to harass him, which I
> can personally tolerate less than calling someone an alcoholic, a
> racist, or a pedophile.
But Max, what *you* find more or less tolerable is not at issue here,
since *you* were not on the receiving end of the libellous statements.
Now, if I understand you correctly, you seem to think that participating
in this kind of forum more or less obliges you to put up with
accusations of pedophilia, for example -- roughly in the same way that
you have to put up with the presence of insects on a camping trip...
Well, other people's opinions may differ and they will act accordingly.
By most normal standards, this is *not* the kind of thing people should
have to put up with to discuss technology with their professional peers.
It may be that in this usenet context, it has become so normal that many
regular participants are completely inured to it. That does not make it
"normal" in any broader sense. It's really pretty darned abnormal.
<rest snipped because I'm really tired now, some concerning who is more
credible and how you judge that>
Oh, and as for your points concerning who has more credibility
etcetera... look, you can observe carefully, and I think that you'll
discover that, whatever else you end up thinking of me, my discourse is
pretty meticulously truthful. The people I argue with, for the most part
-- James Robertson in this particular instance being an example -- are
not so meticulously truthful. For example, I sent you material in
private that should have provided some insight into the extent to which
James, in this instance, was misrepresenting what happened prior to that
point in the debate.
Jonathan Revusky
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 2 Oct 2000 18:52:42 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Excessive taxes on those who work, to pay for
>> > Government coddling for those who don't.
>> Cry me a river. A big fat Marxist river.
>That certainly IS what you're looking for.
The Marxism here is your posture of being an exploited, oppressed
worker.
>Of course...all the rivers in countries where Marxism was adopted are
>polluted beyond belief.
I thought that those concerned about the environment are nothing
but economic saboteurs who want to push humanity back into the Stone Age
-- that's what you right-wingers never tire of insinuating.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 2 Oct 2000 18:55:33 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > This is what happens when you come from a viewpoint which dicatates
>> > that ALL money is the rightful property of the bureaucrats, to be
>> > redistributed, willy-nilly, at the whim of politicians.
>> Pure straw position.
>So declares the communist-agitator.
Can't you think of any other insults?
>> And Mr. Kulkis seems to like everything that he professes to object
>> to when it's military. So the ideal way to get even the grossest pork
>> past the Kulkises of the world is to claim some "national defense"
>> purpose to it.
>I'm one of the first to admit that defense spending is abused.
Praise with faint damns.
>What I can't figure out is why you advocate running the ENTIRE
>ECONOMY IN THE SAME FASHION.
I have no such position.
>> So it's a pity that welfarism's supporters have not tried to claim
>> some "national defense" purpose, such as sewing soldiers' uniforms. If
>> they pulled off that kind of political stunt, I'm sure that the
>> Kulkises of the world would belligerently and venomously defend it.
>Once again...why do you want the ENTIRE ECONOMY run in a manner similar
>to Department of Defense appropriations...
Thank you for proving me right.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 2 Oct 2000 19:02:43 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> > Hillary Clinton goes into a restaurant for the first time on her own and
>> > doesn't tip a waitress.
>> Cry me a river. If welfare recipients are not owed a living, then
>> neither are waitresses.
>Waitresses are working
But the amount of money they get for their work indicates that
their work is fundamentally worthless, right???
>Welfare scum are parasitic leaches.
Cry me a river.
>> > Travel office employees fired lock, stock, and barrel for having
>> > different political views.
>> Cry me a river. This is a blatantly anti-employer statement, since
>> it suggests that employers' freedom of action ought to be drastically
>> limited. In fact, I'm surprised that employers are not summarily
>> purging their employees for being so anti-employer. And maintaining a
>> blacklist of disrespectful would-be employees.
>You have a right to fire employees.
>You do NOT have a right to have them brought up on trumped-up charges.
Cry me a river. If it was anybody but the right-wingers' favorite
villains doing this, the right wing would have moaned and groaned that
this action did not go far enough.
>> > Sexual abuse of interns.
>> Cry me a river.
>Truth hurts, doesn't it.
No evidence that Monica Lewinsky had been sexually abused. In
fact, Bill Clinton's unwillingness to cum made her feel
less-than-successful at giving blowjobs.
>> > Using the IRS as an attack dog against those you don't agree with.
>> Cry me a river. All this whining about the IRS is the immaturity of
>> those who discover that they have all these bills that they have to pay
>> when they move out of their parents' house.
>Demonstrates that government officials are NOT to be trusted.
Even to command armed force???
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 2 Oct 2000 19:06:06 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:30:49 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Al Gore, however, has been much more forward-looking. Though he
>>certainly did not invent the Internet, he had been a major sponsor of
>>it in the years before it was privatized, and he even wrote a nice
>>book, "Earth in the Balance".
>Al gore's great achievement his book OF NONSENSE. forward thinking my
>ass!!! The only thing he looks forward to is spending my money.
How is his book supposed to be nonsense?
>You did however momentarily dodge the FACt that RICH ole gore got all
>his money from his dady and that he has not held a private sector job.
Describes GWBush *much* better. But I would not expect a
yellow-dog Republican to notice that.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:08:37 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Today, we live in a world where Windows occupied around 1.2 billion
> computers world wide.
> Linux occupies only 200 million or so computers world wide.
>
> Yet, despite these figures there have been a number of Wintroll idiots
> constantly jabbing
> away at Linux advocates as if they were trying to save their lives.
>
> I ask the question, once again, WHY BOTHER!
>
> If they truely are a dead species then why continually come over to
> C.O.L.A. and take
> a leak!
>
> Your not going to convince these people they need to leave and further
> your not going
> to convince me I need to leave Linux either.... Linux is the forfront
> of software evolution.
>
> I'm not going back to the cave known as windows.
>
> I'm not going to do it. To do so would be stupid.
>
> Right now we have some of the most hidious, rediculous crap going on by
> Wintrolls
> I've ever seen on the linux advocacy group.
>
> Why? If Linux will never be a global dominate operating system they why
> bother.
> In the words of the Wintroll we're all dead already.
>
> So why bother? Windows is the obviously the winner in their book and
> Linux simply
> doesn't have a chance.
>
> Why all the spam.
>
> The spam is occuring because Linux is winning and they don't like that.
> They have Microsoft stock or they've invested too much money in
> Microsoft software and it's pissing them off.
>
> Linux is the future. Microsoft is the past.
>
> And I don't care if you want to accept it or not.
> You opinion will not change the facts.
>
> http://24.94.254.33/Linux/intro.html
>
> Charlie
Just look at all these comments....
And there's nothing from anybody in this crowd which indicates why
Microsoft
will or should survive. No positive comments about Windows at all.
IT's ALL NEGATIVE TOWARDS LINUX AND THEY ARE CALLING ME
A TOTAL LIAR FOR SAYING SO...
SOME OF THEM ARE SO DAMN GOOFIE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DRIVERS
FOR WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT AS WE SPEAK....
And I rest my case....
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
