Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Colin R.
Day")
IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390 (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Double standard? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Double standard? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Double standard? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Gary Hallock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:11:20 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> Hey, that's interesting. A new point of view to me. Does the document
> explicitly state that it's just affirming existing rights or is this a
> matter of interpretation?
>
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:23:33 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390
IBM announced today the zSeries S/390 servers and support for
64-bit Linux based on the 2.4 kernel.
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/900.html
http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around
general
> > purpose OS out there today.
>
> and the most expensive
Haven't priced Solaris lately, have you?
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:26:26 -0400
Mike wrote:
> Netzero makes a linux client
Interesting, as a search with "Linux" at Netzero's site produced 0 matches.
Also, Netzero claims to only support Windows, with Mac support to come
later.
www.netzero.net
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:31:07 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> I did. It's just crap. Retrodictions have zero scientific value.
> >
> >Then neither do predictions.
>
> Predicting what you don't know is the single most important measure of
> science's value.
Wrong. Science's most important, in fact *only*, measure of value is
explanatory power. The value of prediction lies only in the fact that
many humans don't recognize bullshit when they see it and fool themselves
into accepting theories with little or no explanatory power. IOW, the
value of prediction derives entirely from the value of explanation!
> >You're just giving more proof that you're a total idiot talking out of his ass.
> >Guessing the equation that gives rise to a massless spin two boson (the
> >graviton)
> >is *impossible*. You have a bigger chance winning the lottery ten times in a
> >row.
>
> All other theories that didn't match that equation would simply have been
> discarded.
Wrong. Because it's impossible to easily verify that massless spin two
bosons arise from a given equation. You just have *no* idea how complicated
superstrings is, do you? It's so fucking complex that they have to invent
the math as they go along!
And it was later found that ALL the internally self-consistent superstring
theories predict gravity and they /have/ to in order to be self-consistent!
> It's a verification of the theory, which sure is handy. However,
> there are probably an infinite number of theories that "predict" the same
> equation.
Idiot. There are only 6 such theories and they were all found to be dual
to each other!
> >Give it up, you don't know the first thing about philosophy of science.
>
> Well, I have the university courses that say I do. So I will not.
The horror! What is university coming to?!
> >Human cells in a body get replaced with other human cells with the same
> >DNA and the same chemical signals. You're such a stupid witless moron.
> >Are you specifically turning off your brain for this discussion? I'd
> >hate to think you were this much of an arrogant idiot all the time.
>
> If you mean all cells, you are just wrong. Neurons are not naturally replaced,
> and if you replaced all neurons, by, for example, a brain translpant (from a
> clone if you want), I would venture that the continuity as perceived by the
> original (now discarded) brain would be lost.
And if I "replaced" the management in a company by firing every single
manager (upper, middle AND lower), shot them all, and then brought in
a completely different management from some other company, then I would
not expect any continuity either. I don't know if you're an idiot for
rhetorical purposes or you're just an idiot, but your expecting any
continuity after, say, you fire all the employees in a corporation is
ludicrous.
If you replaced neurons in the brain one at a time, letting the new
ones reattach according to their neighbours, then there would be
continuity. The same thing with replacing employees one at a time.
> Ask the body. He will tell you there was discontinuity. Examine the memory of
> the human, you will have discontinuity. So, there is discontinuity.
Wrong, witless moron. Ask anyone who doesn't communicate with the new
brain and they will tell you that it IS the SAME body; same scars, same
characteristics, everything visible stayed the same.
> Proving that a specific being possesses thought is possible? Care to give me an
> example of a similar proof performed in the past?
It begins with a formal definition of thought.
> >It does indeed contain information, just no information that is *new*.
> >But why the fuck should it?
>
> Because a definition that adds no information is not quite useful.
The formal definition of "two" does not add any information for
most people, I would hope.
> >> >This is complete nonsense. You might get away with it for loose and
> >> >fuzzy (ie, informal) human thinking but not here and now.
> >>
> >> Are you engaging in formal human thinking or informal inhuman thinking?
> >
> >Both or either, as it suits me. Your inability to be think rigorously
> >on the subject doesn't place any constraints on me in that respect.
>
> By definition, you can't engage on inhuman thinking. You need to brush your
> logic.
Since you are speaking informally, I assumed what you said wasn't a
False Dichotomy and interpolated accordingly. The error in logic is
yours, the error in judgement is mine (most definitely mine for
continuing this discussion despite the certain knowledge that you
are an arrogant ignoramus and have nothing to contribute).
> >> >Your claim that "we refuse to not define any [words]"
> >> >is utter bullshit. Most humans are utterly incapable
> >> >of rigorous definitions and "informal" ones don't count.
> >>
> >> Says who? Even though most men can't define words, they all expect the
> >> definitions to exist.
> >
> >No, they don't. Most people are incapable of creating formal
> >definitions and don't know what a rigorous definition is.
>
> Read what I wrote.
Informal definitions *don't* count. And what most men expect
doesn't count either. Most men expect blacks to be stupid. Does
it then matter to this discussion whether or not a particular
black person is stupid?
> >Talking out of your ass again. In fact, the colour blue *cannot* be
> >precisely defined in electromagnetic terms. Sensory perceptions do
> >not have precise analogues in the physical realm. There is no linear
> >transformation between the physical colour map and the perceptual
> >colour map.
>
> Explain that to Pantone corp.
Explain that to a psychologist specializing in the visual system.
> >But it is not so reducible anymore than a car can be reduced to an
> >incoherent mass of atoms or to properties of those atoms. There's a
> >reason why Complex Systems is an entirely separate field in physics.
>
> There is a huge difference in complexity.
There is a huge differentce in the essential nature of the field!
> >I already did. If you want a detailed anatomy of corporate thought
> >then provide me with rigorous definitions of thought and corporation.
>
> You are the one saying "corporations are psycopaths". After a lot of work, we
> reached a point where we seem to agree that for this to be true, corps would
> need a sort of thought. So, proving the corporations think is part of proving
> that they are psycopath. Go ahead.
I would if I had to, but I don't. I need only provide a prima facie case
for it since everyone acts on the belief that corporations think, even you.
I am very aware of what is and what is not my responsibility in any argument.
The ball's in your court.
> >No, it can't. Cells alone do not behave in the same way as cells in aggregate.
>
> You are creating a false dichotomy. Man is man and its circunstance, as Ortega
> y Gasset said.
Great, you're being inconsistent again.
Here you say that circumstances are integral to a person, and elsewhere you
claim that changing the circumstances does not change the person!
And *I'm* not the one who's creating the dichotomy, *you* are. I'm only
separating one set of circumstances (say, being an employee) from another
set (say, being a human being).
> >That's because you're a cretin. Corporations *obviously* think in a manner
> >*MUCH* different from the humans within. This is so obvious that I'm in the
> >position of explaining the difference between grey and mauve.
>
> Yawn. Saying that I am wrong doesn't prove shit. Of course, you seem to believe
> that because men outside of corps would act different, that somehow means their
> actions within the corp are not theirs. That is so stupid, it defies
> comprehension.
Corporations are not created by the people who work within them and these
people are not responsible for the existence of corporations, nor even for
their own working in such inhuman conditions. Starving is not a choice, and
the choice of one corporation over another is not a choice either.
> >Wrong again, cretin. Management is not the sole source of corporate
> >decision-making. Every salesman performs decision-making. If a corporation
> >is reduced to automatic reactions then that is analogous to a comatose
> >patient and only reinforces the analogy.
>
> Read carefully. You said a corp trascends. The corp can become non-trascending.
> That would make it not a corp according to your definition.
Transcendance doesn't mean that you are greater in all ways. Corporations
transcend human beings from the mere fact that they are immortal while
humans are not. Multi-presence is neat too. Just because a corporation
is idiotic doesn't mean it fails to transcend.
> >If you want a proof so formal and rigorous that even an imbecile can't
> >dispute it, then produce formal and rigorous definitions of corporation
> >and thought.
>
> Sorry, life's too short.
Just as well, I'm certain the imbecile in question would still find a way
to dispute the formal proof.
> >And as usual, you are being selective and inconsistent. Just how complex
> >do you think a biological organism needs to be to say it possesses will?
>
> Quite a bit. I have no defined threshold in mind.
Which means that you have no argument with my defining a threshold, right?
> >A paramecium is complex enough. A bacterium is complex enough. In fact,
> >anything self-replicating can be viewed as possessing will. If you have
> >a better definition, then produce it, otherwise I can just append "that
> >is more complex that X" to my definition of being and tell you to shut
> >the hell up.
>
> Well, if you agree that complexity is a requirement, you should add it to your
> definition. I believe I have shown that a 4 line program possesses will
> according to your original definition, so that would mean that definition is
> overinclusive, as you asked me to show.
I choose to define the threshold of complexity at "damned low" and I choose
to regard self-replicating RNA molecules to have will.
> Now, improve it.
If you have a problem with my definition then *YOU* improve it!
> ><rolleyes> If every being in the world were corporations then there
> >would still be plenty of entities left over that are NOT beings and
> >thus NOT corporations!
>
> So what? Those beings, according to definitions you have given, have no value
ENTITIES!
> system, thus there is no value system outside of corporation's, thus that value
> system is still universal.
It's not universal to every entity! The laws of physics are universal to
every entity on the level of abstraction of fundamental physics in our
reality.
> >Corporations do not like children for the exact same reason and in
> >the exact same way that psychopaths don't like children!
>
> No. Corporations don't like children because corporations have an intrinsic
> inability to like.
Corporations like tax breaks, legal loopholes, money, property, power and
many other things just fine. Corporations have definite preferences and
thus the ability to like or dislike things.
> It's art of the corporate nature. Psychopaths, on the other
> hand, had that capability and lost it.
Still talking about psychopaths after it's been shown you know
nothing on the subject? Imbecile!
Psychopaths have preferences and likes and dislikes. If they didn't
then they would not seek power (since power is the ability to impose
one's preferences on others).
> They are human, but flawed. Corporations
> are not humans, and not flawed in the same way.
They are so flawed, you're just going to great lengths to avoid passing
a negative judgement on your friend Mr. Corporation.
> >Then cells have separate existence! So do free neutrons, numbskull. I didn't
> >believe anyone was stupid enough to think that cells can't exist on their own!
>
> Well, then why do you <rolleyes> when I say so?
And where have you said so?
> Looks like you are pretty
> stupid to disagree with something you agree.
> >> >You're trying to mess up the analogy by applying it selectively.
> >>
> >> You claim the analogy to be an abstraction. If it were a good one, it would
> >> resist it.
> >
> >It does but the sheer mass of your idiocy overwhelms it.
>
> If a single "idiot" can poke a dozen holes in it, it must be a pretty crappy
> one.
*Hallucinating* holes is not the same thing as actually showing they exist.
> >> In that case, I would agree that what you do is abstraction. Since there are
> >> obvious places where the analogy breaks down, the analogy is not a valid
> >> abstraction.
> >
> >In fact, it *doesn't* break down.
>
> Except in continuity after replacement of components, and all the other things
> you claim to be irrelevant?
Not even then, nitwit.
> >> He can buy or not buy the corporation's products. He can buy or not buy stock
> >> of the corporation. Both things are corporate decision-making, and he needs not
> >> be part of the corporation to do so.
> >
> >These things are ------******* N O T *******------ corporate decision-making!!!
>
> Define, and show why, if you please.
Define thought and corporation, from which corporate decision-making will
follow!
> By buying a certain product, he increases the product's popularity. That,
> therefore, affects the way a corporation allocates resources. He is, by buying,
> changing the way the corporation behaves. I'd say that means he is making a
> decision for the corporation (a very small one, though).
No, he's not. By calling responding to your idiotic articles, I am changing
the way you behave. Am I then making your decisions for you?
> >Your typical janitor *cannot* run the corporation anymore than
> >your typical cell can become a blastocyte.
>
> I disagree. I have seen ex-janitors become management.
And this is TYPICAL?
And it doesn't matter since some human cells can become other cells, just
like some janitors can become managers. If you have any argument at all,
it's about the degree of interchangeability. In both cases, things are
generally NOT interchangeable.
> >And you think putting a janitor in the engineering department is
> >sufficient to turn him into an engineer, no matter how incompetent?
>
> The janitor can be trained to do the job. You can't train a cell.
Sure you can, it's been done any number of times. But I forget: you
know absolutely nothing about biology but feel free to pronounce yourself
about it.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:29:55 +0000
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> Peter van der Linden wrote:
> >
> > James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >You haven't mentioned the main reason I stopped arguing - Mr. Revusky is
> > >tiresome. He has one mode (non listening attack), and I got real tired
> > >of that real fast.
> >
> > It is pretty clear to most people that the real reason you
> > won't debate the matter is that you do not have the intellectual
> > depth behind your "gut feelings".
>
> Hmm - yet another brilliant response. I can add you to my personal list
> of tiresome people.
Yeah, I hear ya. People who say what they think honestly and
forthrightly really can be tiresome, can't they?
Jonathan Revusky
>
> --
> James A. Robertson
> Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: George Richard Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:41:31 +0100
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> > Ok, how about create a virtual file system housed inside the shell browser
Hmm, KDE's IOSlaves would do this, I believe. Witness the tar.gz file
browser component for konqueror.
> > as a plug-in? How about Shell extension contexts?
?
>> How about Embedding HTML
> > into the desktop (including Java applets)? How about shell namespace
Konqueror can do this - want JS clock etc on desktop, whatever.
> > extensions that allow you to create things like the printers or dialup
> > networking folders (Obviously, using the Linux equivelants of these)? How
To create them? no.
To use them? Hell yes.
Add icons that do for example, lpr %f or ifup-ppp0
To have GUI lpq, use the klpq program.
> > about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
Right click, add URL. Does ftp too. Likely also smb, nfs, news, mail....
KDE is quite nice.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:39:35 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Did you get complaints about krn being a pig ? ( I certainly complained
> about it in the privacy of my own home ... ;-) If the users complained to
> you about that, I fear to even comtemplate what they might do to someone
> who subjected them to an operating system written in SmallTalk.
Ooooh, a *whole* two times slower than C++.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:33:52 GMT
In article <8rddep$hfdqe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >kde advanced text editor vs notepad & wordpad, huge edge for linux
>
> Personally I use GEDIT (the gnome equivalent) but do use kde as window
> manager.
Interesting. On the occasions that I work in the linux gui, I use gnome
for my window manager and kedit or my own perledit for the gui notepad.
Actually, the majority of the time, I just open up another shell and use
vi. I have yet to find a gui dropdown list that works as well as :45 to
get to a problemmatic line of code.
Of KDE, I just have enough libraries to support a few utilities like
kppp or the text editors. Maybe it's time again to take a look at the
rest of the package.
WRT the gnu tools for win32... Even holding aside the inferior shell in
win32, I have yet to find one of the biggies ( gcc, apache, et al ) on
win32 that works as well as its linux counterpart. otoh, I've run a few
of the gnu tools in beos, and the ones that don't require sockets seem
to work quite well.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: George Richard Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:46:07 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > That indeed would be very nice. I do not have sufficient knowledge
> > of konqueror or kfm to know whether either one them support root
> > window drawing or a widget API, though one could always break out
> > the source code.
>
> Not something that can just be installed though.
Open and position window, set to always be underneath and turn off its
decorations. Make it sticky if using virtual desktops. Voila.
Repeat to taste.
> > >How about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
> >
> > CGI or PHP. Assuming the "shell" is in fact a browser, admittedly.
>
> Not the same thing. This would be equivelant to a soft link which links to
> an HTTP link.
The .desktop file standard, implemented in KDE 2 and GNOME.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:43:42 GMT
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:26:41 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
Not sure about the other stuff, as I don't use "desktops" much, and
most of the stuff you name is really programmer API's rather
thanend-user features. However, I do know that KDE 1.x can certainly
have http "shortcuts". They can be any legal URL, afaik, not just
http.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:44:22 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>
> I agree, and I also must add that the original claim is far too vague
> to be provable anyway. How, precisely, does Linux Beat W2K?
> (Or vice versa?)
>
> There are a large number of metrics. Some of the ones I can
> think of are reproduced below.
The original thread is long gone, but my post was in response to someone
posting the Mindcraft results as proof that W2K beats Linux. I did include
the latest spec results in another post, which Drestin did not seem to see.
That's what you get for waiting so long to respond.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:49:00 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> So what? The actions of a person can last longer than the person himself.
> If I kill a person, he will stay dead after I am dead, and his death will still
> be my action.
It's the *corporation* that decided to use the automated stock trading
system, NOT the bozo who created the system, nor the bozo who installed
it, nor the bozo who's maintaining it!
If you manufacture a fridge then sell it to me and install it in my home,
are *you* the one that's refrigerating my food for me??
> >You're a fucking moron. Those "someones" are not part of the corporation
> >(they may not even exist anymore) but the robot is!
>
> So, the robot is welding because it's his will to weld, you say. Excuse me
> while I snort.
The robot is an extension of the corporation and it welds because it is
the corporation's will.
> >Not reducible *at all*! Not anymore than evolutionary theory is
> >reducible to physics.
>
> Indeed it is. Specifically to random mutations, probably caused by replication
> errors, in occasion caused by radiation.
<sigh> Learn something about the philosophy of science some day.
> >And if the hammer falls down on a nail without your knowledge
> >then are you still hammering it because you left it in a position
> >such that it might fall?
>
> Let's put it this way: if you put your mother's vase in the edge of the table,
> and it crashes, is it your action of the floor's?
And if someone opened a window that let in the gust of wind that
caused it to crash, then is it still my action that caused it to
fall?
Stock trading systems exist because it is the corporation's will.
If the corporation did not will it, then there would be no such
system. OTOH, if some programmer won't devolop that system, then
a thousand others will.
This is the exact same reason why being forced to kill someone
because at gunpoint is not considered murder; because the victim
would still be dead and you'd probably be dead on top of it.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:38:39 +0000
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> Peter van der Linden wrote:
> >
> > James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I came to the conclusion that I was wrong after watching the amount of
> > >harrassment that people like pvdl were willing to heap on JTK after
> > >figuring out who he is.
> >
> > I don't expect anything much from you James, but I do somewhat resent
> > you misrepresenting the situation in this way.
> >
> > Do you think that somehow Gary Van Sickle had an unlimited right to
> > make libellous accusations from his anonymous account? Due to
> > ineptitude on Van Sickle's part, he actually was including his employer's
> > IP address on every posting.
> >
>
> Nope. I state that you going after him at his place of work is uncalled
> for. There are procedures for harrassment cases; they involve civil
> courts.
James, have you actually ever been sued by anybody? It certainly doesn't
seem like it.
You see, the first step in suing somebody is that they have to have been
"served" with the summons or write or whatever it's called. So that it
stands on the record that they received notice that they were being
sued. Now, usually, some officer of the court tries to get your
attention and toss the papers in your face so that he can say that
you've been "served".
At any rate, you can be "served" anywhere at any time, when you're
walking down the street or at your home, but a very likely place for you
to be "served" is at your place of work.
So, isn't all of your blather about "going after him at his place of
work" just that? A bunch of blather? I mean, you're saying, on the one
hand, that it is wrong to go after a guy at his place of work.
Meanwhile, the remedy you suggest, a civil court case, in its initial
steps, very likely involves finding a guy at his place of work and
serving him with the writ.
It's like one of these cases where you see a guy's lips moving and you
hear him uttering some verbiage, but there seems to be a total
disconnect between that and anything that you would describe as a mental
process...
Jonathan Revusky
>
> Either:
>
> (a) You believe that he's been libellous and should be taken to court
> (b) you're a gutless wonder who tosses accusations, harrasses people at
> their place of work, but has no stomach for the actual proper channels
>
> Looks a lot like (b) so far.
>
> > Van Sickle also pretended to be black to evade a charge of racism, while
> > accusing other people of drunkenness, drug-taking, being racists, etc.
> >
>
> So what? Are you going to drag yourself down to the level you accuse
> him of by being a harrassing person, or are you going to attempt to
> handle it correctly (i.e., the courts). If you don't think you have a
> legal case of libel, then why are you shouting so loudly?
>
> > I think it is a pretty mild response to first complain to the ISP,
> > and when that had no response, to ask the owner of the systems that
> > Van Sickle was posting from (i.e. Braemar Inc, of Minnesota), if he
> > was acting in accordance with their policies.
> >
>
> Pretty fair bit of harrassment, actually.
>
> > Since then all the harassment has been from people like you and
> > Simon Cooke defending the indefensible. Cooke even posted my home
> > address and phone number in an attempt to harass me.
>
> I haven't done any such thing; it's not proper. On the other hand, you
> haven't had the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. Either
> develop a court case or go lie down until the bad thoughts go away.
> Either way, stop bothering the whole group with it. At worst, Gary is a
> harmless idiot.
>
> --
> James A. Robertson
> Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
