Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dc <[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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 22:53:53 -0500
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:47:26 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>@>@>@>Before I run around trying to prove
>@>@>@>things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
>@>@>@>before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules" to
>@>@>@>your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start
>@>@>@>losing.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
>@>@>@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
>@>@>@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
>@>@>@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
>@>@>@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
>@>@>
>@>@> You don't want me to prove it. OK.
>@>@
>@>@I don't? I didn't say that. Learn to read. I said you can't because
>@>@you don't have proof. You aren't capable of doing so. You may want
>@>@to do it, but it probably isn't going to happen.
>@>
>@> I told you to be specific in what you wanted me to prove, and you
>@>refused. So, no matter what I prove, you'll later saddle it with more
>@>qualifiers/exceptions, and make me prove it all over again. But as soon
>@>as you're willing to tell me what to prove, I'll be happy to prove it.
>@
>@Prove the disk issue would be solved by quotas.
>
> No. I made no statement that it would, and in fact, I argued to the
>contrary.
>-----------
>Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:12:13 -0500
>@@>@Sure. Now, do you typically have thousands of users logging into a
>@@>@single machine *locally*?
>@@>
>@@> No, just about thirty. Argument still holds, just with fewer users
>@@>and more data per user.
>@@> So, quotas don't help? Then why did you bring them up?
>@@
>@@Quotas help. Do you not understand how quotas help? What part of
>@@"quota" didn't you understand? Yes, too many profiles can overwhelm a
>@@hard drive, but that's not a likely scenario at all.
>@
>@ It seems to have happened. Yes, I understand quotas, but you implied
>@that they can solve this problem. They cannot.
>-----------
>
> When I tell you to learn to read, I'm not kidding. You have no
>reading comprehension skill at all. Dumbass.
YOU, in fact, are the 'dumbass'. You incorrectly assume that "too
many profiles have overwhelmed the hard drive" when in fact you have
no proof of that in any way, shape, or form. You have made
ASSumptions every step of the way here, and my comment was intended to
simply draw attention to that fact.
>@>@>@>@>@I haven't given contradictory information. I've given information
>@>@>@>@>@that could apply in a variety of different scenarios, and you got
>@>@>@>@>@confused.
>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@> Yes, you gave a variety of scenarios. However, when you
>@>@>@>@> presented
>@>@>@>@>them, you gave _no_ indication that they were different.
>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@Your lack of technical understanding clouds the issues.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> By "technical knowledge," do you mean "familiarity with windows,"
>@>@>@> or
>@>@>@>do you mean "ability to read my mind"? Perhaps there is another
>@>@>@>definition I did not consider. Please, elaborate.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Familiarity with Windows, NT/2k in this instance.
>@>@>
>@>@> So, it's not really a lack of technical knowledge, as you stated,
>@>@> but
>@>@>a lack of familiarity with windows. Calling me nontechnical implies
>@>@>that I am incapable of understanding, whereas I merely lack knowledge.
>@>@>That was rather dishonest of you. Now, we've established that I don't
>@>@>really lack technical understanding, merely a lack of information, how,
>@>@>exactly, would that explain how I got confused, without assuming that
>@>@>you're a poor writer?
>@>@
>@>@Spin...spin. Joe Ragosta would be so proud! (But he's off slinking,
>@>@after we handed his guts to him on a platter for his incredibly
>@>@numerous debacles and screwups.)
>@>
>@> It's not my fault you cannot write intelligently.
>@
>@I write *very* intelligently; you're spinning.
>
> See above, dumbass.
Indeed, 'dumbass'.
>[...]
>
>@>@>@Spin...spin...spin.....
>@>@>
>@>@> To think I wasted so much rational reasoning on you when I could
>@>@> have
>@>@>just called you a dumbass in the first place. Such a shame.
>@>@
>@>@Spin...spin.... by your logic, driving a car gives you serious racing
>@>@experience.
>@>
>@> Depends on how you drive it. By your logic, when you ask "Do you
>@>have any driving experience at all?" you really mean "Do you have any
>@>Indy 500 racing experience?" And, when someone who is just a regular
>@>driver says yes, he is being stupid, juvenile, and a smartass. Why do
>@>we have to read your mind?
>@
>@Sorry; administration experience isn't "Well, I hacked together one
>@computer!" experience. Not by a long shot.
>
> It was two, they were networked, I played with all the admin tools in
>NetBSD of six years ago--whatever verison that was. Ergo, I
>administered a network. Sure, it was a small network, and it was merely
>to test out some stuff. But it was administrative experience regardless
>of what you say.
> Also, your question was poorly-worded.
TWO!! Wow! Now you're an administrator! LOL....
>@>@>@>@Can't you help yourself? "Pathetic" is the term that comes to mind
>@>@>@>@when presented with a person that just gives up, and then vents in
>@>@>@>@here all of his frustrations.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> I have not. I'm going through the proper channels. The fact that
>@>@>@>you are too dumb to realize this even after multiple explanations is
>@>@>@>not
>@>@>@>my problem. Tell me, are you unable to read, or do you simply
>@>@>@>refuse?
>@>@>@
>@>@>@You're a whiner.
>@>@>
>@>@> And you're a moron. Cope.
>@>@
>@>@How am I a moron? *YOU* are the one with the problem. *YOU* are the
>@>@one that can't get it fixed. *YOU* are the one wasting time in here
>@>@complaining. Sounds like you're the moron to me.
>@>
>@> You repeat false statements again and again, you cannot write a
>@>coherent sentence to save your life, you like tossing about labels, and
>@>you lay blame indiscriminately. Then, once you have finished all that,
>@>you blame it on me. Truely astounding.
>@
>@Can you back any of that up?
>
> Yes.
No, you can't. The only thing you have seen is that the computer says
disk space is full - that's ALL you know about the problem. All else
is your guess.
>@YOU are the one with the problem on your
>@lab computer; that's pretty self-evident.
>
> Umm, no shit.
>@>@>@>@I'm tired of telling you what's wrong;
>@>@>@>@go find someone who works in the labs and tell him to help you. If
>@>@>@>@you can't, tough cookies; that's not Microsoft's fault - it's yours,
>@>@>@>@for giving up rather than getting help. If you want to attack me
>@>@>@>@for
>@>@>@>@suggesting you see the dean, more power to you, but you aren't any
>@>@>@>@closer to solving the problem. Get off your ass and fix the
>@>@>@>@problem.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> Your suggesting that I see the dean is one of your dumber comments
>@>@>@> in
>@>@>@>this forum.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Fine; see someone else who can help you. Obviously you've been
>@>@>@powerless up to this point; you really ought to figure out how to do
>@>@>@-something-.
>@>@>
>@>@> Are you familiar with the practice of "stonewalling"? Basically, an
>@>@>individual or group decides not to let someone do something, and it
>@>@>(stonewalling) happens. UNT (or this portion of it) has decided not to
>@>@>fix the problem or listen to me. Now, UNT is an institution with
>@>@>milions of dollars and thousands of employees. I'm a student living
>@>@>from paycheck to paycheck. Just what the fuck should I do? I've
>@>@>explained why the dean is not an option.
>@>@
>@>@Fine - see someone else who can help you, rather than simply giving
>@>@up.
>@>
>@> I'm sorry, did I call you a moron? Oh, wait, you earned it.
>@
>@You're the only one wearing that label.
>
> Not likely.
It seems that way; my computers work; yours don't - AND you're paying
a staff of people to maintain them, yet they don't. When you, as a
paying customer, can't get any help, you certainly *do* appear to be
the moron....
>@> I've been higher on the foodchain. At the lower levels they just
>@>kick me upstairs, and at the higher levels they don't give a fuck. I've
>@>made my rounds.
>@
>@You've spoken with everyone that can help? Next I'd suggest seeing
>@the admissions department, so you can discuss why you are there if the
>@computers there don't work.
>
> I'm working on it. I do have classes/work, you know.
And what does the teacher/prof/whatever in charge of the class say
about your problems?
>@>@>@> YOU have attacked them, reread the thread if you disagree.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Please, Bryant. Those of us actually following the thread know the
>@>@>@truth:
>@>@>@
>@>@>@On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:53:44 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@>@>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>@>@>@>@Call your desktop support staff.
>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@> ...a bunch of monkies.
>@>@>@__________
>@>@>@
>@>@>@I suggested you call them on the phone. You called them a bunch of
>@>@>@'monkies' (sic). You are attacking them, not me.
>@>@>
>@>@> Oh goody! The quote game!
>@>@>
>@>@>--------
>@>@>Message-ID:
>@>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>@>@>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:10:53 -0500
>@>@>
>@>@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
>@>@>@'shit'.
>@>@>---------
>@>@
>@>@And you agreed with me in your very next post. Obviously, you've got
>@>@some issues with your DT support team.
>@>
>@> Like I said, I merely agreed with you.
>@>
>@>Message-ID:
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>@>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:57:07 -0500
>@>
>@>@ No, I have merely agreed with you. I do not attack the lab people in
>@>@person because I know they are not responsible for the problem, and are
>@>@about as powerless as I am. Also, attacking them would only serve to
>@>@slow things down.
>@>@ YOU have attacked them, reread the thread if you disagree.
>@
>@Sorry; that's not correct. You called them a bunch of "monkies", as
>@you can clearly see above.
>
> You can check the dates, which I took the liberty of including for
>you edification.
> And hold on, you accuse me of agreeing with you, I confirm that I
>agree with you, and now you say that's not correct? Where's your brain?
You called them monkies. You can spin that however you like.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:16:56 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "STATIC66" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:34:41 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Wrong. Millions of people go to college while earning
> > >> what is considered to be "poverty level" incomes.
> > >
> > > ROTFL. Their tuition is always subsidized, however, whether by their
> > >parents or by government-backed loan guarantees. Furthermore, most
> > >college students come from middle-class or upper-class homes, meaning
> > >that they got much more in handouts from their parents than most poor
> > >kids do.
> >
> > So a parent being responsible and planning for the future of their
> > offspring rather than turning to the government with an outstretched
> > hand is somehow bad. That is not a handout its called responsibility.
>
> I believe this part started because Aaron was complaining about how
> our money is being bilked by the worthless poor who seem to have no
> reason to get off of our money (aka welfare) because it just keeps
> coming without responsibility.
>
> The argument was made that many college students (e.g. people trying
> to make something of their lives) are at or below the poverty line,
> so not all people that are poor are worthless.
>
> Aaron then rebutted that argument with the above statement.
And since I was an OUT OF STATE student at Purdue, I recieved
0% in tuition subsidies (as opposed to 66.67% tuition subsidy
for in-state students).
>
> > > Also, dealing in illegal drugs is not living off of handouts.
> >
> > NO it is criminal and illegal and if it wasn't for you bleeding heart
> > liberal types, it could be met with SWIFT PUNISHMENT..
>
> I don't believe Aaron is anything of the sort. Perhaps you misunderstood
> him? I haven't been following this particular thread, unfortunately,
> but in the past Aaron is typically very conservative. Perhaps he was
> illustrating that enterprising kids are so repressed by our socialist
> government that the only way they can see to be enterprising and make
> huge profits is by slinging?
Loren introduced this red-herring of drug-dealing from nowhere.
>
> > >
> > > Even theft is not living off of handouts; victims of theft ought to
> > >be glad that thieves are trying to provide for themselves.
> >
> > No they should arm themselves..
> >
> > Advocating theft as an alternative to welfare is hardly a responsible
> > arguement. But nothing much about liberalism is responsible..
>
> Again, I think you're reading him wrong. I think he's trying to say
> what I mentioned above...
> I think I can sum up his point by saying:
>
> "Even thieves are better than welfare recipients because thieves are
> trying to make their lives better".
Welfare IS thievery.
FREE THE WORKERS --- END WELFARE NOW!
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
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
her 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.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:08:25 GMT
In article <8rbls4$4a2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rb4ll$h19$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >>>> 3. Social Security
> > >>>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
> > >>Based on what ? Your opinion ? The opinions that count, legal
> > >>opinions of those better qualified than yourself seem to
> > >>contradict this.
> > >SOCIALISM
> >
> > Nowhere does the Constitution mention that word.
> >
> > >>>> 4. Medicare
> > >>>Unconstitutional. END IT NOW.
> > >>See above.
> > >SOCIALISM
> >
> > Nowhere does the Constitution mention that word.
>
> In both cases, it doesn't have to. I suggest you read the 10th
> Amendment. If it isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, the
> Congress has no business doing it.
Which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
But article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to, among other
things, provide for the "general Welfare of the United States," and the
power to make any laws necessary to do so.
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:10:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > > > 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've never advocated that.
> >
> > > Robinhood stole from the tax collectors and returned the money to
> > > the people.
> >
> > Law-abiding means paying taxes. What part of that do you not
> > understand?'
>
> Taxes collected for the purpose of giving the money to someone else
> are unjust, and, by the Constitution, Illegal.
The first article gives Congress the power to both collect taxes and
provide for the general welfare.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:17:07 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 03:01:04 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> STATIC66 is replying to Petrich. It's amusing to see you jumping through
> hoops to defend him. BTW, if you're not convinced that Kulkis is a
> rabid zealot, read his posts on OSs.
Now don't go putting words in my mouth! I never said Aaron wasn't a
rabid zealot! He isn't a flaming liberal either, and that's what I
gathered STATIC66 was attempting to claim.
> >I believe this part started because Aaron was complaining about how
> >our money is being bilked by the worthless poor who seem to have no
> >reason to get off of our money (aka welfare) because it just keeps
> >coming without responsibility.
>
> This is, simply put, a lie. Welfare is *not* a viable career, because you
> cannot collect welfare checks forever. I don't understand why the
> rightists keep lying about this, especially since I've corrected them
> several times.
There are welfare recipients who have been collecting checks for years.
They increase their income, some of which are:
- having more children
- pulling food stamp scams for more cash to gamble with
- feigning disability to collect disability on top of their welfare
- selling drugs or other illegal products
A member of my family is a bankruptcy/collections lawyer. He defends
and prosecutes people and companies with collection or bankruptcy
difficulties.
Many of the people he serves as plaintiff against for the various
small businesses around town are the lowest of the low life dredges
of society (almost all on welfare or pulling some type of paycheck
from the government).
There have been several cases where, upon investigation of some
of these people, he had to call child protective services because
they were neglecting the needs of their children to buy luxury
items, feed and pamper their pedigree dogs (this is a common one,
can you believe it?), or make payments on their new automobile or
additions/upgrades for an existing automobile.
Several children had health problems that were not being taken
care of because the parents couldn't afford health care because
all their money was going to drugs, their car, their dogs, or
luxury items like watches, stereos, televisions, etc.
Make no bones, these people had been on welfare almost their
whole life and had figured out ways to keep the checks coming
and would sometimes purposely wound themselves in minor ways
to scam a disability check. These people are lower than
criminals.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
