Linux-Advocacy Digest #501, Volume #29 Sat, 7 Oct 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:54:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Then you're a benign tumour cell.
>>
>> In what ways is my behaviour akin to a tumour? Am I soaking resources through
>> the analog of vascularization?
>
>The corporate money supply?
>
>You're a tumour because your behaviour is unchecked.
As someone who knows a bit about tumors, that is a pretty week basis for
an analogy.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:57:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>You're a post-modernist imbecile.
>
>>>Hehe. That's funny. It's the same guy who tried to argue that
>>>there's an absolute standard for beauty and elegance, remember?
>
>>No, I don't remember ever arguing such a thing. Or were you referring
>>to Richard, who my comment was directed at.
>
>Well yeah, "this guy" refers to Richard and "remember?" was
>mostly a question towards you.
Well, I missed that part. I always presume that when someone is posting
such ridiculous stuff as Richard, they must be doing so for the first
time. Though, frankly, this is the third time I've gone around with
him. He really is kind of precious, in an outrageously obnoxious kind
of way, eh? <Chuckle>
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:59:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Usually called "internal" vs "external" consistency. The first is also
>> >called "self"-consistency. It's not like this terminology is hard to
>> >figure out, is there some reason why you eschew it?
>>
>> I don't; I just didn't think to use it in this context. I don't think
>> that calling it 'internal' or 'external' consistency is a sufficiently
>> clear concept to make it the optimal response.
>
>And you claim to know how philosophical terms are defined ??
No; I claim to know how standard terms are defined, how legal terms are
defined, how technical terms are defined, and how my own conceptual
terms are defined. I haven't explored elsewhere. I presume that
*modern* philosophical terms are defined 'formalistically', but that
doesn't answer the question. Feel free to explain, patiently and
graciously, if you're able.
--
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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 02:06:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> You do realize that by so editing a newsgroup, you take on the role, and
>> thus the legal responsibility and liability of a newspaper owner, don't
>> you? Sure, you have a right to deny anyone the ability to have
>> something printed in your forum; you also take on the responsibility for
>> libel and slander of anyone else who you do allow to post.
>
>Wrong again Max
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
>
>One of these days you'll get a fact right. By providing a message board you
>are recognized as a common carrier not a newpaper owner (In the U.S.)
>Even when you edit and delete portions of said forum, you are still
>considered a common carrier.
>IT IS A MAIN REASON such forums can exist.
The forums existed before the law you cite did, you silly boy.
>You should look these things up before you post lies.
It also happens to be the main reason such forums are not moderated by
those who 'own' them. You'll note that though providing a message board
makes you a common carrier, ISPs themselves are not considered common
carriers, as pointed out in the recent AOL decision.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001002/pl/scotus_aol_1.html
Your decision to edit and delete is, again, only accessible to you so
long as I don't claim that it is not a fair policy. Since you'd be hard
pressed to prevent all the people who actually post far more 'offensive
and harassing' things then I do, it doesn't seem like you'd have much of
a case. This presumes, of course, whether I'd care, because whether you
delete my posts from your server has nothing or very little to do with
whether they show up on every other server.
--
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: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:05:23 +0900
In article <8rgqs7$o53$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ret4q$9cp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8re8kn$cjv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I think a lot would depend on how they did it. Remember that the rules
>> are different when you have a monopoly. Linux distros offer a lot of
>> free software that you could easily download (for free) if it wasn't
>> included on the cd. Because there is real competition between the linux
>> distros,
>
> Quite a few of the distros aren't commercial competitors.
Thanks for nit-picking, but whatever do you mean? Are you refering to
Debian? Or are you claiming that Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, et al. don't
actually compete?
Can I assume from your almost meaningless response that you agree with the
rest of the paragraph?
>
>> some will also make deals to offer proprietary software. You would get
>> laughed out of court if you tried to sue red had for forcing you to pay
>> for a bundled mozilla and netscape when you only use lynx. You can
>
> Would you? The problem with litigation is the precident it sets. What
> you have used against your enemy can be turned on you at a later date.
It can't set a precedent if it gets laughed out of court. Oh, you are
trying to claim that MS's competitors should not have helped the DOJ,
because maybe one day the DOJ will come after them.
Even if I believed that, what has that got to do with the willingness of a
court to listen to a case involving the "bundling" of third party free (as
in GPL) software? Exactly zero, far as I can tell.
>> download the whole thing for free anyhow, or easily switch to caldera,
>> corel, slackware, etc.
>
> It isn't quite so easy, unless you enjoy reinstalling your operating
> system.
Isn't reinstalling the os one of Micro~1's favorite trouble-shooting
techniques? And a major source of income for the company?
Maybe you are unaware of this, but switching from one linux distro to
another is simple - much easier than switching from Windows to Linux or
Mac. It may even be easier than switching from Win98 to WinNT. Unlike
Windows, Linux usually has (or should have) /home on a separate partition.
No problem at all. Unless you really f**ck things up, you won't even have
to touch your backups.
>>
>> Anyone who actually paid attention to the court documents in the MS
>> anti-trust case can tell you that MS did not get in trouble for
>> including IE with windows. Rather, it was because of the lengths to
>> which they went to get everyone using IE instead of Netscape. If all
>> they wanted to do was improve windows, why not take the WinME approach
>> - make IE available as a free download, and include it with some bug
>> fixes in the next release of
>
> Perhaps they didn't see the need in making everyone download it? Other
> OS providers bundle web browsers. Including at least one that is
> written by them (Sun).
Perhaps you didn't read the findings of fact? The others are not
monopolists who are abusing their monopoly to get their browser on
everyone's machine for the express purpose of countering a threat to their
monopoly.
>> windows? Instead, they spent millions of dollars to get everyone and
>> their brothers to use IE _now_. Where is the economic sense in that? It
>> was about protecting the applications barrier to entry, plain and
>> simple.
>
> How so? IE is an open framework that is available to be used by any
> programmer.
Please don't waste your time and my time - if you haven't read the
findings of fact from the anti-trust trial, go read them.
The answer to your question - and this is in the FoF - is that Netscape
Navigator threatened MS's desktop os monopoly by exposing non-Windows
API's that programmers could use to write programs that would then be
less dependent on the underlying os. They threatened to make the os less
important. Remember, Navigator runs on far more platforms than Windows or
IE does.
(personal opinion)Nothing controlled by MS is open - more acurately, it is
only open for as long as it is in MS's best interests for it to be open.
This is true for most companies, but MS is by far the worst offender that
a typical user will deal with.(/personal opinion).
BTW, are you saying that a Linux programmer could use IE's "open
framework" to write programs from Linux (say Red Hat for example)?
>>
>> With the market share that MS windows has, and the corresponding lack
>> of competition, they have no incentive to include any software that
>> they don't absolutely have to. (Also, my not including any extra
>> software with
>
> If the had this level of market share, they could raise prices. They
> haven't.
I have no data one way of the other. But, are you trying to say that they
aren't a monopoly if they don't raise prices? Do you see that that makes
no sense? Higher prices are one way that a monopoly might be abused. IE
and MS Office are other ways.
>> windows proper, MS gives the OEMs a way to distinguish themselves from
>> each other).
>>
>> And, with the market share that they have, almost any program they
>> include
>
> A more accurate phrase would be "with the enemies they have".
What enemies? Don't you mean competitors? I always thought MS didn't
understand the difference between the two. Paranoid f**ckers, aren't
they? If life is so rough, and their competitors are such meanies, why if
it that MS has the bad reputation?
Why is it that some winvocates claim that everything bad that happens to
MS is the result of jealous competitors, but when a competitor goes out
of business or loses to MS, it is because they were stupid and
un-innovative?
>> in windows is going to open them up to possible litigation. Adding
>> winzip wouldn't be to controversial, perhaps, but who believes that the
>> sudden interest in WiMP is actually motivated by a sincere desire to
>> help their
>
> Windows Media Player has been around for quite some time.
Please let me know if english isn't your native language. Otherwise, take
a good look at what I said - "sudden interest in WiMP". I never said it
was new. It has been around a while. And it has been a POS for a long
time as well. No one I know ever even thought about using it before 7.0
beta. Yet, suddenly, it is the killer app for WinME. But at least this
time they aren't spending millions of dollars to force the whole world to
put it on their computers. Wonder why they only did that for IE?
--
Osugi Sakae
a free man
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:28:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I am probably more left-wing than any major political organization in the US,
>but anyway: A property is not mine if I can't sell it.
A minor point; I would say a property is not yours if you can't
capitalize on owning it. Whether you can liquidate what you own does
not determine whether you own it.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:50:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> Vulcans do have values. They apply logic to act according to those values. At
>> >> least, that's as much as I gather.
>> >
>> >Psychopaths have values as well. Unless you're using the word 'values'
>> >in some kind of fuzzy enobling sense.
>>
>> Let's say "good values". They also have empathy, because, what else is a mental
>> meld?
>
>It's *not* empathy. And even if it were, all it would mean is that Vulcans
>aren't psychopathic *towards their meld partner* for the duration of the meld.
No, it causes empathy afterwards, too. Haven't you ever seen the
episode with the Hoorta (the silicon beast)? Nemoy was actually quite
good at recognizing the importance, from an emotional aspect, of the
mind meld. The point is, the vulcans had empathy; they merely
suppressed it, along with all other 'emotions', in 'conquering' their
'war-like' nature. This was the lesson of the Vulcans, which I've
pointed out before you seem be to unaware of. You were obviously
confused by the affinity that Spock had for computers, and assumed that
Vulcan minds were supposed to be superior, rather than merely different.
>> >> > Psychopaths behave only based on logic as well.
>> >>
>> >> If they did, they wouldn't ever kill people. After all, I don't think they want
>> >> to die in the chair, which is one of the logical outcomes of such actions.
>> >
>> >This is probably why most psychopaths never kill people.
>>
>> Then, the "only" you gave was not really right, was it?
>
>Killing someone is a perfectly logical thing to do if you feel
>absolutely nothing for them, don't care how they feel (lack
>empathy), they annoy you, and you don't expect to be caught.
This is incorrect. Its messy and a downright inconvenience, and is
generally executed by people with emotional reasons. As you mentioned,
most psychopaths don't kill people. I presume you'd believe its because
they don't expect to be caught, but I'd wager it is merely the arrogant
psychopaths who believe they're simply 'too smart' to get caught (quite
the same way you believe you are 'too smart' to be recognized as posting
general gibberish and loose association in place of valid discussion and
considered argument.)
>> >> I gave you one, but I'll give you another: anything that can breed with a human
>> >> is a human, anything that can breed with something that can breed with a human
>> >> is a human, and I am human.
>> >
>> >Neanderthals could not breed with humans and yet you claimed that
>> >they were human.
>>
>> I didn't claim exactly that. And whether they could or could not breed is to be
>> proven.
>
>Riiiiight. That they could interbreed with humans "merely" contradicts
>everything biologists know about speciation. So of course, it's "to be
>proven".
You seem to be misinformed about what biologists (or, more properly,
archaeologists) currently speculate about Neanderthals. Whether they
are properly a separate species, in the way you indicate, is entirely
conjecture, and not very well founded conjecture, at that.
>> Besides, I have said that given the example of another thinking
>> species, I might have to change the definition of human. What I gave was the
>> definition as of Oct. 6, 2000.
>
>How very convenient for you, this way you can set yourself up as an oracle
>and change definitions pretty much whenever it suits you.
No, but he can recognize that his definition might change, as that's the
rational approach. Are you advocating something different than what is
rational?
>> >Employees *AS A GROUP* cannot get bank loans sufficient to buy a corporation.
>>
>> Maybe they could. What is really wrong is that you say that since they can't,
>> it's because "[banks] won't deal with cooperatives". Banks deal with
>> cooperatives all the time, and loan them money.
>
>Which must be why (already established) cooperatives have such hard
>access to capital despite much higher success, growth and return rates.
>This makes *perfect* sense.
What makes perfect sense is your penchant for the rhetorical form of
sarcasm, which you over-use to a fault. Your attempts generally manage
to result in quite severe modification and extension of anything the
original author you're responding to says, but that subtlety seems to
escape you. So far, your presumption that cooperatives find access to
bank capital harder to obtain than corporations is entirely novel and
unsupported. You should substantiate your argument before presuming it
as a given in ridiculing others' positions.
>> >That *was* the context of my statement, was it not?
>>
>> It was one possible context. "employees can't get loans"can mean they can't as
>> a group or as individuals. No big deal, it's clear now.
>
>I was talking about cooperatives and why it's so difficult to form them.
>If you think that getting a loan as an individual is *at all* relevant
>to this then you need to get your head examined.
Or perhaps you need to back of the hyperbole.
>> >> Then it's not quite "their stock", is it?
>> >
>> >Oh, so you're one of THOSE people. Do you also believe that if you can't
>> >dump toxic waste on your land then it's not "your land" and that if you can't
>> >sell your organs away then it's not "your body"? Fucking right-wingers.
>>
>> I am probably more left-wing than any major political organization in the US,
>> but anyway: A property is not mine if I can't sell it.
>
>And who is it that brought up the question of property? Have you never
>heard of *possessions*?
>
>Since both of the USA's major political parties are right-wing, and you
>only claim to *probably* be more left-wing than them, are you or are you
>not a right-wing extremist?
>From the global acquaintances I've managed to garner over the past few
years of international Usenet participation, I've noticed that just
about any foreigners are generally far more to the left, in fact
bordering on or gleefully embracing the concept of socialism, much more
than any native USAn might believe credible. My two recent trips
outside the country in the last two years, one to South America, and one
to England, confirmed this impression.
>> Because stock that you can't sell is worth less than stock that you can sell.
>> Thus you need more than one share sold to an employee to buy one non-employee
>> share.
>
>Not until the employee liquidates the stock, which can only happen
>when the employee quits, is fired or retires.
That would make the stock pretty much useless as capital, wouldn't it?
If you force the employee to invest their capital in the cooperative,
what reason is there for him not to quit as soon as the capital needs to
be or can profitably be liquidated?
>> >Owning stock in a cooperative isn't an option, it's an obligation.
>>
>> And it makes no difference to the argument.
>
>Of course it does. If you have to buy the stock for 10$ and it
>*would* sell for only 9$ as non-transferrable, this doesn't mean
>that you can't still charge the employees 10$ for it.
Try forty nine cents, non-transferable. Stock you can't liquidate is
not stock.
>The company
>has until the employees retire to make up the difference in value
>instead of having to absorb the difference at cooperative formation.
>And as long as you hire replacements for the employyes that retire,
>you never have to make up the difference.
You've idealized the idea of this kind of stock-holding organization,
but I'm curious if you're basing these concepts on anything concrete.
Are these standardized arrangements that you're speaking of? Where
might I find a reference to this type of company organization?
>> "The incompleteness theorem doesn't mean what people
>> think it means. All it means is that the formalists (people
>> like me) were right all along and that concepts without
>> any sensible formal definition (like "truth") *do* mess up
>> everything. Other than that, the thoerem is a trivial statement about the
>> resolution of infinite problem domains using finite axiomatic sets."
>>
>> So, you reduce the Goedel theorem to silliness and a trivial statement.
>
>The philosophical implications of Godel's theorem are not "silly".
Excuse me, you're obviously quibbling about rhetoric. YOU are the one
that *said* Godel's theorem's were 'trivial', and presented the
implications of them as silly, in reducing them to that by your
posturing concerning the supposedly ingenuous theories of who you'd
regard as 'cretins', having mistaken that word for an entirely different
concept.
>> Specially since there is nothing in Goedel about concepts without sensible
>
>There doesn't need to be. Godel's incompleteness theorem is a
>counter-example to other people's silliness.
That statement fails to have an decipherable meaning.
>> formal definitions. There can't be, AFAIK there is no symbol for "things that
>> are not properly defined" in maths.
>
>"undefined"
That's not a symbol, its a concept. You can't even tell the difference?
It happens to be important.
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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:51:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Again, easily reducible to human actions.
>
>>Not reducible *at all*! Not anymore than evolutionary theory is
>>reducible to physics.
>
>And applying human psychology to describe corporate
>behaviour makes as much sense as using physics to
>explain evolutionary theory.
Well hit. Did you just happen upon it, or have you actually been
following this fandango?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:55:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El jue, 05 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Cancerous cells are single cells. And insofar as you have people under
>> >you, then you have infected others and your section is no longer part
>> >of the corporate body.
>>
>> I have not infected others, since my personal positions and values are not
>> imposed on them. I don't believe in proselitism.
>
>Then you're a benign tumour cell.
Sorry, that doesn't hold up. It is whether they metastasize which
determines whether they are benign, not whether the cancerous cells
reproduce. They have to reproduce to be a tumor.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
