Linux-Advocacy Digest #503, Volume #29 Sat, 7 Oct 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (STATIC66)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (Joseph Mrozek)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (lyttlec)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: To all you WinTrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To all you WinTrolls ("MH")
Re: Competition ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.4! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To all you WinTrolls (JoeX1029)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Charlie Ebert)
RE: To all you WinTrolls ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Do Linux suXX??? (Pan)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Pan)
The Power of the Future! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 12:39:36 GMT
On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 02:48:36 GMT, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >So what would you suggest we do with illiterate, untrained people?
>Export them?
>> >Hang them? I think that converting them into productive members of
>society is
>> >probably the most long-term-positive option. And who exactly is going to
>pay for
>> >that?
>> >
>> Themselves, their families, their employer.
>
>Let's say an "illiterate, untrained" person is my brother, son or uncle, the
>question is: why should that person be entitled to a penny of my income
>unless I wish to donate it to him? It's just the same as with people I
>don't know, right?
>
>Answer: by helping those, I help myself. I contribute to another human
>being, even unknown to me, because I am able to do so. I, for one, don't
>really complain about the taxes I pay (and boy, do we pay them!).
>
>Bye!
>
>- Joe
>
You are correct they are not "ENTITLED" to any money except that which
they EARN. I know I am saving for my childrens education. I started
when the first born was IN THE WOMB. Why because I care, not because
he is entitled to a dime of it. And I was "poor" that hole time. I
could have gotten welfare, I choose a second job. I choose to scrape
and scratch and get educated. Now I make a decent living. (even though
40% of it is stolen from me) Just because others feel they can't
accomplish this does not "ENTITLE" them to my money. I have worked
hard to reach my current level in life and don't feel I should fund
someone else unless I decide to.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Mrozek)
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 11:47:12 GMT
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:21:34 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>Yeah, if I lived somewhere else, I'd have free internet. :)
>
>Here in the Midwest of the U.S.A., if you look at a map
>showing the major cities wherein free internet (or in
>fact any major backbone connection to the internet can
>be found), you can connect the dots to form a *circle*
>around the 48 connected states...which neatly circles
>where I live and leaves no place really that close to
>where I live.
>
>America has some servers for local users in Wisconsin,
>Oregon, and I think Washington D.C., which all do
>standard PPP and allow Linux access. My complaint was
>that there are no free ISPs [a] in my area, and
>[b] which have dialup numbers all over the place to be
>in other people's areas and where people travel to.
>
>
But I bet you don't get metered phone calls, do you? Think yourself
lucky you don't live in the UK. I'd give anything to be able to pay a
monthly subscription and nothing else. Wanting it COMPLETELY free is
just plain greedy.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 13:13:44 GMT
"Steven W. Mentzer" wrote:
>
> >
> >I just had another handful last night on my 2k box. It was stable for awhile,
> >but I wanted to try my Hauppage WinTV card again since Hauppage came out with
> >some newer drivers awhile back. I was using a Pinnacle Sys Studio PCTV in the
> >mean time, but the Hauppage always did have a slightly better picture. Boot
> >up, open a capture app.. bang. BSOD. Recommended fix: disable ACPI (IRQ
> >conflicts) which requires a full freaking re-install of 2k to accomplish!
> >
> >Same hardware config used on same box under linux: Rock solid.
> >
>
> This is a badly written system-level driver. The OS isn't at fault in this
> case.
>
> Now, if the glue chip drivers (BX,i820,i840) system drivers that ship with
> Win2k were at fault, then I can see a real problem with the OS.
>
> But the fact that hauppage doesn't know how to develop a Win2k driver doesn't
> make Win2k bad.
>
> I can develop a linux block driver that will panic the kernel in a few minutes.
> Does that make linux bad?
Each time someone mentions a BSOD here, fingers get pointed at the
driver. And it is true that poorly written drivers can be a problem in
any OS. But how does one know or find out if the drivers for particular
products are poorly written or not? I thought the presence of the MS
logo on the box was supposed to indicate that the product, including the
driver met MS standards. Does MS test any of the products before they
let the Mfg. put the logo on the box?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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, 7 Oct 2000 09:20:55 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
Re-read the sentence above. Did I say "It's the sole reason discussion
forums exist"? Lack of liability for the posts of others is why discussion
forums can be created in such great numbers.
> >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.
Most of them are moderated in some way. Now show me that law you made up
where a person isn't allowed to do so.
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
What's that have to do with the your statement:
<quote>
"Enough said. You're entirely and completely wrong. WHO has the right
to deny anyone access in public forums?"
</quote>
Most discussion forums I've seen are moderated in some way. And there are a
lot of moderated newsgroups, so what's your point?
> 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.
Who are you going to claim it to? Your views on law are quite dimented and
outlandish.
>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.
A case? A case in what jurisdiction? The U.S. jurisdiction, which already
states that by deleting certain posts I'm not opening myself up to any
liability whatsoever. The jurisdiction that says by deleting or not allowing
certain posters I'm still a common carrier and not the content crteator?
Now where's that law which states just because I own a public discussion
forum that I must not administer it as I see fit? I've shown you one right
from U.S. code which states the opposite.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
>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.
Not if the server was configured as a moderated server, where each post is
reviewed before final posting (and propogation). Go try and post in a
(perfectly legal) moderated newsgroup and let me know what happens. I will
bet your post doesn't propogate throughout the world berfore being allowed
onto the original server.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:35:39 +0100
Todd wrote:
>
> Hmmm... have to agree with what you said.
>
> I am called a wintroll here, but I also have RedHat Linux >6.2.
>
> I've compiled the kernel a couple times and done this and >that. Linux ain't
> bad. I've used it now for quite a while (ever since 6.2 >was released).
>
> But it isn't nearly as good as Windows 2000 nor as feature >complete. Heck,
> most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, >HP-UX / Solaris /
> FreeBSD.
>
> -Todd
>
It all depends what you are looking for. In my view, Solaris blows
pretty much everything away. Linux is ideal if you want a very fast
developping OS that you can (fairly easily) get involved in. FreeBSD is
ultra stable and free, but only develops at about the rate of a
comercial OS. Windows is easy to get software for, especially games,
but tends to be over restrictive and expensive (though cheaper than
commercial Unix). Or am I being too rational?
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:39:44 -0400
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000 is a great OS, however, it is very top heavy, on a clean
startup on a
> machine with 128MB ram, 65MB RAM is already used by Windows, if thats not
>excessive,
> I would hate to know what is!
What has this have to do with the price of a Sunday paper? All this talk
lately about ram consumption. Why? If you don't have 128 mb's of ram in your
machine by now you don't take c o m p u t e r u s e v e r y s e r i o u s
l y, DO YOU?
On my linux box running a KDE desktop..as soon as I boot up and connect to X
I'm looking at around 58 mb's consumed with the default services installed
during setup of the OS. I'm not whining about that. It doesn't bother me as
long as the machine behaves acceptably. Which it does.
W2K? I don't run it. I've looked at it, and played with it. It's nice, but
I still run NT4 - 98 - ME at home. I trimmed the services down to 24mb's at
boot on the NT machine when it only contained 64mb's of ram. That PC now has
192. Ram is NO PROBLEM.
Look at what the desktop user is getting for that 65mb's. Most of the
libraries for web browsing are loaded, and the GUI is worlds more
sophisticated (read productivity).
With Linux on the other hand, every time I want to go online I have to
launch that horrifically bloated and buggy NN (which takes forever it seems)
and gobbles up ram like YOU wouldn't believe. NN is the only thing I believe
that makes the linux box swap. (96mb's of ram)
Don't get me wrong, I think they've done a great job so far with KDE, but
W2K's desktop is in another universe. Well worth the high ram consumption.
You're on line browsing & reading mail in the blink of an eye. Huge feature
(and bug) laden applications like Word open and are ready to work in a
flash. Any comparable application on linux uses MORE memory and is three
times as slow, and just as susceptible to the occasional abend. That's just
the nature of the beast. I like Linux, I really do. But all this talk about
"stability" and memory usage is absurd. I use linux for the tools and the
shells. In that context, Linux IS stable. But I'm really not asking it to do
anything, am I? I'm using time tested shells and small binaries using
minimal ram. The only problem I ever have with Linux is when loading big
"windows-world" applications. These same applications that are as much a
part of the computing world right now as bash is to linux. Linux shines when
it's doing what it is good at. It's not a windows replacement, nor can it
compete with windows on the desktop in its current state. Anyone who comes
in here and say that they are "rid of windows" has either made up their mind
to make sacrifices in applications, hates MS on pure principle, never really
needed big windows applications anyway, or is just content to hack with free
tools and put up with a third rate web experience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Competition
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:47:11 +0100
Jesper Krogh wrote:
> =
> I am not a wintroll. But who really think that MS don=B4t >have people =
sitting and
> reading the sourses for linux, apache,,,, and every over linux apps.
> =
> This is the issue that makes the differenc between MW and >linux.
> =
> --
> ./Jesper Krogh.
> The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
> This means that your PC should run linux too.
What is your point exactly? It strikes me that although MS may use bits
and bobs of stuff from open source apps, they make a poor job of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:51:50 +0100
>> Benchmarks are generally meaningless. In a practical >>situation, Linux
>> does blow windoze away.
>
> Gee, you are going to convince windows users this way. >NOT.
>
> "sure, Windows 2000 wins all of the performance benchmarks, >is stable, and
> has more features, applications, and driver support than >Linux."
>
> But, Linux blows Windows away. Yah. Right. You sure are >convincing... but
> then again, that's just how Linadvocates are.
>
> -Todd
So you admit to one point. Windows users are often ignorant.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: 07 Oct 2000 14:17:30 GMT
> most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX / Solaris /
>> FreeBSD.
Um, dude, FreeBSD IS_NOT_UNIX! Everybody mistates this, *BSD and Linux are not
UNIX. They have not passed the Open Group test to become UNIX. Moreover Linux
can't be UNIX because it is GNU/Linux and GNU stands for "GNU is Not UNIX"
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:30:35 GMT
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Okay, here's an opportunity for some real advocacy. The debates about
> how Linux or NT/W2K provide a better desktop than the other are
> neverending in COLA (I don't read COMNA, so I can't comment there). I
> want to hear what you all use your desktop OS of choice for and why it
> is a better solution for you than the alternatives. I'll start...
>
> I do IC CAD design on Solaris at Motorola. Linux provides me with a
> free OS and networking tools to allow me to work from home on a cheap
> Pentium II. I have a real X-Windows implementation in XFree86 instead
> of a slow emulator like Exceed on NT, and I have all the tools at my
> disposal to allow me to run and monitor jobs remotely just as I would
> if I was in front of my terminal at work. All these tools were
> available to me for the cost of the bandwidth used to download my
> distro of choice, which is actually nothing since my employer pays
> for my cable modem. No Microsoft OS of any variety offers me anything
> of similar functionality in terms of ease of use or cost.
>
> Not that I don't use Windows at all; I have a dual-boot Win98 box. I
> actually do most of my browsing under Windows. Linux, OTOH, is what I
> use for real work, not play.
>
> Now it's your turn. What do you use your desktop for, and why does
> you OS do the job better than the alternatives?
>
> --
> Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
> Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
> 1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
> Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think there needs to be a debate between Windows and Linux.
We have a verified history of growth now and a verified market track
pattern for Linux growth and the target's it eats on.
Linux will eat enough Windows marketplace that by 2005 it will
either totally defeat Windows in the marketplace or cripple it so
the end is within a couple years. Microsoft will become an applications
vendor for a few years more before the GNU defeats them on this ground
also.
So there really doesn't need to be a debate.
You just keep on using Linux or Windows as you had before.
And time will remove the problem for us.
It is my opinion that further development of proprietary applications
using Microsoft products is foolish and should halted.
It is also my opinion that those corporations which make a tight
connection with Microsoft currently are going to be hit the hardest.
This statement is true of even chip manufacturers, PC makers,
card vendors and the like. There will be much market mauling in
the coming years.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:31:57 GMT
> When NT crashed, I'd hunt around until I discovered the reason. Usually,
it
> was a bad driver or something.
It had obviously to be something, don't you think so ? :-) Funny how
drivers
are always guilty, may be it is just because they can't reply.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do Linux suXX???
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 07:45:08 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have many complaints about the article. For starters, I take issue
with the statement that since Linux has moved into enterprise
environments, the already low credibility that programmers had in
mainframe environments took a nose-dive.
Since we moved to linux and started using perl as the core of our
customer relations and log analysis software ( rather than an AS/400
using rpg and a 4gl ), we eliminated the low credibility because
projects that were being delivered late and over budget with tons of
bugs on the mainframe were getting done early and under budget on
linux. Things that used to take 2-3 mainframe programmers days, weeks,
or even months to get developed started getting built in hours. Built
better. Not because the programmers were any better, but because we are
using better tools. Because we are exactly what he said that
programmers are not. Engineers.
I suspect that many people in this groups have similar experiences.
Let's face it, who would you rather have building your IT
infrastructure, someone who was trained in rpg or cobol or 4gl
development on a terminal, or someone trained in c/c++/perl using web
protocols?
my second issue is with his "good but not great" unix comment. He goes
on to say that many unixen are better engineered than linux. Perhaps
this is true, but does he cite any justifications as to how they are
better in the article? No. Does he give any examples? No. In the
absence of those examples and justifications, he looks just parroting
what he heard elsewhere.
If SCO Unix were better engineered than Linux, then why is it going the
way of the dodo? The same thing holds true with other proprietary
unixen. IBM has spent tens of millions in and several years developing
their OS390 unix, does anyone else find it curious that they were able
to port linux to those platforms in 1/5th the time and less than 1/5th
the cost despite the fact that it was being ported to a non-native PPC
chip?
My third issue is that he criticizes linux programmers for "treating
their craft as a hobby". The statement is crap. Hobbyists treat their
craft as a hobby. If professional programmers are inculcated in the
ethos of open source that goes hand in hand with linux, and if for those
programmers, their work is a labor of love, then how is that a bad
thing? For me it means that I spend my work week on work-related
projects, and I spend a big chunk of my free time tinkering with new
applications and improving my knowledge of protocols. Would you rather
employ a programmer who treats his craft as a 40 hour per week
necessity, or one who treats their craft as a way of life and spends 80
hours on it not because they have to, but because they want to?
The summation? Monty Manley is YAAPSTBD ( Yet another arrogant
programmer soon to be displaced )
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Unsupported personal opinion. The main theme seems to be that Linux is
> : destroying the field of programming. That seems pretty amazing for an
> : OS that's not going anywhere, and written by people that take no
> : personal responsibility for their programming because they are 'hackers'
> : and not 'engineers'. How could Linux screw up the Computer Science
> : field so quickly?
>
> My complaint about that article is how it forgets one very important
> fact - opensource software is released in alpha state because that's
> how you get more people to help you work on it. Grabbing a package
> which is *advertised* as still being in-progress, and then bitching
> about it not being perfect is akin to running into some software
> company's building, grabbing a copy of their code off the programmer's
> platform, and then bitching that it isn't ready yet. The only reason
> some opensource projects are being publicly dissemated is because
> the programmers working on it don't all live in the same building
> with their code locked up in the same vault. This is how they work
> together.
--
Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 07:47:15 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't that really just semantics. Ihe could've called it a unix-like
architecture, or a unix clone, but at the end of the day, if it walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck....
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> > most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX / Solaris /
> >> FreeBSD.
>
> Um, dude, FreeBSD IS_NOT_UNIX! Everybody mistates this, *BSD and Linux are not
> UNIX. They have not passed the Open Group test to become UNIX. Moreover Linux
> can't be UNIX because it is GNU/Linux and GNU stands for "GNU is Not UNIX"
--
Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: The Power of the Future!
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT
Is of course Linux.
The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO!
Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
Are large corporate interests investing in it's growth?
Only if companies like IBM and HP are large in your opinion? How about
Corel or
Borland. You can't expect Microsoft to invest in their own death.
That's the job
of the giants and the ghosts.
How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
Has Linux encroachment on the commercial Unix market finally stopped.
Well, Caldera bought SCO. Rumor is Redhat is buing Novel or a chunk of
Novel?
So you have the mainframe companies and Sun left. And there still here
as they
made hardware to sell.
Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or
keyboard
is subcontracted out. They don't make anything but software.
Does Linux like to eat software companies? Why yes. That is the Linux
monsters
red meat!
What software companies is left for us to eat? Microsoft.
Does the Linux monster realize Bill Gates knows this and has been
mouthing
off in the press about it? Why yes! That's just like Gravey on your
Potatoes?
In fact, I'm developing an extra row of teeth which will be out by
December,
maybe first quater next year which are my Microsoft grinding molers and
fangs!!!!!
Won't Microsoft take notice of this and attempt to stop you from eating
them?
Microsoft has been pooping on my head since I was a young monster. I
think
they will continue to poop until we are eye to eye. Then I think my
controlled
growth hormones which have been set at 5 - 7% per year will go wild.
It's funny, it takes a human being 20 years to get fully grown and it
seems
Linux will be 20 before it's fully grown as an OS in terms of Market
use.
But that growth spirt in the teenage years is a REAL KILLER!
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 11:08:38 -0400
Joe Malloy wrote:
>
> > >So what would you suggest we do with illiterate, untrained people?
> Export them?
> > >Hang them? I think that converting them into productive members of
> society is
> > >probably the most long-term-positive option. And who exactly is going to
> pay for
> > >that?
> > >
> > Themselves, their families, their employer.
>
> Let's say an "illiterate, untrained" person is my brother, son or uncle, the
> question is: why should that person be entitled to a penny of my income
> unless I wish to donate it to him? It's just the same as with people I
> don't know, right?
>
> Answer: by helping those, I help myself. I contribute to another human
> being, even unknown to me, because I am able to do so. I, for one, don't
> really complain about the taxes I pay (and boy, do we pay them!).
>
knee-jerk altruism is the road to ruin.
> Bye!
>
> - Joe
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
