Linux-Advocacy Digest #908, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine) ("Bracy")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Pan)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 15 Dec 2000 21:45:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> I just was looking for a new modem yesterday. I went to three different
:> stores: (Specifically Best Buy, CompUSA, and, a local university supply
:> place called "DoIT"). Out of curiosity while I was there I looked at
:> the keyboards to see if any of them did not match the following
:> description: "esc is closer to 'a' than left-arrow is to 'j'."
:> All of them matched that description. Each and every one.
: Therefore my keyboard is "weird"? I note that you didn't specify
: the number of keyboards you looked at.
Because I didn't count. It was *ALL* of them on display. I'd
guess about 8-ish models in each store.
:> Okay, then what is the reason you aren't talking about it?
: What makes you think I haven't been talking about it? I've been
: telling you about it all along.
No. You've merely been asserting that yours is different.
Not once have you given the details. (Where are your arrow
keys, then, if not in the typical location (the inverted 'T'
, with the left-arrow key starting about 1/2 an inch to the
right of the lower-righmost key on the main group (which
will either be ctrl, shift, or alt, depending on the layout,
but if it's a PC keyboard, it's probably 'ctrl'.))
Your unwillingness to provide this information make me think
you are just making it up. There is an easy way to stop
making me suspicious, assuming you aren't lying, and that
is to just describe it, or better yet give a make and model.
:> As you know perfectly well, this is not a comparasin of escape vs
:> no escape. It's a comparasin of escape vs arrow keys - which one
:> requires more precision (and therefore cannot just be 'whacked'
:> with a slap in the general direction.)
: An illogical comparison, given that one gets you out of a mode,
: while the other moves the cursor around. Try comparing apples and
: apples.
Ahem - if you ignore 'esc' and look at JUST hjkl vs the arrow keys,
then hjkl looks even faster. This doesn't help your argument. I'm
being fair in admitting that I have to take into account the time
it takes to use the escape key when comparing the two techniques.
:> I'm not arguing that esc is faster than not hitting
:> any key (and you already know this). I'm arguing that hjkL, with
:> it's associated use of ESC, taken as a whole, is faster than using
:> the arrows, taken as a whole.
: And I disagree with your argument. Apparently you don't like
: that, hence this lengthy discussion. Why do you have such
: trouble accepting that a different person might find something
: else more efficient than you do?
Because you are supporting your argument with premises that
don't sound believable. (Namely this alleged keyboard that
is so different from what I've seen.)
: It's rather arrogant for you
: to sit there and insist that because you find your way faster,
: it must be faster for everyone.
Ahem - pot, kettle, black. You haven't been stating each
and every time "this only applies to me" in each post, so
don't start getting pissy with me when I don't.
:> Normally I'd assume that common sense would take over from here
:> on out,
: Instead, your arrogance has taken over.
pot. kettle. black.
:> but in your case I'll spell it out: If hitting esc is slower
:> than not hitting it, BUT hitting hjkl is faster than using the
:> arrows, then overall, it is still possible for the hjkl method
:> to be faster, depending on the ratio of time spent on hjkl vs
:> time spent hitting escape.
: "possible"
: "depending"
: There, you just agreed with me that it won't necessarily be any
: faster. So what's your problem?
The phrases "possible" and "depending" were in the "then" clause
of the IF. I used those terms because I was still leaving out
the other
:> In my experience, hjkl + esc is the faster way.
:
: Not my experience. Strange that you don't want to accept that.
Because you've been phrasing it as something for everyone,
not just 'in my experience'. Kinda like you keep leaving
off the "for whom" clause of your statements about intuitiveness.
To start with those qualifiers in place, and then to leave them
off later is a false equivocation fallacy.
:>>>> It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
:>>> Only if you have superhuman timing, of your key-repeat rate
:>>> is amazingly slow. Getting exactly two keypresses and no more
:>>> by using the key repeat is hard. Slowing the repeat down to the
:>>> point where this is possible leads to other annoyances (taking
:>>> a long time to type something like /*---------------------*/).
:>> Not nearly as annoying as your argument. Do you really think that
:>> autorepeat is used for two instances?
:> No, I don't. That was precisely my point,
: On the contrary, you were talking about moving a long way, probably
: gearing up to tout the count prefix of vi.
No. Your ESP has failed you again.
, while forgetting that
: autorepeat prevents me from having to hit the key the number of
: times I want to move. Thus you rushed in with your two count
: example.
:> Mr. "reading comprehension".
: How ironic.
:> I was showing you that autorepeat doesn't eliminate the need to
:> hold you hand over the arrow keys for a time while you tap several
:> keys.
: I don't need to tap "several" keys. I hold one key down.
Really? One key to go up/up/left/left?
:> You recognized that the example I gave doesn't work well
:> for auto-repeat,
: The first example you gave works well with auto-repeat, so you
: engaged in demage control by adding that two count example.
:> but failed to see that this was exactly my point.
: On the contrary, you were talking about moving a long way, probably
: gearing up to tout the count prefix of vi
Your failed ESP again.
: , while forgetting that
: autorepeat prevents me from having to hit the key the number of
: times I want to move. Thus you rushed in with your two count
: example. By the way, it's often slower to try and count the
: number of lines I might want to move, so the count prefix of a vi
: movement command can be slower than using autorepeat and simply
: stopping when you get there.
:>> Yet that's the example you
:>> tried to use. (Note that your example came AFTER my reference to
:>> "autorepeat", which followed your reference to "several times".
:>> Is "two" your idea of "several"?)
: Note: no response.
No response my ass. Do I have to repeat every goddamn thing I say
twenty times? I had already responded to this point up above.
: But thanks for leaving the evidence intact
: that you referred to "several times" originally, not "two".
Two can be "several". "Several" does not imply "lots of".
[rest snipped, as your replies were written in ignorance of
things I said later in the thread - that I presume you hadn't
read yet when you wrote this reply.]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:55:31 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91buii$10qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Let me make it more clear:
>
> The most important factor IN DETERMINING STABILITY is my own experience.
In
> other words: Regardless of what any tests, benchmarks, etc say, my own
> experience with the systems matters more. Some bonehead on a newsgroup
can
> tell me that they have been able to keep WinNT running for 3 years
straight.
> Well, my own experience doesn't bear that out, and that sure matters much
> more than what may or may not have happened in some IT shop somewhere.
>
> I trust my experience, everything else serves only as a guide.
What exactly *IS* your experience in attempting to maintain a high
availability NT system?
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:46:40 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> It's the fact that the mentioned tasks are nothing short of a PROCESS. Not
> a simple group of "simple" commands to be issued. They are a PROCESS, a
> full-fledged TASK that must be performed, and performed by the user who
> under other platforms has NO need to do any such activity.
Users don't *NEED* to do this under Linux, either. It is a choice, an
option, if you will, not a neccesity.
> This model for computing
What? Choice?
> was fine for 30 years ago, or 20 or 15 years ago,
> but today?
Well, yes, I'd still like to have choices.
> WHY? Because UNIX had NO CHOICE 30 years ago doesn't mean Linux
> has to be the same way.
It isn't. You don't use Linux, do you?
Most of the newbies *NEVER* compile their own kernel. They just install
the distro . . . and use it.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:36:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I previously had been Windows-free on my machine. However, I am finding
> it very hard to find plentiful jobs that are devoid of
> Windows/Microsoft. If there were such a world, I'd be all for it. The
> best I could do is find a jobs that had Windows programming with a
> little Linux on the side. So, I grudgingly went out to Wal-Mart and got
> a copy of Windows Me. My MSoft-free days are over, unfortunately.
Whether we like it or not, it's still a Window-dominated world out there,
and it is only wise to keep one's skills current in the Windows
environment.
I learned this lesson the hard way just a few years ago when I was using
OS/2 and jumped on the Microsoft-free bandwagon. Unfortunately, I was
working as contractor for IBM, and when they decided to kill off OS/2, I
was suddenly job-hunting in a Windows-dominated world.
These days, I don't hate Microsoft, or Windows. I simply don't enjoy
using Windows as much as I enjoy using Linux. I've simply found Linux to
be much faster, more stable, and *fun.* My computer is configured to
boot between Win95, WinNT, and Linux. I'm an MCSE and I still take the
certification exams to maintain my certification.
But I do look forward to the day when I don't have to keep 3 operating
systems on my computer.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:48:00 -0700
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> A concise way of explaining why UNIX is the way it is, "If it an't
> broken, don't bloody fix it", compared to Microsoft's, "If it is stable,
> then it needs to be fixed" metality.
Or, try this:
"Unix. Object Oriented even before there *WERE* objects!"
;->
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:53:01 -0700
Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:39:31 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Wrong. Getting devices to work is the responsibility of the
> >device manufacturer....to provide working device drivers.
>
> As far as Linux is concerned it doesn't really matter because from the
> consumer's point of view, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and they
> will look elsewhere.
>
> If that person has a lot of money invested in hardware, like a
> pre-load for example, they are not going to re-purchase hardware just
> for the joy of running Linux unless they have a very specific reason
> to do so.
Sigh.
In a pre-load situation, the hardware will have been chosen for its
compatibility with Linux.
In short, the pre-load situation vis-a-vis Linux will be no different
than the pre-load situation with Windows: the VAR will have packaged
stuff that works together . . . or they will go out of business darn
quick.
> ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice?
139. (140, if you count a three year old who starts it, then types
random stuff into it 'cause everybody else uses it, and three year olds
are "monkey-see-monkey-do" creatures).
> I'll even let
> you include the Windows version in your tally.
None of those users runs StarOffice on Windows.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:57:38 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>
> BTW, I'm not trying to "be a prick" or show off. I admit that my contributions
> are modest, and there are others even in this newsgroup who've done a lot
> more.
Fair enough
> It's just that it pisses me off when some idiot who's contributed absolutely
> nothing bar obnoxious advocacy noise has the nerve to tell me that I'm a
> "Windows advocate". This is simply a lie and I have very little patience for
> liars. On the other hand, I'm being patient with you here, because you strike
> me as being an honest and decent person.
On a good day. On a bad day, i'm a cantankerous Ahole. :)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 15 Dec 2000 21:51:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>>> On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard.
:>> My keyboard is quite standard, Steve.
:>>> If yours is different, then say it or shut up.
:>> Practice what you preach, Steve.
:> I would, except that mine isn't "different".
: Mine isn't "different" either.
:> There *IS* a standard 101 and 104 key layout pattern,
: Including specifications on spacing?
:> that the vast majority of keyboards sold use.
: Evidence, please.
:> I could list them all, but then again I don't have all day.
: It's so much easier to pontificate.
:> Let's just start with the one in front of me:
:> IBM KB-8923
: The IBM part numbers I'm familiar with start with two digits,
: then a letter, and then four digits. ANd for some reason, IBM
: likes to have part numbers and FRU numbers that are different.
Here's the full list of numbers I find on the back of the keyboard:
Model number: KB-8923
S/N: 1133479
Date: 89-82
FRU: 76H3284
Rev: C01
:> I've seen keyboards on Dells, Gateways, Compaqs, Sparc stations, SGI
:> Indy's, SGI O2's, IBM 3151 terminals, DEC VT220 terminals. They all
:> fit my argument, the only exception being the one I already mentioned,
:> a few laptops have layouts that are unique to them. (with the
:> arrow keys up above the number row, on the right.)
: Your experience seems to be rather limited.
You could end this by just specifying the keyboard instead of
being so fucking vague.
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 15 Dec 2000 21:52:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:>>> Repeating it is pointless.
:>> Especially without any supporting evidence.
:> Go into any fucking computer store and right before your eyes
:> will be anywhwere from 5 to 15 examples right on display.
: Why bother when I already have a keyboard in front of me?
Yeah - why bother - that might actually prove you wrong, and
you wouldn't want that, now would you.
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:03:45 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Allow me to clarify EF's comments.
>
> See, EF believes Microsoft has a running embedded product,
NT Embedded has been released for almost 2 years. It is a running product,
and one of my clients is in fact using it in one of their laser CNC
products.
> that Microsofts TCO is actually acceptable, and that
If it wasn't, why would people use it? Acceptable means people accept it.
Correct?
> the majority of Windows developers using GCC to produce
> Windows development.
Don't exagerate to prove a point. I never said any such thing and you know
it. You have just now graduated from being clueless to being an intentional
liar.
> So, as you can audit, EF is in his own little world out
> there.
Fuck off dipshit.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:03:25 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:48:38 GMT,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
: Microsoft invented.
The Blue Screen of Death?
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:02:51 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>>> Russ Lyttle writes:
>
> >>>>> All this from an simple intuitive power cord.
>
> >>>> Incorrect; Aaron's claim that nothing about a computer is intuitive
> >>>> preceded that.
>
> >>> Which has been amply demonstrated in this thread.
>
> >> On the contrary, nobody else has amply demonstrated the sequence of
> >> claims in this thread.
>
> >>> Tholen...
> >>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> >>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> >> Once again, lacking a logical argument, you turn to invective. No
> >> surprise there.
>
> >> Kulkis, once you finally realize how insecure you are, maybe you'll
> >> come back here an apologize some day.
>
> > Tholen...
> > when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> > remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> Kulkis, once you finally realize how insecure you are, maybe you'll
> come back here an apologize some day.
Tholen....
it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
remember to slit lengthwise.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:59:01 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> It's supposed to be BOTH in this MODERN ERA of computing.
Wrong. Dead wrong. I usually try to be more diplomatic, but here you
are just plain totally, absolutely wrong.
The modern era of computing is based in the OO paradigm. The concept of
"integrating" the "UI" into the "OS" is an outdated, primitive,
*ARCHAIC* design pattern that was abandoned by all good, reputable
systems designers more than a decade ago.
> The line between a UI and the OS are so blurred that they ARE SUPPOSED to be
> one.
WRONNGGGG!!!!
> It's just that instead of accomidating for the changes in modern day
> computing,
Translation: instead of violating good design principle in favor of
marketing buzz words, Linux choose GOOD over "IT SELLS"!
> Linux has kept it's 30 year old mantra that "just stack something
> above me"
This is called: A component based architechture. It's a hot new idea,
and all the rage (never mind the fact that it was invented in the
sixties).
> (in this case, the UI) actually works.
No, it doesn't work . . . which is why all the really new and innovative
UI research is being done on Unix workstations . . . the UI can be
modified without having to modify the entire OS.
> It never worked. Windows
> 95 can attest to that. So can MacOS, so can Solaris.
Solaris does not integrate the UI into the OS. Solaris, like all good
Unix-like OS'en, is component based.
As for Windows and MacOS . . . well, their crash and burn record simply
illustrates why this kind of "integration" is such a bad idea.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:03:49 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> David Ogg writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>
> >>>>>>>> Counting problems?
>
> >>>>>>> See what I mean about his illogic?
>
> >>>>>> What alleged illogic, Marty?
>
> >>>>> Are you suggesting that a counting problem is an attribute indicative
> >>>>> of being logical?
>
> >>>> I wasn't suggesting anything, Marty; I was asking a question.
>
> >>> Tholen...
> >>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> >>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> >> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
> >> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
>
> > Tholen...
> >
> > When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> > remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
Tholen....
it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> > Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
>
> Typical invective, as expected from someone who doesn't have a logical
> argument.
Actually, Dave, I was quite serious.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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 (C) 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
