Linux-Advocacy Digest #960, Volume #30 Mon, 18 Dec 00 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:41:15 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec 2000
>"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:91iqt8$2o4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Netcraft does no filtering though. They simply provide the numbers, no
>> > matter how random they might be.
>>
>> 1) You can still get good values from a site that uses load balancing,
>over
>> time. You just can't get a good instantaneous measurement. It would need
>> to be really random to be worthless.
>
>That's assuming that it only uses load balancing. Load balancing in
>conjunction with firewalls and other networking products can make it nearly
>impossible to know for sure what's giving what response.
It doesn't matter if you know for sure what's giving what response. You
don't even need to know what's giving the response to begin with. All
you have to know is what the response is, and track it over time.
>> 2) Show me a site that has worthlessly random values.
>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.amazon.com
>
>Notice how one day you have an uptime in the teens, the next day it's over
>100, the next day it's in the 30's. One could guess that this a clustered
>system, but if it were, you'd see visible trends. As it is, it's simply
>random. Hell, Netcraft can't even figure out what OS it is. Sometimes it
>reports Linux, sometimes Solaris even on the exact same IP.
That simply means clustering. And contrary to Adam's position, that is
exactly what you would expect from a loosely coupled cluster: random
values. You cannot see visible trends over time, as you also expect,
because it is continuity of the counter, not the value obtained, which
is important. A tightly coupled cluster, however, will respond as a
single system, though. Ask the web server for its uptime, it should
give the counter for the cluster, if there is one, not the individual
CPU which handled the uptime request.
But a loose cluster definitely will show random uptimes, even if the
server's are not being rebooted or rolling over.
[...]
>Not true. For instance, look at my web site:
>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.funkenbusch.com&display=uptime
>
>I'm running this on a DSL line behind a netopia router doing NAT. Netcraft
>correctly identifies the OS and the web server, but cannot determine uptime
>values because NAT is screwing things up.
It cannot determine uptime values because your server doesn't provide
uptime. *NAT* can't be screwing things up.
>A proxy box is not necessarily Unix, NT can proxy, so can non-unix based
>routers.
You apparently don't know enough about computers to competently discuss
this stuff, Erik. Just calling something 'a proxy' doesn't say anything
about how uptime requests were derived. Do me a favor, if you can; get
a trace on the incoming traffic. I'd like to figure out what Netcraft
uses to ascertain an uptime count.
[...]
>> That doesn't mean I can't start identifiying trends off of the data.
>> Remember, and this is the big point, trends are NOT definitive answers.
>
>No, they're not, especially when you don't know the circumstances
>surrounding where the data came from.
No, actually, that doesn't have anything to do with whether they are
definitive answers. But if you'd like, you could learn about those
circumstances, unless you'd prefer to continue arguing from ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:41:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Tim Tyler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:32:46
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Tim Tyler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:22:06
>:>In several advocacy ngs Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>: Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 16 Dec 2000 00:16:24 GMT;
>:>:> Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>:>:>: It isn't anti-trust law, you see, which prevents a company from gaining
>:>:>: a dominant market share. It is a free market; free markets do not allow
>:>:>: monopolization, because the more valuable the opportunity, the greater
>:>:>: the competition.
>:>:>
>:>:>I don't live in that utopia where that's true. I live on planet Earth.
>:>
>:>: Sorry, game over. If free markets didn't work, in the real world,
>:>: neither you nor I would by typing these words.
>:>
>:>That does not address the point [] raised. If free markets regulated
>:>themselves there would be no need for anti-trust law and the monopolies
>:>and mergers comission.
>
>: Anti-trust laws and whatever commission you are referring to [...]
>: are for when there isn't a free market. [...] Free markets do regulate
>: themselves; that doesn't mean they can't be monopolized by anti-competitive
>: behavior.
>
>So, after apparently recognizing that there's a need for anti-monopoly and
>anti-trust laws, I presume you would take back:
>
>``It isn't anti-trust law, you see, which prevents a company from gaining
> a dominant market share. It is a free market; free markets do not
> allow monopolization, [...]''
>
>...?
Yes, I can see your point. It does seem that the two statements are in
conflict.
You're confusing two different sets of rules; the rules of law and the
rules of economics. Both sets do apply in the real world, despite your
previous contention, but that doesn't make them the same set of rules.
Free markets regulate themselves economically; they don't enforce the
rule of law on humans engaging in human activities. Those activities
which are truly business, the act of engaging in or supporting commerce,
do not support monopolization when efficiently executed by autonomous
people seeking maximum returns. Those which are not, which might
include extortion, black-mail, protection rackets, fraud, as well as
monopolization (regrating, forestalling, engrossing, et. al,) are not
constrained by any economic requirements, because they are not business
activities. One can "competitively" engage in extortion, and it would
have as much to do with supply and demand as restraint of trade does.
>AFAICS, this statement is false. You might want to rephrase it to
>something like: "monopolies can only exploit their advantage so far,
>since if prices are raised *too* high, competitors will be likely to
>be able to gain entry to the market by undercutting them."
"Monopolies" is a word which has meaning in both contexts. The business
concept is theoretical; competitive free markets by definition do not
and cannot have monopolies. For a monopoly to exist, it must be
existent in the other context; a criminal activity. These monopolies
illuminate their own existence by preventing business; restraining
trade. Whenever they exist, it is not possible for a market to be free,
or competitive. So the fact that monopolies cannot exist in a free
market is not false, and is still true in a very real and practical way,
even though monopolies do exist in the real world. They don't exist as
economic monopolies; they only exist as criminal monopolies.
The fact is, you can exploit any and all advantages you can muster
without reservation to the best of your ability, raise your prices as
high as you can, or lower them as much as you want (to be the one doing
the undercutting), and you cannot possibly gain monopoly power. It
requires anti-competitive activity. But since 'anti-competitive
activity', as a concept, is rather self-defining, I think its more
practical, consistent, and accurate to say that the one and only
"advantage" that you are not allowed to take advantage of, is market
share. Market share cannot be a competitive advantage; it is an
anti-competitive advantage. Its worth noting that a monopsony (a single
buyer market) is as non-functional in demanding efficient production as
a monopoly market. "Using" your market share always entails restraining
trade, damaging the consumer, restricting production, maintaining prices
above competitive levels, and excluding competition. That's why it was
made illegal in 1890 in the US, and that's why it was accomplished the
way it was.
The Sherman Act is a remarkable piece of legislation. Removing only the
briefest of legal packaging, it says:
1. All contracts in restraint of trade are illegal. Engaging in
contracts which are in restraint of trade is a felony.
2. Monopolization, and attempted monopolization, is a felony.
It is important to realize that I am NOT *paraphrasing*, here. This is,
literally, the text of the statute (translated to common English). If
you don't believe me, wade through the original:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
The Supreme Court of the United States (and, therefore, all lower courts
as well) have wrestled with this 'purist legislation' for decades. It
was recognized early on precisely why it was phrased as it was. The
Rule of Reason, the presumption that the Congress must have had some
undesirable activity in mind which they were outlawing, leads to the
understanding that controlling prices and excluding competition, two
things which can universally be understood, according to the rules of
economics, to restrain trade in any market, is what makes the various
activities known to support monopolization (regrating, forestalling,
engrossing) a criminal offense.
Profit-seeking, competitive enterprises in a free market will work
automatically to produce efficiencies, as will knowledgable and
uncoerced customers. Producers and consumers in a free market do not
allow monopolization, in that a monopoly cannot occur without
restricting production or coercing consumption, and neither of these
provide success in a free market. BUT, using your market share, acting
anti-competitively, it is possible to break these rules, because the
rules are about how to compete.
So, no, Tyler, there is no conflict in my two statements. Free markets
do not function because the law says they should. The economic rules of
free markets do not allow or support monopolization. But that doesn't
make anti-trust laws unnecessary. Nor does the fact that without
anti-trust laws, we would not have free markets, mean that free markets
only work because laws prevent people from acting illegally. Free
markets are self-supporting. That doesn't make them unbreakable.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:41:26 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec 2000
19:45:48 -0600;
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:91jm3l$ju3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Win2K uses the same uptime scheme that NT uses, 100s of ms.
>> Therefor, it resets itself every 49.7 days
>> How did Netcraft listed starbucks' uptime, then?
>
>No, MS completely overhauled their TCP/IP stack for Win2k, and it appears to
>not cycle at 49.7 days anymore.
It never cycled at 49.7 days to begin with. You confuse the rolling
over of a counter with some actual programmatic event. The GetTimeTicks
function used in Windows is still the wrong order of magnitude.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:41:32 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec 2000
[...]
>The essence remains a properly administered NT system is as stable as any
>UNIX. At this time getting the proper administration skills to the system
>when they are needed is the problem.
Bullshit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:41:44 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 18 Dec 2000
>"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:91jkjb$l5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Good point, I must acquiesce to your statement. Let's then add the 4th to
>> my list:
>>
>> 4) Companies that use Windows (not windows itself) attracts poor quality
>> sys admins, because they can't afford anything else. Companies that use
>> Unix attract higher quality sys admins because they can afford them.
>
>5) Companies that use Windows don't bother to hire full-time sys admins.
Bullshit. They don't have MSCE ads on the radio every ten minutes in
every major city because nobody's hiring.
>Which leads to users playing at being administrators without the knowledge
>they need to.
Actually, the knowledge they need is maintained as proprietary by
Microsoft.
> You *can't* play with linux as root without having the proper
>knowledge, the system is too complex to let you do this.
Bullshit. Almost everything I know about Unix I gained "playing" on a
live system with root privileges. I managed to crash it a couple times,
but it always recovered elegantly. Windows doesn't do that; touch the
wrong thing, and the system is permanently disabled.
>And if you aquire
>some small knowledge you'll kill the system totally so fast that it wouldn't
>have time to be unstable. On general, I would say that Windows systems can
>be more stable under ignorant users than a *nix, and as stable as a *nix
>under compotent administrators.
To be honest, this statement is nothing more than a testament to your
lack of experience, Ayende.
>Anyone else encountered users doing this rm /tmp ?
No. Never have. I can't see any user ever doing this; you'd have to be
an admin (root privileges) for it to work, and you'd have to know some
small bit about the system to even know to try. Will it even work? And
would it kill the system? I know I've done "rm -R /tmp/*" on a Solaris
box, and I don't remember it killing the system.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:42:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Tim Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Dec 2000 22:23:43 -0800;
>On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:25:46 +1000, Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well I guess so if you want to be pedantic and rehash another done-to-death
>>boring thread.
>
>The correct word is "stupid", not "pedantic", since the argument depends
>on using a defintion of "operating system" that disagrees with that used
>by the vast majority of OS textbooks and people who work in the field.
Hardly; it is the textbooks which agree with mlw's statement that
"Windows" is not an OS. And it isn't. Its middleware, most
specifically. Its the Win32 API. It has been implemented on DOS, and
on 'NT', a VMS-like OS, but Windows isn't an OS, in and of itself, as
far as the textbooks are concerned.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:42:30 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
[...]
>Windows 9x is in fact a true operating system, by virtue of VMM,
>and has been since about Windows 3.11.
About the time Microsoft started bundling it with DOS, the OS on which
this VMM ran. This means, in case you didn't notice (and despite the
contrary opinion of earlier examiners of the issue) that DOS is the OS.
You confuse the question "does Windows provide the services and OS
provides" with the question "is Windows an OS". 'Windows', from Windows
1.0, through Win386 and Win3.1 and Win95, and all the way to WinME and
Whistler, is the Win32 API, a middleware specification (a very bad one,
of course, which includes many OS functions as well as application
functions). Not an OS.
Windows is more like KDE than Linux, when it comes to being an operating
system. The underlying VMS-like thing in NT, and the DOS under ME, are
operating systems, but very bad ones, of course.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:28:03 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Khn%5.10961$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91kq6o$4oh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If I understand the way Netcraft works, it determains server & OS by
HTTP
> > header, and uptime by tcp/ip data.
> > Therefor, there is nothing to prevent it from reading NT system and
> getting
> > unix uptime.
>
> No, only the server string is retrieved through the HTTP header. They
> determine OS by packet characteristics.
"Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking in
detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from the
web site. "
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html
They seem to get it from the HTTP reply after all.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:28:13 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91l9rs$1s6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If I understand the way Netcraft works, it determains server & OS by
HTTP
> > header, and uptime by tcp/ip data.
> > Therefor, there is nothing to prevent it from reading NT system and
> getting
> > unix uptime.
>
> This isn't accurate. They never claimed to get anything from the HTTP
> header. I'm sure that it is one thing that they use, but it isn't
> everything. They claim that if a site changes their TCP/IP driver then
that
> can fool their OS detection. That would indicate that HTTP header is not
> the only way they determine that. They also claim to be able to detect
> firewalls, proxys, filters, and other network do-dads.
"Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking in
detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from the
web site. "
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html
They seem to get it from the HTTP reply after all.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:28:47 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91la3e$1s8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If I understand the way Netcraft works, it reads the HTTP reply from the
> > site, a proxy or a file wall or whatever wouldn't interupt with that,
but
> > they would interrupt with the packet, therefor, Netcraft would report an
> NT
> > system with Unix uptime, which would result in 1/10 the real uptime of
the
> > Unix box and wouldn't report the NT uptime at all.
> > However, on Netcraft, they would list the Unix's uptime/10 as the NT's
> > uptime.
> >
> > "Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking
> in
> > detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from
the
> > web site. "
>
> Notice how it says "network characteristics" not "header strings"? They
use
> a combination of header strings and other network features to test for OS.
"Netcraft determines the operating system of the queried host by looking in
detail at the network characteristics of the HTTP reply received from the
web site. "
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html
They seem to get it from the HTTP reply after all.
Network characteristics *of the* HTTP reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:43:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec 2000
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> BTW Windows is still based on DPMI, "DOS Protected Mode Interface."
>
>Windows provides DPMI to DOS apps, but then so did OS/2.
That's not what he said, although it is true; Windows provides DPMI to
DOS apps. It is also based on DPMI, that being one of the interfaces it
uses to interact with the operating system (at least on DOS; I don't
know about the VMS-like NT).
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:31:43 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91bkk0$kj0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Bob Hauck wrote:
> > :>
> > :> On 13 Dec 2000 22:28:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > :> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> >: Yes...the term liberal (root: liber = freedom) has been absconded
> > :> >: with by the freedom-hating socialists.
> > :> >
> > :> >Then why help then mis-use it? Stop calling them liberals then.
> > :>
> > :> If he called the Democrats "socialists" or "communists" then people
> > :> would think he's an extremist nutcase.
> >
> > : Actually, I DO call them communists on a regular basis, and yes,
> > : people call me an extremist nutcase for simply telling the fucking truth.
> >
> > Using the terms "liberal" and "communist" interchangably to describe
> > the same set of people is not telling the truth, though. You even
> > said yourself that the communists absconded with the term "liberal"
> > even though it shouldn't apply - so stop supporting this action
> > with your posts. To continue as you are is to paint all liberals
> > (both meanings) with the same brush.
>
> Liberal, in the modern meaning of the word, implies socialist more
> than communist. Although liberals are very sympathetic to Communists
They're fucking communists....they just refuse to admit.
> (Jane Fonda, Ted Turner, Bill Clinton, etc)
>
> -Chad
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:32:07 -0500
LShaping wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Steve Mading wrote:
> >> Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>><snip>
>
> >> I suppose the notion that maybe they get mad because you are lying
> >> about them never occurred to you. Calling all left-wingers "socialists" is
> >> like calling all right-wingers Fundamentalist wackos. It's taking an
> >> attribute of the fringe of the group and attributing it to the whole.
> >> Use "socialist" when you are talking about that fringe that actually is
> >> socialst, don't use it the rest of the time.
>
> >I have yet to meet a (post-1970's American) "liberal" who wasn't also
> >a closet-commie.
>
> I saw a quote attributed (probably) to Will Rogers, went something
> like this.
> "I can remember a time when a liberal was someone generous with his
> own money"
> LShaping
I gotta remember that one
--
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
******************************
