Linux-Advocacy Digest #977, Volume #30 Tue, 19 Dec 00 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Pb with RealTek LAN Adapter ("Bracy")
Re: What's in a name? (Spicerun)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (David Steinberg)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (John Travis)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What's in a name? (Donn Miller)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (.)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Bob")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pb with RealTek LAN Adapter
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:02:26 GMT
Picked a new handle for this week, eh? Last week it was Swang, week
before that it was Claire Lynn.
Do you really think you're fooling anybody?
Bracy
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:40:51 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Linux
> operating system is named after its kernel, while
> Windows is named after its GUI?
Silly me. I thought Linux was named after/by Linus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 18:58:06 GMT
On 19 Dec 2000 15:07:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Troubleshooting a problem on a Linux system is, IMHO, generally
>>> much easier and swifter than troubleshooting a problem in Windows.
>
>> That depends on the problem, now doesn't it?
>
>> For instance, I've tried everything anyone can think of to get XFree86 4.0.1
>> to recognize my tseng et6000 based Hercules Dynamite 128/Video card, and so
>> far no luck. The solution seems to be to install CVS, retrieve the most
>> recent XFree86 source files, then figure out the arcane building method used
>> by XFree86 to build the driver I need (a patch was made in September which
>> may have fixed the problem, but there hasn't been a binary release since
>> July).
>
>You're lucky. I couldnt get the latest GForce driver to work on my
>RIVA TNT at all.
>
>Your problem isnt with linux, its with XFree; which is something that is
>developed and supported entirely outside the scope of all linux distributions.
This kind of mentality is a major barrier to Linux going anywhere. The
typical user wants to be able to go to their vendor for support. They don't
want to have to go to this website, that website, etc, especially when the
websites in question don't offer any kind of formal support.
Users expect basic things like the GUI to work, and they expect the vendor
to be able to support it when it doesn't. It's the distributors job to provide
an integrated system that works to the users, and to provide them with an
alternative solution (for example, downloads and instructions to fix the
problems) in the unlikely event that it doesn't. If the distributor is not
able to provide the information the user needs to get hardware that the
distributor claims is supported, then clearly that would be a failure
of the distributor.
All that aside, you are right in this case -- installing XFree86 3.3.x would
be a very simple solution here (as opposed to CVS ... )
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:03:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JoeX1029
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 19 Dec 2000 04:38:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>UNIX has no real choice, it's a propriotory design
>>from the ground up. Linux has maintained "it's not UNIX, it'll be
>>different" attitude.
>
>My god man, have you been smokin some L's?? Saying that Linux is not UNIX does
>not mean that its gonna be an OS with a different "feel" (ie MAC, Win, Amiga),
>it means it isnt a real UNIX(tm) operating system. And, every page ive read
>about Linux has said something like "linux is a free clone of UNIX." How
>exactly, is it trying to be different from UNIX??
A number of issues here; Unix is a trademark of somebody (probably
either OpenGroup or Sun) and official Unix code has to be therefrom.
Since Linux doesn't use any such code, it can't be Unix(tm).
Of course, it looks so much like Unix from the app developers and
the end-users point of view that it makes little difference, perhaps. :-)
As for Unix being proprietary -- yes, that is true. But then, so
is that other OS. (And proprietary does not mean it's cheap to acquire.
Solaris is free, in binary-only form, as I understand it.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 3:24, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 19:10:25 GMT
. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > No, you get 30 days of support, not to mention that this support includes
: > any hardware that's on the HCL.
: Will they give you support if a bug in photoshop doesnt allow it to take
: advantage of multiproc W2K machines?
: No, they wont. Youd have to call adobe for that.
: As in this case, you need to bother the people at XFree, not Mandrake.
But he hasn't bought anything from XFree. He has bought support (and a
pretty box) from Mandrake. Support for a Linux system, not just a Linux
kernel.
I don't enjoy agreeing with Eric, but I think XFree 4 is included in the
Mandrake box; if that's the case, it should be covered by their support.
Anyways, the game of matching Windows problems with Linux problems that
Eric wants to play only seems to support the original poster's point that
Linux isn't harder than Windows.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:00:51 GMT
And [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke unto the masses...
>On 19 Dec 2000 10:02:26 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Translation:
>> Windows has buggy drivers because nobody can poke
>>around and fix mistakes that the 9-to-5 programmers make.
>
>Windows HAS drivers for modern hardware and Linux does not.
You need to be a little more specific. Windows 9X has drivers for most modern
pc hardware. NT lags behind, and W2k is getting there.
>As for buggy, have you used SANE lately?
Yes. Have you?
>Or USB devices under Linux?
Only my zip250, my keyboard/mouse, my scanner, and my printer. Oh yeah and my
friends digital camera.
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:29:57 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:35:51 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Taking your post as a whole, I have a much better definition of a
>retard. Someone who comes to conclusions based on unrelated facts.
It's the end result that matters, not how one arrived or didn't arrive
at it.
In this case the end result is taking pictures with a camera.
Windows can utilize the hardware, and as usual Linux can't.
>Whether or not Intel decides to support Linux for their camera, has
>nothing to do with the quality of linux. As a point of technical review,
>it would be a hard sell to even suggest that Windows is better than
>Linux in any respect. Windows isn't even a real operating system.
Who cares if Windows is a basket of apples?
The point is Whatever the technical definition of Windows is or isn't,
Windows is able to use the camera, and quite a bit of other hardware
designed for the home user, and Linux as usual, can't.
All the dictionaries in the world will are not going to make the poor
bastard saddled with Linux be able to use his hardware.
>Claiming quality concerns over vendor support for a cheap camera, is
>like saying a Mercedes is crap because Holley doesn't make a fuel
>injection system for it.
It has nothing to do with quality.
It has everything to do with taking pictures with a camera.
Windows for all of it's faults can do it, and Linux in this case (and
many others BTW) can't.
>> The Linux users need a reality check to see how much they are missing
>> since they last used Windows circa 3.0
>
>I use Linux instead of Windows for many reasons. Mostly because I want
>to focus on my work, not the stupidity of rebooting.
Use what works for you.
Linux doesn't work for quite a lot of people and that is why it is
virtually non-existant on the desktop of home users and will continue
to stay that way.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:33:49 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>> Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>>> Windows has brought us the largest collection of
>>>> sponge heads in computing since the invention
>>>> of pac-man.
>>> Correction: Tholen uses OS/2
>> Tholen isn't that smart.
> You're right that Tholen isn't that smart. In fact, he's rather dumb.
Classic Glatt invective.
> But he still uses OS/2
Have been for a decade.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:40:54 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, to sum up:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Nothing is intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to consult a manual for everything???
>>>>>>>>>>> "Intuitive" doesn't mean "not needing to consult a manual".
>>>>>>>>>> You have a better definition that is simple to understand?
>>>>>>>>> How about the one in the manual? Erm, I mean, dictionary? :-)
>>>>>>>> Apparently the definition wasn't intuitive to you.
>>>>>>> It wasn't supposed to be. The definition of a word -- in this
>>>>>>> case, 'intuitive' -- breaks down the word, in a sense, into
>>>>>>> a series of more easily digested concepts, or perhaps different
>>>>>>> concepts. Occasionally, a dictionary gets into loops (I remember
>>>>>>> one dictionary that defined 'nipple' as a 'teat', and a 'teat' as a
>>>>>>> 'nipple'; obviously, that gets nowhere fast -- of course, that
>>>>>>> particular dictionary was designed to fit into one's pocket; one
>>>>>>> can only do so much :-) ). Dictionaries also have slight problems
>>>>>>> with very general concepts: "go", "be", "have", "put".
>>>>>> But the fact that you needed to consult a dictionary meant that the
>>>>>> definition of "intuitive" wasn't intuitive.
>>>>> Correct.
>>>> Glad you agree.
>>>>>>> I understand the definition of "intuitive", based on my earlier learning
>>>>>>> and experience. It needn't be intuitive -- just understandable; that's
>>>>>>> all an interface needs to be, in order to be useful.
>>>>>> Irrelevant to the present discussion.
>>>>>>> (The original question, IIRC, was whether a power switch was intuitive.
>>>>>> Actually, the discussion goes back farther than that. The power switch
>>>>>> example came after Aaron declared nothing about a computer is intuitive.
>>>>>> That declaration came after my remark that the use of hjkl for cursor
>>>>>> movement is not intuitive.
>>>>> Both are correct. Nothing about a computer is intuitive,
>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch. Or did you need to consult a
>>>> manual to determine how to operate it?
>>> Have it your way;
>> This isn't Burger King.
> Feh.
Ambiguous.
>>> a power switch is indeed intuitive in that:
>>>
>>> - it's a natural action to push it
>>> - the effects are immediately noticeable
>>> - it is prominently placed in most instances.
>> Is that all you can think of?
> - It's been in use for decades.
> - They are manufacturered in the millions.
> - They're cheap.
How do those make a power switch intuitive?
> I'm not sure what you're looking for, admittedly...did you have something
> specific in mind?
Yes, I did, and still do.
>>>>> and hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive. (Just extremely useful.)
>>>> Not necessarily useful.
>>> To me, it's useful. To you (and most others), the arrow keys may in fact
>>> be far more intuitive.
>>>
>>> This is not a problem.
>> Irrelevant, given that it wasn't described as a problem.
> Obviously, it is a problem.
"This is not a problem."
--Ghost
Do make up your mind.
> The problem is: how to most efficiently and/or intuitively move the cursor
> around in a document under construction.
>
> This is a problem. It's been solved multiple times, of course.
"This is not a problem."
--Ghost
Do make up your mind.
>>>>>>> One might remark "everyone knows what a power switch is" (and most
>>>>>>> do, by prior learning); hence, a power switch, being well-known,
>>>>>>> is something an interface designer can leverage for new designs
>>>>>>> of power switches -- and possibly other things. This makes the
>>>>>>> design useful.)
>>>>>> And perhaps even intuitive.
>>>>> Not by the dictionary definition. Of course, YMMV.
>>>> Whose dictionary, yours?
>>> Yes, mine.
>> And what dictionary do you have?
> The one in my head. Not horribly useful for you, admittedly,
> but it works for me. :-)
Makes sure you get the desired answer every time.
> I can also reference other dictionaries (www.dictionary.com is
> probably the simplest to remember). Which one is the most
> relevant and/or useful depends on the user.
Plase do.
>>>>>>>> How were those definitions better and simpler to understand?
>>>>>>> Better and simpler to understand than what?
>>>>>> Than the one I gave.
>>>>>>> Pressing a button?
>>>>>> Forget the definition I suggested already?
>>>>> Yes. It has been "scrolled off" this news post and my newsreader (SLRN)
>>>>> can't view messages by reference ID, unlike Netscape.
>>>> No, it hasn't scrolled off, given that it has been retained in your
>>>> follow-up.
>>> Oh, OK. I guess that's my official definition of "intuitive", then.
>>> I hadn't realized that.
>> Non sequitur, given that we were talking about *my* "definition", which
>> you had erroneously assumed to have "scrolled off".
> Where is it in the above post, then?
Right after the first item in your summary.
> Or you can give me a message-ID for scanning purposes.
Unnecessary.
> I think I snipped it.
What you think is irrelevant. However, if you had, it would be your
problem.
> [snip]
Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:42:01 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Linux
> operating system is named after its kernel, while
> Windows is named after its GUI? Perhaps this is
> a reflection of what each community / corporation
> considers to be the most important component of
> their system.
Unix is a better operating system than windows simply because back in
the days of its inception, there were no worries about graphics,
windowing systems, or ease of use. So, the main emphasis was on the
quality of its internals, not user interfaces or graphics. This allowed
unix to grow and mature as the great operating system that it is today.
With Windows (including NT), the main issues were marketing, and the
attributes that make on OS marketable with the masses, such as graphics
performance and user friendly interfaces. Unix had no such crosses to
bear, so the emphasis on quality became the most important issue.
So, to this day, unix is better than Windows. The end. Wasn't that a
great story? Oh wait, Steve will disagree because his new and exotic
Sound Blaster isn't supported.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:42:10 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> Is it me, or is there some sort of repeating pattern here? :-)
>>>>>>>> I gather from your emoticon that you already know the answer. So why
>>>>>>>> bother to ask the question?
>>>>>>> So I have a sense of humor. :-P
>>>>>> And you need to broadcast that information?
>>>>> Better than broadcasting that one does *not* have a sense of humor,
>>>>> methinks. :-)
>>>> You make it sound like those are the only two options.
>>> And a third option would be ... ?
>> Leaving the question open.
> True.
Glad you agree. Just a little late, however.
>>> I'm curious.
>> Do people who go to church on Sunday always "broadcast" whether they
>> do or do not have a sense of humor in that forum?
> Ah, I see. So we're supposed to do what in these forums (fora?), again?
Come to conclusions using a little logic.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:54:20 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Bracy wrote:
>
> Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
I would say the learning curve is shorter and shallower for Windows than
Linux. OTOH, I've seen some first-time computer users struggle greatly
even with Windows. I had to wonder if those users would have been able
to learn unix variants faster. I say this because with Windows, you
still have to learn the interface, such as how to work the menus. With
unix, you are basically doing the equivalent of typing English
commands. Thus, if natural speaking, which may include typing, is
easier than pointing and clicking, then unix may be easier to use than
Windows.
There will be some people that will claim that Via Voice software
accomplishes the same thing. True, but I feel it's possible to use
voice recognition software on Linux at the shell prompt, so you could do
something like
"ell s return"
as a substitute for
$ ls
That would aid those people who can speak, but can't type. But OTOH,
Windows may have the advantage here, as you can probably use a brainwave
pointing device in lieu of a mouse.
Which is eaier, hunting for "shutdown" in a GUI maze, or typing
"shutdown" at the prompt?
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 19:54:32 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2000 15:07:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Troubleshooting a problem on a Linux system is, IMHO, generally
>>>> much easier and swifter than troubleshooting a problem in Windows.
>>
>>> That depends on the problem, now doesn't it?
>>
>>> For instance, I've tried everything anyone can think of to get XFree86 4.0.1
>>> to recognize my tseng et6000 based Hercules Dynamite 128/Video card, and so
>>> far no luck. The solution seems to be to install CVS, retrieve the most
>>> recent XFree86 source files, then figure out the arcane building method used
>>> by XFree86 to build the driver I need (a patch was made in September which
>>> may have fixed the problem, but there hasn't been a binary release since
>>> July).
>>
>>You're lucky. I couldnt get the latest GForce driver to work on my
>>RIVA TNT at all.
>>
>>Your problem isnt with linux, its with XFree; which is something that is
>>developed and supported entirely outside the scope of all linux distributions.
> This kind of mentality is a major barrier to Linux going anywhere.
Its actually come quite far with this kind of thinking, read: the correct
kind of thinking.
> The
> typical user wants to be able to go to their vendor for support.
Oh well, the typical user is a retard. They loose. Buh bye. Dont let the
door hit your ass on the way out. See ya.
> They don't
> want to have to go to this website, that website, etc, especially when the
> websites in question don't offer any kind of formal support.
They dont want to have to THINK, they want everything fed to them with sporks.
They cant have that. If they want to be treated like retarded children, they
need to be using MacOS or windows.
> Users expect basic things like the GUI to work, and they expect the vendor
> to be able to support it when it doesn't.
Works fine for me.
> It's the distributors job to provide
> an integrated system that works to the users,
Oh really? Exactly where is this written down then?
> and to provide them with an
> alternative solution (for example, downloads and instructions to fix the
> problems) in the unlikely event that it doesn't. If the distributor is not
> able to provide the information the user needs to get hardware that the
> distributor claims is supported, then clearly that would be a failure
> of the distributor.
You are completely incorrect. You cannot stop thinking in windows terms;
Linux is NOT for the masses. Linux is for intelligent people who are willing
to think for themselves and who arent afraid of a little effort.
It is not for lazy idiots who need their hand held through pissing in the
morning.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 19:57:29 GMT
David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > No, you get 30 days of support, not to mention that this support includes
> : > any hardware that's on the HCL.
> : Will they give you support if a bug in photoshop doesnt allow it to take
> : advantage of multiproc W2K machines?
> : No, they wont. Youd have to call adobe for that.
> : As in this case, you need to bother the people at XFree, not Mandrake.
> But he hasn't bought anything from XFree. He has bought support (and a
> pretty box) from Mandrake. Support for a Linux system, not just a Linux
> kernel.
> I don't enjoy agreeing with Eric, but I think XFree 4 is included in the
> Mandrake box; if that's the case, it should be covered by their support.
What he didnt tell you is that it says clearly in the mandrake installer
that XFree 4.0.1 IS NOT SUPPORTED, AND THAT YOURE ON YOUR OWN IF YOU DECIDE
TO USE IT.
Thats an interesting bit of information to have omitted.
It says the same thing about 3d hardware accelleration under 3.3.6.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:03:47 -0600
I've never known a soldier that wanted to risk everything for nothing. None
that lived long at least.
Einstein encouraged our government to build the atom bomb. He was anti-war,
but who isn't? He at least realized that if we had the a-bomb we could win
and as the lesser of two evils in his mind that was preferable.
I don't mind the quarter billion price tag of our military. We should
double that and put half the doubling into payraises and r&D damnit! I DO
mind the trillions we spend on black hole entitlement programs. Talk about
suckling at the teat! Civilians are doing more of that than you can
possibly comprehend.
As for an armed force to protect us, we pay a very low price in dollars for
a great deal of protection. And don't think we don't need it. Get rid of
our military tomorrow and we'll be completely free from the threat of
war...we'll be overrun and slaughtered by the next tin pot dictator on the
block and it won't be an issue.
Go strait to hell if you think the Armed Forces of America don't earn every
dime.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, not really. Liberals (in the modern sense, at least), are for
government
> > > control of everything, mass dependence on the government for
everything from
> > > food, shelter, child care, education, etc. They want to create a
society
> > > of dependent slobs who suckle on the Government's nipple. That was not
what
> > > the Founding Fathers intended (including Thomas Jefferson, the founder
of the
> > > Democratic party).
> >
> > Well, Chad, I'm breaking my vow of silence. The phrase "suckle on the
Government's
> > nipple" somehow calls to mind the U.S. Armed Forces. They seem to do
the
> > heaviest suckling by a wide margin.
>
> And so...what you socialists are proposing is that EVERYBODY in America
live
> under a military-style social and economic order....
>
>
> By the way....Soldiers *earn* what they get. Or...when was the last
> time YOU took a job that REQUIRED one to travel INTO any location where
> high volumes of artillery, rockets, explosives, and small arms fire
> are saturating the area.
>
> Or do you expect the people who are willing to die FOR YOUR BENEFIT
> to live like homeless winos?
>
>
> You should be goddamned ASHAMED of your self, you worthless pile of shit.
>
>
>
> >
> > Chris
>
>
> --
> 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
******************************
