Linux-Advocacy Digest #14, Volume #31 Fri, 22 Dec 00 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (glitch)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Looks kike Linux is taking the lead! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Curtis)
Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!} ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application package.
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Since this is an Advocacy.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application package.
(spicerun)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:58:06 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
> >
> >Our reminder to keep us grouned.
> > a.. Linux is NOT more stable.
> >I love when Linux zealots claim that "Linux is sooo much more stable than anything
>Microsoft ever came out with". This used to be true. Linux had good stability, it
>was a true-32 bit OS from it's boot loader to "telinit 0". But come on, this claim
>is getting old.
i don't really see any proof here that stability has changed.
> >
> > 1.. When you ask most Linux users which Windows they are complaining about, they
>are talking about Windows NT 4, or Windows 98. Both of which have been succeeeded by
>future revisions of Windows.
I'm assuming you are implying that the future revisions are better? U
don't know how wrong you are. 95 crashed more than 3.1, 98 crashed more
than 95, and based on my friend's WinfckedME computer ME crashes more
than 98. You can't even get to a commandline at boot time with ME which
makes me so sorry for anyone who has to try doing anything outside the
GUI.
> > 2.. Bad programming is still bad programming. Netscape 6 for Linux still causes
>unresponsive X sessions, "core" crap-out's under GNOME, and infrequently, but
>noticeably, completely unresonsive Linux sessions in general. It does the same thing
>to Microsoft Windows.
your point? THis has nothing to do with Linux, especially since you say
it does the same with Windows. Are you implying Netscape is made by the
Linux developers? if so, you are wrong again.
Btw, I use netscape 6 and it runs fine. I use Enlightenment.
> >And these "uptime" claims. Please. These are being posted by people running their
>Linux kernel, and a super-stripped down C shell. Really, if I was running the
>Windows command console, writing documents with "edit.com" and posting them using
>some MSDOS based usenet posting software, I'd never have to reboot either (except
>when I turn my PC off).
how do YOU know? I run Enlightenment with 2 or 3 netscape 4.7 windows
open, Yahoo messenger, icq, abiword, not to mention everything running
in the background like Apache and mysql. Nothing crashes besides abiword
and when it does (its beta so u can expect it) it just goes away. The
system doesn't lock up for unknown periods of time, no other programs
are harmed and I just restart it , getting back to where I was within 10
seconds.
> > 1.. Real computing involves running programs. LOTS of programs, loading them
>into and out from memory repeadly, over the course of a day, or two or three. It
>involves running multipul applications at once, and loading and unloading them as
>previously mentioned. Maybe, even running a video game here and there occasionaly.
>Doing all this, your invaraibly going to hit something that isn't coded perfectly,
>and is going to cause SOMETHING to go somewhere.
I forgot to mention I play Railroad Tycoon II as well and haven't
experienced any problems yet either.
> > a.. Linux is NOT Free
> >Linux lovers keep saying "it's stable AND free, have Microsoft beat that!" Well,
>it's not more stable, so let's go into why Linux isnt' free.
proof?
> > 1.. Linux is typicaly available for download. The most common formats are binary
>extractions of the CDROM's used to distrubute the copies of Linux. They are stored
>in their uncompressed entirety as an "image" file. This file is usually 600
>megabytes, or more. And may not involve just one IMAGE. It can involve two, three,
>or four (Connectiva). That requires broadband connections, because it would take
>weeks on a common modem. Broadband is a commodity, period.
yeah if you buy Windows at any store you have to pay for gas, and car
insurance, and your time, and God forbid u get into a wreck on the way->
$$$$$$$$. why do u give us lame excuses?
> > 2.. The "Image Files" require a CD writing device. That is a commodity, not a
>typical component. Most people DON'T own a CD writing device.
yeah right, give me a break. Most people DO have one considering Dell
and Gateway include them as basic options for their computers. Also, if
not many people had them the prices would still be sky high but they
aren't. Prices are down to $150 for a cheap IDE cdrw. That is only the
result of market saturation.
> > 3.. Distributions are distributed in CD Packs. Which are sold for PROFIT. Need
>I go on?
you are being sold the documentation which , especially in the case of
the 100+page manual that comes with Suse 6.3 (and the loads of books
that come with Suse 7.0) is more than I can say for what you get when
you buy Windows95 or 98.
> > 4.. Distributions are not "updated". They are being replaced. RedHat Linux 6.1
>has been suceeded by RedHat Linux 6.2, and now 7.0. The only difference between the
>products is updated componetns inside the distribution that fix idiotic security and
>stability problems. If you cannot accomidate line items "1", or "2" above, your only
>choice for updating your distro is to buy another one. If you bought a fully
>commercial package, you may be entitled to free upgrades.
> >Item "4" above shoots a hole in the claim that "Linux can be updated for free,
>Windows can't, you have to buy another one when 'big billy' says so." Fine, so
>instead of Microsoft controlling product udpates, you have to rely on often
>anonymous, 3rd parties to maintain and fix your OS components, and then you have to
>pay the distro maker more money to obtain the latest release.
i don't.
> >
> > a.. Linux isn't much faster
> >A vast majority of Linux's speed comes from processor optimizations at the kernel,
>and program level. Your software is hard-wired for your platform, delivering speed.
>Great. Except that Windows functions on all Intel i386 compliant platforms without
>kernel changes or software re-codes.
Since when has any Windows beyond 3.1 (if that) ran on a 386?
> Which means that Linux's only speed advantage lies in it's platform dependent,
>processor optimizations.
Even if that's true what is preventing Microsoft from doing teh same
thing? Supposedly they have more resources based on arguments by people
like you that they are a well organized group of developers all in one
city so why can't they do the same thing???????
> >
> >XFree86 is Linux's only other X server (alternative is a commercial, unpopular
>product). Does XFree86 comes with hardware optimization for video graphics
>accelerators? Yes and No. It doesn't fully support any of the 3D technology in
>today's 3D accelerators, nothing quite even CLOSE to what Apple & Microsoft can do
>with 'em.
> >
It's not X's job to support them. 3dfx and Creative have that job of
making the drivers. Learn how the industry works before making
accusations.
> >As for other operations, like general interface, XFree86 is a sugglish nightmare.
>Really, using dedicated CPU time to create, and update the display is a sluggish and
>outdated practice that went the way of the dodo when hardware accelerated procedures
>were implemented. So there goes the GUI "speed" advantage.
> >
my laptop runs just fine even running a supposedly resource heavy window
manager like Enlightenment which on my laptop runs faster than Windows98
which runs on my desktop. It even runs faster than KDE, although that
might not be saying much.
> >Summary: Linux is for cheap computer programmers, who have no idea what computing
>should be like for people who don't have the time to interface with their computers
>in C.
Actually I use Xwindows and Enlightenment to interface with my laptop.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:05:40 -0600
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>2) If you buy a boxed version of a Windows OS, and some of your
> >>hardware won't work with it, would you expect Microsoft to help you??
> >>How is that any different from Linux?
> >
> >If it's on the hardware compatibility list and it doesn't work, then IMO
> >it is Microsoft's responsibility to offer some kind of fix (since it was
> >Microsoft, and not the vendor, who declared the hardware to be
compatible).
>
> But does Microsoft meet that responsibility, esp. with the average
> consumer??
Yes. If you buy a retail version of Windows, you get 30 days of technical
support for all supported hardware. If you have unsupported hardware,
you'll be referred to the hardware vendor. In fact, MS doesn't support when
you've installed vendor provided drivers over the ones that come with the
product.
> >BTW, two other points:
> >(*) Microsoft can afford to offload support to the hardware vendor,
because
> > they can be confident that the hardware vendor *will* make sure that
> > the drivers work with Linux. This is the advantage that you have
> > when you're the market leader. Yeah, I know it's not "fair". But
> > that's the way it is.
>
> Aren't there some questions as to the legality of to how Microsoft
> obtained and maintains this position as the market leader?? Why do you
> insist Linux vendors should operate at a loss to compete with that.
No. The DOJ has never even uttered a word claiming that MS illegally
obtained it's monopoly, only that it believes it's using it's power wrongly.
> >(*) Microsoft actually do have a fairly large support website.
>
> I've never found it of any use.
Probably because you don't use MS products. The knowledge base is literally
100's of thosands of documents covering all sorts of things from bugs and
their workarounds, to how-to's.
> >>>Microsoft are not primarily a support vendor, and their business model
> >>>is not "give away software and sell support". Their business model is
based
> >>>on licensing.
> >>
> >>And you seem to think the OSS model should be "give away software and
> >>give away support"??
> >
> >No, I don't. Most of the box sets are not "given away".
>
> So how much support do you expect for a crummy sixty bucks or so??
Interesting, yet MS is supposed to give you the world for $89.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Looks kike Linux is taking the lead!
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:07:46 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91u6nc$3u7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4236527.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni
Yup, congratulations.
Although it should be mentioned that MS has a publicly available beta with
64 bit support. Still, assuming 2.4 ships before the itanium, it should
work (of course the Itanium could change between then and now, but who
knows?)
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[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: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:06:29 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () posted:
| On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:45:55 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
| >>
| >> In case you haven't noticed, EVERY able-bodied male citizen of
| >> Switzerland between the ages of 17 and 45 is not only in the military,
| >> but, if not on active duty, REQUIRED to maintain his (full automatic)
| >> service rifle AT HOME.
| >
| >Good point.
| >
| >Now quit selfishly clogging the net with that big-ass signature.
| >Thank God for compression.
|
| Comparied to girlie pics, mp3's, videos and other
| forms of binaries, this fellow's abuse of bandwidth
| is inconsequential.
At least those girlie pics, mp3's etc. server some useful purpose to
others. OTOH, Aaron's signature serves only to amuse his sorry self. Now
*that* is a waste of bandwidth.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!}
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:12:16 -0600
"Richard Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91tsq4$2vu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hotmail WAS recently transferred to a win 2000 server.
July is recently?
> And now a netcraft
> graph clearly shows it has more downtime than when it was on Unix.
The netcraft graph doesn't show the uptimes when they were on Unix, so how
can you support this claim?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application
package.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:13:31 -0600
Actually, I like the way FreeBSD does it. If it needs something to compile,
it goes out and gets it.
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <Rant Mode>
> It really gets frustrating to download an application...mostly in source
> form....and try to install and compile, then find
> that the package requires 2 or 3 other packages.....some of which can
> only be compiled so that the application you compile
> can find the bits of source code/include files necessary from those
> packages. In most cases, the Developer tells you up front
> everything that you need, but a lot of them don't.
>
> Nothing is more infuriating than having your compile come to a dead stop
> because it couldn't find some cryptically named file
> or library with no clue as to where or what the missing piece is. In my
> case, I abandon the application if it has to link with 4 or
> more libraries not supplied in normal Linux distributions. I think a
> lot of people will abandon a propective application even
> earlier than I do.
>
> I really think the Linux cause would be helped greatly if 1. developers
> would stop every once-in-a-while and catch up the documentation
> or requirements so others can know the full requirements 2. developers
> would just stop and test their application package on a newly
> setup Linux System that has no libraries other than the standard
> libraries......and correct their packages to where everything is
> included, and
> 3. Reconsider how they are writing their code if they are linking to an
> excessive number of libraries that are not standardly found
> in any standard Linux System. I know this is not fun for the
> developers, but the developers need to understand that if they don't
> do their work fully, the general public isn't going to bother with their
> work. The developer ends up losing.
>
> </End Rant Mode>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Since this is an Advocacy....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:10:25 GMT
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:32:46 -0500, glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>when is the last time you edited your autoexec.bat file or config.sys in
>order to use your dos bootdisk which had your cdrom driver (and mscdex)
>in order to install windows from a CD?
Somewhere areound 1997 or so. I am smart enough to make a rescue
diskette.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:13:11 GMT
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:27:51 -0500, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But in the case of Linux, there are more products to compare. For Windows,
>it's pretty much 98/WinME for home/casual users, and NT/Win2k for
>people who need more. Whereas in Linux, one has a wider choice of distro
>
>Colin Day
Yea sure.
You can choose from distributions that don't work at all (Corel).
Distributions that are a year and a half behind (Debian and
Slackware).
Distributions that are full of bugs (Redhat).
And distributions that use deceptive marketing (Mandrake).
Take your pick and cry...
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:20:35 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis
> >
> > So quoth the Captain Obsessed...
> >
>
> The address of rank is incorrect, Specialist "lying wannabe war hero".
you write like a jealous man who never gets to go anyplace.
--
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,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:21:22 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > There are doctors that treat for obsession as well as pathological
> lying.
> > > Seek one, wannabe.
>
> > You mean like where you claim that German, Japanese, North Korean,
> > Chinese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese never fired on American medics...
>
> No. I meant what I posted. That you are a liar and a wannabe. Your lack
I've been to war, you haven't.
Hope that helps.
> of reading comprehension shows yet again, KuKu.
--
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,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:22:09 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > > You idiot. THE VERY SAME STATS which YOU (Redloser) obtained from the
> > > > Army war historian demonstrated conclusively that it medics become
> > > > casualties at a rate 50% higher than infantry men.
> > >
> > > And you continually demonstrate you're a lying wannabe war hero. The
> >
> >
> > You write like a jealous loser who's pissed because he didn't get to go
> > like I did.
>
> Where? You have no idea where I have been, when I was where, or what I did
> while anywhere.
When was the last time you got combat zone pay?
--
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: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application
package.
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:25:43 GMT
mlw wrote:
> This is one of those good/bad trade-off things about open source. We do
> not live in an ideal world.
Glad to hear it. We don't live in an ideal world no matter how much we
would like to make it perfect.
> I am a software developer, and sometimes I don't do the documentation.
> The issue is that I am not as productive doing docs as I am doing
> software.
I am also a software/firmware developer (mainly on embedded systems). I
can empathize with your reasoning.
Your answer is the typical answer I hear from software developers
(including myself).
As I alluded to, Developers simply don't like doing the docs....a big
reason why is what you cite above.
However, Documentation is a necessary evil. None of my clients and the
company I work for will accept my software until they
have the accompanying documentation. I've had to discipline myself to
do documentation, or not get paid.
> One of the points of OSS is that people "chip in" as they see fit. You
> could have very easily updated an install or readme file to include
> information and sent it back to the developer, so that the next person
> won't have the same problems you have had.
However, In order for other people to "chip in", they have to understand
what the program/makefile is doing, and, hopefully, catch on to the
authors intent. In a lot of cases, it is extremely difficult to
understand what the developer meant or meant not to include/implement in
his software product. While it is true somebody can try to determine
the author's intent, you can't count on it being right...perhaps
it worked only for the documentor's system only.
I still maintain that the bottom line is if developers want people to
use their software, they'd better adequately document their product.
Otherwise, people won't bother with the product....just like my clients
not accepting my software until they do have documentation from me.
I think that OSS developers had better get used to documenting (or at
least providing enough notes to allow somebody else to document) if
they want their software to be used. A good example I can cite is the
kernel sources....The people who put together have put together a nice mix
of Sources and Documentation. The package is complete and can be
compiled using the instructions documented and included with the tarballs..
Of all of the sources I regularly compile, the kernel compiles with the
least amount of effort and problems thanks to good documentation that
guides me in how to do it.
What started this rant......I tried to compile an MP3 player which had
next to no documentation, and required 4 different libraries not normally
installed on my Redhat Linux System. It got even more interesting when
I discovered that you couldn't just obtain and compile these 'foreign'
libraries in any order you wish....but I had nothing to tell me exactly
how these sources, and in what order, they had to be built. I certainly
could
try to update a Readme file, but it probably wouldn't be right or work
for other people trying to compile. And, no, I'm not a mind reader.....
I can't determine what the procedure the author used to compile his
program although I suspect the author has had these 'foreign' libraries
on his
system for some time to the point that he takes for granted that those
libraries are always on the systems he makes code for.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:29:54 -0500
redc1c4 wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > redc1c4 wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> (snipage occurs)
> > > > Tell us again about your belief that German, Japanese, North Korean,
> > > > Chinese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese combatants never fired at
> > > > American medics....
> > >
> > > better yet, explain again how they could be singled out, when the casualty
> > > figures don't support your claims?
> >
> > You idiot. THE VERY SAME STATS which YOU (Redloser) obtained from the
> > Army war historian demonstrated conclusively that it medics become
> > casualties at a rate 50% higher than infantry men.
>
> ahhhh, but they did not prove any such thing.... at least not to any
> educated observer. (your opinion not meeting that criteria, btw.)
Apparently, you never learned how to do division, did you?
>
> > > put up, or shut up, "war hero".
> >
> > You write like a jealous little boy who didn't get to go...
>
> you deployed AFTER hostilities had ended, and have since proclaimed that
> you would apply to attend PLDC ONLY if there was another war, a cowardly
Only *IF* they want me to attend PLDC. You left that out. Why is that?
> attempt to avoid danger if ever there was one.
That must be why I volounteered.
>
> redc1c4,
> yer a coward, a disgrace, and a pathetic joke, "war hero".
> --
> "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
> better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We
> ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
> you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that
> ye were our countrymen."
> Samuel Adams
--
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
******************************
