Linux-Advocacy Digest #96, Volume #31 Thu, 28 Dec 00 10:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (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: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:41 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 24 Dec 2000 18:59:40
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Obviously these quantitative arguments are silly, because by these
>: arguments, we can prove things which we know not to be true. These
>: arguments support the notion that Java is an OS.
>
>: We must depend on qualitative arguments. DesqView is not an OS, Java is
>: not an OS, and thus Windows is not an OS. There is a common denominator
>: in that they all rely on a base OS on which to function. They are not,
>: themselves, operating systems.
>
>In my view, Java and Win32 both serve as higher-level abstractions
>over services that traditionally are, but in any specific case may or
>may not be, performed by the operating system. Since DOS is rather
>stupid but VMS is not, the DOS implementation of Win32 provides these
>services whereas the VMS implementation (aka NT4/W2K) defers them to
>the actual OS which sits under Win32 on an NT/W2K system. Java
>ordinarily provides few of these services, but, in some cases where
>the underlying OS is limited (e.g., Linux with respect to threads, or
>DOS with respect to pretty much everything), a Java implementation may
>be forced to provide or emulate them.
I'm not sure if you meant to do so, but you have just conclusively
proven that Windows is middleware. This would support the theory that
DOS is the OS, or that VMS-like thing is the OS, and Windows is
middleware which all Win32 software relies on. This of course ratifies
the analysis by Judge Jackson, recognizing that Microsoft's
anti-competitive business practices were motivated by a desire to
prevent middleware (which didn't exist when the MS monopoly got started)
from loosening their lock-in of OEMs to preloading Windows (either
flavor). It also corroborates his decision to ignore any putative
distinction between products or sub-markets, outside recognizing that
Microsoft sells NT at greatly increased prices in comparison to WinDOS
(Win95).
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:42 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> As a result, they naturally envision Windows as
>> being the "dominant" OS in the mix, even though, in reality, it's
>> being used as a dumb terminal and not much else.
>
>Ah. I get it.
I don't think so.
>Yeah, most people don't realize that they are connecting to, and using,
>one of the most powerful computer systems in the world, when they pick
>up their telephone handset and dial a number.
But most people don't mistake a telephone for a telephone network, just
as Mark pointed out you are doing. As for the computing power of the
telephone network, it may be big, but its anything but powerful. Pretty
much capable of only a very few specific tasks. It does them very fast,
of course, and incredibly reliably, but that's not power, that's just
speed.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:44 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 24 Dec 2000
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
>> First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
>
>However, Schulman proves through the version numbers returned by the memory
>managers that Windows replaces himem.sys.
Then whatever they replaced it with is part of DOS, isn't it, since
himem.sys is part of DOS? Isn't that why they call it a "DOS Extender"?
>> > Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
>> Not entirely true, the DOS driver links DOS and Windows ifshlp.sys. (Try
>> removing it!)
>> It is the installable file system helper.
>
>This allows DOS programs to use Windows filesystems, such as network shares
>or 32 bit cdrom drivers.
Which explains why Windows programs don't need help accessing DOS
filesystems, since DOS is the OS to begin with, and the Win32 middleware
just acts as a redirector.
>> So, but this definition, DesqView/QEMM and Java are operating operating
>> systems.
>
>Interesting that you say this, since your own definitions are contrary. You
>claim that DOS is the OS, yet you claim that anything that is not running
>"natively" cannot be the OS (such as MacOS X, the Win32 subsystem in NT, or
>mkLinux). Your very own definitions put DOS as a non-native OS run by the
>Windows 386 executive in a VM.
The "Windows 386 executive" runs on DOS. You're still getting confused
by the block-diagrams (or trying to confuse us with arm-waving, again,
about the "DOS box" which isn't at all relevant to the discussion,
AFAIK, though Mark will surely understand that more as well.)
>In other words, by your own words, if DOS is an OS, so is Windows, since by
>your own definition, they both run exactly the same way.
Those are certainly "other words", though I recognize much more of your
characteristic lack of thinking than any of Mark's words in that
statement.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:45 GMT
Said Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:30:23 +0800;
[...]
>Now it is considered the primary API. Check the MSDN documentation on the
>Platform SDK for more information.
I'm afraid to say I think this statement stands on its own.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:46 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
16:20:32 -0700;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 04 Dec 2000 05:42:26
>> [...]
>> >Rush is loud, obnoxious, pompous, opinionated and , more often than not,
>> >absolutely right in what he says.
>>
>> Think harder.
>
>Typical, elistist posting:
>
>"If you don't agree with my opinion of Rush, you just aren't as
>intelligent as me, or you just aren't thinking at all."
Such a rephrasing of my words might indeed be a typical, elitist
posting.
>Did it ever occur to you that people just as intelligent as yourself
>could listen to Rush, think about what he says . . . and agree with him?
It is evident that intelligent people listen to Rush and agree with him;
all else is conjecture, though we might suppose they think about what he
says, though obviously not enough if they agree with him. I'm not
second-guessing them, but it is not evidence of their intelligence that
they agree with him, no. Coincidence, more often; even Rush says
something that isn't false, every once in a while.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:48 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:24:50 GMT;
>> >"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, saying that conservative extends to "conserving" something is
>> entirely bogus.
>
>Were you trying to respond to LShaping, or me?
It was in the original post; you must have snipped it, and I notice you
didn't indicate it, either. I was obviously responding to LShaping, on
the subject of your comment. That would make it a response to you, as
well, since this is an open discussion.
>In any event, once again, you fail to even explain your assertion.
I can't answer a question until you ask it. Which part didn't you
understand?
>I'll repeat: conservative is indeed partialy about conserving, your
>beliefs not with standing.
That's nothing more than a silly metaphor; ripe for perversion and
useless for anything else.
>> That conservatives (in the USA, at least) are for human
>> rights and individual liberties is less bogus, but only because it is
>> mostly propaganda (proganda that they buy into unimpeachably).
>
>More bald assertion.
Again, I'd ask that you let me know what in particular you disagreed
with if you're going to bother responding.
>You are entitled to write what ever you want (unless, of course, you
>violate a liberal principle, in which case the PC-liberals will shut you
>down),
Actually, conservatives believe in free speech as well, at least to a
point. I don't know what it has to do with our discussion.
>but you've yet to identify what specific issues you have with the
>conservative agenda.
That's because we weren't discussing what specific issues I have with
the conservative agenda, but how wrong-headed a blow-hard Rush Limbaugh
is. Which parts of the conservative agenda would you like to discuss?
Not being a conservative, but a moderate, I'm sure I'll be able to
identify some specific issues we could argue about.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:49 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 25 Dec 2000 05:58:28
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Just because I feel like yanking Aaron "straw man" Kulkis's chain...
>>
>> Libertarians are nothing but stupid liberals. ;-)
>
>I caught their convention on C-SPAN back in '92.
>Star Trek convention meets political rally
>Quite amusing.
I was a card-carrying libertarian at that time, in fact. It wasn't so
much the convention, as silly as it was, but my partner's comment, that
the whole place was filled with flakes and rich middle-aged white guys
who didn't want to pay any taxes. I've refused any party affiliations
since then, though I'd have to default to the Demos if I needed to
choose one, but only because they're powerful enough to matter under
whatever circumstances would force me to choose. That, and they're not
Republicans.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:50 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
[...]
>The thought of having the Florida State Legislature actually do what it
>is both Constitutionally empowered, and *required* to do: select the
>electoral college representatives when the voters are otherwise unable
>to do so, is what scares her so badly.
>
>After all, in an election that close, considering the resolution limits
>of the system then in place: that race was a dead tie. Neither Gore nor
>George won Florida, so the State Legislature *SHOULD* have picked the
>Electoral College Representatives.
The Legislature should have sent the representatives by party
affiliation then, rather than "voting" to give the whole state (and it
was already know the impact would be to give the Presidency) to the
Republicans. Who would have won, then?
>> > Where's Harry Browne when you really need him?
>>
>> I pretty much agree with what you say here. I do feel that Gore
>> was swept along by events for awhile.
>
>Hey, all I really care about is that the Constitution doesn't get
>trampled in the rush to victory.
Bull-shit. You're wrapping yourself in the flag; let the Supreme Court
determine what the Constitution says, its their job. (And, ironically,
dark times are ahead should the Court be made even more conservative.)
>I honestly care less about George Vs. Al than I do about the tactics
>used by the Democrats.
I don't care a wit about any of it; I honestly only care about the
recessions of freedoms that will occur should George "Day of Prayer"
Bush, Jr. be successful in adding more like Justice Thomas to the
highest court in the land.
>> And, hey, with a little
>> luck, George Dubya might make a fine president.
>
>Hey, I voted for the man, but lets be blunt: a President is just a
>President. He has a fair amount of power, but in the end, the entire
>government, including Congress and the Judiciary, are responsible for
>what happens, and frankly, no single man can do that much good, or that
>much damage.
>
>Which is why I wouldn't have been all that upset had Gore outright won.
Oh, but you'd have been livid if the circumstances had ceded the same
arbitrary victory to Gore as it did to Bush.
>> Hopefully, the
>> stress won't get to him, and history won't have to talk about his
>> "Liquor Cabinet".
>
>:-)
>
>Yeah!
>
>But remember, a convert is twice as fanatical as a born-follower . . .
>I'd bet that George is even more leery of alchohol than most.
I'll bet he's got lots of other reasons to be puritanically oppressive,
as well.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:52 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
[...]
>And I was waiting, rather anxiously, for the Florida Legislature to step
>up and do their duty.
>
>I was even hoping that they would make a statement to that effect: "This
>is our decision, and both the Florida Supreme court, and the National
>Supreme court, have no say in this."
>
>But they didn't. Which was probably for the best, but I must admit, I'm
>getting tired of seeing the checks and balances of a three part system
>get eroded by this belief that *EVERYTHING* is litigatable (sp? real
>word? I don't know . . . feel free to correct me if you wish).
Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:54 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
14:53:53 -0700;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 20 Dec 2000
>> [...]
>> >While I disagree with some of the other stuff he says, I have to go
>> >along on this one.
>>
>> While I disagree with just about everything that anyone else says, I
>> think you're an utter jerk, John.
>
>But of course you do, Max. You almost always do.
>
>My opinion of you isn't much higher than your opinion of me, after all,
>so why would I expect to have your respect? I consider you to be a
>pseudo intellectual who has claimed to be an engineer, but repeatedly
>proven that he is not.
I have never claimed to be an engineer.
>> >Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
>>
>> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
>> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of all
>> stripes typically use.
>
>Ah, yes. Let's not start without the obligatory personal attacks.
I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
personal attack; it is an self-preservation mechanism.
>> By self-defining
>
>And you follow your usual pattern: you immediately do what you accuse me
>of doing.
No; my definitions are derived from reason, your's are arbitrarily
created in an attempt to support a meaningless argument. I think I've
explained this before; if the definition is not accurate, consistent,
_and_ practical, I won't use it.
>And of course, you make totally unsupported assertions.
They are supported by reason and facts; your assumption they are
unsupported is rather unsupported itself, without more concise
discussion of any putative refutation.
>> everything which happened in
>> the Presidential election "upholding the Constitution",
>
>Your first mistake. I did not define everything that happened in the
>post election as "upholding the Constitution".
Yes, you did.
>In fact, I really didn't
>define anything. I complained bitterly about those who refuse to uphold
>the law and the Constitution.
You didn't declare you are defining anything, but you made clear that
everything that any Democrat did to resolve the issues of the recent
presidential election as contrary to upholding the Constitution. I
didn't misread you. Here's the quote (since you snipped it):
===========================================================================
>>Just today, Molly Ivins (an old-style liberal) states in her news paper
>>column that actually upholding and following the Constitution is "the
>>most frightening thing I've ever seen".
>>
>>This, from a party that repeatedly claimed to support the rule of law?
>>
>>What's so terrifying about upholding and following the Constitution?
>>
>>Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
===========================================================================
>> this pea-brain
>> John Stevens then states unequivocally that anyone in disagreement with
>> him
>
>Wrong again. I stated, pretty much unequivocally, that anybody who does
>not support the clear and easily understood wording of the
>Constitutition, was against upholding it . . . as, for example, Ivins
>does.
See? Molly Ivans is not against upholding the Constitution, in any
least little bit. It is understandable, of course, that there might be
some good bit of discussion over what the Constitution says, and about
how what it says is to be applied to current government, as nobody
believes the government should be unchanged from what it was two
centuries ago. You're just wrapping yourself in the flag (or the
Constitution, as the case may be), plain and simple.
>> (and, we are to presume, Rush Limbaugh and George Dubaya Bush) is
>> therefore against upholding the Constitution. By 'carving out' a
>> position in this fashion, they quickly convince themselves that their
>> thinking is sound and their facts are unassailable.
>
>Thanks for explaining . . . what *YOU* just did in this posting. It is
>both instructive, and amusing, to watch you do exactly what you accuse
>others of doing.
Could you explain how I did this? I don't get it.
>Having carved out your position, you will no doubt defend it with vim
>and vigor.
I have stated my position, yes. Perhaps you didn't quite understand
what I meant by "carving out" a position? But, then, you don't
understand that you're "just wrapping yourself in the flag", either.
>> I don't know.
>
>Then why post?
So that you would read all the other words in my response, you numbnuts.
Are you so incapable of even recognizing a rhetorical question, or have
so little to do but twitter and snipe for lack of a valid argument?
>> Why don't you tell us? And I think we'd also be
>> interested in "how well does the technique of accusing your opponents of
>> doing whatever you're doing as a pre-emptive deterrent to clear
>> communications work?"
>
>Since you exhibit precisely this tactic: tell me why *YOU* are using it?
I haven't. But I noticed that you did when you said:
========================================================================
>>What advantage is there in making unsupportable allegations, or
>>mis-representing your opponents stance?
========================================================================
Quite bizarre, in an ironic, sort-of post-modernist way.
>> That figures.
>
>Such a clear statement, with such crystal clear reasoning behind it to
>explain and justify . . .
Perhaps if you didn't reply to each individual sentence, you might
understand what it is you're pretending to argue against.
>> Actually, those who believe that Al Gore won don't base it on the
>> popular vote;
>
>You are ignorant. That is precisely what some did.
You are mistaken. They certainly may have used it as a justification
for considering the issue; I can see little reason why they wouldn't.
But I'm not vouching for the innocence or intelligence of any particular
Democrat; I'm just vouching for the pig-headedness of certain
Republicans.
>> they base it on the malfeasance among the Republicans
>
>Malfeasance? The sheer chutzpah is amazing . . . the Democrats twist,
>spin, squirm . . . and the Republicans get painted with the word
>"malfeasance" when they complain.
Yes, chutzpah indeed.
>Blame the victim . . . a classic tactic, that.
I thought the Republicans didn't believe in thinking of themselves as
victims. Get a spine, dude.
>> This is correct. Many believe, while taking such extreme charges as
>> proffered by Jessie Jackson with a healthy dose of skepticism, that Gore
>> won the Florida popular vote if the election had been conducted justly
>> and fairly.
>
>There you go again, illustrating your "carve out a position".
Again, that's called "stating a position". It was fairly succinct, and
didn't require demonizing everyone who believes anything different.
>The election *was* conducted justly and fairly.
By decree and by definition of the winners, apparently. Obviously,
there is no reason to be concerned.
>Before all the idiocy
>re: recounts was begun, a blind, fair and objective count of what were
>unequivacolly "votes" was done, and Gore lost.
And asked for his just and fair right to a recount. Given the cruddy
little hand-punch system they were using, with a very large threshold
for machine counting, it was appropriate for them to ask for hand count.
Much grousing went back and forth about bad counting. Some Republican
official in charge in Florida stopped the had counts, rather than
determine the appropriate guidelines and supervise the just, fair, and
accurate hand recounts. Then the Florida Supreme Court botched the job
further, by failing to provide such a mandate, and eventually it became
clear that nothing could be done in time but have the Legislature vote
"break the tie" by providing Bush every elector from Florida, because
the Republicans controlled the legislature.
In political terms, the election was decided by Al Gore, because he
conceded.
>> >Why are the Democrats unwilling to talk truthfully about this issue?
>>
>> They aren't;
>
>Sure they are. They flat out changed the rules repeatedly, then refuse
>to discuss the issue.
Unsupported allegations, anyone?
>Instead, the point fingers at the Republicans and charge 'em with all
>kinds of stuff.
>
>I have yet to hear one single Democrat discuss, honestly, why it wasn't
>a violation of the law to simply change the rules and deadlines, again
>and again.
And you probably won't, because nobody know what the hell that question
is supposed to mean, or why the unconventional activities involved in
the election are all the Democrat's fault.
>They've talked about "self-definitions" of "fairness", and
>"full", and "accurate", but never about "upholding the law", except as a
>self-serving sound bite.
Which is all "upholding the law" is, in most cases in which it is used.
Thus the lack.
>> they just don't have any need to engage a straw man,
>
>Paint, label, carve out . . . standard tactics. What you cannot defend,
>do not fight about.
I did defend it. Perhaps you again forgot what was going on, and
assumed that this phrase, all by itself, was the entirety of my
comments.
>> as
>> their argument is not that Gore 'should have won' because more people
>> voted for him, nationally.
>
>Maybe you just didn't listen to enough of the post election coverage . .
>. quite a few did.
They've mentioned it as a justification, I would suppose; I doubt any
were saying that the President is determined by popular vote.
>> I don't even hear the Democrats arguing that
>> the electoral college should be dismantled or modified.
>
>Oh, now I *KNOW* you weren't listening. That is precisely what some
>Democrats are arguing for. I know you've probably never heard of a
>little known senator-elect from the state of New York . . . Hillary
>Clinton, but if you had, you'd know that she was calling for just that.
[...]
I think you're getting wound up over rhetoric, hyperbole, and media
presentations, not real life. Let me point out that when I say "the
Democrats", I'm not going to be talking about any one specific Democrat,
not even Hillary Clinton. I don't consider her position definitive,
though you, and even the Democrats, might do so. But you are correct; I
don't listen to this stuff incessantly, and am not unduly swayed,
generally, by rhetoric, hyperbole, or media presentations. So I'll just
give up on this exchange right here.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:51:56 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 20 Dec 2000
>> 15:35:49 -0500;
>> >False premise
>>
>> I'm afraid not.
>
>'Fraid so.
Given a lack of reference or explanation, your statement is
unintelligible.
>> You're an anti-intelligence virus, Aaron, as are all
>> trolls.
>
>More of the standard Max-attack-speak.
Wow, its gotta be pretty blatant before you recognize it, doesn't it?
>> It lowers someone's credibility when you agree with them,
>
>No it doesn't. Those who are incapable of reason will assign more or
>less credibility based on the speaker . . . not the position.
[...]
It lowers their credibility when you agree with them, too, John, but not
nearly as much. Credibility is based on how reasonable the statements
are, and its generally a good idea to ignore who the speaker is. From a
logical perspective, at least; when we haven't the time in real life to
be rigorously and explicitly logical, we look for clues like whether the
person has credibility by themselves, and if they're known to agree with
people that have no credibility, and disagree with people who have
credibility (as would be necessary to agree with the class of opinions
you and Aaron have presented, which are generally not very well
reasoned, purposefully so in Aaron's case), then any reasonable person
would recognize that as limiting the person's credibility.
Now must we go on with this entirely silly argument?
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
