Linux-Advocacy Digest #138, Volume #31 Sat, 30 Dec 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
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]>
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: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:10 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> 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,
>
>No, they "shouldn't have"!
>
>You keep illustrating what I'm complaining about.
Yes, and the same can be said for you. "Should" is meant to imply
superfluous musing in contemplation of what justice means, in my
statement. In yours, its an invocation of some self-assumed moral
correctness.
>Of course, most Democrats want to ignore/change/interpret the law
>based on their good intentions, but that's just plain wrong.
I'm afraid to say that, having boiled it down to its essence, you're
completely and entirely mistaken. The law should be created,
implemented, and interpreted with good intentions.
>> rather than "voting"
>
>Why the quotes?
Because you are using the pedantic argument that the absentee ballots
aren't conceptually the same as the absentee ballot registrations which
the Republicans "tampered with", I think, but I might be confused on the
matter.
>> 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?
>
>Bush. And it would have been entirely correct to do so.
Can you give me the numbers, or did you just make this up?
>> >Hey, all I really care about is that the Constitution doesn't get
>> >trampled in the rush to victory.
>>
>> Bull-shit.
>
>An amazingly well thought out, well stated, well supported bit of
>reasoning, Max.
Thank you. Does this mean that, like Aaron, you're one of those trolls
who knows he's a troll?
>> You're wrapping yourself in the flag;
>
>No, I'm not. You are just using personal attack and demonizing
>'cause you can't argue your point.
No, that's not true. You are wrapping yourself in the flag, declaring
your side the correct one by invoking, erroneously (but we're supposed
to ignore that because its such an important point of moral rectitude)
the Constitution.
>> let the Supreme Court
>> determine what the Constitution says, its their job.
>
>They did. They determined that what the Democrats wanted to do
>was unconstituional.
Bullshit.
>I guess, according to your lights, they were wrapping themselves
>in the flag, too.
No, they determined that the Florida Supreme Court had not done its job,
basically, and generally lamented, as everyone else (other than the
flakey Bush fans like yourself) that a consistent and practical method
of handling the situation did not prevail in the situation.
>> (And, ironically,
>> dark times are ahead should the Court be made even more conservative.)
>
>The Court *should* be conservative. It is the job of the Court to
>to defend (to "conserve") the Constitution against attack and abuse.
There is no "conserving" going on. That's wrapping yourself in the
flag. The liberal Democrats you despise have every bit as much right to
the Constitution as you do, you jerk.
>> >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;
>
>Oh, obviously . . . which is why you posted, right? 'Cause you
>don't care?
I don't care about George Vs. Al bullshit, no. I do care who is
President, and I do care whether morons push ignorance on Usenet. This
conversation happened to intersect my interest base, for those reasons.
>> I honestly only care about the
>> recessions of freedoms that will occur should George "Day of Prayer"
>> Bush, Jr.
>
>Yet more demonizing . . .
Hey, I'm not the one who made sure that everyone knew he spent the first
day after becoming President-elect praying in a Protestant church, and
believes that education should involve indoctrination into
Judeo-Christian mythos.
>> >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.
>
>No, I wouldn't have.
I'm sorry, I don't believe you.
>You have no right to attribute any belief,
>attitude or stance to me, *personally*. You want to make such
>statements about "Republicans", or some group that I am a member of, go right
>ahead, but personal attacks such as the above simply illustrate how
>very right I am.
I know you're a Republican, a staunch one, it seems, so wouldn't it be
simply ingenuous for me to not recognize that I believe you would think
this? It isn't a "personal attack" unless you get defensive about it.
Leading, I'm afraid (and I would truly change this if I could) to the
inevitable question of why you are getting defensive when I suggest that
you would have had a different take on the matter had Bush not won in
the end.
>Had Gore won in exactly the same way as Bush did, I would have
>had exactly the same response: "Good! This matter was resolved
>in a way that wasn't to damaging after all."
So, this "exactly the same way", I must presume, includes assuming that
the Republicans are idiotic, Constitution-hating tyranists who want to
take over the government and control every citizens actions, right?
>I would have prefered it to have never gone to the courts at all,
>of course.
>
>> >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.
>
>You really, really don't know how unthinking, unreasonable and
>emotionally blinded you appear to be, do you?
No, actually I do. The point is, I expect that, like me, you're a
reasonable person, and so would recognize that if I were unthinking and
unreasoning or emotionally blinded, I wouldn't be competent enough to
support a conversation in this matter. So perhaps you're going to have
to interpret, rather than merely read, my statements and take them in
context, instead of using them to support a private theory that you're
the only smart person on the planet.
>Considering how oppresive the Liberals are, you should simply take
>it as correct and par for the course when others are oppresive.
Liberals are no more oppressive than conservatives; they're just
oppressive in different ways. That's why I avoid falling into either
simple-and-easy mode of thinking and remain a moderate.
>Or is the concept of "good for the goose, good for the gander" simply
>alien to you?
I think this statement relies on my being a liberal to make sense.
--
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: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:14 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:51:48
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:50:59
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> >The Republicans, with one exception, simply asked that the law be
>> >> >followed.
>> >>
>> >> That's all the Democrats were asking, as well. The Republicans want to
>> >> stomp their feet and insist that the isn't true, but that merely
>> >> undermines their position, as it requires an admission of omniscience to
>> >> unilaterally declare what the law says, without consulting with those
>> >> who's job it is to determine it (the courts).
>> >
>> >The issue is that the Dems were asking that the laws be circumvented.
>>
>> As were the Republicans, as I pointed out. Its just a matter of which
>> laws you are concerned with.
>
>Which law, specifically?
Yes, that is the question.
>That's a rhetorical question because, your statement is obviously false.
Only because you presume it to be.
>There is a list of laws that Democrats were trying to, or successfully
>circumvented. I have it around here somewhere, I'll try to dig it up,
>but it's quite extensive.
Its bogus, I'm willing to admit. The Democrats were pursuing justice
according to the laws, so they can't have been trying to circumvent any
laws, by definition.
--
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: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:38:17 GMT
Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 >"T.
Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 27 Dec 2000
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:39
>> >> [...]
>> >> >The election results were determined by a system that foresaw close
>> >> >elections and litigated outcomes and worked despite the best efforts of the
>> >> >Democrats to monkey-wrench it.
>> >>
>> >> If you cannot recognize that it was also, therefore, despite the best
>> >> efforts of the Republicans to do the same,
>> >
>> >Wrong. The Republicans did not use the same tactics as the Democrats.
>>
>> Yes, they did. They didn't perform the same actions, maybe, but they
>> were every bit as focused on coming up with whatever justification might
>> allow their candidate to win as the Demos were.
>
>Once again, having no case, you do not post *SPECIFICS*!
That's because its a conversation, moron, not an official court case.
Refute my statements with reason, or admit you've got nothing but hot
air to support your bogus assertions that Democrats are Bad Guys and
Republicans are Good Guys. That's so childish.
>C'mon, Max, *EXACTLY* what law breaking or bending did the Republicans
>do?
The same, generally, as the Democrats did. Your ability to comprehend
this might well be considered a threshold of maturity.
>Remember, it was the judgement of the Supreme Court that the Democratic
>requests were unconstitutional . . .
Oh, please.
>> >The Republicans, with one exception, simply asked that the law be
>> >followed.
>>
>> That's all the Democrats were asking, as well.
>
>That's a lie. The Demoncrats *SPECIFICALL* asked the Florida Supreme
>Court to "re-interpret" (CHANGE!) the law to suit their ends.
Provide some citations from the court docket, then. Perhaps you confuse
what the media said with what is real life.
>This simply illustrates why you've resorted to so many, and so many
>different kinds, of personal attack . . . the facts don't support
>your position.
I've not attacked anyone personally in this thread at all. This fact,
as well as all others that I am aware of, support my position. I know
this to be true, because if I was aware of any such facts, I would
change my position.
Its a bitch arguing against rationally moderates, ain't it?
>> The Republicans want to
>> stomp their feet and insist that the isn't true,
>
>Yes . . . because it isn't true.
;-)
>> but that merely
>> undermines their position, as it requires an admission of omniscience to
>> unilaterally declare what the law says, without consulting with those
>> who's job it is to determine it (the courts).
>
>The job of determing what the law says lies with the legislative
>branch, not the courts. It is the courts job to uphold that law,
>not change it. The Florida Supreme court were the ones to change
>the law, after the fact, at the request of the Democrats.
I'm sorry, you're mistaken again. Didn't they cover this stuff in
school? The legislature writes the law; that's all they do. Upholding
the law is the Executive branch's job. Determining whether or not the
law lies within the powers of the legislative branch to begin with,
according to the Constitution and precedent (both jurisprudence and
statute), is the purpose and reason for Supreme Courts. The regular
courts might be tied to the dictates of the legislative branch (as
interpreted by the Supreme Courts), but the Supreme Courts are most
definitely transcendent, having complete and utter "veto power", as it
were, with anything the Legislative branch passes as a law.
>Once again, the facts do not support your assertion.
>
>> >On many separate occasions, the Democrats asked that the law be modified
>> >(after the fact), or simply ignored in their favor.
>>
>> So says you,
>
>No, that is what was specifically requested by the counsel representing
>the Demoncrats.
A quote would convince me "that is what was specifically requested".
Your assertion does not.
>What, are you going to try another "Big Lie" here?!
>
>The court proceedings were televised, for God's sake! The Democrats
>specifically requested that the Florida Supreme court ignore the
>legal deadlines.
Again, a quote would make your case rather easily, if it was so public.
>The Court Ok'ed that change, for reasons that it stated, then turned
>about later and totally proved itself to be radically hypocritical
>when it ruled on the first case.
Which change are you talking about? You seem to think that your
interpretation of media reports are the same as real evidence. I'm
afraid I must call you on that.
>> and it seriously undermines your credibility when you say
>> that.
>
>When I state the truth, it *undermines* *my* *credibility*!?
When you state that what you state is "the truth", when it is so
obviously a partisan misrepresentation, yes, it undermines your
credibility quite severely.
>> >Wrong again. Typical liberal response, though . . . state a lie, as if
>> >it were the truth.
>>
>> Apparently, Republicans (at least the flakey ones) have an allergic
>> reaction to honest discussion.
>
>Stating lies, does not an honest discussion make.
Unless you can provide more than your conjecture to support the
understanding that they are lies, it does. And then, if you can, it
still does. So I guess that means you're wrong.
>> >The system is supposed to include the right to *REQUEST* (not demand) a
>> >recount, but that recount may not affect the certified results if it
>> >cannot be completed within the legally mandated time limit.
>>
>> Where the hell are you getting this stuff?
>
>From studying the relevant laws, and listening to the court proceedings,
>and reading the commentaries published by both sides.
You're full of it. You have read the law about recounts, and have read
the law about the deadline for electoral college representatives, and
have MADE UP some fanciful jurisprudence which exists only in your head
which makes one law you've read pre-eminent over another, without any
consideration of any other laws you're not aware of.
>> >> then it was the Republicans who fought
>> >> against the process
>> >
>> >Nope. I notice you didn't describe, at all, how what the Republicans
>> >did was "against the process" . . .
>>
>> Nor did I address your bogus claims that what the Demos did was "against
>> the process", you'll notice.
>
>Right. You have no response, so you didn't post one.
Yeah. Sure. I also have no response when people tell me they're
posting from the planet Pluto. Other than to discuss whether Pluto is
really a planet.
>You simply assert that my claim was bogus, in the hopes that that will
>fool *SOMEBODY* . ..
No, I proved your claim was bogus, and you aren't responding to refute
the matter, but hoping that someone will not pay attention to that and
still consider your bogus claims to be valid.
>> >> and broke the rules on those absentee ballots
>> >
>> >Another lie. No rules were broken on/about absentee ballots.
>>
>> So says you,
>
>So said the courts, too.
No, they have not said anything on the matter, one way or the other. Of
course, wrapping yourself in the flag has the helpful bonus of being
able to claim that all unresolved issues support you.
>> Why the hell did we have an election to begin with; since Republicans
>> stand for truth and honor and laws, and Democrats are filthy liars and
>> don't stand for anything, we really should just appoint Republicans for
>> all government posts, don't you think?
>
>Well, considering we are well on the way to that . . . :-)
>Max, if you don't know *ANYTHING* about this, why are you posting?
I know a great deal about it; probably much more than most of the idiots
who watched the media reporting on it incessantly. You haven't refuted,
or even addressed, to be honest, any of my points, so I must presume
that I know more about it than you do, as well.
>Post *ONE* reference to *ANY* support for your claims . . . any at
>all!
I have made no claims; I've merely proven yours to be false.
>> >Typical liberal use-emotion-not-reason response.
>>
>> You know, I think its worth mentioning at this point that I'm not a
>> liberal. ;-D
>
>So what? You respond like one. That was what I was saying . . .
No, you were saying I was a liberal, and you were, again, mistaken.
>> >You're correct. Desire has nothing to do with fact. The Republicans
>> >were more "in the right", than the Democrats on this one, as they
>> >followed the law.
>>
>> And we know this to be true because they told us so.
>
>No, we know this to be true due to the simple fact that the Supreme
>court said so.
That will never be good enough for me; I don't see why you would think
it would be good enough, seeing as you think the Legislature has
pre-eminent power.
>Seven out of nine of the justices declared the Democrats attempted
>modifications of election law, AFTER THE FACT, to be unconstitutional.
Bull-shit, again. They chastised the (majority Republican) Florida
Supreme Court, and lamented the fact that (Republican) election
officials botched the hand recounts. The only discussion about the
Constitution revolved around whether the federal Supreme Court itself
had any business trying to sort out the mess that Florida made of the
national Presidential election.
>> Obviously, the
>> right to a fair and just recount is against the law, huh?
>
>Nope. And I never said it was.
>More "Big Lie" tactics from you . . .
Ooh, that's a big one, if I ever saw it. All of one sentence long.
>> >Wrong. The machines are not biased, and by definition, they have a
>> >built in "standard" for determing whether or not a ballot contains
>> >votes.
>>
>> That "standard" had a higher margin of error than the difference in the
>> vote, and as such was worthless.
>
>Wrong. There is no relationship between the built in "standard", the
>error rate of the system, and the worth of the standard.
Good point. Glad you caught it. But why did you say "wrong", and then
agree with me that the fallibility of the counting machines is
independent of whether or not a clear vote can be ascertained?
>What is true, is that the system was not capable of determining a
>winner where the total vote difference fell below aprox 22,000 votes.
>
>(The 22,000 figure is a rough calculation made by a systems engineer
>from Purdue. Don't like the figure? Fine. Ignore it, or come up
>with one of your own).
Yes, "the system" could. And would have, had the Republicans not
impeded the process (or at least failed to aid the process, essentially
the same given the circumstances). You seem to want to say that there
is something holy and sacrosanct about the machine counts of the ballots
(which are not automated, in case you didn't know). It seems
all-too-convenient, to be honest, given that you are such a Bush fan.
It is quite clear that, despite the desires of certain rabid Democrats
to putatively count "pregnant chad", there was a much larger margin of
error in the counting machines than there were in the voting machines.
>> >No problem . . . since no Republican ballots were tampered with.
>>
>> You figure that just ignoring things makes them go away?
>
>Do *YOU* figure you can make people believe your lies if you keep
>repeating them?
>
>Again, Max, post specifics, or simply admit that you don't know.
I don't lie. As for specifics, I was told (by you) that you had
observed the media reporting of the election avidly, and rather
completely. So now you're going to suggest that I imagined that
questions were raised about Republican party officials being allowed to
correct bad registrations for absentee ballots, and you have no idea
what issue I might be referring to if I have some specifics wrong?
You are *so* full of shit. ;-)
>> Most of the
>> time, you're right, BTW, but I just can't bring myself to encourage
>> ignorance so strongly.
>
>You encourage ignorance with your statements, Max. You have yet
>to even give one detail about this supposed ballot tampering perpetrated
>by the Republicans . . . once again, where and how was this
>accomplished?
I encourage reason; if you want to encourage knowledge, instead of
ignorance, please feel free to post the quotes I asked for earlier. I
frankly doubt you'd be able to encourage reason, even if you tried,
given the lack of it you've evidenced so far in your partisan
pontificating.
>> I don't know the details,
>
>Finally! Some truth!
>
>You don't know . . . because it didn't happen.
No, I imagined it being reported several times on the Today show, and
several million other people (not including you, obviously) did as well.
>> so perhaps you're
>> resting on a technicality; it could have been the registrations for
>> absentee ballots, but it makes no difference at all.
>
>That statement, once again, clearly illustrates exactly what I was
>complaining about.
>
>You simply, arbitrarily, ignore what you don't like. And you cannot
>see the monumental injustice in that!
Bullshit. I ignore what I don't *need*. If I was engaging in a serious
discussion of these issues, I'd probably be concerned about certain
details that, in a discussion with a rabid-Republican Usenet troll, I
don't need to worry about. It all depends on how much reason the
situation requires; a court case might demand great rigor, but
commenting on flake-ball extremist crowing about how Democrats are
'against the Constitution' simply requires a bit of common sense and
logical restraint.
>> There were enough
>> votes which, according to the law and rules which you insist you are
>> relying on so strongly, were not valid that Gore would have won the
>> election from that alone.
>
>Wrong. The courts ruled on this, too. Those votes were and are valid,
>so your conclusion is wrong, as well. More double standards from you,
>Max. First you call for letting the courts rule . . . then when they
>do, you simply ignore those rulings you don't like.
You keep flopping back and forth between insisting the situation never
happened, and declaring that the courts definitively ruled on it. I'm a
bit confused. What court ruling on the Republican tampering with
absentee ballot registrations can you cite to clarify the matter?
>I also notice that you sing two different songs about "error rate", when
>a few votes would have given Gore the election, than when those few
>votes would have given Bush the election . . .
I really wish I knew what you were talking about. Feel free to try to
sort out this "few votes" thing and present it so I can understand it,
as it sounds like something I'd like to address.
>> >Wrong again, as no Republican ballots were tampered with.
>> >
>> >And here Max illustrates precisely what I was complaining about: Liberal
>> >lies, misrepresentations and half truths.
>>
>> As opposed to complete and utter ignorance?
>
>I know more about went on in this situation than you do . . . so
>if the charge of ignorance is to be leveled, it applies firstly
>to you.
You've obviously fabricated far more about the situation (with the help
of the media, probably) than was there to begin with. I'm not afraid of
ignorance, so as soon as you can provide the quotes or the citations
I've asked about, you can enlighten me.
>You admit above, you don't know what you are talking about.
No, I admit what I don't know, when I'm talking about it. There's a
difference.
>> Grow up, for heaven's sake.
>
>That's what I've been asking you to do. You repeatedly call me names,
>denigrate me personally, make unsupported allegations, make factual
>claims that you cannot back up . . . then do this "maturity
>demonization"
>thing.
Grow up.
>Yeesh! Max, you really need to alleviate some of your ignorance
>about this election, before posting again.
That's your job. You think I post so I can get moronic ridicule from an
immature extremist flake-ball? You're supposed to just refute my
statements, not start babbling and dissembling because you can't.
>> I'm not the one trying to say that "my
>> side" (which isn't my side; I'm not a Democrat, either) is all that is
>> good and right and demonize the other side.
>
>I'm not demonizing . . . these things really happened.
I'll write that down, then.
>Also, I already admitted that at least one of the things the Republicans
>did was wrong, and that they should not have done it.
And like a typical troll, you fail to explain what you're talking about.
>> Check the last three times
>> you used the word "liberal" in your message, notice how it is related in
>> your text to "lies, misrepresentations and half truths", and such, and
>> then reconsider your behavior, Mr. Kettle.
>
>Ok, after due consideration . . . nope. Doesn't apply. I'm not
>simply calling names, or performing personal attacks out of the blue.
Hahahaha.
>These things did happen, they were performed by Democrats and
>representatives of the Democratic party, and they were flat out
>wrong.
>
>Also, the Democratic party has repeatedly claimed the label of
>"liberal", so once again, I'm on track.
>
>Now you're playing the "Ok, so we screwed up . . . but the other side
>is just as bad!" game.
>
>Nonsense! The Republicans *WEREN'T* "just as bad"!
Thanks for the conjecture. I hadn't heard anyone advance that opinion
before. (Note: sarcasm is being used in this paragraph.)
[...]
--
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
******************************
