Linux-Advocacy Digest #763, Volume #31 Sat, 27 Jan 01 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: More Linux woes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Shane Phelps)
Re: C2 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Shane Phelps)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Shane Phelps)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Glitch)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Glitch)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Glitch)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 03:42:55 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Especially to those with MCSE after their name.
>
> I have a MSCS, and I'm afraid companies will skim my resume and throw it in the
>rejects
> pile.
>
Well, at least these days, you don't have to attend a $10,000/year university
to get Unix expertise like back in the 1980's.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 03:45:17 -0500
David Shuller wrote:
>
> > > As long as you don't mind using slrnpull to create a local spool and
> > > deal with it.
>
> What the he** is "slrnpull?". Look, this is simple: Windows 2K is both
> granular and stable. So stop your whining. The simple fact is that Windows
> 2K is much easier to administer than Red Had or any other Linux Distrib.
Yeah...driving into the office to reboot a server at 3:00am and then spending
the next day suffering from sleep deprivation is is sooooo much easier
then getting a good night's sleep EVERY night.
> ever thought about. It seems to me that Linux adherents *LOVE* obscure
> references to programs that are generally included in Linux distributions.
the standard programs of /bin are NOT obscure.
> It seems to me that a lot of folk substitute "obscure and obdurate" command
> line instructions for intellect. Real intellect comes from making the
> obscure crystal clear; an objective Linux has never embraced. Indeed, Linux
> seems to substitute simple rote memory for intelligence...don't believe me?
> Read any Linux group. There you see people from all over Earth parroting "/
> this and .that".
>
> Hahahahahahha!
Anybody with a whiff of Unix experience knows that you're lying.
>
> > > You can't do what I mentioned above though. Every time you want to
> > > change a group setting you have to edit the config file. I can change
> > > ANY of the properties on a group by group basis on the fly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Flatfish Why do they call it a flatfish? Remove the ++++ to reply.
> >
> > Change your name to deadfish !
> >
> > --
> > Sign The Linux Driver Petition.
> > http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
> > SuSE-linux at cc23974-a.hnglo1.ov.nl.home.com :-)
> > http://www.geocities.com/evil_tukker
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 03:46:39 -0500
David Shuller wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Under Win2k I can select either analog CD output or Digital output and
> > > depending upon which one I select, the signal is transferred over one
> > > of 2 little cables with berg connectors. The IDE channel is NOT used
> > > for data transfer and as a result the system performance is NOT
> > > impacted.
> > >
> > I bet, though, that under win2k your reset switch will break befire mine
> > does under Linux (and mine is nearly 3 years old, AND it isn't loose).
> >
> > Incidentally, sorry to anyone intelligent out there. I am trolling!
>
> Ha! I hit the reset switch more often with Red Hat, SUSE, and Debian than I
> ever did with Win2K!
Translation: "I, David Shuller, am a complete fucking idiot"
> Moreover, Windows actually worked (with-out crashing)
> something none of the above mentioned distributions of Linux were able to
> do.
--
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: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:07:40 +1100
Well, I was a bit annoyed when I read this, but then I realised who
wrote it ;-)
I'm sitting back having a nice cold beer and chilling out. My kids were
fractious
this afternoon, so I'm getting used to it :-)
(Don't worry Chad. Give it another few years and you'll be allowed to do that,
too)
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Where's the URL mentioning that MS deliberately introduces instability
> > > > > > into the
> > > > > > non-server versions?
> > > > >
> > > > > Check MS' 99.999% page, search for "stability tax".
> > > >
> > > > I just tried. I can get to www.microsoft.com, but I get a DNS failure
> > > > when I try to search :-(
> > > >
> > > > Can you summarise it for me or provide the URL for the 99.999% page
> > > please?
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/solutions/overview/reliabl
> > > e/default.asp
> > >
> > > "And the three offerings in the family-Windows 2000 Server, Advanced Server,
> > > and Datacenter Server-allow you to tailor your investment to provide the
> > > level of system availability that's appropriate for your various business
> > > operations, without overbuying for situations that don't require maximum
> > > uptime."
> > >
> > > Tell me what this tells you?
> >
> > Ayende,
> >
> > Thank you for the effort you've put into this response.
> > It's good to see somebody from either camp who can advocate without
> > mud-slinging or name-calling.
> > [it's been one of those days :-(]
> >
> > For your information, I don't really think Microsoft deliberately introduces
> > instability into the non-server versions of their products. That was
> > just a rhetorical question in response to Chad's assertion that *workstation*
> > reliability is invalid.
>
> Typical Penguinista spin.
Thank you for the compliment, but I'm afraid I can't accept it.
Nint: does the word Starfire mean anything to you?
>
> The person who posed that was posing it as though it was the end all be
> all of stability on Windows. That was a benchmark of a desktop workstation
Actually, it was a *joke*.
You do know what one of those is don't you?
Sometimes you exaggerate a little in a *joke*
I *know* it was a joke, because *I* made it. The grownups understood that.
Let's try again, in words of two sounds (sy-lla-bles) or less:
A person said that using lots of W2K Servers showed how stable W2K is.
I said that the numbers used by Mic-ro-soft showed that on av-er-age
one would crash every hour (when the big hand gets up the top).
You do know what Mi-cro-soft is don't you. It's the com-pa-ny you
want to work for when you grow up.
Jokes are meant to be funny because they are a little silly.
Mic-ro-soft's litle friends at NSTL said that W2K only crashes
every 3,000 hours (when the big hand gets to the top).
These people are using 3,000 W2K servers.
3,000 divided by 3,000 equals 1
(Oh, I'm sorry. Haven't you got that far yet?)
I think the grownups understood it
Oh, what do you know. It was Conrad who said it showed how stable W2K is.
Are Conrad and Jan your imaginary playmates?
How sweet.
> in a workstation environment under workstation conditions. Servers are
> kept in more reliable situations (better hardware, better physical
> environment, etc), with better trained, better paid staff watching
> over them. Uptime is consierably higher in this situation.
> Using the workstation numbers to judge the stability of Win2K server
> is assinine at best.
well, what have we snipped here?
"I actually agree that NT servers will be more stable
than desktop boxes, but Chad came at it entirely the wrong way :-)
The reason that servers will be more stable is because the hardware is
usually fairly tightly controlled and from one of the tier-1 suppliers
(Compaq, Dell, IBM, etc). Ancillary components will usually be more
tightly controlled as well, and the machines will usually be more rigidly
evaluated before deployment. Servers will usually run a much smaller software
rnage, and will be test-run for an extended evaluation period before deployment.
This is essentially what we did before deploying our NT 4 servers. The NFS
server software would consistently BSOD the server, so we changed to another
vendor."
Oh dear, you seem to have repeated what you snipped.
Big people call that sort of thing fibbing, Chad.
*Really* big people call it plagiarism, but that's a big word you won't
have seen yet.
oh, the NT servers were a choice between HP/UX and NT 4 Server. NT was much
cheaper so we went with that. Yes, typical Penguinista ;-)
>
> > I actually agree that NT servers will be more stable
> > than desktop boxes, but Chad came at it entirely the wrong way :-)
>
> It was obvious what I said to anyone who had a clue. The fact that that
It was obvious what you said to *anybody*, even the grownups (after a little
translation)
> kind of ignorant idea was put forth in the first place should be
> embarassing to your side of the camp.
>
Chad, *jokes* usually border into the absurd. I've already said what
the joke was. Would you like me to tell you again?
NST says that W2K crashes on average every 3,000 hours
These people are using 3,000 W2K servers.
Using NSTL's numbers, that's one crash per hour.
The joke lies in using raw numbers without considering operational
aspects (scheduled reboots, tighter administration, etc), better hardware,
reduced application range, tighter control over drivers, clustering, etc.
The joke may have fallen flat (differnet cultural imperatives, bad joke)
in that Ayende replied seriously as well. Ayende at least had the decency
to reply graciously, and provided Microsoft's server URL which explains
why W2K Server is more operationally reliable than W2K Workstation.
So what's my side of the camp, Chad?
Did you ever think that some of us can use different things for
different jobs?
Yes, I *know* that a screwdriver and a rock are the H*rl*y D*v*ds*n toolkit,
but some people try to use the appropriate tool for the job.
All joking aside:
1) I was entirely serious in my thanks to Ayende. That is the standard
of advocacy I would like to see all-round (a vain hope at best)
You came in with a "W2K Server is perfect - prove it isn't" approach.
Ayende said "Here is why W2K servers are more reliable than W2K workstations"
I hope you can see the difference.
2) I don't have a very high opinion of Conrad afer an earlier run, but
he
corrected my errors on NT's C2 certification (and C2 in general), and I
accept
his correction. He was right and I was wrong.
3) I actually have an interest in NT stability for a number of reasons.
One of those reasons is that I recommended the use of NT 4 TS / Citrix
Metaframe for a particular requirement, and NSTL's figures have me doubting
that I did the right thing. NT4 TS / Metaframe would appear to be have stability
more akin to the workstaion profile than the server profile.
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:11:34 +1100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <vmpc6.27757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I love it when "Jan" and "Conrad" play tag-team :-)
> >>
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus 'Ramen'
> >> > is
> >> > > > now
> >> > > > > > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that several
> >> > Web
> >> > > > > > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up its
> >> > > > status
> >> > > > > > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas
> >> > A&M,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting
> >> > Redhat
> >> > > > 6.2
> >> > > > > > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
> >> > > > > > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating
> >> > system,
> >> > > > > > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to execute
> >> > its
> >> > > > > > payload.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
> >> > > > discovery
> >> > > > > > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in
> >> > computer
> >> > > > > > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured operating
> >> > > > system,
> >> > > > > > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is
> >> > highly
> >> > > > > securable. Theres a difference.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
> >> > > > securable" the NSA says...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive was C2.
> >> > > I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any* configuration
> >> > > but I may be wrong.
> >> >
> >> > You are wrong. NT4 was C2 certified with both a floppy and network
> >> > connection.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the update. URL please?
> >> Oh, don't bother about the URL - I see it down the bottom
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.swynk.com/friends/sasha/tocs.asp
> >> > > has information on how to configure NT 4 to C2 level, but I don't believe
> >> > > MS has aver had a system certified to Orange Book C2, let alone Red Book.
> >> >
> >> > NT4 has been certified at C2 level. No personal OS has ever made Red.
> >>
> >> Que? Red *is* networked. Orange is standalone. Are you talking about NT4
> >Server?
> >> Is there really such a thing as a "personal" OS? Did you mean workstation?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > NT's use of ACLs and fascist logging (when enabled) make it potentially
> >> > > quite secure. Please don't muddy the waters by claiming *all* NT is C2.
> >> > > NT 4 and 5 are claimed to be substantially different from NT 3.51.
> >> >
> >> > True, NT5 has not been certified, yet. NT4 with networking has.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Certification would have to take a while. Sun still have Trusted Solaris 8
> >> jumping through the certification hoops as well (C2 + B1).
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Unless the situation has changed substantially, C2 certification is issued
> >> > > to a system configuration (hardware + software), not an OS. Even
> >> > installing
> >> > > a SCSI hard disk in addition to the IDE disk a system is certified with
> >> > > will invalidate the original certification.
> >> >
> >> > The OS is certified, not the hardware, however the hardware is documented.
> >> > You'll note than when describing the certification and process, hardware is
> >> > not part of the process. C2 is not about hardware. Changing hard drive type
> >> > will not invalidate this configuration (think about it eh? If I ghost from a
> >> > SCSI to IDE drive - how is this less secure?)
> >> >
> >> > SO, read and remember - certification is for the OS, NOT the hardware.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
> >>
> >>
> >> The earlier C2 stuff I saw around the time of the NT 3.5 certification
> >> and much of the later material indicated that it's the *system*, not the
> >> OS or hardware which is certified. For example, is a dual-boot PC
> >> (Linux and NT 4) C2?
> >> I guess they were reading more into C2 than it really covers.
> >
> >C2 does cover the system, of which the OS is a major part.
> >The system part just covers being able to lock the case, having
> >a shut-off switch if the cover is open, monitoring when
> >the cover has been opened and a few other minor items.
> >
> >The major part of the testing is the OS and how it handles
> >security and multiple users on the system.
> >
> >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
> >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
> >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
> >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
> >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
> >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
> >
> >
>
> And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
>
> And now you finally admit it.
>
> That's a good boy.
>
> Charlie
I've skimmed the document Conrad referred to.
I accept his assertion that C2 applies to the OS only
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:13:25 +1100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94s88j$11i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Chad Myers wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > P.S.- sponsoring an independant benchmark does not necessarily
> > >> > taint the findings.
> > >>
> > >> Hint: "sponsored" and "independent" clash.
> >
> > > Then you have no idea how the scientific world works. All studies
> > > are sponsored by someone, but it doesn't affect the outcome of
> > > the study.
> >
> > Then you have never been involved in the 'scientific world'.
> >
> > I have. I was involved in radon research in the late 80s-early90s
> > in northeastern pennsylvania.
> >
> > I can tell you that under no uncertian terms, sponsorship absolutely
> > affects the outcome of these studies.
>
> Ah yes, anecdotal qualified evidence. Suddenly, this makes everything
> ok.
>
> Whatever.
>
> Have you ever taken an aspirin? I'm sure you probably take Zoloft
Aspirin wouldn't pass the current drug certification.
It has too many adverse side-effects
> or Prozac (or maybe you aren't, which is why you are this way?)
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:20:37 +1100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94quch$dtp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:94qa01$fbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Besides, if you like Linux and need to run C2 or BETTER you
> > >> > could always get Trusted Solaris or Trusted Irix. You would
> > >> > get "better than Microsoft" security and a nice migration
> > >> > path.
> > >>
> > >> It never fails to amaze me that people at large see "C2" as some kind
> > >> of goal to be reached. C2 certification guarantees a nearly useless,
> > >> horribly configured machine.
> >
> > > Lie.
> >
> > > Read this:
> > > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
> >
> > Looks like unix still beats NT:
> >
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-93-008-A.html
>
> I have never even suggested that there are not other OSes with higher
> security ratings than NT.
>
> I am rebuffing any claim that C2 was not achieve by NT4 while networked and
> with a floppy drive.
>
I made one of those claims. I accept Conrad's evidence that I was mistaken
> I do not see linux listed anywhere...
I believe that NSA are in trhe process of providing a C2 + B1 version
NT5 and Trusted Solaris 8 aren't certified yet, either.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:10:53 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Harlan Grove wrote:
> In article <94snje$ekf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> ....
>
>> Wasnt there something about a government BY the people and FOR the
>> people written down somewhere?
>
> ....
>
> The US is a republic not a democracy. Kindly read the Federalist Papers
> for the rationale behind not trusting the populace. It has a government
> of laws, and the laws in the state of Florida were fairly clear, and
> the polling stations had signs giving instructions that voters should
> make sure that their ballots were punched through and to remove hanging
> chads. And if they double-punched, they could ask for new ballot papers.
>
> Maybe there's a good reason for literacy tests after all.
>
>
and lie detector tests---this past administration would have burnt the
machines up after lying so much.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:14:35 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
. wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <94snje$ekf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Wasnt there something about a government BY the people and FOR the
>>> people written down somewhere?
>>
>> ...
>
>
>> The US is a republic not a democracy. Kindly read the Federalist Papers
>> for the rationale behind not trusting the populace. It has a government
>> of laws, and the laws in the state of Florida were fairly clear, and
>> the polling stations had signs giving instructions that voters should
>> make sure that their ballots were punched through and to remove hanging
>> chads. And if they double-punched, they could ask for new ballot papers.
>
>
> Ah, you dont have a very good understanding of what happened in florida.
>
> You're one of those insane federalists who believes that his government
> is incapable of doing any sort of wrong, arent you?
>
> I'll bet you believe in god too, dontcha?
>
> Thats very sweet.
>
yeah <sarcasm> what a horrid idea to actually believe in God huh? <sarcasm>
Considering the US was founded on Christian beliefs I find this normal
and hopeful that people might actually have a set of morals not based on
their own ideology (which would be inherently imperfect given we are human).
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:20:45 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
. wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "." wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As for corrupt legislators, vote 'em out. "Oh but those nasty evil
>>>> corporations give so much money for TV ads." Tough. Go door to door if
>>>> you believe in something. Get others to do the same. Incite the
>>>> electorate. Don't bitch & moan. Tom Foley, then the Speaker of the US
>>>> House of Representatives, should have had a safe seat in congress, but
>>>> he was voted out in 1994 (not saying that was a good thing or not). It
>>>> can be done, but it does take work.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> As has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt in the latest elections
>>> in the united states, your vote DOES NOT COUNT.
>>>
>>> Happy dreamworld,
>>>
>>> -----.
>>
>
>> Sour grapes? You sound like your guy didn't get in. ;-)
>
>
> I despise them both. :)
>
why is having a guy as President that actually has a universal set of
morals such a bad thing? Some people view having a good moral
background as more important than being able to supposedly invent the
Internet or 'putting the economy back on track'. They are only his
morals in the fact that he has embraced them, just like most other
Christians in the world. You can't say he shouldn't share them b/c they
are God's to share, not his. If Bush dies those morals still exist, even
if a lot of people like making their own.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:22:58 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
. wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Certain countries (Norway comes to mind) are very friendly towards
>> choice and freedom, but not 'Europe' in general.
>
>
> Netherlands: all the freedom of norway with 1. half the taxes and
> 2. more to do.
^^^^^^^^
red lights hurt my eyes :P
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
