Linux-Advocacy Digest #49, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 07:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Geoffrey Tobin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Geoffrey Tobin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Geoffrey Tobin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Geoffrey Tobin)
Re: The Wintrolls (Peter Hayes)
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! (meow)
Re: "It's the desktop, stupid" (Donn Miller)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (Jasper)
Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison ("Adam Warner")
Re: SGI XFS Installation Update (Stuart Krivis)
Re: The Wintrolls (Pete Goodwin)
Linux endeavor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Pete Goodwin)
Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust... ("Jeepster")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Ian Davey)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:16:55 +1100
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Walt, Southern California, USA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
> : of God." That is definitely an active belief.
>
> Two problems: 1 - Dictionaries don't all agree on the definition. The
> definition you give isn't in the dictionary I use. 2 - How many people
> writing dictionaries are actually atheists? The authors have about as
> much authority on the matter as the general non-hacker public does when
> they screw up the definition of "hacker" to mean "cracker".
Why is it that so many arguments in public discussions consist of a
verifiable
part and an unverifiable part? Is it that the first part is to sucker
people
into accepting the second part?
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
------------------------------
From: Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:22:20 +1100
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Walt writes:
> > The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
> > of God."
>
> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
Most atheists i know declaim the truth of unverifiable philosophical
axioms.
In other words, they have imaginary friends with no personality, except
perhaps their own.
> > That is definitely an active belief.
>
> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
Then we should be debating in Chinese (or Esperanto), not English.
When my Dad (an avowed agnostic) says "atheist" he means "believes not"
(Esperante, "kredas ne") and when he says agnostic, he means "does not
believe" ("ne kredas").
Mi ne kredas ke ni ne kredas, mi kredas ke ni kredas ne.
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
------------------------------
From: Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:27:29 +1100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
>
> You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
> necessity, obligation, and so on.
I for one am well aware of the existence, intent, and defects of modal
logics.
They are unnecessary. It suffices to introduce modal terms as regular
items
of nonmodal mathematics, for example as elements or functions (as
convenient)
in set theory.
> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
On that we agree.
> I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
> operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
> operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
>
> Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
> large one - you can look it up.
The fact remains that atheists believe in the nonexistence of God.
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
------------------------------
From: Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:33:39 +1100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
>
> On a 1st order logical proposition, you mean. What you say next is not
> so.
>
> > 1) Belief that the proposition is true.
> > 2) "I don't know"
> > 3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
>
> Uh, you can believe that you don't know, or you can believe that you
> believe that you believe that if you knew, then you would know, and so
> on.
Which is consistent with Aaron's statement of the three options.
Were you trying to argue that there's only room for a certain
number of theorems?
> One can claim anything at all.
That's not quite true. You cannot claim what you cannot express.
> That you "believe" something to be false ("believes not") is
> not the same thing as not believing it to be true ("not believes").
Aaron claimed the same thing, so why are you beating the same dead
horse?
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:36:36 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:09:17 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
> >
> > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
>
> Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video card
> problem.
Download the mandatory 4.0.2 files from XFree86.org, run ./Xinstall.sh and
answer "no" to everything (except the "do you want to install" question,
obviously). This installs 4.0.2, but obviously bypasses the RPM database.
I've done this numerous times on RedHat 6.2 and Mandrake 7.2 boxes and it
works every time. You might be able to change to 4.0.2 from 4.0.x by
fiddling round with symlinks, but that'd take longer.
This is the magic of Linux. Unlike Windows, there's always a way round
some arbitrarily imposed barrier - in this case a change of packet
management. In Windows the best you can expect is "... setup will not
continue", or the old "Incorrect DOS version".
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:49:05 GMT
Is this guy always an obnoxious cunt?
Seems like it from the number of posts i see against him
meow
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> meow wrote:
> >
> > Well this is just great
> > I havent even had my Sony Vaio a week and the screens fucked
> > I installed Mandrake 7.2 and when asked to choose a monitor choosse lcd
> > that can do 1024x768 which worked fine initially but after a reboot it
> > trashed the screen which is now permament
>
> Liar. LCD screens are NOT susceptable to damage by too high of
> a dot-clock setting.
>
>
> > Fortunately its new and under warranty so ill get a new machine from
> > them.
> > This isnt the first time this has happened to me. Linux also fucked up a
> > monitor i had a few years back too.
>
> Translation: Meow was tooo STUPID to read the EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS
> to reference his monitors specs for maximum dot-clock frequency.
>
>
>
> > THIS SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO REASON THIS CANT BE CODED SO
> > THAT THE USER CAN ONLY CHOOSE OPTIONS THAT HIS MONITOR SUPPORTS.
> > iTS EXTREMELY BAD PROGRAMMING THAT IT ALLOWS THEM TO SCREW UP THERE
> > MACHINE SO VERY EASILY.
> > Im a very experienced computer user and a program of 15 years so im not
> > some hopeless newbie that can barely switch on there machine.
>
> So experienced, that you COMPLETELY IGNORED *specific* and *dire*
> warnings to make sure that you don't specify too high a frequency?
>
> What wents wrong....fuzzy thinking from semen inhalation...or what...
>
>
>
> >
> > mr angry
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:50:04 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "It's the desktop, stupid"
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sure, but you'll be fighting over which is better ala emacs/vi for a decade
> >before you standardize it.
>
> I use vim. Others can use emacs, and it's all the same to me. Vi and
> emacs use the same file format. If OTOH someone tried to render my use
> of vim impractical, just so s/h/it could sell me a copy of emacs, then
> that would be something to complain about.
I use both Vim and XEmacs. Both are pretty nice. The strength of
XEmacs, though, is that it has so many integrated features, such as mail
composer, GNUs, etc. The strength of Vim is that, well, it's good old
vi + lots of extra features, and vi is a powerful editor in its own
right. Both are pretty good for writing code. But, XEmacs is great for
an IDE, because it auto-indents your code for you, if you wish. The
downside is that I don't like how it chooses to format lines containing
functions that have lots and lots of parameters.
Vim is just as powerful at editing C-code, and it has nice color systax
highlighting (as does XEmacs). Although you can't auto-indent code with
Vim AFAIK, I like the fact that you can set tabstop to whatever value
you like, and all the indentations will be as many spaces as you like.
(This is provided that you used a tab instead of actual spaces to indent
your code.) Also, Vim has some useful IDE-like tools, although they are
not as powerful as actual IDE's.
The thing I like about XEmacs is GNUs. I also like the fact that you can
put your cursor inside a block of quoted text (supercite), and hit M-q,
and it automatically formats the block of quoted text to look nice and
neat. This comes in handy for replying to those messages whose
formatting is ALL KINDS of buggered up by brain dead newsreaders. You
know which ones I mean!
XEmacs also seems to have many more add-on packages, and is more
customizable. But having a suped-up version of vi is great as well.
One downside of XEmacs is that it's kinda hard to configure compared to
Vim, though, although it has more features than Vim.
Both are pretty nice. Actually, I like XEmacs and Vim equally well, and
recognize that each has its place. It's those overly user-friendly
GUI-rich text editors I hate the most. XEmacs and Vim both have the
right amount of GUI in them. Certain other GUI editors have an excess
of "user-friendly" features, and I don't find them to be as powerful.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jasper)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 09:49:42 GMT
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 01:00:23 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:19:38 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really is.
>> >>
>> >> I want *HIM* to explain it.
>> >
>> >What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not going
>> >to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
>> >comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
>> >
>>
>> In other words: he can't explain it either. There is no 'there'
>> there.
>
>He has discussed it intelligently on several occasions.
>
>He refuses to tell you guys because your ignorant AND arrogant at the same
>time. Demanding someone to teach you something doesn't get you very far
>in life. There are thousands of web pages and articles dedicated to .NET,
>even the most basic search would turn up tons of information.
>
>-Chad
>
In my opinion EF is one of the most informative posters in the OS
advocacy groups. He has on numerous times broken down invalid
assertions of many an advocate within these groups using soundly based
technical arguments.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:15:38 GMT
Hi all,
I just found this on Microsoft's site:
http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm
No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
copyright 2001.
Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
piece of spin:
"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments are
somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network. If
that technology provider is not available to continue to provide support,
there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step in and have
the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built network."
In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is false).
It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its search
engine does not allow you to sort by date.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: SGI XFS Installation Update
Date: 8 Feb 2001 06:03:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:43:54 GMT, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am pleased to let you know that I have now successfully installed Linux on
>a boot partition using the SGI XFS pre-release iso.
I was pleased with XFS. It is RH 7 that I don't like. :-)
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:00:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
> just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
> gift to computing.
Thank you, someone who can see what I'm saying!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux endeavor
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:04:44 GMT
Good Day to all Mac users.
I need help from all Linux OS users.
Please fill out my 12 item questionnaire at
http://www.gonzalo.net/satisfaction.htm
All opinions are welcome.
My aim is to measure user satisfaction in the use
of Linux OS in the 5 variables of interest. More information will be
provided on the survey itself. Please take the time to fill the
questionnaire. It will not take you more than 5 to 10 minutes. Your
help is critical to the completion of my degree.
Assistance will be greatly appreciated. To all those who have filled
out the questionnaire...Thank You!
Mahalo Nui Loa (Thank you very much in Hawaiian)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:05:52 GMT
In article <95scnj$3gs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've yet too see IE take out my desktop!
I don't run IE enough to see it take out my desktop. Netscape on Windows
regularly freezes or blue screens the whole system. On Linux and Windows
2000, Netscape only dies.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:47:45 -0000
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
Alas poor suse...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 11:23:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geoffrey Tobin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> but I can't remember who coined it now:
>> "the existance of God disproves the existance of God, therefore God
>> does not exist".
>
>That's an invalid argument, because its premise is false.
>
>If you want to find a logical foundation for your atheism
>you will have to do much better than to commence by giving
>credit to arrant falsehoods.
To put it simply, the logic behind it is this: "If God doesn't need a
creator then neither does the universe". To believe in God you have to believe
that something can exist without being created (i.e. God) so that applies
equally to the Universe.
One simple question: If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the
Universe need one?
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 06:35:34 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really
> is.
> > > >
> > > > I want *HIM* to explain it.
> > >
> > > What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not
> going
> > > to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
> > > comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
> >
> > Translation: Funkenbusch has absolutely NO fucking clue what .NET is
> > (of course, neither does anybody else, but that's another matter.)
>
> Translation: I'll demand something so outrageous that he won't answer, then
> I can call him names and pretend that I am superior.
>
Asking you to simply DEFINE THE WORDS that you use is "outrageous"??
Hint fucking hint: Erik...if you don't know what the hell something is,
then you shouldn't use it to support your argument.
Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
so, then, explain it to us.
> Grow up Aaron.
--
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: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: 8 Feb 2001 11:38:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
I find no evidence of this on ECMA's Web site.
Have these products even been *submitted* to ECMA yet?
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 06:38:37 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95slo2$d6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <Tshg6.6910$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET
> > really
> > > is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want *HIM* to explain it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm
> > not
> > > going
> > > > > to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way
> > too
> > > > > comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
> > > >
> > > > Translation: Funkenbusch has absolutely NO fucking clue what .NET is
> > > > (of course, neither does anybody else, but that's another matter.)
> > >
> > > Translation: I'll demand something so outrageous that he won't
> > answer, then
> > > I can call him names and pretend that I am superior.
> >
> > What is so outrageous about asking what .NET is thay you wont answer?
>
> I did answer. The answer wasn't good enough for Aaron, and he refuses to
> acknowledge it. He wants a book rather than a paragraph and I'm not going
> to do that. I've already written a paragraph description.
You wrote much, but communicated absolutely NOTHING (other than the fact
that you, in fact, really don't have any idea what .NET is).
--
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
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 06:41:54 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:19:38 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really is.
> > >>
> > >> I want *HIM* to explain it.
> > >
> > >What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not going
> > >to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
> > >comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
> > >
> >
> > In other words: he can't explain it either. There is no 'there'
> > there.
>
> He has discussed it intelligently on several occasions.
No..he has used buzzwords on several occasions.
He has yet to discuss ANYTHING intelligently, let alone .NET.
>
> He refuses to tell you guys because your ignorant
Care to discuss the quantum dynamic behavior of charge carriers in
semiconductor?
Didn't think so, ignorant jackass.
> AND arrogant at the same
> time. Demanding someone to teach you something doesn't get you very far
I'm merely asking for a DEFINITION.
If Erik uses terms which he cannot define in his argument, then there
is no point in giving credence to his argument.
> in life. There are thousands of web pages and articles dedicated to .NET,
> even the most basic search would turn up tons of information.
None of which indicates whether Erik knows what the fuck he's talking about.
By the way chad....YOU'RE NEXT.
>
> -Chad
--
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
******************************
