Linux-Advocacy Digest #93, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Karel Jansens)
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Peformance Test ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Peformance Test ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:56:31 +0100
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : A religeous person does not need to explain the origin of God (and he
> :> : will freely admit that he can't).
> :>
> :> This whole line of arguing was originally coined ages ago NOT as its
> :> own proof that atheism is correct, but merely as a counterproof to
> :> the theists' proof that God is necessary as a first cause of the
> :> universe. The point is that adding God to the picture doesn't really
> :> explain anything at all as to why there exists a universe. And if
> :> you would say that God+Universe is a better explanation than just
> :> Universe by itself, then why not posit a metagod that created God?
> :> Why not a Metametagod that created that one, and so on? Wouldn't
> :> the Metametagod explaination, by the same reasoning, be better
> :> than just the God explanation? In summary: You don't solve
> :> the first cause problem by introducing an infinite recursion of
> :> causes. That's why the proof that God must exist because the
> :> Universe needs a cause is bogus. This argument, by itself, does
> :> not prove that god doesn't exist, its purpose is merely to shoot
> :> down to the theists's first cause argument, and show how that
> :> isn't a good enough reason by itself to convince anyone.
> :>
>
> : "God" is, by definition, "the First Cause".
>
> False. If, for example, the Big Bang were proven to be the
> first cause, I doubt that would count as "God" in anyone's
> mind.
Before I reply to the rest of your argument, I would like you to
explain to me how one goes about *proving* a first cause.
> "first cause" is NOT the definition of God - there is
> quite a bit more to it that that. For one thing, "god" implies
> some type of sentience. "God" is a much more narrow term than
> just the vague "whatever it is that happens to be the cause of
> the universe, we'll call that God." If you want to make "first
> cause" be the sole definition of the word God, then you have to
> stick with that consistently or else you engage in a false
> equivocation fallacy the moment you talk of God being a thinking
> entity.
>
> I think it should be pretty clear, just to clarify a bit, that
> the type of god that atheists don't believe in is the sentient
> thinking creator type. The word "God" has been applied to so
> many different things in the past that it has become a very
> sloppy, almost useless term for logical debates.
>
It is indeed very difficult to debate logically about God, what with
the transcendency and unknowable business and such, but that doesn't
mean we cannot deduce certain aspects. The problem is that whatever
definition is given, it can only (I would say "by definition")
describe an aspect of God, never all of Him. So God is indeed the
first cause, but not _only_ the first cause.
> : The term "Meta-God" is a
> : contradictio in terminis.
>
> Heh - not to a polytheist. Consider the greek pantheon, where
> some gods were offspring of others.
>
Even contemporary Greeks considered their Gods part of a mythology,
rather than a religeous system. Keep in mind the intellectual problems
the Greeks had with their gods, once they got a taste of philosophy.
The evolution towards monotheism became quite apparent (Plato's
Creator e.g.).
> : For a religeous person, the universe has a
> : transcendent cause, which he calls God. It would be ridiculous to go
> : any further, just as a cosmologist wouldn't try to go investigating
> : before the Big Bang).
>
> : Besides, I didn't claim that the existence of the universe proves the
> : existence of God; I merely claimed that if you pose the universe
> : itself as the Prime Cause, you're in a state of belief yourself.
>
> Not about God, like you claimed (again, I'm speaking of the meaning
> of "god" as a sentient thinking entity here). Keep it mind that
> atheists DO NOT claim to lack *all* beliefs - just the singular
> belief that any god exists. There may be many other beliefs an atheist
> has, but they will all be *his* beliefs and not associated with
> atheism. Some Buddhists are atheists (see the Buddha as just a smart
> human, not as a god). Some atheists are Communists. Some are
> Libertarians. Some are into that weird new-age crystal stuff, others
> are much more skeptical. There really isn't a whole lot in
> common between atheists - it's just a convienient label that exists
> only because so much of the world is theist. If everyone was an
> atheist, the label wouldn't even exist, and it would have no
> real signifigance.
>
God does not necessarily have to be a "sentient thinking entity". We
like to portray Him as such, but that could be an anthropomorphism:
It's easier to believe in God if He has at least *something* in common
with you.
But I was under the impression that one essential aspect of atheism
was the WYSIWYG-principle: What You See (of the universe) Is What You
Get; everything is knowable to man.
> : (On a personal note: I feel no need to try to prove the existence of
> : God. If God is indeed who He claims He is <G>, such endeavours are
> : quite futile. And if not, why bother?)
>
> Being European, you probably don't see much of this sort of thing,
> but over here in the States there are a LOT of religious mental
> midgets who keep trying to force their beliefs down other people's
> throats by trying to mandate them in the legistlature. (Case in
> point, the Kansas school board's decision that its okay to teach
> Creationism disguised as science, despite the fact that it is
> disproven by science.)
>
> If I lived in a place without any rabidly stupid theists, I wouldn't
> really spend any time thinking about the issue.
>
I am _not_ a Creationist, nor a religeous fundamentalist. The first is
stupid and short-sighted, the second... well, evil.
I think you have a problem with accepting that religeous, even
Christian individuals might be able to reconciliate their belief with
science and tolerance.
Might I also remind you that the idea of the Big Bang, easily one of
the cornerstones of modern cosmology, came from Georges Lemaître, a
catholic priest (and Belgian too!)?
> :
> :> I have no idea why the Universe exists. The only difference
> :> between myself and theists in that regard is that I have the
> :> guts to admit it to myself.
> :>
> : A religeous person has no idea why the U/universe exists either, and
> : he bloody well has the guts to admit that too.
>
> Hardly. He claims it exists because his God made it.
>
And an atheist claims it exists because...?
> : Bottom line: At a certain level we all have to accept a number of
> : axioms. Yours may differ from those of a Hindu.
>
> Yes. But by Occam's Razor, the less needlessly multiplied
> axioms, the better.
>
I usually get along fine with Occam, but his razor is a rule of
experience, not a proven theorem. Furthermore, as it is a deductive
rule, it cannot be called upon as a foundation to itself ("Why does
everything exist?" - "Because everything has to be simple".)
> :
> :> : replacing the term "God" with "Universe" (I noticed you even write it
> :> : with a capital) which, more than anything else, would typecast you as
> :> : a religeous person.
> :>
> :> Not necessarily. Since your domain is .au, I assume English is your
> :> first langauge? In English, as you should know, capital letters
> :> are often used to indicate that you are talking about something
> :> famous and unique. For example, "The White House" has a very
> :> different connotation than "the white house". The first is most
> :> likely referring to the famous US Presidential mansion, while the
> :> second might be referring to some generic house that is white. In
> :> this regard, "Universe" refers to the one-and-only well known
> :> famous universe in which we live, while "universe" could refer to
> :> an imaginary universe depicted in a series of novels, or perhaps
> :> one universe of many in a theory of many alternate universes.
> :>
> :> Capital letters do not have to imply that the writer thinks the
> :> object is worthy of worship or to be deified.
>
> : Where did you get the .au (did my ISP f**k up again)? I'm from
> : Belgium, and Dutch is my first language, but I get the point.
>
> Sorry about that. I had you confused with a different person
> I had just finished composing a reply to.
>
> : The
> : remark was meant as a smile-inducing side-note, hence why I put it
> : between brackets. It was by no means material to my argument. If it
> : offended you, please accept my apologies.
>
> It didn't "offend", so much as it seemed like a false statement was
> being implied that needed to be countered.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:18:17 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >Umm, like "cd /usr/src/linux ; make xconfig ; make dep bzImage
> > > >modules modules_install ; mv arch/i386/boot/bzImage
> > > >/boot/vmlinuz-<version> ; linuxconf ; shutdown -r now"?
> > > >That's 6 simple commands and a graphical config utility with
> > > >comprehensive online help. Eric, if you state that editing a text
> > > >file on FreeBSD is simpler than that, that just proves that
> > > >you've never even been NEAR a Linux kernel compile, let alone
> > > >attempted it.
> > > >
> > > >Mart
> > >
> > > Exactly. This is common knowledge for the Linux user.
> > > It's one of the first things you learn.
> >
> > But.. but.. All you linux people said that there is no reason to
recompile
> > your kernels, so why would this knowledge be "common" and "one of the
first
> > things you learn" if you don't need to ever do it?
>
> No Erik, let's get this straight - you don't have to compile
> your kernel, especially with the modular kernels shipped
> with the distros nowadays - but you CAN compile it, and
> like the hot rodders who like to replace the cams, carbs,
> and exhaust systems, etc, techies like to see what makes
> the kernel tick, and they naturally will "roll their own" if they
> are adventurous enough. But, just like the average bloke
> who just drives the car without ever looking under the hood,
> you can certainly use Linux without ever compiling a kernel.
That's not what Charlie said. What charlie said would be equivelant to
every car owner also being such an enthusiest.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:14:19 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> W2k will not work without a Video card and not a keyboard either.
Sorry, wrong on both accounts. It's true that NT and W2k won't work without
a video card *DRIVER*, but there are headless drivers available that are
just NO OP's for headless operation. Also, it runs fine without a keyboard.
You have to make sure your BIOS is configured not to halt on keyboard errors
though (one of the funniest errors ever.. "Keyboard missing, hit F1 to
continue")
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:06:12 GMT
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Then explain your comments about "requiring a new version rather
than
> > just a
> > > > build option".
> > > >
> > > Linux is Linux, same version, on all processors. If I had time, I
would
> > > go back through your posts to find the place you talked about MS
> > > creating new versions.
> >
> > Whistler 64 bit and Whistler 32 bit are also the same version number.
> >
>
> wierd isn't it. Does this mean that if I name my dog "Dan" and my cat
> "Dan" they are both horses? (For the animal impaired, "Dan" is generic
> horse name.)
> > > > NT doesn't allow you to get "directly to the hardware" in any way
but
> > device
> > > > drivers, and then you just need to rewrite the driver. Period.
> > > >
> > > That seems to depend upon how much money you pay MS. As a lowly
> > > consumer, I don't even get to write good drivers. But we had this
> > > discussion a couple of months ago. A short search will get you lots
of
> > > hits on writing virus software that does bypass the kernel and go
> > > directly to the hardware.
> >
> > No, it won't. To my knowledge, there has not been 1 single virus for
Win2k
> > that "goes directly to the hardware". I'm not quite sure what a virus
would
> > do with access to the hardware anyways, but please provide some
evidence.
>
> Last time I posted some of that data, it caused a real problem. Some
> script kiddies got it. Fortunately they did it wrong. I thought I had
> discovered something new. Then I discovered that it was widely known,
> just kept quiet. I often wonder why that tactic works. But then I get a
> laugh everytime I go into an airport.
Those things can certainly come back to bite you in the ass, can't they?
<g>
Then again, they also give one a certain sense of guilty pride...
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:31:49 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > From what I've read
> >
> > http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41622,00.html
> >
> > Microsoft isn't waiting for antitrust legislation to destroy them.
> > They're doing it themselves. If I understand correctly, with Whistler,
> > people will have to phone in registration numbers to get systems to
> > run. And that the copy protection supposedly includes a scheme by which
> > the reg. number gets tied to the machine's configuration - hard drive,
> > net card, modem, etc. This is insane. If true, people will have to
> > re-phone in their regs when they upgrade peripherals!
>
> Yes, it's true, and no, it doesn't mean what you think it does. Stop
> jumping to conclusions. The article you quote even specifically says that
> you can upgrade your periphials without re-activating.
>
You said it. Now consider that, for whatever reason (MoBo dead, got a
faster one, you name it) I want to replace the motherboard. Now that
braindead scheme kicks in, although the OS still runs on the same
computer (you don't want to tell me that the MoBo IS the computer)
And below you acknowledge that even a different NIC will kick it in.
In effect MS will control what I can do with MY computer and the OS,
which i gave money for (lots of it, to boot).
This scheme will be the coffin nail for MS. Whoever buys that is
already braindead and just not yet buried.
> > But it gets better.
> >
> > Future versions of MS software (upgrades, service packs*, add-ons) will
> > only be available online through .NET. This looks like an attempt by MS
> > to force people to pay for software on a monthly basis - like cable TV.
>
> Where did you read that? I've seen no mention of it anywhere.
>
> > So, you change your NIC card and in order to make use of your monthly
> > software subscription to get the new driver you have to wait on hold
> > with your computer's configuration list for someone to re-enable your
> > machine so you can download the software you're already being billed
> > for. This sounds neat.
>
> Completely wrong. You get 50 days of use before you have to activate.
> You can do so at your leasure, and if you have an internet access, it can
> do it
> without calling anyone. The call is only for people without net access.
>
Well, NIC already said. What about other cards. SCSI for example. TV card.
And so on. MS is very vague about that.
No, Erik, this won't work. In Germany MS already received a court ruling
which forbids this. I don't think that they could pull it through even
without such a ruling, the germans may be dumb, but by far not THAT dumb.
Peter
--
"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then
hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and
smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:33:13 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ew7h6.2271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > W2k will not work without a Video card and not a keyboard either.
>
> Sorry, wrong on both accounts. It's true that NT and W2k won't work
without
> a video card *DRIVER*, but there are headless drivers available that are
> just NO OP's for headless operation. Also, it runs fine without a
keyboard.
> You have to make sure your BIOS is configured not to halt on keyboard
errors
> though (one of the funniest errors ever.. "Keyboard missing, hit F1 to
> continue")
Mine also gives you the opportunity to press DEL for setup...Go figure <g>
As far as headless drivers go, you're right. They're easy as all get out to
write, too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:38:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi Charlie,
>
>> I understand the people at FreeBSD caught them at taking
>> souce code for the TCP-IP stack when they saw W2K replicate
>> the exact same 1 in a billion bug which FreeBSD 4.0 had.
>>
>> I never heard the details further. The issue just mysteriously
>> died.
>
>Everyone is allowed to incorporate BSD-style licensed code into any closed
>source software. It's a fascinating rumour but not a scandal.
>
>Regards,
>Adam
>
>
Hi Adam,
The problem they were having is if you use BSD based source
code you must give credits according to the license then.
Otherwise the use of that code was illegal.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:41:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> > > <95i0sr$p64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > >
>> > > >Microsoft's assertion that Linux is not a technical thread is
>> > > >actually absurd. Eventually, Linux will reach the mainstream
>> > > >and executive desktops. When it does, Microsoft will be unable
>> > > >to pretend that it has originated technology that was forged in
>> > > >the cauldron of Open Source.
>> > >
>> > > They've had a long time to get there...
>>
>> Actually, Linux has only been doing Desktop User oriented
>> systems since July of 1998. Up until that time the focus
>> was on ease of installation and ease of server administration.
>> I July of 1998, Linus officially challenged the Linux community
>> to "Take the Desktop". One year later, KDE 1.0 was released.
>> Two years later, KDE 2.0 was available. Star Office 5.2 was
>> released along with many other Desktop User applications which are
>> now part of the Mandrake 7.2 and SuSE 7.0 releases.
>>
>> Linux 2.4 will add some important features like USB support for cameras and
>> scanners, but people who really wanted those features could get them with 2.3
>> kernel patches months ago.
>>
>> Most of the other 2.4 features were focused toward servers, to give
>> new features like 16 million terabyte files (63 bit seeks).
>>
>> Linux has already been offering a 64 bit kernel and clustering capabilities
>> which have been further optimized.
>>
>> > > and they haven't quite made it yet.
>> > > Instead they (KDE) appear to be copying Windows.
>>
>> Keep in mind that most Linux software is really "contributions from the Open
>> Source Community" which are compiled into a Linux distribution. This
>> "Anthology" is then distributed in easy to install packages that are
>> configured to be installed in groups based on a relatively simple set of
>> option selections.
>>
>> Expert users may want more control and want to specify which packages need to
>> be installed. There are over 1600 packages and each package can install up
>> to 300 files.
>>
>> > > What innovation Linux?
>>
>> Keep in mind that the real innovation is the open source community.
>> Ironically, one of the first contributors to the X11 project was
>> the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) unit of Xerox. With Apple
>> literally stealing SmallTalk80 and porting to to Apple's Pascal
>> for the Lisa, the PARC team decided to port their constructs to
>> C (C++ wasn't really available yet).
>>
>> The Athena Project included MIT (who still uses Athena products on campus),
>> Xerox, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dec, and Sun. The most well-known products were
>> X11 and SGML, and more particularly HTML.
>>
>> Keep in mind that Microsoft purchased the rights to most of it's GUI
>> technology from HP, who was one of the partners to the Athena project. They
>> also got technology from IBM under the OS/2 Presentation Manager (which they
>> eventually obtained through an out of court settlement).
>>
>> Linux has been the beneficiary of nearly all of the original contributors.
>> In many cases, employees actually provided support for the ports to Linux.
>> Initially, the employees contributed in their own personal names under public
>> licenses such as GPL to minimize corporate liability.
>>
>> Because all of this technology was available under Open Source
>> licenses, Microsoft could and often did attempt to steal the
>> technology. Microsoft has quietly settled numerus lawsuits with
>> cash settlements in exchange for sealed records and nondisclosure
>> agreements to prevent revealing the nature of the plagerism.
>>
>> > I forget the quote, it was an admonishment of
>> > Apple suing Microsoft for copying
>> > the GUI, "Be generous with what you steal."
>>
>> Apple wasn't the only one upset with Microsoft. HP, IBM, Sun, and Xerox were
>> all parties in certain claims against Microsoft. In addition to litigation
>> and settlements, part of the retaliation included putting most of the
>> technology under Public License agreements that would force Microsoft to
>> "give back" any derivative products it created from Open Source software.
>>
>> Microsoft has been very cagey about avoiding these give-back terms
>> by filtering information flow through highly placed executives who
>> were the only members of the development team who knew that most
>> of the design and implementation details for Windows were actually
>> being taken from Open Source projects. Because the executives
>> had no direct "hands on" participation in the project, the "clean
>> room" environment was so well preserved that many of Microsoft's
>> own developers thought they were actually inventing the technology
>> themselves. Even today, Microsoft hires people familiar with the
>> intimate details of Linux who "feed" these clean room projects.
>>
>> Of course, you can't prove anything because Microsoft's EULA
>> forbids any form of reverse engineering, including investigation
>> into copyright and patent violations.
>
>
>This has GOT to be illegal. NOBODY is immune from investigation
>for criminal activity...
>
>I just can't imagine...a court saying, "Uh...for proving that
>Microsoft once-again violated copyright and patent law...we are
>going to award them $10,000,000 in damages"
>
>In fact...I think in most jurisdictions, it has now standard
>procedure for judges to throw out any claim of damages coming
>from a party which was behaved criminally in regards to the case
>at hand.
>
>
>>
>> > KDE may share some concepts with Windows,
>>
>> KDE is a product of X11 Windows. Microsoft's Windows 3.0
>> and later were also dirivatives of X11. Microsoft had no
>> interest in remote access and eliminated X-Wire. They also
>> replaced the Xlib/Xserver with the DLLs. Since they didn't need
>> to serialize the messages, the events could simply be put onto
>> in-memory event queues.
>>
>> > but NO GUI environment stands alone.
>>
>> This is especially true with Microsoft Windows. Microsoft has
>> repeatedly obtained software from the NCSA, Athena, and X11
>> along with numerous other Open Source products through fraud,
>> blackmail, and simple theft. In numerous cases, the lawsuits
>> were quietly settled out of court to prevent the exact nature
>> of this intellectual property theft from being made public.
>>
>> > --
>> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
>> Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
>> http://www.open4success.com
>> Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
>> and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com
>> http://www.deja.com/
>
>--
>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.
>
>H: Eric......doesn't know what .net is.
>
Humm.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
