Linux-Advocacy Digest #378, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Feb 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source (Tim Hanson)
Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Where is suse 7.1? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Into the abyss... ("Nigel")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gerry)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gerry)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:04:38 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson wrote:
> >Adam Warner wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Tim,
> >>
> >> > "Allchin's concerns, eWEEK was told, stem fromGPL paragraph (2B), which
> >> > states, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> >> > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
> >> > thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
> >> > under the terms of this License."
> >> >
> >> > so he doesn't hate all open source, just the type M$ can't hijack.
> >>
> >> This is a much more useful and transparent response. Microsoft have
> >> admitted that Allchin was not misquoted.
> >>
> >> It is also transparent that Microsoft wants to embrace and extend free
> >> software. Taking over free software and making it proprietary is much
> >> harder with the GPL. We can all understand why Microsoft feels threatened
> >> in this respect.
> >>
>
> Good. And there's nothing they can do about it.
>
> >> I found it amusing that Microsoft representatives still couldn't stop
> >> themselves from spouting nonsense. We are now supposed to believe that the
> >> GPL will constrain innovation stemming from taxpayer funded software
> >> development.
> >>
>
> Yes. We will admit it. We held a gun to Nasa and the NSA's head to
> use Linux. We forced all those universities to use Linux also.
> It's the old use it or we'll kill you philosophy.
We didn't have to. They're all subversive Finnish agents recruited to
manipulate NASA and NSA in their attempt to corner the world's herring
market. All very high level, you understand. Don't tell a soul. Many
operatives died to convey this information to me personally. I found a
note packed in a can of sardines undetected.
>
> >> And this is the underlying motivation for Microsoft's continuing assault
> >> against open source software: Microsoft wants to poison any initiatives for
> >> government to spend money on open source software development.
> >>
>
> They may want to, but they can't.
> All those government organizations need to accomplish a task, and
> they chose Linux to do this with as it's easier to work with and
> easier to re-distribute. No license hassles.
It's not going to happen. A couple of Republican Congress critters
might make speeches, but the whole thing is so ludicrous that few will
get behind it with a straight face.
> They will never choose closed source software for major projects.
> And Microsoft is right, Linux is like a gigantic mushroom dustcloud
> and Microsoft is inside the storm. Every direction they look, even
> UP is closed off for them now.
>
> Linux has not taken over their market, it has fully encompassed
> Microsofts Market. And there's nothing they can do about it.
Really, this episode reminds me of the contortions of SCO last year, but
on a MUCH larger scale.
> If the Government *WERE TO PASS LEGISLATION* which banned government
> contributions of code to Linux, private vendors would be using Linux
> anyway. There is nothing to stop those private vendors from using Linux.
> They are selling Linux to the Navy right now to replace Microsoft, Airforce
> too! There was an article about it in the Linux Journal this month.
> Don't forget about embedded Linux chips taking on Cisco! Cisco is very
> worried about this as now they have over 100 competitors when before they
> had none.
>
> Even if the Government were stupid enought to ban contributions of code
> from NASA or the NSA or whoever, the vendors would just haul it in anyway.
It wouldn't happen like that. A project needing federal funds or
federal matching funds would be held up because Sen. Snort, while not
saying so specifically, withholds his or her vote until the project
leaders settle on a Microsoft solution.
If it means any comfort to Linux advocates, usually an appeal to
lawmakers to continue or expand the gravy train is one of the signs of
corporate decay. Like the campaigns against $700 toilet seats, sooner
or later contractors milking the public get hosed.
> Microsoft has to face the facts that it has died.
> It just has to face those facts.
>
> And if your a manager who's proposed Microsoft for your business,
> I think you should retire. You've just become useless to our
> organization. Retire.
>
> >> Also notice how we:
> >>
> >> (a) Now have "Microsoft representatives" instead of a real person being
> >> quoted making the comments.
> >>
>
> This just means their serious.
>
> >> (b) Microsoft uses the term "taxpayer-funded" software development,
> >> instead of government funded. They want to make out that government has no
> >> business spending taxpayer money on software development. This of course
> >> ignores the present government spending upon proprietary software. If this
> >> dependence could be reduced then taxpayers would likely save money,
> >> especially in the longer term.
> >>
>
> They will have zero chance of stopping "taxpayer-funded" software development.
>
> Just look at that line. "Microsoft uses the term "taxpayer-funded" software
> development, instead of government funded. Well, taxpayers pay taxes, and
> governments run from the money taxpayers pay, so what is the difference
> between government funded and taxpayer funded? Are they saying we can
> only be payed off with crisp new $20's from the mint? What are they saying
> here? From what I've seen of Microsoft infiltration of the Federal
> Government, State Government and Local Government, I believe they should
> be permanently banned from contracts. We should ban all proprietary software
> and pass an ammendment that only free/open source software can be used.
>
> --
> Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
> /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
--
A fool must now and then be right by chance.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:07:05 +0000 (UTC)
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
:> Whew! Why don't I just type my thesis in vim with my eyes closed, and then
:> turn it in.
:> End result would be the about the same.
: At least it wouldn't sit there beeping because the paperclip thought
: you were writing a letter and was wondering if you needed help.
"I see you are trying to type your thesis.
Would you like me to:
(o) Erase vital pieces of it at random intervals?
(o) Print it inconsistently across platforms and printers?
(o) Crash unexpectedly?
(o) Add another 300 little icons to the top of your screen?"
What could be more helpful than that?
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where is suse 7.1?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:09:50 GMT
My order with Chumbo is still on backorder. I heard something about a
last minute glitch with Customs.
#KUNDAN KUMAR# wrote:
>
> Suse 7.1 was to be released on feb 12. Still now the website says, it
> will be available from mid-february? When is it going to be released?
--
I really hate this damned machine
I wish that they would sell it.
It never does quite what I want
But only what I tell it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:46:29 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:00:54 -0500, "dev null"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Those are the facts, yes, I agree.
>
><SNIP>
>
>Borland, marketing wizards that they are, went on a media blitz for the soon
>to be released RAD port of Delphi to Linux (Kylix). Months I have waited in
>anticipation of this release. Now, I have been told that a 'professional'
>version of this product will cost $999. Almost twice what the Windows
>version costs.
>Am I going to purchase it as I had planned? Of course not. Not only because
>of cost, but because I can hear the LinZealots now "I don't want no stinkin
>Borland binary on my box!"
>
Borland is trying to address the legions of corporate developers who
use RAD tools like Delphi. They believe there is a large, untapped
market for this kind of thing. For the record, I think they're wrong:
there is a Unix Way, and a Windows Way. Programmers of the Unix Way
*choose* not to program the Windows Way.
Case in point: Unix has had good IDEs for a number of years (C-Forge
and KDevelop), but relatively few developers want or use them. Why?
The Unix Way does not really *require* IDEs as Windows tools do. The
same with GUI builders: toolkits like QT and GTK+ do not *require* GUI
builders (although they do provide them as a convenience).
I think Kylix will find a market, but a smaller one than Borland
imagines. Cost is only part of it (to most companies, $999 doesn't
even qualify as petty cash).
>
>How long do you think Borland will be able to support Linux RAD development
>via sales of this product?
>After seeing Borland's investment fade into lost $$, how many more companies
>will incur the $$ to migrate to Linux??
>
You can't blame Linux for the crappy business plans of megalomaniac
CEOs. Corel is a good case in point: they jumped on whatever
bandwagon was popular -- first Java, then Linux, then .NET. What
next? IBM seems to have no problem investing $1 billion in Linux;
they know that it's money well spent.
>
>Companies, in the traditional sense, will not sustain an unprofitable model
>for very long. They aren't quite as lemming-like as Amazon stock holders,
>and Linux newbies.
>
>Assimilate that.
>
>
><SNIP of huge, pointless, and self-serving sig>
------------------------------
From: "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: 21 Feb 2001 20:23:23 GMT
> It was also acknowledged in that statement that some people prefer that
it
> not be called UNIX because of some silly trademark battle a few years
back,
> so they refer to the "-like" sufficx. Even FreeBSD shuns the direct
> assertation that they're 'UNIX(tm)' but leaves that up to the user to
> determine if that label makes that big of a difference.
>
The usual label seems to be UN*X - close enough for anyone to know what you
mean but different enough to avoid trademark problems (although UN?X would
be more correct).
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:25:50 +0100
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The British citizens' problem is that you don't have any
> political party advocating LIBERTY. Your government spends all
> of its time arguing about WHICH new regulation to impose upon
> you, without ever considering that some old regulations ought
> to be removed.
>
>
Ok,
To add a litle fuel on the fire: In the Netherlands we currently
have a coalition government;the guys you refer to ie the
liberals, (in the old sense of the word, not the US usage), the
Labour party and our equiv. of the UK LibDems as the glue in the
middle.
The result: valuable public services have been neglected in the
holy name of the market, while regulations and bureaucracy have
increased.
Ain't politics beautiful?
Mart
--
YahDu (Yet another happy Debian user)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:40:09 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:58:52 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> >Wrong...Because the Demoncrook party has ALWAYS been in the business of
> >protecting the financial interests of the socio-economic elite in this
> >country.
>
> That's why Bush's plan primarily benefits the richest 1%, right ? And it's
Wrong, on three counts.
First:
Suppose you earned $2,000,000 this year...putting you into the
top 0.1% of income. Would that mean that you are one of the
top 0.1% richest people in the country?
Come on...you have a strong, math background, worthy of someon
Clue for the clueless. The slope of a curve is NOT the same
thing as the area beneath it.
This is why SALES TAXES are far more ethical than income taxes.
Second:
Under Bush's plan, the top wage earners STILL pay the higest tax rates.
Third:
Do you have some particular problem with tax-relief being proportional
to how much taxes a person pays?
> also why the democrats are opposing it -- because giving huge tax breaks
> to all the millionaires is not in the interests of the socio-economic
> elite ?
>
> >Very good. And in this country...$$$$$ = Power.
>
> No, they're not the same thing. For example, the president is one of the
> worlds most powerful men, but probably not one of the worlds richest.
>
Don't be so naive.
Not a single cent of government money gets spent without his signature,
or 2/3 override in BOTH houses.
By merely refusing to sign a piece of paper, the president causes
both houses of Congress to re-vote, AND raises the bar to 2/3 passage.
So..even though his salary isn't the greatest, he is powerful because
he has CONSIDERABLE influence upon the spending of TRILLIONS OF
DOLLARS...
more so than ANY other single person on the face of the earth.
And *THAT* is what makes the Pres. of the US so powerful.
> >Simple...if you're really rich..it benefits your efforts to keep--and acquire
> >MORE--power, if special exceptions are written in to the tax law...just for you.
> >
> >Remember all of the "tax loopholes" that everybody complained about?
> >
> >Exactly *WHO* put them there? Remember...The Demoncrooks controlled the
> >House of Representatives CONTINOUSLY from 1944 to 1980, and the Senate for
> >all but 4 years between 1944 and 1980.
> >
> >Are you going to buy into the argument that in the 2 seperate 2-year stints
> >when the Republicans had a Senate majority, that they managed to ram ALL of
> >these tax loopholes through the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES?
>
> It's not as simple as that. To "control" the senate in any reasonable sense,
> you need 60% (preferably 67%) of the seats. The senate rules basically imply
> that a deadlock will ensue unless there is some compromise.
Unless the president vetoes the tax-code changes, all that's needed is
a simple majority in both houses.
Which the Demoncrooks had almost continously from 1944 to 1994,
And they had a 10% margin for 75% of that time.
And yet, during those years, the tax-loopholes for "the rich"
(translation:
certain friends of Democrats) multiplied like rabbits.
Why is that?
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot 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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:51:49 -0600
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. without my .sig, bandwidth on this newsgroup would explode
> to 5x the present volume with flamewars
How's that?
Just look at this discussions about your .sig.
How much bandwidth is it taking up?
> > What purpose does it serve?
>
> keeps flamers from following me around and starting shit.
I seriously doubt your signature would keep people from doing anything.
> > Do you think people want to read it?
>
> I don't care.
I think that is the point.
You should care. There is a thing called netiquette
> > Do you think people should have to work around your obnoxiousness?
>
> Ever see a newsgroup wrecked by flamewars?
If you think your signature eliminates flamewars, then by deduction, you
are the cause of the flamewars.
Try to be a bit more civil, and remove your signature.
> Is it too difficult for you to realize that a great many
> people despise what I write.
Oh, that's not very difficult at all...
> I really have no interest in giving you a demonstration of
> the utter chaos which would ensue if I were to remove it.
> Nor does anybody else who remembers the days before I wrote
> the .sig...when the below-mentioned in-duh-viduals would
> follow me around all over USENET starting flamewars.
>
> All of the people below STILL post, and in other groups where
> I post. If I were to remove the .sig, I am quite sure that
> the attacks would resume.
Me thinks you are bit too paranoid.
Either that or immature.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/gbeggs/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.GerryICQ.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:51:50 -0600
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actuall, the "silent statistic" is that about one MILLION crimes/year
> are prevented in the US by the mere DISPLAY of a gun by a law-abiding
> citizen.
Where are you citing this number from?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/gbeggs/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.GerryICQ.com/
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:03:32 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:11:06 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> There are lots of issues here. I don't have any problems with people keeping
> >> guns in their home, though I have doubts about allowing sniper weapons or
> >
> >Define "sniper weapon" without making deer-hunting rifles illegal.
>
> The deer hunters can go f*** themselves for all I care. The last thing we
> need is a bunch of savages who kill for pleasure carrying around military
> grade weapons.
Don't expect to get much support from the Union rank-and-file then.
>
> >> automatic weapons. I don't think convenience is an acceptable excuse for
> >> making compromises on background checks. I also think there are some real
> >
> >true. Except that criminals who fail background checks rarely
> >go through legal channels anyway....and smuggled guns are usually
> >CHEAPER than legal guns.
>
> If that's the problem, maybe a crackdown on smuggling is what's needed.
Yeah, right.
Name ONE TIME in history when such an operation has ever succeeded.
Especially when Yugoslavians are making the anti-smuggling operations
totally pointless by making full-auto AK-47's in their basements
and garages for approximately $30 each.
> I;'ve consistently maintained that laws need to be backed up with
> enforcement -- any plan to enact criminal law needs to be backed up
> with an enforement plan to be useful.
>
> >When Isreal started encouraging civilians to not only purchase,
> >but to openly carry military-grade rifles, PLO terrorist attacks
> >dropped off by over 90%.
>
> Doesn't imply a causal relationship, and it's hardly a similar
> situation.
Are you arguing that it was just a coincidence?
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot 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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:06:57 -0500
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >This sort of claim is made by pro-gun advocates about every geographic
> >> >area where any gun control legislation has passed. Wasn't it Australia
> >> >or New Zealand where crime rates allegedly "skyrocketed" after gun
> >> >control was legislated, whereby in reality they did not even increase?
> >>
> >> Australia. And the claim was made by Kulkis. As usual, the correct response
> >> for such a claim is "cite, please ?"
> >
> >----
> >Police move to tackle huge rise in gun crime
> >By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspendent
> >
> >15 January 2001
> >
> >A national firearms database is to be established for the first time,
> >amid fears over record levels of gun crime.
> >
> >The setting up of the database, recommended by the official inquiry into
> >the Dunblane massacre of 1996, comes as a report by senior criminal
> >intelligence officers has uncovered "major weaknesses" in the way
> >British police tackle gun crime. For the past 11 months, a team of
> >officers from the National Criminal Intelligence Service has compiled
> >details of weapons and ammunition seized by the police and has concluded
> >that the scale of Britain's black market in firearms is "far higher than
> >anybody had previously thought".
> >----
> >
> >http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,363711,00.html
> >
> >
> >
> >One in three young criminals is armed
> >
> >Government research shows use of guns is on the rise and gangster films
> >are blamed for making it seem 'cool'
> >
> >Special report: gun violence in Britain
> >
> >Tony Thompson
> >Sunday September 3, 2000
> >
> >One in three criminals under the age of 25 owns or has access to a
> >firearm, the Government's researchers have discovered.
> >A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black
> >market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million
> >illegally held fireahms in circulation - double the number believed to
> >have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than
> >ever to use them.
>
> This says nothing about the number increasing since the ban. In fact if it
> wasn't for the ban this fact probably wouldn't have come to light at all.
>
To advocate gun control, one must first begin to ignore history,
crime data, and the NON-law-abiding behavior of violent criminals.
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
--
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
******************************
