Linux-Advocacy Digest #720, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Renate Meijer)
Re: > 40 Bank's hacked by russion mafia: NT servers of course ("Mike")
Re: Alan Cox shaves his beard of for comic relief! (Renate Meijer)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux on it's way back to ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Craig Kelley)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:11:08 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> > > > The person who solves the problem first.
> > >
> > > I'd claim the person who solved it best.
> >
> > Here's a problem.
> >
> > 25.312 X 19.598 = ?
> >
> > Person A gets the correct answer in 2.3 seconds.
> >
> > Person B gets the correct answer in 23 seconds.
> >
> > Who's solution is the best?
> >
> > However person, A costs me 11 times more per hour than person B.
> >
> > Now who's solution is best?
> >
> > Oh, but I needed the answer in under 5 seconds or I died.
> >
> > Now what?
> >
> > Define best.
>
> I can only define best for a specific instance. The point I was trying
> to make is that there is often more than one solution to a problem, and
> in my own experience, there is often a way that appears simple, and you
> might jump straight into doing it... only to find it it actually makes
> things more difficult than a second, less-obvious method.
>
In other words, what you are saying than is that oftentimes, there are
additional solution specifications which are not immediately apparent
to the average lard-brain.
> For a simple math problem, who gives a fuck? A calculator will give you
> the best answer, in under 5 seconds provided you have some manual
> dexterity, and it wont cost you anything. ;)
> I don't consider a simple multiplication a test of anyone's intelligence,
> only a very simple test for the lack of it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Renate Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:14:34 +0100
Hi!
It looks as if the lady does not appreciate choice. In german "die qual
der wahl" (the agony of choice) is well known. If she prefers a
secretary to have a default installation, let someone provide her with a
severely limited distro, but don't take away my choices. Besides, how
would anyone force me into using software I don't want?
It's not the first time I heard sories along the lines of "Linux/Unix is
too difficult, make it as easy as Mac/Windows to make it a credible OS".
This story has been on the net since linux began and it's got its
merits. Of course, the simpler it is, the more i'll like it. What this
lady's proposing is quite another kettle of fish. She's proposing to
enforce a toolset. One shell, one desktop, one choice, so she (and all
the others who really don't want to) don't have to learn so much.
I get the impression the lady does not understand the basic philosphy of
linux: do as you damn well please, just RTFM and do it correctly . The
secretary example does not impress me much. Her machine would (i think)
be installed by some guy in the techie department, loaded with a bunch
of default stuff and managed centrally. So that argument does not cut
wood.
It's worse than that, though. Initially i downloaded the good ol' SLS in
order to get my hands on a decent development environment. Windows (3.11
at the time) was allright for those who did not wish to invest any more
time than strictly neccesary (my father), I wanted more. At the time I
was used to MacOS7.1 (or so) and quite spoiled as far as GUI's go. Linux
did not have one, at least not one i could run on a 50Mhz 8Mb 486DX. So
I grunted and started learning bash, awk, regexp... the lot. I never
regretted it, although i sometimes miss my Mac.
This woman wants to get everything down to a "look at me, I'm such a
computer dummy" level. I resent that. Modern day computers and their
software are complex beasts, performing complex tasks. Basically she
wants to sacrifice possibility for convenience, confection software for
tailored solutions. There sure is a market for this, and i suggest
someone patch up a distro to her liking. I, however, do not wish to have
my default workhorse replaced by a pet-pony. She wants dictatorship of
the desktop dummy. I will not accept that.
Basically, the argument is "Linux is too difficult and intimidates the
user". This argument is based on the rich variety of software (wm's,
shells, etc), the "moon-language FAQ's and HOWTO's". I think she wants a
dummy-distro in which all these choices have allredy been made. Not only
that, but she wants "one shell, one desktop, one look-and-feel". She
wants some person to tell everybody what's right and whats not.
I read the story about the slackware release. I pretty much did exactly
the same, back in '92. Only my version came from a 'local' BBS and took
three nights to download. It installed. Not quite as easily as, say,
RH6.2 or SuSE 7.0 , but it was certainly no hell on disks. Even if there
were 25 of them.
The whole story sounds like a load of FUD, although she's got some good
points. Having a dummy-distro would be a good thing. The installer issue
has been discussed may times and sure, many distro's now have some kind
of installer. The Look-and-feel blabla is correct, but how do you force
users to use just ONE desktop. That's basically my problem with this
article. I seeks to limit my choice.
Kind regards,
Renate Meijer.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: > 40 Bank's hacked by russion mafia: NT servers of course
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 15:30:05 GMT
"Frank Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:27:32 +0000,"Frank Crawford"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17456.html
>
> What appaling punctuation & spelling from a linux user! let me correct
myself:
>
> "> 40 Banks hacked by Russian mafia: NT servers of course."
I'm sure you meant "appalling," but when a correction contains as many
errors as the original text, it must be intended as subtle humor.
Even more humorous is that you can't possibly have read any of Charlie's
posts.
Unless... could it be? Of course. More subtle humor.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Renate Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox shaves his beard of for comic relief!
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 16:26:51 +0100
Woof wrote:
> I read an interesting quote from Alan Cox recently saying he was going
> to shave off his beard that he has had since childhood off for Comic
> Relief.
> A BBC spokemans reporting on the story said "Who the fuck is Alan Cox?"
Another spokesperson: "He's had a beard since CHILDHOOD? WOW!"
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:31:01 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On 8 Mar 2001 11:15:56 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allisson) wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
>
> >>But we don't have to put "faith" in the tests. We put faith
> >>in the data, because irrationality is the only alternative to
> >>believing what you can measure repeatedly. See:
> >>
> >>http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/1198intelligence/1198gottfredbox2.html
> >>
> >>to get an idea of what IQ tests measure (a person's probabilities
> >>of particular social outcomes).
I didn't write that (although I do agree with it)
I believe that the writer was Dan Mocsny.
>
> I disagree. IQ tests do not measure work ethic, perserverance,
> creativity, resilience, or a host of other factors that help people
> succeed in life (or to use your terms, reach a favorable "social
> outcome". While there is a correlation between intelligence and
> social outcome, it is statistically incorrect to say that intelligence
> tests "measure a person's probabilities of particular social
> outcomes". Your reasoning is an example of the "post hoc ergo propter
> hoc" fallacy -- assuming that just because an outcome follows a
> condition, that the condition necessarily determined or caused the
> outcome.
Correlation does not imply causation.
However, Correlation which coresponds with reverse correlation
usually does imply causation one way or the other.
This is something the fat-acceptance movement denies:
Example... High caloric intake corellates very highly with
obesity. Obesity corellates extremely highly with high
caloric intake.
Thus, the data implies that high caloric intake is necessary
for obesity (i.e. obesity implies high caloric intake), but
the reverse obesity is not a necessary result of high
caloric (i.e. high caloric intake implies obesity) is false,
because some people eat a lot of calories, but burn it off
through activity, and/or living in a cold climate, etc.
Now, there are other possibilities....such as A correlates
very highly with B, and B correlates very highly with A, but
A does not cause B, nor does B cause A.
An example could be two medical symptoms that are extremely
rare in any population of people not suffering from disease
X, but which are both very frequent among those suffering
from that disease. In this case, Symptom A correllates with
Symbtom B very highly...and vice Versa...A does not cause B,
nor does B cause A....because both A and B are actually caused
by X.
Now...here is one difference between a high-IQ person and a
low IQ person.... the higher the IQ, the more abstract terms
we can use. I have chosen to use somewhat concrete, but
non-specific instances, as that is what is most appropriate
for an IQ 110 - 150 audience. If I were speaking to an IQ-85-95
audience, I would have to use specific instances for everything
above (I could not refer to "symptom A and symptom B caused by
disease X) because these people have a very limited ability
(compared to us) to think in such an abstract fashion. Not
only that, but I would have to give MULTIPLE specific examples
before they would truly understand the point that I'm trying
to get across.
High IQ people can grasp an idea and incorporate it into
their world-view very quickly. Low IQ people, on the other
hand, need to have the same material presented to them repeatedly
before they understand it....the story of their life is "he
never learns" after making the same mistake yet again for
the umpteenth time
> To follow your argument, a high level of intelligence, as
> measured by an IQ test, would overcome laziness, weak will, lack of
> creative thought, or anything else, while a hard-working, proactive,
> tenacious person with a lower IQ would likely fall into a lower social
That's silly. High IQ is a necessary, but not uniquely sufficient
qualification for, say, extremely high and LASTING socio-economic status
> outcome. Social outcome also depends to a large degree on where in
> the social strata you started off. How often do people born to wealth
> and success end up in poverty and misery, and vice versa? A person's
> initial social status is not reflected in IQ test scores, but it sure
> as hell plays a role in how far a person gets in life, along with the
> other non-intelligence traits I mentioned above.
Precisely
>
> Scott Gardner
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux on it's way back to
Date: 9 Mar 2001 15:36:08 GMT
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:37:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
> No, it doesn't. It means that Linux needs to play by the same rules as
> everyone else.
>
> >computing in homes and possibly home offices. The Napster situation
> >casts a pall over the entire Internet (the Internet being a *marvelous*
>
> The Napster situation merely casts doubt over the entire warez
> scene, nothing new here.
Let's compare equals here. The Internet makes every computer/user on
it a 'broadcaster'. No, actually more like a cable provider who does
not broadcast but 'provides content' to (some) of the (properly wired)
public. Being 'properly wired' indicates a member of the public has
taken pains to access the content, thus can access scandalous,
salacious, crude, and near-pornographic content just as can the cable
viewer at home. As opposed to the 'rabbit-ears' viewer at home.
So the computer/user should have to abide by the same rules as the
cable operator, and to a lessor extent any broadcaster. Especially wrt
copyright material. If the music industry is happy with payments to
ASCAP/BMI in the case of the broadcaster, it certainly should be happy
with the same from the computer/user. How to figure such payments?
Mere details, I'm looking for a logical parallel here. But- question-
does a *non-profit* broadcaster have to pay ASCAP/BMI when it plays a
recording? How about during a fund-drive when the station is seeking
money?
Maybe this is the thinking behind Napster's tardy bid to reimburse the
music industry for the transferred content.
But the main problem here is the failure to consider just what the
meaning of INTERNET is. (Internet) and (Copyright) just might be
completely antithical and nothing we can do is really going to modify
that definition. For one thing Internet=Worldwide. When will the day
arrive when Copyright can say that?
>
> >method for downloading copyrighted Webpages, among other things).
>
> Downloading copyrighted webpages is another thing entirely. It's easy
> to justify as fair use.
>
Ftp between computers is pretty basic Internet. It is a one-to-one
relationship. How are you going to restrict that?
Sweepea
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:38:10 -0500
"." wrote:
>
> > > > The person who solves the problem first.
> > >
> > > I'd claim the person who solved it best.
> >
> > Solved is solved.
>
> You think all solutions are equal?
That depends on whether you are going to introduce additional
qualifications after-the-fact.
For example, if I want a list of numbers sorted, then Merge
and Bubble Sort are equal solutions.
If you then tell me that it is a very LONG list, and that the processor
is relatively slow, and it is a "mostly sorted" list, but some
elements are clearly way out of position, then Bubble Sort is no
longer a solution.
Conversely, if you tell me that run-time is NOT a criteria,
but that the list is of moderate, and that the data consumes
3/4 of the available memory, then Bubble Sort is a solution
and Merge Sort is *NOT* a solution.
So in other words, there is an additional problem:
Are there additional, UNSTATED conditions and restrictions upon the
solution?
If you are going to impose further conditions and restrictions
after-the fact, then you're not interested in anything other than
harassing the subject.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: 09 Mar 2001 08:50:56 -0700
Renate Meijer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole story sounds like a load of FUD, although she's got some good
> points. Having a dummy-distro would be a good thing. The installer issue
> has been discussed may times and sure, many distro's now have some kind
> of installer. The Look-and-feel blabla is correct, but how do you force
> users to use just ONE desktop. That's basically my problem with this
> article. I seeks to limit my choice.
I just installed RedHat Wolverine (7.0.91) and it autodetected
everything in my system except for the Soundblaster Live. After
running sndconfig, the sound card worked (it autodetected it just
fine). It even auto-detected my IDE-66 setup and my 21" monitor.
It took *10* minutes to install according to anaconda. I had to
answer about 10 questions in the process. It is much easier to
install than Windows 2000; plus you don't have to copy over a
100-character license key.
It doesn't include Microsoft Word, to be sure, but that's another
issue.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a PCI slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 11:03:48 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 13:42:44 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, those in the top centiles of IQ marry MORE often...especially
> >the men. The difference is...just like everything else they do...they
> >do so INTELLIGENTLY.
>
> This threw me for a loop at first. I was wondering why, if they marry
> so intelligently, they're doing it "more often" (ie, repeatedly). Of
> course I realize what you meant was that people in the top percentiles
> of IQ are more likely to be married... Was still good for a laugh in
> my moment of confusion...
>
> >
> >I know a LOT of dumbasses who got married at 19-20, and were already
> >divorced within 5 years of graduating from high school. Those who
> >are more intelligent pause to consider exactly what they are getting
> >into...and tell those who are obviously unsuitable to go take a hike
> >before getting themselves trapped in a bad marriage....prefering to
> >wait for someone who is truly worthwhile.
>
> This reminds me of one of my pet theories (of course, I realized it
> wasn't an original, or even new, theory when I recently read a David
> Niven novel, but I can still claim to have come up with it
> independently! (grin) Here goes:
>
> One of the drawbacks of a sufficiently-advanced society is
> that virtually *everyone* survives to breeding age. Read a news story
> about some 19-year old dumbass that wraps his truck around a phone
> pole drag racing on city streets, simultaneously snorting a line of
> coke and talking on a cell phone, and as often as not, you'll find
> he's already had kids. With protection from the elements and
> wildlife, a stable government and economy, and advanced medical
> technology, unless you were born sterile, you have a good chance of
> breeding. We've escaped the petri dish--the laws of natural selection
> no longer apply to us on a grand scale.
I like Dan Mocsny's idea. Mandatory birth-control (Norplant for
women, maybe even similar "chemical castration" implants for guys)
until they can post $10,000 in an escrow account to take care of
any babies they choose to whelp).
> Along the same lines, I've also noticed that the married
> couples that make the conscious decision to be "child-free" tend to be
> from the higher strata on the intelligence distribution. This is
> opposed to "childless", which I use to describe people that want
> children but haven't conceived yet, for whatever reason. I've seen
> these people evenly-spread all over the distribution curve. If the
> less-intelligent people are having more children per capita than those
> who are more intelligent, are we systematically "dumbing down" our
> species? Or does heredity play no part whatsoever in intelligence?
It's such a shame that the events of the 1930's and -40's turned
eugenics into a bad word.
Looking at the structure and procedure of medieval warfare was
literally a way for those in power to conduct wholesale slaughter
of the low-end of the gene pool. The rival aristocracy NEVER
fought against each other directly on the battlefield...
The core of most armies were aristocrats in armor, on horseback,
and "rabble" low-class people who were often armed with nothing
more than wooden pole-weapons, sometimes without even bladed edges.
These were often set-piece battles as such.
Mounted Horsemen Rabble Rabble Rabble
|| || || ||
\/ \/ \/ \/
/\ /\ /\ /\
|| || || ||
Rabble Rabble Rabble Mounted Horsemen
The aristocracy would go around, hacking and slashing the
harmless (little to no metal-content in their weapons)
opposing rabble. At the end of the day, both sides would
retreat. The nobility would then go out onto the battlefield
and count how many rabble each side had killed.
It was simply a numbers game....just like spending a couple
of hours at the bowling alley.
This was modified slightly with the widespread use of the
musket...but even as late as the Mexican-American war (1848),
it was blade weapons (swords, cutlasses, bayonets, etc.) which
primarily took and held ground.
What made Napoleon so irksome to the ruling class throughout
Europe is that he refused to play the game by these "sword
fodder" rules. He routinely attacked the opposing aristocracy.
Those among the rabble who were veterans of previous battles
knew what the procedure was...and would understand the
significance of Napolean sending his most devastating forces
against not themselves (as they had come to expect), but
against the aristocracy who played with their lives in
such a cavalier fashion (cavalier...cavalry...horsemen...hmmm)
as something quite significant.
This is why wherever Napolean went, he routinely added thousands
of men from the local opposition to HIS forces...because the
brighter amongst those men realized that he was not a threat
to them....only the social system (feudalism) which held them
down. [He also went around installing laws that gave universal
human rights to ALL classes of people, replacing the multi-tier
royalty/aristocracy/yoeman/peasant/slave classes of feudalism
with one universal class, with equal rights and responsibilities
for all, regardless of who one's mother was.
>
> Scott Gardner
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
