Linux-Advocacy Digest #725, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (chrisv)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Peter Seebach)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Mike Martinet)
Re: I am looking for a newsreader (Peter Hayes)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
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 14:03:29 -0500
Brock Hannibal wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 01:32:23 GMT, Brent R wrote:
> > > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >JD Salinger had an IQ score of 115, still above average but not showing
> > > >his true ability. To some the man is a complete genius. I also so a show
> >
> > To others, the man is a laughing stock who's out of his league, and
> > should consider himself lucky to have ever been near the White House.
> > Some of those people even think the JFK was not well-served by having
> > a man of such meager abilities on the White House staff.
>
> I think you are confusing JD Salinger, the reclusive author of "Catcher
> in the Rye", with Pierre Salinger, former white house press secretary
> under JFK.
whoops. :-)
>
> --
> Brock
>
>
> "One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
> on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
> C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
>
> http://www.swingout.net/party/
--
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: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 19:08:02 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When you buy a Red Hat or SuSE or Mandrake or whatever distribution
>you desire...you ***GET*** ***THOUSANDS**** ***OF*** ****APPS****
>with the distribution.
Read the thread you dumbass. My point was it there's thousands of
Windows apps on the shelves, and NONE (essentially) for Linux. This
is GOOD for Windows, and BAD for Linux, understand? No amount of
squiming is going make make this a bonus of being a Linux user.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 09 Mar 2001 19:16:20 GMT
In article <9897sd$ln6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: me at the historic moment when FreeBSD and NetBSD were required to stop giving
>: away copies of BSD socket code?
>You guys just don't get it.
Sure we do. You're just wrong. You *CANNOT* make BSDL code non-free.
It is not possible. No action can ever revoke the freedoms given out.
>Proprietary extensions from a work, when
>put into a popular OS, CAN undermine the original through embrace-and-
>extend-and-make-incompatable.
So? That's just as true if I implement from scratch as if I start from a
usable base, and it turns out that it still doesn't make the original code
free.
>If 0.0001% of the code in a derived
>product is different from the original open version, but that 0.0001%
>causes incompatabilites, and the majority goes with the new version,
>the open version becomes useless.
Can you point us at a case where this happened? Obviously not TCP/IP.
>Think "Kerberos".
The open version of which works just fine.
>MS's version of
>the BSD TCP stack will remain compatable only so long as doing so is
>necessary for them to operate on the net. If they can achieve their
>goal of dominating both the server and client market, then they won't
>have any reason to 'play nice' with the original TCP protocol.
This is just plain silly. They would also need to own all the routers, all
the everything else, and it would have to be *ALL* of them, 100%, or there's
no way they can get away with saying "yes, we are no longer complying with
the TCP/IP spec".
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:54:38 -0700
Concerning Hotmail's configuration, although I'm not knowledgeable
enough to dig out any more information than this - is there any
relevance to the fact that dynamic pages in Hotmail are served via
'cgi-bin', and those on microsoft.com are 'asp'?
MjM
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
> >> [...]
> >> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
> >> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
> >> >site with "unnamed" sources.
> >>
> >> There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
> >> references are based on the same story of this occurrence. The fact is
> >> that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
> >> using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
> >> fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
> >> your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
> >
> >I'm not using an argument from ignorance.
>
> Yes, you are, Erik; you do it all the time, and apparently you don't
> recognize it, even after I've pointed it out a couple dozen times.
>
> >MS has stated quite clearly that
> >no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one.
>
> Shocker.
>
> >It's an anonymous
> >source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that would
> >know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
>
> As incredible as it may seem, when it comes down to an anonymous report
> (which is otherwise uncontradicted) versus Microsoft bullshit, the smart
> money is obviously on the anonymous report. That must really drive you
> nuts, I guess, but its true.
>
> >> >Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
> >> >attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
> >> >weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
> >> >familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
> >> >alone complete and fail within weeks.
> >>
> >> How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
> >> rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
> >
> >Hint: Look up the word complete. You can either successfully, or
> >unsuccessfully complete something.
>
> And what on god's green earth is an "unsuccessful completion" but a
> failure to complete successfully the plan? Christ, Erik, it must be
> painfully obvious even to you that you have your head up your ass on
> this point, but I suppose it takes dedication as well as purposeful
> ignorance to be a sock puppet.
>
> [...]
> >> And unrefuted.
> >
> >What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
> >false, if not a refutation?
>
> The MS official statement. What more needs to be said? I think its
> just you that doesn't know that means "bullshit", to anyone with more
> than two brain cells.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am looking for a newsreader
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 19:55:40 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 03:01:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Sims) wrote:
> Knode is ok but I want something like Xnews, that I can run on
> my linux partition (SuSE 7.0, KDE 2.1). I have tried krn and did
> not like it either.
Agent under Wine. You can run it if you are in Windows or Linux which can
be useful if you have to run Windows for some reason.
Pan crashes too frequently for my liking, sorry.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 19:55:40 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 12:42:17 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Some linux application do as well (gimp, WordPerfect 7), but the vast
> >> majority don't.
> >
> > Not so.
>
> Yes so. Some do, but the majority don't.
>
>
> > StarOffice 5.2 has its own drivers, or offers "system" drivers, I'm not
> > sure which, but I suspect it has its own because a driver for my Epson
> > Stylus Color doesn't appear on its list. In any event, the StarOffice
> > test page just form feeds the paper, but prints nothing, so that's one
> > Linux product that's useless for me... not surprising, I guess, if it
> > doesn't have a driver for my printer and fails to route print data via
> > CUPS.
>
> You can set up a generic postscript driver on soffice. You can also set
> it to pipe that generic postscript to a command of your choice. I have it
> set up to pipe to lpr. Works fine.
No matter what I try to set up all it does is form feed paper without any
attempt at printing. lp, lpr or any randomly chosen "driver" all just form
feed paper. One piece of paper per page so it obviously knows about the
size of the file it's supposed to be printing, but that's all.
> > LyX looks nice, but it also merely exercises the form feed motor.
> > Looking at the documentation, it has a massively convoluted system for
> > printing, which keeps the processor working flat out for several
> > minutes, but all it produces is a blank page.
>
> Odd. IIRC, LyX produces a LaTeX file, LaTeX's it, dvips' it then prints
> it.
That's right
> That never took very long on my computer. Anyway, sounds like your
> printer isn't set up properly.
Yes
> Try printing this:
>
>
> %!PS-Adobe-3.0
> 100 100 moveto
> 172 100 lineto
> 172 172 lineto
> 100 172 lineto
> fill
> showpage
> %cut here
>
> You should get a 1"x1" box in the bottom left of the page. if not, your
> printer is incorrectly set up.
I got an "Event not found" message...
The printing on this machine is so screwed up I'm going to ditch the lot,
Mandrake, CUPS, so thanks for your help but it's time to move on.
I'd reinstall Mandrake, but it'd only demand CUPS and I believe that lies
at the root of all the problems.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 9 Mar 2001 20:27:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This is just plain silly. They would also need to own all the routers, all
: the everything else, and it would have to be *ALL* of them, 100%, or there's
: no way they can get away with saying "yes, we are no longer complying with
: the TCP/IP spec".
And that is the ONLY reason they use the TCP/IP spec unmodified - they
have no choice.
------------------------------
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 15:39:41 -0500
"S.T. Pickrell" wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> I wonder how many of the great minds of this century
> would be left unborn under those circumstances.
We didn't have an out-of-control welfare problem at that time.
>
> > It's such a shame that the events of the 1930's and -40's turned
> > eugenics into a bad word.
>
> The best and the brightest gave us Vietnam, Aaron. You
> should know better than that.
Robert McNamara, the project manager for the Ford Edsel, and architect
for the conditions of numerous Internationa Monetery Fund loans which
drove the recipient countries in to appalling recessions with hyper-inflation
is one of the "best and brightest" ???
Coulda fooled me.
>
> > 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...
>
> Never is such a harsh word.
I'm not talking about "real wars", I'm talking about a particular
culture which would even pre-arranging battles, (in the same way as
one would call up a couple of friends to get together and play
tennis on a Saturday afternoon) with neighboring aristocrats for
the PRIMARY purpose of killing off as many of their underclass
as possible.
> Frequently kings who conducted campaigns abroad would recruit
> mercenaries to serve as the bulk of their armies. The mercenaries
> were frequently well-armed folks. Hence the term free lance.
That's only for wars of land acquisition. What I'm talking about
are trumped-up petty wars...usually "border wars", where there
was no real purpose to the war other than killing off as many
of the local underclass, and maybe a couple of social-climbers
who appear to be making plans to undermine or even take over the
position of the local power structure...well, in the midst of
a battle, nobody's going to pay much notice if this over-ambitious
upstart....gets assassinated by the local ruling class.
>
> For if the king were to conduct an unpopular, expensive war
> abroad, people would complain. But if the people were also
> dying in this war, the king might soon find himself without
> a throne.
Public opinion is sooooooooo easy to manipulate. Especially
when the majority of those whos opinion you are trying to sway
can't read, and tv and radio are centuries in the future.
>
> > 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.
>
> Until the 14th century when the rabble realised that if their
> pole-weapons were long enough and they could hold their lines,
> the heavy cavalry wasn't of much use.
>
> Hence the rise of the schilltrons.
You are referring to the "Cavalry Square"
Take a close look at the Cavalry Square however.
It is a bunch of peasants trying to defend themselves against
some aristocrat.
>
> > 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.
>
> Oversimplication.
>
> They would hack away at each other until one side got
> tired of it all and tried to retreat. However, as even
> the beginning student of military history will know,
> retreating under fire is nearly impossible for a well
> trained army much less so for a poorly trained militia.
>
> Then the retreat would turn into a rout.
This depends on the battle. Is this a true battle, where the
leadership of both sides is literally fighting for something,
and using their respective armiest to accomplish those goals...
Or is this a battle whose primary purpose is to have a contest
of knocking over peasants, as if going to the bowling alley
to see who can knock over more pins.
>
> The mounted aristocrats would hack away at the rabble
> to get at their opposing numbers, even killing their
> own men under the weight of their mighty steeds.
You are aware, aren't you, that the British considered the American
rebels to be unsporting because they shot at officers. This sort
of thing simply WAS NOT DONE in wars between European continental
armies. IT was an agreement among the ruling class (the officers,
nee knights) that we would keep these things at a "civil" level.
Oh sure, many of "the men" can get killed, but deliberately targeting
an opposing officer (even if a lieutenant) is an assault on that
tribe's (for lack of a better word) aristocracy itself.
Napolean was villified because he violated the rules of this "war
as an animated chess match" mentality which was rife among the ruling
class throughout Europe.
>
> 'But Sire--if we use the archers now, we'll hit our own men!'
>
> 'Yes ... but we'll hit theirs, too.'
>
The point of such a quote being that the leader giving the
archers the command to shoot held little concern for whether
rabble from his own side died or not.
Especially when the whole point of developing the trumped-up
petty dispute given as justification for the battle was
contrived for the sole purpose of getting these men ONTO a
battlefield where they can be slaughtered wholesale, without
any nasty legal aftermath.
Look at all the benefits...some of the nice-looking young women
back home will now be widows...and if your side wins the
afternoon match, then you get bragging rights, too.
At the same time, this all serves as "live fire" training
for the aristocracy when a REAL war comes along.
In the middle ages, life was cheap....in the same was as in
much of southeast asia, it is to this day.
> > 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.
>
> Muskets were too short ranged until the 1840s and 1850s. (see
> below regarding Napoleon). Cannon had a much larger range
> (again see below).
>
> James Longstreet was the ONLY general on either side of the
> Civil War who saw how warfare had changed. Most people know of
> his resistance against Pickett's Charge ... however
>
I disagree. Grant "lead from the rear", and of all the generals
in command of a full army, issued the lowest percentage of "charge"
orders as a function of the battles which he commanded. And several
of the charges he did order were at places such as Lookout Mountiain,
which was shrouded in fog ( "The Battle Above the Clouds")....
circumstances in which, even today, that is the winning tactic.
Read up on the experiences of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne.
In the fog, the Germans easily penetrated the lines. Like
much of the Battle of the Bulge, things just didn't go right
for the Germans. In a traditional long parallel lines of opposing
forces, attacking under cover of fog and night is very beneficial
to the attacker, because you can isolate units from the main
body and defeat them in detail at your leisure.
However, with an encircled force...they already ARE cut off...
penetrating the lines did nothing...but it did demonstrate that
at the tactical level (squad, company, battalion), fog is
still the attacker's friend.
> (1) He was the mastermind of the defensive work at Fredericksburg
> (2) Chickamauga, which saved Atlanta for about a year, was made
> possible by Longstreet transporting his entire corps VIA RAILROAD
> to Tennessee. He was the first general to use railroads to
> transport a large number of men in wartime between theaters.
>
> The ONLY reason he is not properly regarded as the genius of
> warfare he was, was that he became a Republican after the
> war and tried to co-operate with Reconstruction authorities.
As much as Democrats talk about civil rights for blacks, the
party's actions speak more forcefully.
>
> > 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.
>
> True. He also envisioned large armies of well-armed people
> and a national economy geared toward war.
>
> > 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.
>
> Also true.
>
> About Napoleon's tactics though.
>
> The average musket range back then was something like 60 yards.
> Whereas cannon were good for several hundred yards. Napoleon would
> set his cannon up at several hundred yards and fire them. Then he'd
> move them up further. Fire again. Finally he would send his
> musketeers forward against the depleted enemy. The charge could
> beuild significant momentum before it came under enemy fire.
>
> Welcome to Borodino. The one time Alexander I decided to actively
> oppose Napoleon.
>
> BTW, Napoleon could've wintered in Moscow in 1812-3 ... there were
> a fair amount of supplies around, certainly better than trying to
> march back. Also almost of many of Napoleon's Grande-Armee died due
> the Russian SUMMER as did the Russian winter.
Except that the Russians have a saying, "There are two generals upon
whom the Russian people can always rely. General January and
General February". Since the French were occuping Moscow, the
immediate decision was, "well, if WE can't live in Moskva, then
why should we let the French?"...and promptly torched the city.
>
> When musket ranges got longer we got the defensive warfare that
> prevailed between 1850-1920. Only with the advent of the tank
> which was by and large immune to ordinary carbine and most machinegun
> fire was the charge able to take the day. Air power brought a
> complete end to entrenched warfare. BTW, the siege of Petersburg
> can easily be confused for World War I minus the machineguns.
Actually, the tank wasn't nearly as important the tactic
(ironically, invented by the Germans) known as tactical infiltration.
Most of WW1 was spent sending entire DIVISIONS "over the top" into
no-man's land where they were slaughtered wholesale by machineguns.
Here is an interesting thing on the cannon-fodder, class warfare
against the lower-classes dynamic: What nickname came out of
World War 1 for the generic British soldier?
Tommy. From "Tommy Adkins"....short for Thomas Adkins, which, from
my understanding is an Anglicization of some sacrificial soldier
in ancient mythology. [I'm looking for information on this.] If
this is true, then it would really demonstrate utter contempt of
the ruling class against those who go out and die FOR that same
ruling class.
the sacrificial soldier of mythology.
>
> Recommended reading: 'How Few Remain' and 'Guns of the South' by
> Harry Turtledove.
I'll check into it.
>
> --
> Shawn Pickrell
> Interim RFA President
> PERSONAL: http://www.geocities.com/shawn_pickrell (it always sucks)
> Washington DC United, MLS Champions 96/97/99
--
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
******************************
