Linux-Advocacy Digest #275, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows "speed" (Barry Manilow)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ")
Re: Earn some money with Linux (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Communism (GunnerŠ)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (GunnerŠ)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:28:42 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that Windows
> > (the NT kernel) is unreliable.
> >>
> We weren't talking about server issues here. We are talking about Home
> use stand alone systems. Go to any small town office store or whatever
> and all you'll see for sale are Win98 or WinMe based systems. By
> reviewing public complaints on microsoft.Win98.performance ng I find all
> too often people complaining about how their brand new 1Ghz PIII starts
> getting slower .. and ....... slower and.............. slower each day.
How slow does it get? So slow as to be depressing and disconcerting?
It's the damn Registry, man. You can put Visual Basic on a 233 with
NT and watch it slow down to where it feels like a 386-20.
> The MSCEs reccomend defragging, scanreg /fix, and scanreg /opt to bring
> it back up to snuff once a week. Others suggest a monthly re-install of
> the O/S.
Ee gads. That is awful! The reinstall is the only thing that works I
bet.
I find this a very bad solution to an O/S that should have
> been fixed a long time ago.
That is where a monopoly gets you.
>
> Dave Cutler designed the first versions of NT using multiple ring levels
> of the i386.
> Later MS decided to move most processes to ring 0 along with the kernel
> and video.
> MS did this to increase speed,
Well, it gives the illusion of speed but at the price of crippling all
background apps. And supposedly it made it prettier somehow. This
was one of the issues that led to the fallout with IBM. IBM insisted
on keeping that stuff out of the kernel. Especially the GDI and GUI.
VMS uses 6 levels of isolation. This one is
> very stable.
These 6 layers make it stable or secure? Or both?
Did NT or Win2K ever been security tested
What are they looking for? Stability? Or difficulty to hack?
and achieve the
> "Orange" level for security? VMS has along with Honeywell and IBM.
Great. Which Honeywell and IBM OS's made it to orange?
UNIX
> only makes it to the "Blue" level.
Fascinating post Grey Cloud!
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:36:06 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >> >
> >> >> >3. Since this is not the first time I have corrected you on this
> >> >> >topic, you knew or should have known that it was incorrect. You
stand
> >> >> >convicted out of your own mouth once again of lying.
> >> >>
> >> >> Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous
troller?
> >> >
> >> >So much for accuracy and moderation, wouldn't you think ?
> >>
> >> Obviously not, or I wouldn't have said. Or perhaps I wasn't trying to
> >> state a case, but merely observing how frivolous your comments are.
> >
> >Beep, wrong answer. Those weren't my comments. Try again next time.
>
> Well, that's what happens when you so ineptly <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>.
You're right. Then again, I incorrectly assumed that you had a threaded
newsreader and that you could follow that the post I responded too, was in
response to a Roger's post, where, anyway you showed disregard for your
attribution.
But since you apparently wore yourself thin by responding to many, many
post, those kind of things may happen.
> >Then again, you said it that you don't care wether they are those of the
> >person you are arguing with or some other anonymous trollern, so...
> [...]
> >> >Indeed. And there goes your integrity...
> >>
> >> Oh, yes, I know:
> >
> >Good, we're making progress.
>
> Timing, timing....
>
> [Translation: Paul's a dishonest little shit who just played a trick on
> the reader.]
You shouldn't throw insults around, it doesn't make your point anymore
cogent, and reflects badly on your character.
> >> /Because Paul Says So!/
> >
> >Not at all. Because you exhibit a callous disregard towards getting your
> >attributions straight when debating.
>
> I'm not the one that snipped the attributions, hambone.
But you could try cutting down the name calling.
> ><QUOTE>
> >Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
> ></QUOTE>
>
> Way to show context, dude. Cute. Ben would have been proud.
Now, you are going to pretend that when Roger told you that he wasn't the
one you incorrectly attributed some stuff you didn't say this ? You want a
Deja URL ?
> >> ><SNIP> Some more of the same </SNIP>
> >> >
> >> >> >Umm. You did: "The vast majority of all microcomputers developed
in
> >> >> >the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC"
> >> >>
> >> >> The vast majority of models, not the necessarily the vast majority
of
> >> >> computers. Note your category error.
> >> >
> >> ><MAX> Models number ? </MAX>
> >>
> >> Model numbers. Not models number. That's not a category error, that's
> >> a request for some substantiation of your argument. You don't expect
me
> >
> >Ditto.
>
> No "ditto". Do you have model numbers? Or even a more explicit
??? I could swear I see one above.
> description of the hardware issues these guys were discussing? Was it
Do you have a more explicit description of those ROM parts.
> merely idle chatter? What parts were involved? Were they a bunch of
> flakes likewise defending a monopoly? You're leaving us in the dark
Why do you feel such need to call people names ? Let your argument show them
for what they are ? Do you see people everywhere defending monopolies ?
There are people that just don't care, believe it or not.
> here, suspecting that you have nothing but an argument from ignorance,
> and you're trying to milk it as long as you can.
Nah. I let drop that the argument with you long ago. I just pulled the
"model numbers" to see how you would react and made no mysteru of it.
> >> to believe that I'm wrong simply on your say-so, do you?
> >
> >Where did I say you were wrong ? Your eyes are playing tricks on you. I
> >asked for the model numbers of the microcoputers developed in the early
'80s
> >that used microsoft's ROM BASIC.
>
> I don't have them. Once you get them, check the proportions. I could
> be wrong, but as a good swag, and based on the corroborating evidence
> published elsewhere, Microsoft was monopolizing with BASIC.
>
> All I'm asking for is a reasonable doubt. If you can't provide one,
I'll give it to you. Are you willing to the same for this little dipshit ?
:)
> then I'm afraid I must presume I'm correct. We'll leave whether anyone
> else reading my words besides you thinks this is also correct entirely
> up to them. So now we're left with you, and an argument from ignorance.
I don't have an argument here with you Max, don't sweat it.
> >> >Don't sweat it by posting contrived handwaving.
> >>
> >> Is that what that was? :-)
> >
> >Mirror of your debating tactics. So Max, how do you like 'em ?
>
> You're pretending, again.
No. Those where the exact same questions you asked me when we were
discussing floppies, Windows and multitasking.
> >> >It's for entertainment purposes only and to show how you use double
> >> >standards.
> >>
> >> Perhaps Mr. Franklin's real meaning, then, was that one cannot be both
> >> perfectly accurate and perfectly moderate in dealing with every
> >> statement nor every case. I doubt he was saying "one must always be
> >
> >You get *that* from the Franklin's quote below !? Must be the fact that
> >english is a second language to me then. :)
>
> Do you interrupt people in the middle of their sentence in real life,
Sometimes. You never, ever do it ? Then again, you're not talking, it's a
posted message and I'm responding right below the part I'm adressing. Sorry
to mess up your sense of reality. Do you throw insult around like that in
real life ?
> too? No, I do not "get that", as in I do not think that is explicitly
> what he meant. I said that it was perhaps true, and we can't rule it
> out, AFAIK, so, yes, perhaps it was his meaning. But I was saying, "I
> doubt he was saying 'one must always be
Well, in order to win an argument, I beliave that what he wrote was true.
> >> sure not to insult the boorish", as everyone around here seems to think
> >> it means.
> >
> >It's the one of the best way to loose an argument.
>
> You can't lose an argument to someone who is boorish. Its like having a
> duel but only one guy has a gun.
It's a battle of wits, not a life and death physical struggle, the more
boorish the opponent, the more you score points.
> >When people resort to
> >insults, it generally means that they are out of arguments. Hard to
convince
> >someone that you just insulted IMO.
>
> You might notice that this is not a private exchange, so perhaps I'm not
> trying to convince you at all, and believe that those who I am trying to
> convince will find my arguments reasonable, and my insults moderate.
I know that you aren't trying to convince me. Moderate insults !? :D You
forgot and accurate. :)
> >Your mileage will undoubtedly vary. :)
>
> Why does anyone bother to post that?
Why does anyone bother to post just the above ? :)
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Ditto.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:48:08 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001
<SNIP> Part about why spend time on Usenet </SNIP>
> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Find me one person who would call me a net.kook, who
> >> isn't a net.kook!
> >
> >Don't you just love recursive definitions.
>
> As a matter of fact, its my theory that all definitions are naturally
> recursive. But I'm afraid what you're pointing out isn't recursion.
How would you call it ? <== Candid question here.
> >net kook: noun. Someone calling T Max Devlin a net kook.
>
> No, you forget, I'm relying on somebody *else's* definition of a net
> kook. Take a consensus. If there are more unreasonable people in the
> world than reasonable, I'm fucked anyway, so I'll merely let consensus
> decide.
But you are starting by assuming that you are reasonable.
> >You hacked an Open Source Webopedia ? :)
>
> I haven't a clue what you're talking about. Does this refer to that
> Dave Tholen person?
No. Forget it.
> [...]
> >> >Then again you still haven't enlightened me on how putting forth
> >> >unsubstanciated claims laced with deprecation and creative naming of
the
> >> >object of contention is stating one's case moderately and accurately.
> >>
> >> Nor will I. Your mistake.
> >
> >But. But. But. Weren't you the one lamenting the fact that no one was
smart
> >enough on usenet to understand your sig, you're given the chance to
remedy
> >to the situation and you play coy ?
>
> And perhaps you are smart enough to see that my inability or lack of
> desire to explain your pathetic rhetoric (vis a vis, "unsubstantiated
> claims laced with deprecation and creative naming of the object..."
> yada, yada, yada") and its relationship to Mr. Franklin's sentiments is
> not relevant to your sputtering. You're again left feeling clueless,
> and will no doubt again accuse me of my "wily tricks".
You said it, not me. All I say that I found that considering how you debate
and your sig, there was irony. You lamented that on usenet there weren't
enough smart person to understand that quote, so I'm asking what it indeed
does mean, and you go I won't tell you. Talk aboyt no sharing what you know.
No wonder i'm left clueless.
> >> >Be nice, now Max, share what you know, I'm willing to learn what I
don't.
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah, that's accurate and reasonable. Guffaw!
> >
> >It's not my sig that reads:
> >
> >" *** The best way to convince another is
> > to state your case moderately and
> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***"
> >
> >and who then complain when someone points out at the irony of it.
>
> You have it backwards. You were the one complaining, and I'm the one
> pointing out the irony of that.
No Max I pointed the irony, you complained that people didn't get the
Franklin's quote.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22smart+enough%22+author:T.+author:Max+a
uthor:Devlin&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=relevance&as_drrb=between&as_qdr=&as
_mind=15&as_minm=3&as_miny=2001&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=4&as_maxy=2001&rnum=2&seld
=907625068&ic=1&filter=0
Sorry for the messed up URL.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earn some money with Linux
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 16:42:05 +0000
Benjamin Lvovsky wrote:
>
> OK. That's cool. But do Linux people actually BUY software? Everyone got
> used to get it for free. Except $5 CDs because it's cheaper to buy then to
> download and burn;) "FREE" software kills the market. It kills itself.
>
I bought Applix Office and WordPerfect 8.0.
If the software is good enough, and I can't get it for free, why should
I not pay for it?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:26:04 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > Here is why I think Darwin's theory does not apply to software
> > development:
> >
> > 1. Biological evolution does _not_ look to the future (it cannot, for
> > there is noone to do the looking), but builds up on the past. - Software
> > development does nothing but look to the future (this has to be faster,
> > that could be coded more efficiently...).
>
> Evolution is the selection of the "best" survivor for the current environment.
> Assuming the environment is a steadily changing along a predictable pattern,
> then changes now, based on natural selection, better prepare the survivors for
> the future.
>
Nicely put, but wrong. "Predictable pattern" assumes an intelligence
surveying the environment, but, since evolution is not controlled by
intelligence, the changes in the environment are essentially random and
will always be so.
> This is, in fact, how evolution works. It is only when we have had drastic
> changes that we have seen many species extinct within a small period of time.
> Normally there is time for random traits to develop into recurring traits if
> they allow a specimen to be more successful and reproduce more so than one
> without.
>
It is now widely (or maybe not) assumed that evolution works in fact in
a sort of "burst mode", due to how the environment changes: long periods
of stability followed by short periods of drastic chaanges (of course,
"long" and "short" are to be understood in the geological meaning).
> >
> > 2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
> > it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
> > programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
> > he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
> > it is going to be).
>
> This isn't really true either. A particular module of software, especially OSS,
> can be guided by one person, but there are usually many people working on
> software projects with their own views and feelings about what should be in it.
>
> Plus don't discount the users asking for features, randomly changing the
> application to be more than it was before.
>
> Just look at the Linux kernel, I'd say it "evolved" it grew new features, it
> has all but lost the Minux file system. It is a picture perfect example of
> software evolution.
>
Still, evolution is an automatic mechanism, software is designed. I
can't see how you are going to reason yourself out of that.
> >
> > 3. Biological evolution is never interested in the best possible
> > solution, only in a solution that works sufficiently. - (I have to admit
> > I got stuck here, because this is eerily reminiscent of how Windows
> > "works") Software development should (see my previous remark) be
> > interested in the best possible solution, to avoid needless future
> > labour.
>
> I would go this far either. Biological evolution is based on competition for
> reproduction. Good features win, better features often do better. Biological
> evolution refines, over time, the species until they are very well adapted for
> their environment. You can't say a cockroach is not an almost perfect creature.
> Long after we humans die out, the near perfect cockroach will still be here.
>
If a cockroach were a perfect creature, it would not go "Splat!" if you
trod on it. Evolution tends to pick the first solution that can solve a
particular problem. Rarely this is the best possible solution, because
if the _better_ solution works, there is no reason to keep investing to
come up with the _best_ solution.
The idea of refinement over time would be correct, if the environment
would keep changing in the same direction (if the temperature would drop
constantly, we would see a constant refinement towards better-insulated
organisms). However, the environment canoot be bothered with pleasing
evolution, and it will do its own thing i.e. swing wildly into every
possible direction.
> >
> > Now, if one insists on twisting Darwin's scientific theory into a
> > philosophical system (for which it was never meant BTW), one might come
> > up with a utopian construct (in the line of marxism) that said that
> > software _ought_to_ develop according to the laws of natural selection.
> > It'd be dead wrong, but one might fool a number of people for some
>
> Science and philosophy walk hand in hand. One can not realize that truths about
> physical universe and not internalize them. Philosophy is what bridges
> knowledge and understanding. A theory as profound as the origin of species must
> generate a philosophy. One may not agree with it, nor even intend it's
> creation, but it will exist.
>
It is very easy for me to realise the truths about the physical universe
and not internalize them. The biological environment essentially shows
me that the biggest bastard wins, yet I can choose to donate money to
charity.
But you have convinced me; I will now spend my waking hours to come up
with a philosophy based on the Russell-Herzsprung diagram.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:35:03 +0000
Wilbert Kruithof wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens: Again your three points:
>
> Biology does not look into the future, on this point you are absolutely
> right. But this same biological evolution brings *us*, people living on
> a planet in the Galaxy. What do you think this evolution would like to
> produce??
>
Interesting point. We are a product of evolution, but evolution did not
set out to produce us.
It is my opinion that the human race, once it became intelligent enough
to form societies as we have today (say in the last ten to fifteen
thousand years), essentially detached itself from the mechanisms of
evolution by natural selection. Probably we will still evolve, but how
and according to what mechanisms is at the moment impossible to say.
> Look for yourself, objects who are able to "look in the future",
> planning, saying: "Hey, it might look strange, coding an huge project
> which I can never finish." "But I relay on the help of thousands other
> "objects" all over the world, "I" would finish it!"
>
The essential mechanism of the development of open source software is
cooperation, whereas the essential mechanism of biological evolution is
selection of the fittest.
> Also point 2 and 3 of you are answered sufficiently, i.e. what
> biological evolution misses is completed by humans behaviour, and there
> Open Source. And as Mark says:
>
> > Since we share our results we slowly build a mass of reusable code, where as
>companies
> > that come and go never accumulate.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Wilbert (Who's still thinking all day (at school:-) about this complex
> theory, no kidding)
Keep it up!
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:37:53 +0000
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:33:56 +0000,
> Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
> >it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
> >programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
> >he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
> >it is going to be).
>
> Human languages: do they evolve? Is their evolution
> guided ("master plan") or unguided ("just happens")?
> Or is it something else? If so, then the guided/unguided
> dichotomy is dubious.
>
Indeed. My argument, however, relied on more than the one dichotomy.
Geology, e.g., is - hopefully - unguided as well. Would you compare it
to software development? (the tectonics of C++ vs. Pascal?)
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:44:34 +0000
Andy Walker wrote:
>
> In business, companies get fat, greedy and complacent, to name but a
> few, BT, IBM and Microsoft. As a result, when something newer, fitter and
> leaner comes along such as Linux, they are unable to adapt and quickly get
> stripped down in size until they change their ways.
> Nature is very similar. Dinosaurs died out due to their inability to
> adapt to cold weather, being cold-blooded they were not suited to the
> conditions. However some, such as crocodiles, did survive due to their
> ability to last long periods of time without food and others such as lizards
> due to their small demands on food sources. As a result, both species
> survived and went on to be extremely successful.
Dinosaurs died out because the environment changed into a direction
different from the one they had specialised in. It could have happened
to anyone.
> The facts are basically, adapt to survive or become extinct. The only other
> major factor is diversity, without cell mutation species wouldn't change at
> all. The same holds true for operating systems. They need to change to
> support many different enviroments to become really successful, scalability
> in a word. Microsoft CE is struggling with the handheld market and with the
> very top end server market. Linux is looking to also get into these markets,
> the fittest and leanest will survive!
In reality, random mutations play a very minor part in how species
change. Genetics are far more important. Without sexual reproduction,
species change at a much slower rate; without mutations, we would
probably not notice any difference.
Why is this important? Mutations are random and have nothing to do with
the environment (not strictly true, but I don't think any species will
ever try to adapt to the background cosmic radiation), whereas who gets
to mate with who is _definitely_ dependent on the environment.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: GunnerŠ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:27:58 -0700
"Beth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>BUT if you start attacking him just because you don't agree with his ideas,
>then you can give up on your holy principles, Aaron...because it'll turn
>into anarchistic war, if you push it...remember, the "default" political
>system is anarchy...if you go off fighting other people and do not tend to
>your own beliefs then when you come home to them, you'll come home to
>anarchy...
Beth.. by any other name.. Mathew is a Totalitarian. Be his ideas
socialist/marxist/fascist..he is a strong advocate of total control by
his government. Generally.. such individualists fit the bill as
Socialist/Marxist, and due to his other posts contents..a strong case
may be made for his being a Socialist. He says he has never read Marx,
and I believe him. But his goals and beliefs do indeed fit the
bill..so even if he makes no claims to such ideology.. if it walks
like a duck, quacks like a duck..and has webbed feet...
Gunner
=========================================================
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
------------------------------
From: GunnerŠ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:36:33 -0700
Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, protecting your constitutional rights is fascist now.
>>
>> A most revealing statement from you, Matthew. So, how is protecting your
>> civil rights fascist, exactly?
>
>What a laugh! You have spent most of your time slandering me.
Hummm I tend to think..he spent that time exposing you. I suggest you
look up the definition of slander. Slander is oral .. the term you
want is libel. Do be a bit more intelligent there youngster.
And you will note..that to be libel OR slander.. the statement does
not need to be false, just injurious to your reputation. And given
that his statements appear to be true, for the most part, and your
reputation is shit, no harm, no foul.
Deal with it,son.. there is lots more where that came from. Keep
posting your drivel, and expect to be called on it. Life does indeed
imitate art.. and so far..you tend to be a bad 30's Italian neofacist
propaganda film.
Gunner
=========================================================
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
